I want to learn more about Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis

No while France is the nation in which its most supported by the public health service there's a considerable amount of working Analysts in practically all of Western Europe, even Britain.

...or psychiatry in general?

It's a pretty anecdotally-oriented field of study, kinda making no sense at all that it has the status of a medical specialty.

Seeing as the psychiatric practices of 60 years ago have been looked upon as barbaric by the psychiatrists from 40 years ago, and the psychiatric practices of 40 years ago have been looked upon as barbaric by the psychiatrists from 20 years ago, and the psychiatric practices of 20 years ago are being looked upon as barbaric by today's psychiatrists, I see no reason why it shouldn't literally become preemtively outlawed so that history doesn't repeat itself in 20, 40, 60, 60+n*20 years?

Moral of the story being, your way of thinking is arrogant and dangerous, and professionally would lead to the same kinds of irresponsible treatments as the ones that you now consider dangerous. Ergo if you were born in an earlier era, you'd be the most vocal and adamant uncritical supporter of exactly psychoanalysis, liberal ECT prescription, phrenology, faith-healing -- just because they were contemporary and therefore automatically not bad since they were "less bad" than their predecessors, and they were "less bad" because they were contemporary. Enjoy putting the lives of your patients in the hands of someone who decides upon their treatments with circular logic.

Did they have anything to say about intrusive thoughts that come with OCD? And the relationship this has with ebin maymays?

Freud- the memes are all dicks and you are gay for your mom

Jung- Emergent memes from collective unconscious, reflections of the monomeme

Just speculating. You probably know better than I do what's going on

The Principles of Psychology by William James (Henry's big brother) is essential, especially if you want to understand what modernists understood about "stream of consciousness."

Taking notes of all propositions, thanks everyone.

if you are still here, could you track down that Lacan article?

Thanks mane

If you're actually interested in psychiatry I recommend:

General Psychopathology - Karl Jaspers (monumental text on descriptive psychopathology. Absolutely essential, still has not been superseded over a century after the publication of its first edition!)

Symptoms in the Mind - Andrew Sims (a more digestible introduction to psych phenomenology - not so densely Teutonic as Jasper's work. Very readable)
Psychoanalysis itself is fascinating - but is something of a misleading tool in clinical practice. It can confer a degree of certainty as to the psychological mechanisms underlying psychopathology that: 1) does not exist; and 2) is a gross simplification of the complexity of elements (biomedical, genetic, psychological, sociocultural and environmental) that contribute to the development of mental illness.

>The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay

>ECT
That's not looked down upon.

This has elements of truth in it - but is misleading in its conclusions. Psychiatry is undoubtedly an unrefined field of medical practice - but progress requires making the best of what tools we currently have.

Dismissing an entire field - and one which has the capacity to improve the lives of millions of people - on the basis that previous (and current) practices either have been or will be viewed as barbaric - is not just short-sighted, but cowardly. To abandon the mentally ill to their fate because one lacks the strength of will to help one's fellow man despite the spectre of failure is cowardice. progress requires bravery - and perhaps even a touch of hubris.

Start with Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, then move on to Jung's "Man and His Symbols", then read the Portable Jung. As you will learn as you get deeper into Jung an understanding of mythology will help greatly in understanding psychoanalysis so you might want to look into comparative mythology/religion. Check out the works of Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade

Dear god please skip Lacan, nothing of value will be lost.

>Dear god please skip Lacan, nothing of value will be lost.
>he was too pleb for the math

Seconding Gay's intro to Freud, though Gay whitewashes some of the cult (and occult) aspects of Freud's inner circle. I like Whyte's book on The Unconscious Before Freud but there are probably better books on that subject now.

Jung is good and a surprisingly major figure for 20th century intellectual history

Lacan can be skipped. He's a fucking joke. No one understands him because there's nothing to understand - this includes all the supposed paragons of the structuralist movement. He was a fucking fad, based on the confluence of several trendy concepts (structuralism, structural linguistics specifically, psychoanalysis) at the height of Parisian dilettantism, and no one cares about him at all anymore. Just read Dosse's blurbs in his book on structuralism or Empire of Meaning.

users.clas.ufl.edu/nholland/lacan.htm

No it isn't, unless you're confusing it with psychodynamic therapy.

