Nathan Bransford - The Forums

Margo wrote:Uh...not to rain on anyone's parade, but in this case my psychology background is red-flagging this. 'Crazy'? In what way? Have you guys seen the diagnostic manual? You could use it as a doorstop. There are lots of different kinds of 'crazy' out there - defined as having a mental illness that interferes with having a happy, healthy, functional life - that are not dangerous. There are kinds that can be dangerous. There are kinds that are frequently dangerous. I hope I hope I hope some research has gone into what mental illness this 'crazy' character actually has, and s/he is behaving accordingly?

Yes, I have done my research and yes I am trying my darnedest to make this character believable and not some silly caricature of a mental illness. I actually did not set out to make him mentally ill, but in constantly explaining and defending him, I realized that he in fact, is. I did not set out to make him bad or evil, but misunderstood.
Admittedly, crazy might have been a poor choice of words.

Cookie wrote:Yes, I have done my research and yes I am trying my darnedest to make this character believable and not some silly caricature of a mental illness.

That puts my mind at ease. (You were worried, right?) :P My concern is part of a larger issue I have with writers (in general) who just don't feel the need to do research about much of anything.

Cookie wrote:I actually did not set out to make him mentally ill, but in constantly explaining and defending him, I realized that he in fact, is. I did not set out to make him bad or evil, but misunderstood.

If it springs naturally from character, it's much less likely to go horribly horribly pear-shaped.

Margo wrote:

Cookie wrote:Yes, I have done my research and yes I am trying my darnedest to make this character believable and not some silly caricature of a mental illness.

That puts my mind at ease. (You were worried, right?) :P My concern is part of a larger issue I have with writers (in general) who just don't feel the need to do research about much of anything.

Cookie wrote:I actually did not set out to make him mentally ill, but in constantly explaining and defending him, I realized that he in fact, is. I did not set out to make him bad or evil, but misunderstood.

If it springs naturally from character, it's much less likely to go horribly horribly pear-shaped.

I was worried. Lol. But you did make me go back and look at him to make sure I did it right (which is always a good thing). I know what you mean though about writers not doing research. Since I am such a naturally curious person, I find it strange that someone would not want to research something.

Polymath, agreed! Variety is indeed the spice of life.

Margo, you're the first person I've ever heard suggest pharmaceutical companies are the ALTERNATIVE to the DSM, rather than partners in crime. The drug companies LOVE the DSM, whose ever more numerous and absurd 'diagnoses' would have most of us on one or more drugs. The DSM is itself the largest and most influential of all "utterly baseless depictions of 'crazy people"'.

As for seeking help, it all depends what you mean by 'help'. Like many, I believe psychiatry's 'cure' is typically worse than the non-existent 'disease'. As for insurance companies, the President and Congress have done a shameful deal with them that, unfortunately, puts an end to those miraculous cures that used to occur the moment one's insurance cover ran out...

Watcher55, I hear the UNEXPURGATED BOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS even has pictures...

J. T. SHEA wrote:Watcher55, I hear the UNEXPURGATED BOOK OF BRITISH BIRDS even has pictures...

I don't like gannets - they wet their nests.

J. T. SHEA wrote:Margo, you're the first person I've ever heard suggest pharmaceutical companies are the ALTERNATIVE to the DSM, rather than partners in crime. The drug companies LOVE the DSM, whose ever more numerous and absurd 'diagnoses' would have most of us on one or more drugs. The DSM is itself the largest and most influential of all "utterly baseless depictions of 'crazy people"'.

As for seeking help, it all depends what you mean by 'help'. Like many, I believe psychiatry's 'cure' is typically worse than the non-existent 'disease'. As for insurance companies, the President and Congress have done a shameful deal with them that, unfortunately, puts an end to those miraculous cures that used to occur the moment one's insurance cover ran out...

I think we've already had this DSM dialogue. But here I go again. It is what it is.

Everybody's messed up but me and you, and I'm not all that sure about you. Actually, I know I'm messed up, how I'm messed up, why, and coping with it, no longer in denial, past anger and embitterment, moving out of depression, not gonna bargain--it is what it is--and beyond mere acceptance into healthy self-realization and not likely to backslide.

