Utter crap, in my professional opinion. Some people have just never learned to be mature adults and manage their own temper. That doesn't need a psychiatrist pulling some contrived disorder out of his ass. This happens all the time. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM IV) is full of reified mental "conditions" that have no scientific validity whatsoever.
Disagree, this is not extreme left. This isn't even partially left. Americans seem to relate everything to politics, everything has to fit into the spectrum, and have happened for a reason. This was a semi-scientific study, nothing more.
I didnt mean in the political sense, I meant in how it relates to culture. "Leftism" also tends towards a set of ideals outside of the political spectrum. As such, a more liberal society tends to try to "pass the buck" on and make attempts to rectify the fundamental attribution error that comes instinctively - but to the point of overdoing it such as this. Of course, I could be wrong. Im working with Psychology 101 here (literally)
See I just disagree with that. I know that thats the conception that most people have, but I don't see why people should imply a liberal(which is definately not the same as extreme left, but you primarily meant liberal I assume) society automatically passes the buck. A liberal society is just that, liberal. Liberals more then anyone else want to protect the rights and freedoms that they stand for, which means blaming people when things go wrong.
That IS the syndrome - lack of willingness to accept responsibility. Blame it on road rage, fake mental conditions, and Doom.
I heard this on the radio this morning. I thought it was completely ridiculous. Of course, I'm sure evey classroom across America will be filled with with overly medicated kids. 50% will suffer from IED, 49% will be ADD/ADHD, and then you'll have the one kid who actually behaves. The good kid will get the shaft because the teacher will have to devote the majority of the time to the other kids because they "need additional, one-on-one attention." What troubles me is that this apparently is coming from a medical professional, so people are going to be more likely to believe him. At least Dr. Phil didn't say it, because then it would be Gospel truth. -monkey
Don't forget 'liberal' in American politics has a totally different meaning to both the dictionary and the UK party members ideals. Seems to be a term of abuse.
There are several dynamics at work here, guys. First is the tendency of psychiatry (being primarily a medical profession) to pathologise everything into a "syndrome". As I said, the DSM-IV is full of this, and has been widely criticised for being a diagnostic reference based not on scientific research, but on the personal/professional opinion of a bunch of learned psychiatrists on an editorial panel (the most extreme example of the non-scientific process by which they arrive at syndromes is the identification of "Self-defeating Personality Disorder" reportedly being the result of a bunch of the ol' boys while on a fishing trip discussing the phenomenon of women sacrificing their career for their husbands'). More specifically, many of the "syndromes" and their classification structure have no construct validity and no basis in scientific fact; diagnosis by categories of symptoms is arbitrary and generates wide diagnostic heterogenity. The syndromes have no clear predictive value in terms of their manifestation, prognosis or treatment. But psychiatrists are medical doctors after all, and as such are trained to think in diagnostic syndromes even when it comes to something as complex and fluid as human behaviour. This while some of them have a really poor understanding of psychological development and behavioural principles. Particularly research scientists may have had little clinical exposure to actual human behaviour. Second, people like to classify complex information in simple categories and label them accordingly. The real reasons for poorly controlled anger are many and complex: poor parenting leading to lack of self-regulation, increased life stresses associated with more complex demands of fast-paced modern life, lack of opportunity or socially approved outlets for anger and frustration in this particular culture, the social dynamics of road behaviour, the list goes on... And we distort quantitative data: how unusual is 5 to 7 out of 100 people losing their rag in a stressful situation really? But it is easier to slap a nice medical term on it --especially because then you can kid yourself into thinking there is a simple solution. Third, society (and government) likes simple solutions. Better to blame a "condition" and prescribe some pills, than to have to brush up on one's parenting skills, one's self-discipline and personal responsibility, or try to improve the many things wrong with a society that generates immature stress puppies with poor delay of gratification and poor impulse control. Privately funded healthcare will approve... Which brings me to four: it is the psychiatrist's bread and butter to treat mental illness. It is the researcher's bread and butter to "discover" a condition and then build a scientific career and reputation on studying it. ADHD has generated a staggering market in treatments and medication. These things are a money spinner.
That's an interesting viewpoint. Nexxo, as someone who experiences the psychology profession from the inside, do you think that psychiatrists ever consult psychologists about things like this, or do they just operate on their own? It would make sense to me that if a group of psychiatrists is going to come up with a new disorder on which people can blame some of their mental problems, the group would at least get some input from the psychologists that deal with these very problems on a day-to-day basis. Or does that kind of cooperation get in the way of the money to be made from medicating the angry masses? I can see what you are saying about psychiatrists and the area of diagnosis. Back when I had my problems in high school (meh, high school, who didn't have problems...) I was referred to a psychiatrist. He diagnosed the problem, prescribed medication, and then referred me to a psychologist to work out the issues. -monkey
Tbh many psychiatrists seem to be a bunch of self-serving tossers who do pretty much what they feel like at the time from a very limited and constricted point of view. I am biased, but its basicly the only thing I agree with scientologists on, the doods at the top of psychiatry suck.
I guess that's the thing that confuses me most. I was always under the impression that psychiatrists were esentially psychologists who could prescribe medication. I'm certain the actual difference is more complex than that, but don't psychiatrists have a psychology background, or is it a completely different field of study? -monkey
Completely different. Psychologists are not medical professionals but scientist-practitioners who study human behaviour. A clinical psychologist studies the subject for at least six years. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who later specialise in mental illness for a few years. They do not study human psychological or cognitive development and behaviour as such, and do not learn how to analyse human behaviour multi-factorially, nor many psychological treatment approaches. As a rule, they do not do therapy but do prescribe medication. Not all psychiatrists suck; some are very psychologically minded and have much additional knowledge. But those who forget that they are primarily doctors, and do not recognise their limitations are a pain in the ass. The relationship with psychologists is often difficult, because ways of conceptualising the problem and treating it are very different. Psychologists look at problems in a lot more multifactorial, client-centered and complex way. Unfortunately, people like simple solutions, so services are more attracted to doctors who make a simple diagnosis and prescribe some pills (which, research suggests, often only work because the patient believes that they will work, and may have bad side-effects), than psychologists who recognise that problems are complex and may take more time and effort to resolve.
Dr. Phil said what? Monkey is probably right, if people could manage their bad habits and tendancies instead of blaming everything on a condition there would be little work for people like nexxo (no offence intended). Sure I get pissed off when driving behind the person doing 10 under every morning but I dont ride 2 feet from their bumper honking my horn and flashing my lights, I want to but dont, does that mean I have IED. Can I flip out for no real reason and blame it on a condition or when I get bored and forget to do somthing at work Ill just blame it on some condition I have.
None taken. Actually I confront pretty quickly patients who embrace "wooden leg" behaviour as we sometimes call it when people excuse or justify their behaviour by pointing to a "condition" (as in: "Hey, what do you expect from a guy with a wooden leg?").