>Jung is good and a surprisingly major figure for 20th century intellectual history

Stop being patronizing you fucking pseud

Was that a REEEEEEEEEE joke?

Freuds Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

keep in mind that it's mostly bullshit

I have it as a .pdf, I'm just not sure what the best way to share it with you would be. email?

pic semi related, its jameson, my theory husbando

People shitting on Lacan, Freud, and psychoanalysis at large don't really understand its relationship to what nowadays is called "science," facticity, and the old dialectical problems between object and subject. Ricouer argues quite persuasively that psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns, because its objects of study are much closer to those of the HISTORIAN than the SCIENTIST. What is lost in this distinction is the fact that science has, over the past century, surreptitiously dropped its necessary prefix, "natural," thereby re-situating itself as the default arbiter of metaphysical truth, eliding its essentially positivist investments, which, it should be emphasized, are quite unproblematic in their own right. My point is that there is (or rather, their used to be) a very important distinction between the natural and the historical sciences, and psychoanalysis is rigorously classed among the latter. Psychoanalysis deals not with objective fact, but with the "objectification," that is to say, the INTERPRETATION, of subjectively reported history, that being the personal history of the patient, his traumas, his childhood, etc. If historical science retains some positivistic elements, these deal usually with the verification of documents, questions of "authenticity," and the like; psychoanalysis has no use for these, as it takes the spoken testimony of the patient as its material of study. It has no relation to the pathological sciences of mental health.

>Ricouer argues quite persuasively
I doubt it.

>psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns
and some ppl would call such thing a bullshit

>reading this thread as a psych student

what would you recommend for reading?

I study psychology in Vieanna, heading to becoming a psychotherapist. Psychoanalysis never was part of the curriculum, but I chose to have some classes in it anyway.

Get the "Psychology and Life" textbook by Zimbardo. It will give you the general introduction you need to pretty much everything relating to this topic. With an emphasis on psychology-fields, obviously, but still worth the read. It will give you a good basis to even know what interests you and what you want to look into more.

Don't start psychoanalysis until you have a firm understanding of how it is different from psychology.
On a personal note: You haven't lost anything by not going into psychoanalysis. Unless you want to understand related continental philosophy or some historical stuff, it's a waste of time. Learn the basic concept of Freudian psychoanalysis and you are good for pretty much any conversation with people who take that stuff seriously.(Mostly artists and pseudos desu)
I think Freud's own books are perfectly fine. Maybe read a quick biography about him beforehand. His daughter, Anna Freud also added some important stuff.
Also I agree that you should forget about Lacan. The only reason you would ever read him is to understand Zizek and then you might as well just glue your fedora to your head.
Jung, Fromm, Alice Miller and Fonagy/Target are some nice later analysts.

As for psychiatry:
First you ought to learn about the Arkham Sanitarium meme. Lovecraft (the horror author) used the Denver State Hospital clusterfuck as the basis for his version. Every horror image and misbelief about psychiatry comes from there (or psychoanalysis). (The "Lore" podcast has a nice episode on it, called "Echoes".) People started learning about it and especially the right wing factions started spreading the "no treatment, only sedation!" meme (how the fuck you would sedate someone with an SSRI is beyond me), only to be picked up by the hippies, who were anti-everything-scientific. (Ironically they liked psychoanalysis. Prolly because of the sex thing.) That plus the general stigma against anything "mental disorderly" (and horrible regulatory laws and health care in the USA) and you got yourself the modern anti-psychiatry-meme.

