Psychiatry, is it science?

'Depression' is lack of perspective. There is no two ways about that fact!
For some definitions of "depression" and "perspective", which definitions are broad enough as to approach meaninglessness.
Denial of one's truth is depression. Its a simple progression that we all have in common.
The sympton.
The guilt and shame.
The fear.
The denial.
I suspect that a theoretical view has influenced your interpretation of any data, if your statement is indeed based on any data at all.
Here is some psychiatry applicable to all.
Oh, really?
Your parents hurt you, passed on their weaknesses to you.
For extremely broad definitions of "hurt" and "weaknesses".
You resent that. You want to be free from their(your parents) pain and weakness.
You find you cant break away. You wonder why. The answer is simple. The patterns of your parents were passed unto you as a babe. Its part of you.
Or not.
All you can do is accept it and move on working with what you have.
You can forgive your parents. As you can forgive everyone who ever hurt you.
You can ask forgiveness of all those you have hurt.
If you do those things , forgiving and asking forgiveness you will get a lot of emotional balance.
Another thing yopu can do is confess. To someone fit to take it ( who gives a rats ...). Tell All YOUR CRIMES. To someone.
These exercises will result in new perspective. Then what? Well thats where counselling comes in. You have no clue how to live with your knowledge , how to be normal. Get a counsellor who can help keep you on track and guide you through this 'normalcy' that is foreign to you.
If you can begin to forgive and ask and 'fess up to someone your crimes then you have come a long way baby. But go one step more, try to build a functional life.
Whats functional? Paying taxes? Uh unhh! Thats just one component.
Functional is working, doing duty and playing ( getting joy for joys sake).
All of those on a regular basis and for me playing is the most important.
Those functional things involve contact with and relating to other people.
You would do well to acknowledge the theorists who have influenced your thinking. Your readers would be helped if you included links. I am guessing a strong influence of "object relations theory", but I could be wrong.

Please consider--what you are saying here is not objective truth, but one (very theoretically biased) view. You would do yourself a favor to critically and skeptically examine these notions. I think you will find quite a lot of evidence that does not pigeonhole nicely into your view. You may even be forced to change your mind...
 
What is the difference between psychiatry and psychology anyway?

Psychology is the study of the mind, psychiatry is the study and treatment of mental illness. It's like the difference between human biology and medicine.
 
Psychology is the study of the mind, psychiatry is the study and treatment of mental illness. It's like the difference between human biology and medicine.
Well...Jeff Corey and I are both psychologists who would take exception to your first statement... Psychology is the study of behavior. Some will call it the study of mind and behavior, but since "mind" can only be manifested in what we do, and "what we do" (both publicly and privately) is the very definition of "behavior", defining psych as the study of behavior encompasses the "study of the mind" definition while including those of us who find it more productive not to include fictional elements in our science. (um... "fictional" is not a pejorative, but a technical term.)

Psychiatry is a specialty area within medicine. The study and treatment of mental illness can also take place within clinical psychology, which is not psychiatry, but a specialty area within applied psychology. (To muddy up the picture a bit, there is also psychoanalysis, which is a school of thought that might be held by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist--although the latter is less likely--but which is independent from either psychiatry or psychology. It is, however, still a huge part of the public perception of both psychiatry and clinical psychology.)

But on the whole, you are quite right.
 
bluto is reffering to 'technology' Mercutio is asking if I have 'data' this is starting to look very familiar.
Maybe the Scientology/Psychiatry thing is just jealousy, a sibling rivalry thing.
 
bluto is reffering to 'technology' Mercutio is asking if I have 'data' this is starting to look very familiar.
Maybe the Scientology/Psychiatry thing is just jealousy, a sibling rivalry thing.

Maybe, but it isn't. You're indulging in wish-fulfillment again....
 
Kuhn!!! Who is KUHN!!???

Put it this way . If I had been Hitler you would all be speaking German now!!!

{snip}

SPIT IT OUT!!! tell the freaking truth for once in your pathetic life As++OLE!!!
THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE

Wanna cigar? Anything else you want? Huh? ANYTHING!?

