8 ms·

I've had quite a bit of experience with therapy, and from my experience it is mostly a quack profession. In my experience mood stabilizers and therapists are a

• lexicalscope 11y ago
  I already commented, but I'll make one more point here: I don't disagree that there are a lot of steps you can take to improve your mental health: exercise, diet, etc definitely help. The problem though with saying most of the problems people have just require them to focus is that no one can measure other people's internal struggle/pain. We don't have _really_ objective tests on this yet, we have inventories where you check a box. Because of this, it honestly comes down to what someone can handle. So this is the problem: I totally agree, if those things you said work for you great, but saying that most people don't have hard-core mental illness is really bad is really bad to say. In a world where it's already hard for people to come forward that have this problem saying something like this is going to push people into the dark more - telling them that causes thought patterns like: "well, most people don't have this, so I probably don't, it's really unlikely, and you know, my friends have down periods too, I bet they've cut themselves before, it's probably fine". I know from experience. PLEASE don't tell this to people, don't promote this line of thought, don't promote anything like this. If you want to communicate what I think you're trying to say, maybe this is a better way to put it: "For me, I've found exercise and diet have helped me feel better, but if someone feels like things are out of control they should see a doctor and see where they should go."
  • andyl 11y ago
    "saying that most people don't have hard-core mental illness is really bad is really bad to say." But it is true - most people struggle with ups and downs but don't have hard-core mental illness. For you, drugs and therapy help. Wonderful! Do what works for you.
    • lexicalscope 11y ago
      Just because something is true does not make it useful or good to say, depending on how it is presented. If you said "most people with chest pain don't have heart trouble, they should just lay down and get the hell over it" that is probably not something useful and promotes people ignoring problems. If you, on the other hand, say something like "chest pain isn't always bad, and most chest pains won't be a heart attack, but you should always treat something that potentially serious seriously" that is not bad. My concern is not that you are saying something not true, my concern is that what you're saying is dismissing what is potentially a serious concern, and that people with these problems should not have more obstacles insofar as other people saying they probably don't have problems. There is a huge stigma around this already - throwing up more information telling people to ignore their problems is not helping anymore than telling people with chest pain to "man up" helps them. It took me a lot of time to get over the fact that everyone around me told me I didn't have a problem, and a lot of things in my life that were really bad could have been avoided if I had not had people saying exactly what you're saying.
      • andyl 11y ago
        Tone policing and speech repression are what contribue to stigma. Are your feelings hurt because I won't phrase things in a way that pleases you? Too bad. Oversensitivity makes things worse, not better.
        • lexicalscope 11y ago
          That conclusion is specious and unfounded, and if you'd like I can cite some studies to the contrary if you'd like to discuss more offline. It isn't about what pleases me, it's about decreasing stigma around mental illness. It's not about oversensitivity it's about not increasing stigma. Those are not the same thing. It's actually a pretty bad argument tactic to assume anyone that disagrees with you is "oversensitive". Also, I'm not saying you can't say what you're saying, I'm saying if you do you're contributing to the stigma and hurting people. If you don't care about that, then fine, say whatever you want - but my previous assumption was that you didn't understand, not that you just didn't care, but if you really don't care, then we have nothing more to discuss - you just don't give a crap if you hurt people in these situations, and that's fine. Edit: To put it another way: we've tried the "tough love grow thicker skin" approach forever, and it hasn't worked - it has created the stigma - saying people just need more of it doesn't make sense.
• eivarv 11y ago
  First of all, I'd say it's a bit much to claim that psychotherapy is a quack profession [0] - even if you've had some negative experiences with it yourself. I'd rather say that if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness, and you are able to keep it in check or feel that you're making progress using only diet and exercise (no cognitive or behavioral tricks, for instance), I applaud you. Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy in for reducing symptoms in cases of mild depression [1], but that's it (as far as I know). I'm sure you belive in your recommendations, but as research literature and experts of various fields disagree with your opinion, I don't. As for your note, I'm not sure what you mean about "hard-core mental illness", and the whole "chemical" thing is debatable [2] (i.e. "chemical imbalance" is in many cases not the complete truth), but no one is conflating mental illness with the moods and regular ups and downs of life. Real mental illness (i.e. diagnosable disorders) is what I am talking about, at least. [0]: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-13324-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-13324-001 [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004366.pub6/abstract;jsessionid=362F365B8F892FDE51ABE32E15920B38.f04t04 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004366... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model