If you want to go into psychiatry, learn some basic neurology and clinical psychology first. Read the ICD-10 (E, F and G) before you read the DSM-V. As for books, I hear the Oxford textbooks are quite good. (I only know German textbooks.) But a quick way to look for that stuff is to just look up what the introductory courses at universities make their students buy. (But double check the quality if the teacher was the author, obviously.) And if you are too poor for that shit, go to the library or get them illegally online, like all the cool kids do. (But try not to download manuals for tests and stuff. They will fuck you up if they catch you with that.)
Or just get an older edition people are selling used.

I guess that about covers it for now.

There's nothing wrong with learning about psychoanalysis from a history of psychiatry of perspective, but you should recognise that psychotherapy for mental illness has evolved beyond psychoanalysis. The most popular model now, cognitive-behavioural theory, is much simpler to understand and, according to experimental trials, more effective than psychoanalysis. I think there's a certain romanticism around psychoanalysis - you get to play the detective with someone's mind, to uncover something they'd never have found by themselves, to make wild and bold claims that will shock and astound people. Unfortunately, it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

This.
Learn for context only.

>cognitive-behavioural theory
Isn't pure CBT too increasingly losing ground with time? More modern institutions, at least in Europe, seem to switch over to Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) as far as I can tell.

Maybe has some insight on this.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OP READ THIS

If you're interested in learning about Freud, read Civilization and its Discontents.
If you're interested in learning about Lacan, read Fink's book A Clinical Introduction To Lacanian Psychoanalysis

No. CBT is still far more common, and DBT is used for entirely different purposes, for entirely different disorders.

They're not like an upgrade system, it's like saying (not the best analogy) that opiates are losing ground to benzodiazepines. Clinically they're both really useful, and can sometimes be used interchangeably, but they are for different things.

No, what I'm saying is DBT is growing popular for mode wide-spread use, other than what it as classically used for.
At my institution they offer DBT to essentially all patients, not just self-harmers or Borderliners and such.

From my understanding, that seems like an exception, CBT isn't interchangeable with DBT, and shouldn't be used as such, they do different things completely.

DBT is far more useful for stopping harmful behaviours, while CBT is for stopping the actual thought patterns. It's easier to stop the behaviours than thoughts in some patients, but in most, if you don't stop the thoughts, you can't really stop the behaviours associated with it.

They're very closely linked, also, and DBT was only actually even created to treat BPD patients or chronically suicidal people. It's not going to be as effective for other disorders, as it's not meant to be.

Also, there's a big difference between what it offers, and what the first line treatment is for patients.

It is the first-line treatmen (therapy wise).

That's just irresponsible then, as in most disorders, it's the thought patterns that are the issues, not the behaviours themselves.

epistemology is fictional anyway, but there are such a thing as negative epistemologies

Freud's a fine place to start after you read pic related. It'll really help you understand psychoanalysis better.

I only had a few undergrad modules in clinical psychology - doing a master's in another branch of psych now and, although I'm still interested in mental health, I'm not too up-to-date with current best-practice guidelines. I think that mindfulness-based CBT is the new evolution of traditional CBT, although that's still very much an emerging therapy. And as says, DBT is similar but has different target disorders - as the name suggests, it's more behavioural in nature.

Y-you do know that I wasn't actually trying to propose the complete abandonment of psychiatry?

In reality, a mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems (even just in theory, but far more in practice) far easier than with physical health problems. That was my point, and I'm p sure it's not misleading.
Old is not inherently bad, new is not inherently good -- but this is exactly the attitude that many unconsciously have. In whole, the painful overprescription of various ""treatments"" has always throughout history fully overshadowed a simple wait-and-see approach. And since the flaws in the practices of old had been readily apparent, it always somehow automatically meant that there are no flaws in the new practices.
That is not bravery, that is arrogance. And it is not immanent or anyhow necessary to the entire field of mental health, it is immanent to douchebaggery and potentially even a sign of the particular practitioner having mental health issues himself. Which of course, is not a bad thing in itself, and it's not a very secret reason why someone would get drawn to the field of mental health in the first place, but the unawareness of one's mental health issues can make one unknowingly do dangerous things.

