The Banes of Theraputic Psychology and those that hurt its progress.

[Pure]

You haven't said what a (clinical, psychological) disorder is, Joe.

(How are we supposed to tell if they can be addressed/helped through decisions and acts of will, and clinical psychological expertise.)

In your own words, don't just type out of DSM IV.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ok... best to simplify the language and say "psychological disorder", to be officious.

A disorder would be a significant psychological (which could include cognitive or behavioral elements) syndrome or pattern occuring in an individual that is associated with distress or disability.

Good turns of phrase, when talking about disorders are whether they are clinical (require professional, clinical treatment and observation; often associated with extreme distress or disability) or sub-clinical (may be mild in distress or disability, not requiring professional, clinical treatment).

One of the more potent notions in modern psychology is that if the person does not want help, help isn't going to help. They have to want to, for the treatment to be optimally effective. Someone who is overweight and depressed about it has two options (short of there being a medical absolute preventing a change)... accept responsibility and ability over their decision to do something about the condition that is causing them distress; or, simply, not.

Their decision to do something can range from changing diets to working out to hiring personal trainers to simply getting friends to go to the gym with them to getting psychological counselling over the matter and finding peace with their condition to joining a support group.... but all of those demand that the person accept that they can change things, if they accept only that they cannot do anything about it their distress over the matter is unlikely to change (shortly, if they are unhappy now about it, doing nothing isn't going to make them happier).

 

[Pure]

Joe,
Your example of overweight is a good one, since for a certain percentage, your Nancy Reagan 'just say no' approach is not going to work. By this, I mean saying "Make a decision to improve things, and then things will improve."

One of the more potent notions in modern psychology is that if the person does not want help, help isn't going to help. They have to want to, for the treatment to be optimally effective.

The notion of 'wanting help' is an intercultural sign of an illness, recognized as such for centuries, independent of 'modern psychology.' As such it attaches to certain social deviations. Heck, the Salem witch judges, and inquisitors of the middle ages subscribed to this notion, and its consequence: "If you don't want help, we can't help you." It's arguably present in the Bible.
While there's an element of truth, it has a sinister side, as well.

Someone who is overweight and depressed about it has two options (short of there being a medical absolute preventing a change)... accept responsibility and ability over their decision to do something about the condition that is causing them distress; or, simply, not.

Their decision to do something can range from changing diets to working out to hiring personal trainers to simply getting friends to go to the gym with them to getting psychological counselling over the matter and finding peace with their condition to joining a support group.... but all of those demand that the person accept that they can change things,

----
As far as disorders causing distress or disability, that's a bit vague. If you mean the person with the alleged disorder has the distress or disability, then this is neither a necessary or sufficient condition.

Disorders such as Narcissitic Personality Disorder 301.81, Antisocial Personality Disorder (psychopath) 301.7, Sexual Fetishism 302.81, and Pedophilia 302.2 do not feature 'distress or disability' (though some of the above get distressed is they go to jail after committing crimes).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Joe,
Your example of overweight is a good one, since for a certain percentage, your Nancy Reagan 'just say no' approach is not going to work. By this, I mean saying "Make a decision to improve things, and then things will improve."

My approach is hardly "just say no". If you believe that, I strongly recommend you re-read it. I'm not saying that making a decision to improve things guarantees anything, just that making no decision to improve anything guarantees only nothing.

Granted for a certain percentage (I would say the medically absolute), it won't necessarily work... my actual approach, that is, not the one you're claiming I have (which I'm not sure where that came from). However, nothing will work for any percentage if there is no decision to try.

The notion of 'wanting help' is an intercultural sign of an illness, recognized as such for centuries, independent of 'modern psychology.' As such it attaches to certain social deviations. Heck, the Salem witch judges, and inquisitors of the middle ages subscribed to this notion, and its consequence: "If you don't want help, we can't help you." It's arguably present in the Bible.
While there's an element of truth, it has a sinister side, as well.

...?

So, the idea of "if you don't want help, then the assistance or treatment won't work" is...? Possibly sinister? I disagree. I think it is entirely benign. Sort of like "life is a butterfly, you just have to watch it" is benign, but I could say "but serial killers said it while they killed people so its also sinister".

