Psychiatrist do know better. You are right for once. Biologic basis of illness? If you don't understand what that means, I don't care to explain it to you. This is a forum for psychiatrists.
I think I understand what that means but I figured I could be wrong so I gave you a chance to explain yourself which you obviously refuse to do. I said hemorrhoids also have a "biologic reality" so that doesn't make them a mental illness even if it is very distressing to the person, changes the levels of various neurotransmitters in the brain, causes dysfunction, etc etc. Why did I use hemorrhoids? It seems to be far enough from the brain to make my point but it's also odd enough as a reference to make one chuckle. Of course you may substitute your own reference. Regardless, I am attacking biological reductionism, the idea that simply because there is correlation between 5-HT availability in particular synapses and certain pattern in behavior/thinking/affect, it follows that biological changes are the
cause, the only cause. Nor does it follow that we should intervene at the biological level.
BTW, what did you say about ad hominem? Report me all you want, just don't whine how you're going to go tell on me to mommy. You DO NOT and NEVER WILL HAVE (unless you get the same training) the same comprehension of psychiatric illness as a psychiatrist. Deal with it.
ad hominem!
note: your future uses of ad hominem fallacy may also be subject to being labeled...(wait for it)...ad hominem.
You saying that it is oversimplified and following it up with you absurd comment about taping a child's mouth shut is utter nonsense.
Yes, I am aware that my example was odd. I chose it for a reason. Think about it. Why do we give pacifiers to babies? It shuts them up doesn't it? Taping their mouth shut could do that as well. But that's harsh, right? What a crude way to do things! And the logic, well, it's highly questionable.
And that's how I feel about "chemical imbalance" theory. You have people who have "rational" reasons to be upset, sad, fearful, angry, etc, and we put drugs in their bodies and it shuts them up...to some extent. You're suicidal because you lost your house in the economy? This is not a "normal" reaction now is it? Time to adjust your chemical levels with this SSRI, and let's just add a bit of antipsychotic for good measure, seeing how you look so pissed it can't be "functional" for you.
To be fair, not all psychiatrists do that but large enough numbers do so, enough for it to be cause for concern. Of course meds are cheap and provide immediate relief. Some psychiatrists, however, do therapy instead. Some are politically active, making sure that people's basic needs are met. And some do prescribe meds but actively search for something else they could do, something more effective, more long-lasting, and less dehumanizing. Why is it dehumanizing? Because a normal human reaction to difficult circumstances is pathologized and blamed on the person's brain. So the person's subjectivity and sense of self, his own explanations, is pushed aside and brain targeted instead, as if this were a physical wound.
I also like to point out that there are people with organic brain problems who NEED medication so that the psychiatrist is able to engage them in therapy or that they can function in their lives at first. But often this is the only thing that is done for them. Meds...and you're essentially on your own because therapy is costly and government programs fall short again and again.
Members of AA have embraced who they are and are proud to say My name is XYZ and I am an Alcoholic.
Well, I have yet to meet a person who likes to walk around, announcing proudly to the world that he is a "schizophrenic." Some do seems to feel a sense of relief as others realize that it is not them but the illness that causes their behavior but some are scared that others are going to see them as a threat or whatever. Regardless, of the people I have spoken to, and you may know better, none has said to me to call him a "schizophrenic" as opposed to "person with schizophrenia." This is not a black and white issue as you say.
Okay, I am done with this topic because I am going to be busy for the next little while but I will return to this topic in future should you take the time to make some quality posts instead of attacking me, my knowledge, intelligence, etc--in which case I won't debate you but I figured I'll clarify my position and see what happens.
Last point: There are great arguments against psychological view of mental illness as well and I am not opposed to discussing them too. However, presently it is psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies that are running the show so needless to say, they are targeted more often. Freudian psychoanalysis could face the same scrutiny in different time/place.
keeping hope alive.