-----
A small example of what psychiatry today considers to be her "improving" the lives of millions of people -- just look at the liberality of Adderall prescription to kids for suspect mild ADHD. Does that not seem barbaric, even today, for anyone with half a brain?

Yes it is. It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort, when a few decades ago it was being handed out to mildly distressed people same-day, for potentially self-solvable problems, as if it were candy.

>Does that not seem barbaric
No.
>Yes it is.
No.

kys then

Sha'n't

then at least dox yourself so that we know your patients are receiving unnecessary dangerous treatments

>dangerous

>
In reality, a mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems (even just in theory, but far more in practice) far easier than with physical health problems

This isn't really true. In both fields, misdiagnosis isn't against any rules, unless you can prove that they were neglectful. Getting shit wrong happens, and doctors are only ever able to get in trouble for it if they've just not bothered to follow proper medical procedure.

Think of it like surgery. A patient dying in surgery won't result in the surgeon getting in trouble unless it can be proven they intentionally did something fucking dumb, or neglected normal procedure.

>Old is not inherently bad, new is not inherently good -- but this is exactly the attitude that many unconsciously have. In whole, the painful overprescription of various ""treatments"" has always throughout history fully overshadowed a simple wait-and-see approach. And since the flaws in the practices of old had been readily apparent, it always somehow automatically meant that there are no flaws in the new practices

I agree with this to some degree, though I'd argue the over-prescription of stuff has always been present, as it or ECT were pretty much the only options they had in the older forms of psychiatry. Still a problem though, I agree.

>just look at the liberality of Adderall prescription to kids for suspect mild ADHD. Does that not seem barbaric, even today, for anyone with half a brain?

It is widely recognised as an issue, and many psychiatrists are very against medication as a firstline treatment as a result. There's definitely a divide in the field over it though.

> It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort, when a few decades ago it was being handed out to mildly distressed people same-day, for potentially self-solvable problems, as if it were candy.

From my knowledge, though you're correct that ECT was much more common then than it is now, you're exaggerating just how common it is. It was still a last resort treatment, but they just had a lot less things to resort to before doing it.

Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving is a nice introduction to what's great about psychoanalysis and gives a great job of pointing to the importance of Freud while also pointing out some of his bigger mistakes.

>daily use of speed isn't dangerous.

Enjoy having your brain fried from oxidative stress and not functioning properly due to long-term downregulation of monoamine receptors.

Are you implying that pharmaceutical quality drugs used at much lower doses than what someone would use recreationally, while also controlled by a doctor is going to have the same effects as some retard doing speed he got from the dealer who got it from the people who made it with kitchenware on their farm?

I bet you think the fact that meth amphetamine has psychiatric uses is a bad thing too.

What a fucking red herring lol, you're literally trying to turn this into a street vs. pharmacy issue, when it's a giving-dangerous-mind-altering-drugs-for-no-real-reason issue. You're also overestimating the actual amount of control in "being controlled by a doctor", in many cases.

>I bet you think the fact that meth amphetamine has psychiatric uses is a bad thing too.
it's methamphetamine*, and nobody said that drugs having "psychiatric uses" is a bad idea. We're (I'm, at least) talking about OVERprescription of drugs, i.e. a bad execution of that idea. And more broadly, how this is an example of the underlying bad attitude of overtreatment that is and has been surrounding the current and past practices of psychiatry.

No I'm not. Lay off with the assumptions.

Damage from oxidative stress starts at fairly low doses. It's not as serious as the damage from a recreational binge, but do not underestimate the dangers of cumulative effects with daily use. The long-term receptor downregulation is a greater problem in daily use, even in low doses, than sporadic recreational use, and will profoundly fuck up your brain.

Doing powerful psychoactive drugs daily isn't healthy. In some cases it's better than the alternative, but giving amphetamine to children, whose brains are still highly plastic and rapidly developing, because they can't sit still in a classroom is fucking retarded.

I don't really give a fuck what you bet I think.