P.S. With the white powders they need a paid proffesional, someone who went to school and learned and has applied themself to the field of recovery as well as 12 steps. My rant above was.... well largely a rant,.. but contains my feelings.

CM, you've got to stop posting while you're under the influence (of whatever it is). This type of emotionality is just going to get you suspended again. You're fine during the day but at night you go ballistic.
 
Psychiatry seems unfalsifiable - a cornerstone of woodom. In, for example, physics, we don't have Platonics, Galileians, Newtonians and Einsteinians, each holding their brand of physics to be the only true dictum.

Try and find a consensus amongst a large bunch of psychiatrists. Remember, the hallmark of the now (largely) discredited Freudianism was that it was a "science". It wasn't - Freud just said what came into his head (rather appropriate, really!) and his ring-bearing disciples like Jung, Adler etc. treated it as gospel before later deciding on their own little wrinkles. Just like little sects splitting off from an established church.

I don't see any improvements in mental health ever having come about through psychiatry. I also mistrust the "cookie-cutter" approach it has, that we all do the same things for the same reason, and we all react the same way to the same stimuli.

Look at all the new "syndromes" that crop up every year, and the desire to choose new names for old ones; look at the burgeoning DSM-IV. Numbers of people in therapy are going up every year, because, say their fondness for other people's property is now an official syndrome.

I've been through several events that are supposed to turn people into thumb-sucking catatonics; however, I don't remotely feel the need to go to a "mental health practitioner". I was bullied, but I am not a bully myself. A guy molested me sexually at the age of twelve, but I haven't split into a dozen warring caricatures of characters. A friend of mine was run over by a bus in front of me when I was 10, and I sat with him while the ambulance came - it was too late, and I was covered in his blood. I had several nights of nightmares about it, but they went away. There are plenty of other nasty little episodes, but most people I know seem to regard me as a pretty well-balanced person.

I guess that is another syndrome.

However, I'm quite prepared to be converted. Does anybody have details of any verifed predictions of psychiatry, double-blind trials, evidence of efficacy? If you'd care to post decent links, I'm more than ready to eat my words.
 
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.

ROFLMAO! My favourite example of a real-life Freudian slip was during Richard Nixon's empeachment proceedings - he meant to say, "That is a discredited precedent," but it came out "This is a discredited president."
 
I don't see any improvements in mental health ever having come about through psychiatry.

Quite obviously, you haven't been looking hard.

If nothing else, look at the clinical effectiveness of the various new drugs that are out there.

Antidepressants work.


However, I'm quite prepared to be converted. Does anybody have details of any verifed predictions of psychiatry, double-blind trials, evidence of efficacy? If you'd care to post decent links, I'm more than ready to eat my words.

Citation 1 :

Methylation has been implicated in the etiology of psychiatric illness. Parenteral S-adenosylmethionine, a methyl group donor, has been shown to be an effective antidepressant. The authors studied the antidepressant effect of oral S-adenosylmethionine in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for 15 inpatients with major depression. The results suggest that oral S-adenosylmethionine is a safe, effective antidepressant with few side effects and a rapid onset of action. S-Adenosylmethionine induced mania in a patient with no history of mania. S-Adenosylmethionine may be useful for patients who cannot tolerate tricyclic anti-depressants. These findings support a role for methylation in the pathophysiology of depression.

Citation 2 :

Agomelatine is a new antidepressant with an innovative pharmacological profile. It is a potent melatonergic agonist (MT(1) and MT(2)) and also has 5-HT(2c) antagonist properties. Agometatine's efficacy in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) was first described in a placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study with paroxetine as a validator. In a recent placebo-controlled study, 212 MDD patients were randomly assigned double-blind to receive placebo or agomelatine 25 and 50 mg/day. There was a significant advantage for agomelatine after 6 weeks according to scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) (P = 0.026) and the Clinical Global Impression Severity (P = 0.017), with an improved response rate (P = 0.03). Robust evidence of agomelatine's efficacy in severe depression comes from analysis of a patient subgroup with baseline HAM-D scores >25. Analysis of pooled data from three different trials confirmed this observation and suggested that the agomelatine-placebo difference tends to increase with the severity of depression. Results suggest favorable tolerabitity of agomelatine compared with a serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and agomelatine is associated with less sexual side effects that are troublesome with some antidepressants. As predicted from its pharmacological profile, agomelatine improves sleep quality without associated daytime drowsiness. Agomelatine was also shown not to induce a discontinuation syndrome. Agomelatine may fill the gap in the current therapeutic armamentarium by combining efficacy with a favorable tolerability profile and additional clinical benefits.