Clinical diagnosis, otherwise healthy well-adjusted adult with partialy disabling nonspecified personality dysfunction. Treatment recommendation, futher study indicated to narrow differential. Though I ain't spending the money or time only to find out it's untreatable and because I know what it is without having to be told and can cope on my own now with a little help from my friends. Though, oh, to go back in time and encourage a misguided child me, young adult me, early adult me. It's a spectrum with one prevailing condition, attachment avoidance based. Anyway, I understand how dysfunction is as much part of identity as self-worth and self-esteem and self-idealization and self-efficacy and self-realization, etc. No teasing out and discarding parts like old testament plucking out an eye because it offends thee. It's part of what makes unique me uniquely me. I am what I am because of my faults. Just society favors some types of faults over others.

We did indeed discuss the DSM, Polymath, and we are far from alone. There is a growing debate about what should or should not be included in the forthcoming 5th edition, a distraction from the more fundamental debate about whether the DSM should be abolished entirely.

You clearly find it useful to describe your personality with certain clinical labels, which is fair enough, since you are the greatest expert on yourself, and you see beyond the labels. Your posts in the Guardian's infodump thread show you are well aware of the potential danger of labels. Unfortunately, even highly trained and experienced mental health professionals are not always so aware.

'Though, oh, to go back in time and encourage a misguided child me, young adult me, early adult me.' Amen! The child is indeed the father of the man, an age-old insight psychiatry once preached, but seems hell-bent on suppressing in recent decades.

Dialogue of the adversarial debate variety compels change. I'm a bit off-central subsidiaritist in regard to whether any given thing is decidedly good or bad. The DSM, for example, some think it's good, some think it's bad. I think a meeting of the minds develops its purpose and outcome. Bring on the naysayers, the yessayers, the idealists, and the profitmongers, the pessimists, the reactionaries and the appeasers. Let 'em go at it. It's what they thrive on. They'll achieve a useful, progressing compromise eventually somehow. Mine is a poly proxy reality approach. Bad is good and bad. Good is bad and good. Neutral is another meaning space with bad and good inputs, outputs, and outcomes. Acknowledging there's human-middle benefit compromises realizes healthy progress for the greater-good whole.

J. T. SHEA wrote:Margo, you're the first person I've ever heard suggest pharmaceutical companies are the ALTERNATIVE to the DSM, rather than partners in crime. The drug companies LOVE the DSM, whose ever more numerous and absurd 'diagnoses' would have most of us on one or more drugs. The DSM is itself the largest and most influential of all "utterly baseless depictions of 'crazy people"'.

In the hands of a MFT or a psychologist (who cannot prescribe drugs in my state), the DSM is a defense against a health system that wants to shove a pill down someone's throat. Again, it's greatly a matter of who is using it. There are plenty of professionals out there who are perfectly aware of its flaws and work around them. Would it be better if they refused to play the game for ethical reasons and left their clients without any recourse to out-of-pocket mental health services? Would that be ethical? "I don't believe in using the DSM, but your insurance requires it, so I am just not going to treat you unless you give me $90 an hour."

J. T. SHEA wrote:As for seeking help, it all depends what you mean by 'help'. Like many, I believe psychiatry's 'cure' is typically worse than the non-existent 'disease'.

Psychiatrists do not make up the whole of the professional industry. My own clinical supervisor believed strongly that drugs were for short-term crisis management only and that clients then needed to have a therapist or psychologist who would help them deal with whatever issue was interfering with their lives and teach them some coping mechanisms so they could learn to deal with whatever was causing them distress. This, of course, does not follow a 'disease model' but acknowledges that 'mental illness' can be surprisingly short term and treatable in many cases and treatable without drugs in many longer-term cases.

J. T. SHEA wrote:As for insurance companies, the President and Congress have done a shameful deal with them that, unfortunately, puts an end to those miraculous cures that used to occur the moment one's insurance cover ran out...

Agreed, but that's a different matter. We Americans are not without a portion of the blame for the failure of reform efforts. As soon as someone points and says "banned word" we lose our minds and start seeing Nazis behind every tree. No, most Americans do not know the difference between a banned word and a fascist, which is very handy for anyone who wants to manipulate us.