>What a fucking red herring lol, you're literally trying to turn this into a street vs. pharmacy issue, when it's a giving-dangerous-mind-altering-drugs-for-no-real-reason issue

No, I'm simply pointing out that it's not "Speed", which is a street drug, and is used very differently.

>it's methamphetamine*

Was that really necessary? That was clearly a typo I made, and in no way made it more difficult for you to read what I was saying.

>We're (I'm, at least) talking about OVERprescription of drugs, i.e. a bad execution of that idea. And more broadly, how this is an example of the underlying bad attitude of overtreatment that is and has been surrounding the current and past practices of psychiatry.

I've agreed with this aspect already, but comparing street drugs and ones administered by a doctor is not really very fair.

>No I'm not

Then you absolutely shouldn't have used the word speed. It's not comparable.

>Damage from oxidative stress starts at fairly low doses. It's not as serious as the damage from a recreational binge, but do not underestimate the dangers of cumulative effects with daily use

This is true, but these medications aren't intended as a "Take daily until you die" sort of thing. You're only supposed to go on a course of the drugs, then come off them and see if symptoms persist. If they do, then yeah, you should probably go back on them, because the minor damage low doses cause isn't really comparable to the loss of function a serious mental illness can cause, and ADHD can absolutely be serious.

>The long-term receptor downregulation is a greater problem in daily use, even in low doses, than sporadic recreational use, and will profoundly fuck up your brain.

I've read about this, the different stages of amphetamine abuse, but these are low recreational dosages from what I recall, and as such tend to be like "they take it, and keep taking more over time to get the same high, which causes damage". It's still present if you take the same dosages, but much reduced, and relatively easily managed as long as it's not super chronic. Even heavy speed addicts can stop the drug without any notable damage if it's not a super long term addiction or very high in dosage.

>In some cases it's better than the alternative, but giving amphetamine to children, whose brains are still highly plastic and rapidly developing, because they can't sit still in a classroom is fucking retarded.

This is an entirely different issue, and not exactly a controversial topic in psychiatric circles. It's generally agreed that medications should be last resort for children, and that other forms of treatment should be used first.

But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.

>It's generally agreed that medications should be last resort for children, and that other forms of treatment should be used first.
That's a false dilemma.
The real question should be whether medication should be used at all or not, and should there be a threshold of mildness before which you shouldn't ever consider giving medication. Not to children or non-children, but first and foremost in general.
When you fuck that up with children, you just also additionally go to hell after you die.

>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
>you're not being fair to doctors, they have it hard :((((((((
Yes there is an easy answer. "Primum non nocere." You lazy cunt.

>that psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns
a.k.a. "horseshit"

>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.

I just honestly had to reply twice because I literally cannot believe my eyes that someone actually wrote this

>That's a false dilemma.

It's really not.

>The real question should be whether medication should be used at all or not

This is not a question at all. Medical practicioners are legally bound to treat disorders, and to balance the possible harm of any medications (side effects) compared to the symptoms of the disorder.

>nd should there be a threshold of mildness before which you shouldn't ever consider giving medication

Wow, it's almost like this is already the case, and you just completely ignored my scenario where parents exaggerate the severity of the issues, or patients do the same due to lack of any frame of reference.

>Yes there is an easy answer. "Primum non nocere." You lazy cunt.

This has to be trolling. First do no harm just raises a whole heap of extra fucking problems in this case. Such as, what's more harmful, the possible side effects of a medication, or allowing a disorder, which damages their lives (can't be diagnosed without any loss of functioning) to go unchecked. You're just refusing to actually think about what medical ethics actually are, it's not as simple as "just fix them!".

It also doesn't actually answer my question at all.

>literally using are you kidding me as a counter-argument

Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.

what question? What do I want the psychiatrist to do?

That's easy enough. Stop being a fucking sheep and stand up for the actual benefit of your patients, which is to not be overprescribed just because their neurotic parents/their neurotic selves will try to wreak havoc on your professional life. Raise their awareness about how dangerous the drugs really are. It's not your job to listen to what the parents have "exaggerated", it's your job to make the diagnosis and estimate the severity yourself, and today that aforementioned threshold of mildness before medication has been abnormally lowered due to literal popular social memes.