Citation 3 :

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the selegiline transdermal system (STS) administered in a dose range of 6 mg/24 hours to 12 mg/24 hours for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD (N = 265) were randomly assigned to blinded treatment with STS or a matching placebo patch for 8 weeks. Patients failing to meet or maintain protocol-defined therapeutic response criteria at predetermined time points had their STS (or placebo) dose increased. Assessments were conducted at weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Patients were not required to follow a tyramine-restricted diet. The study ran from September 2001 through August 2002. RESULTS:Selegiline transdermal system treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement (p < or = .05) compared with placebo treatment on the 3 depression rating scales: the 28-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D28) (primary outcome measure), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated. The treatment effect measured by the HAM-D28 was modest, primarily due to insomnia side effects. The antidepressant efficacy of STS was substantiated further by the significantly greater improvement in core depression symptoms (HAM-D Bech-6 subscale). The side effects of highest incidence were application site reactions and insomnia. There were no safety concerns based on routine clinical laboratory and electrocardiogram monitoring, and there were no occurrences of hypertensive crisis. CONCLUSION: Results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose titration trial provide evidence of short-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of STS in the dose range of 6 mg/24 hours to 12 mg/24 hours for treatment of MDD. Selegiline transdermal system has an improved margin of safety compared with oral monoamine oxidase inhibitors and represents a useful addition to the existing array of antidepressants.
 
It is not real science. Real science understands the chemical processes that create consciousness and make us feel and think. There might be some good things about it but these are very small compared to the damage that it does. Life is a chemical process and science is disproving the falsehoods and rubbish of past ages. I prefer the work of Skinner, although his findings cannot be taken as complete.
We need medical science to address which specific chemical reactions within the brain contribute to the emotions we experience. When we understand this we can begin to actually help people live happy and productive lives. Many of the methods and medications actually create more problems which could be avoided were research focused on humanistic ideals and not just making a buck.
 
Sorry, Dr. K, but did psychiatrists really invent those drugs? I bet Big Pharma is angry that they didn't come up with them!

Did their action come about as the result of psychiatric theory or due to advances in neurochemistry?
 
Sorry, Dr. K, but did psychiatrists really invent those drugs?

Check the citations. Two of the three are labeled as coming from Psychiatry departments.

So, yes, I'm willing to believe that when a person with a degree in psychiatry, working for the department of psychiatry, publishes an article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, then the article is representative of the field of "psychiatry."

I bet Big Pharma is angry that they didn't come up with them!

Actually, no. BIg Pharma doesn't bother to invent much of anything these days; they prefer to let the research weenies in psychiatry departments do the initial research and then buy them out.

Did their action come about as the result of psychiatric theory or due to advances in neurochemistry?

Given that neurochemistry is part of psychiatric theory, this question is both meaningless and shows part of the problem with your viewpoint..... (Did the Pittsburgh Steelers become Superbowl Champions last year by winning the Superbowl, or by scoring more points than the Seattle Seahawks in that game? Maybe it was by finishing next-to-last in that game? Or perhaps it was by making sure that Seattle scored fewer points than they did? I guess I don't understand football as well as I thought I did.)
 
Last edited:
We need medical science to address which specific chemical reactions within the brain contribute to the emotions we experience.


... and since this is part and parcel of psychiatric research, I don't know where you get off complaining that psychiatry isn't science.

Gosh, i really wish that someone would invent a heavier than air machine that flew throug the air so that I could get from New York to London without having to take that boat that Virgin Airlines maintains.....
 

Back
Top Bottom