I'm not entirely sure what your point here is.

As far as disorders causing distress or disability, that's a bit vague. If you mean the person with the alleged disorder has the distress or disability, then this is neither a necessary or sufficient condition.

I recommend a basic course in Clinical Psychology. Its a subject I'm only working a masters in, not teaching, so I fear my explanations may not be sufficient (if this were philosophy, I'd be in a different position). It may be that the disorder causes, or just associates. I'm not sure what you mean by necessary and sufficient conditions, either. I really have to admit, I have little idea what your points are, here.

That isn't to be offensive, that's just being honest... I don't understand. An explanation, maybe, would help me along.

Disorders such as Narcissitic Personality Disorder 301.81, Antisocial Personality Disorder (psychopath) 301.7, Sexual Fetishism 302.81, and Pedophilia 302.2 do not feature 'distress or disability' (though some of the above get distressed is they go to jail after committing crimes).

They could be considered to have social disability. I would quite think that appropriate.

 

[Pure]

Pure said: Your example of overweight is a good one, since for a certain percentage, your Nancy Reagan 'just say no' approach is not going to work. By this, I mean saying "Make a decision to improve things, and then things will improve."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Joe W:
My approach is hardly "just say no". If you believe that, I strongly recommend you re-read it. I'm not saying that making a decision to improve things guarantees anything, just that making no decision to improve anything guarantees only nothing.

Granted for a certain percentage (I would say the medically absolute), it won't necessarily work... my actual approach, that is, not the one you're claiming I have (which I'm not sure where that came from). However, nothing will work for any percentage if there is no decision to try.

Again, with the overweight example, one can see the limitations of the 'you gotta make a decision' approach. Take an unhappy, overweight child at home, and move them to loving Aunt Sally's farm, and magically the fat problem disappears*. Similarly a number of psychological 'disorders' sometimes dissolve of themselves, e.g., Social Phobia 300.23, in younger persons.

But you are claiming, are you not, the making a sincere (appropriate) decision mostly or always significantly helps to alleviate a disorder? Or just that it may or may not help--tautology-- who knows?

-----
PS, I have never met a genuine logician who did not know meanings of statements like these:
'A is a necessary condition for B' or 'A is a sufficient condition for B'
'A is a necessary but not sufficient condition for B' 'A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B.'

---
*Do not tell me, "There was a decision, the mother's." Other persons' decisions regarding the 'disordered' person are not the topic; only his/her own decisions.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Again, with the overweight example, one can see the limitations of the 'you gotta make a decision' approach. Take an unhappy, overweight child at home, and move them to loving Aunt Sally's farm, and magically the fat problem disappears*. Similarly a number of psychological 'disorders' sometimes dissolve of themselves, e.g., Social Phobia 300.23, in younger persons.

Oh, I don't fail to acknowledge the possibility of developmental factors... that's a whole seperate area of psychology, honestly. What things change with the development of a child. My point was, and is, limited to "a person's acceptance of their ability and responsibility to affect change in their distress or disability is a crucial first step to the correction of it, especially in regards to a decision to do absolutely nothing about the matter and continue having the distress and disability". If we're to say that overweight people can be abducted to "only salads land", where they will lose weight whether they want to or not, obviously that would be effective... but that sort of falls outside the original thought experiment.

But you are claiming, are you not, the making a sincere (appropriate) decision mostly or always significantly helps to alleviate a disorder? Or just that it may or may not help--tautology-- who knows?

I am making the claim that a sincere (appropriate) decision can significantly help in the process of alleviation of a disorder, most especially with regards to the other option of "not deciding to do anything about it"--which I feel will not help in the process at all.

PS, I have never met a genuine logician who did not know meanings of statements like these:
'A is a necessary condition for B' or 'A is a sufficient condition for B'
'A is a necessary but not sufficient condition for B' 'A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B.'

It wasn't a lack of understanding the terms. It was a lack of understanding what you were doing with them. I still don't entirely understand that point of them. That is the explanation I was looking for. Sort of like talking about pigeons dance (psychological phenomenon) and someone saying "but the dancing isn't a sufficient condition"... well... in what sense?