Stop being black and white.

>>literally using are you kidding me as a counter-argument
>Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.

>writes what he wrote about it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication
>what's more important is that whoever gives him shit about it doesn't come off as pathetic
as a self-proclaimed mental health professional, perhaps this article may be of interest to you
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Bourgeoisie Psychology student here. This thread is such a disaster. Psychotherapy is meant to be used in conjunction with psychiatry. Psychotherapy can be used by it self, but psychiatry should never be used alone. 'Pills don't teach skills.' There are huge differences of opinion among the varying fields of Psychology. Also, the division between Psychology and psychiatry is immense. Most modern schools of Psychology take either holistic or non-pathalogy approaches. CBT is the most prominent, but it simply focuses on symptoms. Psychoanalysis is one of the most complex schools of psychology and has many derivatives, most of which are 'mentally' holistic ie. focuses on the whole mind.

The reason why it is so difficult to have a Psychology and psychiatry discussion is that psychiatry is HEAVILY pathology-centric. In fact, psychiatry is usually chosen late in med school, while psychologists chose as undergrads. This may likely be the cause of the pathology-centric view of psychiatrists: they, in med school, are already being groomed for this approach.

OP, pick a side. Either study psychology or psychiatry. If you try to study both you will likely find yourself swept away by the never-ending waves of conflict.

>That's easy enough. Stop being a fucking sheep and stand up for the actual benefit of your patients, which is to not be overprescribed just because their neurotic parents/their neurotic selves will try to wreak havoc on your professional life

This is just a whole heap of buzzwords, and doesn't actually answer my question user. The psychiatrist only has access to what information he's given, and in cases where it's minors being treated, the parents story on what's going on with their kid is most important. So when they exaggerate issues, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? They have no way of knowing what's exaggerated, and have to make a decision of the information available. Going "Just fix it" isn't an answer.

>Raise their awareness about how dangerous the drugs really are.

That is required by law for them to do, they have to give you information on any possible side effects. As does a pharmacist if it's your first time filling a script for that medication.

> it's your job to make the diagnosis and estimate the severity yourself,

Which, shocker, is done by the kids presentation (assumed to be restless), and the testimony of the parents and child.

>and today that aforementioned threshold of mildness before medication has been abnormally lowered due to literal popular social memes.

This is just bullshit, the threshold hasn't changed in years now. I'd challenge you to find an official guideline that says differently.

>as a self-proclaimed mental health professional, perhaps this article may be of interest to you
>self-proclaimed mental health professional
>self-proclaimed

You're not a professional, you're literally just a layman acting like he knows better than psychiatrists that spend years of their lives getting a medical degree, then specialising in psychiatry, and getting through a residency.

Also, the implication that I have AsPD makes no fucking sense, and just supports my statement that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Also, ignoring that blatantly fucking stupid claim, I never said either of the things you tried to quote me as saying, namely these.
>writes what he wrote about it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication
>what's more important is that whoever gives him shit about it doesn't come off as pathetic

You're putting words in my mouth and creating a strawman argument with them that's easier to attack. You've yet to actually address any of my arguments, just change them around and create your own ones with them.

Start (and then stop) with Karl Popper. You're welcome.

lol. Popper. the man who dedicated his life to discrediting Marx and Freud

Life well lived.

KEK, meanwhile. . .
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis

It's because he did such a good job that I'd recommend starting there. Freud is not something I would advise any psychologist to read, even in a 'see where psychology came from' way because it is so irrelevant in light of Popper's critique.

>implying psychology SHOULD be a science and not another branch of existentialism

>You're not a professional,
never claimed to be one, mr. anti-strawman being a strawman +ad hominem.

The aspd thing was supposed to be a joke, I would even refrain from saying "obviously" but then you'd say that of course I'm gonna say that it was supposed to be a joke "now that I'm busted [from something I haven't claimed]", and to be fair I really do honestly believe that it was obvious. It is not deducible that you're an aspd from what you've written, just that you're a terrible person, and that goes to prove my point.

-----------
Back to what you said:
>>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
>I didn't say "it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication"

>>Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.
>I didn't say "what's more important is that whoever gives me shit about overdiagnosing kids doesn't come off as pathetic"

And ultimately:
>le my arguments maymay strawman maymay

Then I ask you, what are your actual arguments then, in plain English?

mine are p simple, exactly because I am (currently still) a layman -- you are lazy as fuck and don't care about your patients, which is just easily provable by how you talk about what's "required by law" to do, and it seems that you don't give a fuck about doing anything more than that bare minimum.

If you just want to show up at your jobs. put in your hours, do what's legally required of you and go home, I don't need a residency to know that psychiatry is THE WORST JOB you could have possibly taken.

It is purely just a question for society whether we should allow people like you to work in that field, and/or how we should prevent it.

It should.

>never claimed to be one, mr. anti-strawman being a strawman +ad hominem.

Well now you're just lying, I quoted the part of your post where you did claim to be a professional.

>just that you're a terrible person, and that goes to prove my point.

I'm a terrible person for disagreeing with you? When you're clearly incorrect? Nice.

>Then I ask you, what are your actual arguments then, in plain English?

If you're not interested in reading my posts and actually responding to what I've brought up, I have no interest in discussing this with you, as it's clearly just going to be pointless.

>mine are p simple, exactly because I am (currently still) a layman -- you are lazy as fuck and don't care about your patients, which is just easily provable by how you talk about what's "required by law" to do, and it seems that you don't give a fuck about doing anything more than that bare minimum.

I brought up what's required by law to refute you saying psychiatrists should have to do something. They literally do. Most of your argument has been arguing for things that are already the case, or arguing for things that don't make any sense. Like thinking a single latin quote is enough to completely solve a problem like "How should a psychiatrist handle false information if he has no reason to believe it's false?". It would be malpractice to assume the patient is lying and refuse treatment on that alone, and could result in loss of a medical licence if the patient were to do something criminal, which isn't unheard of for severe ADHD patients. There is no easy answer apart from treating it like you would any other case, while keeping an eye out for any contradictions of sign of malingering or factitious disorder (which can be by proxy).

>If you just want to show up at your jobs. put in your hours, do what's legally required of you and go home, I don't need a residency to know that psychiatry is THE WORST JOB you could have possibly taken.

That's a great, really reasonable point. You kind of do need to be a psychiatrist to argue that what's currently the case in psychiatry is wrong, otherwise you end up doing exactly what you're doing, and constantly making arguments based off a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the field.

My argument isn't a statement on it's own merit, by the way, I'm simply refuting yours. I agree there is some over-diagnosis, but so does nearly everyone in the field, it's just not as easy as "Oh, better just diagnose people less", because you have to treat each patients case on its own merit. It being over-diagnosed doesn't mean we should make it harder for people to get the treatment they may need.

And particularly in cases where children have mental disorders, they or their family often aren't willing to actually do the therapy or follow the guidelines set down, leaving medication as the only real option available for treating them. You can't just go "Oh, so you won't or can't do therapy? Fuck you then, suffer".

i disagree

Also, I have to add with my last point (character limit stopped me), I don't mean patients refusing to do therapy to try to get meds, I mean ones that just aren't sticking to it. Which is likely in ADHD patients, and a lot of parents find it easier to just make their kids take pills than to actually help them with it. Afterall, they have jobs to do, they don't have time to help the kids out, they take them to their appointments and shouldn't be expected to do anymore.

I'd like to add more, but I feel like you're just going to ignore most of my post again and just make another strawman with it or insult me, maybe call some parts of it a meme, so I won't bother.

existentialism already exists (though how worthwhile a category it is is debatable since most of the people lumped into it would resent and deny the category in the first place). Furthermore Freud and his ilk were not professing their crap as existentialism, they were calling it science. If you think it should be considered as just more existentialist thought then by all means do so. Finally contemporary scientific psychology is a worthwhile and productive field and deserves to be continued in its own right.

fuck...neurology of self. that's brutal

What defense can you offer for this normative claim?

>contemporary scientific psychology is a worthwhile and productive field
never gets old

That's a 10/10 argument user.

>that's an argument

Kind of my point there mate, I was being sarcastic.

That's a 10/10 tapestry user.

Thanks, I weaved it myself.

Are you suggesting there's more worth in the Freudian efforts? Because I'd really love to hear you expound the virtues of Horny, Klein or whatever other other excrement has accrued in Freudian circles. Even if one thinks that psychology in it's present form in unproductive (which is demonstrably false), I cannot see any reason for supposing it's inbred cousin would fare any better.

>Are you suggesting there's more worth in the Freudian efforts?
No.
>which is demonstrably false
Please demonstrate.

I'm back.
Dear god, this thread is a mess.
DCT is part of the so called "third wave of behavioral therapy". MBCT would be another example.
Pretty much all of them are useful for very specific types of disorders and very specific versions of the disorders. MBCT for instance is very good for relapse prevention for MDD patients with strong symptoms, childhood trauma and also works well as suicide prevention. It also can function as alternative for medication is some cases. But research is ongoing and we are trying to figure out how these stuff work exactly and how it can be used during therapy, rather than post-therapy.

In Germany/Austria (and most countries to my knowledge) the "official" schools of PT are CBT, Psychoanalysis and Depth Psychology. But this is mainly attributed to insurance companies being reluctant to pay for different schools.
Nowadays it's common practice to learn one school (CBT if you aren't a pleb) and add another one later on, to smooth out any shortcomings you feel your school has.

There is also a growing feeld of research into "general therapeutic effects", which try to look at the core benefits of psychotherapy, apart from schools of thought. Many of us fully expect schools to dissapear in the near future. Which makes sense, because in the end it's more about figuring out what works for whom, rather than having competing schools.
Both are equally important.
>mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems
Depends on the country. Diagnosis is serious business in Germany/Austria. i.e. You HAVE to do a big blood test for usual physical causes like nutritional issues or Hashimoto.
And you can't do whatever. In one case I know of, some analyst at a hospital conctantly asked new female patients about their sexual history and little more. They reported him to his boss and the ethics board and he was fired.
In another case I know about, a therapist straight up told a depressed teenage girl that there is a high chance she will never get better. She killed herself soon after. We lost his licence and last I heard he was being sued. (Also an analyst, btw.)
>Yes it is. It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort,
It depends. Again, the Denver State Hospital meme did a huge damage, stigma wise. Research is being done and it may or may not become a more common place tool, once we better understand how and why it works in which cases.
I took part in a tDCS study once. It was fun.
This. Psychotherapists do the therapy, psychiatrists do the physical exam and help with medication if need be.
At least that is how it is usually done. In any non-shit health care system at least.

I won't get into the drug debate. But I'll note that Europe usually doesn't really have the issues you guys are having over the pond.

KEK

>therapist straight up told a depressed teenage girl that there is a high chance she will never get better
Was he wrong?

Onfray's a joke mate. TV's "philosopher"

Seeing as she killed herself, apparently not after he was done with her.

But seriously, we don't know enough about mental illnesses to be able to say case to case whether or not someone will ever get better. And it's a huge issue to tell a patient at risk of suicide something like that, there's procedures around handling those cases.

A major thing is to not say anything provocative (which is why you get a lot of answers like "that must be hard", that don't agree or disagree with it). Giving a professional's support to their idea that they will never get better, which is a common factor in suicidality, feelings of hopelessness, is just incredibly incompetent.

>we don't know enough about mental illnesses to be able to say case to case whether or not someone will ever get better
Okay, then I guess it's bad.

I agree with you, Onfray is a fool sometime, especially when he talk about politics.
But still, this guy is a good writer, and Freud get BTFO with correct source and quote. so...

>651▶
>I want to learn more about Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis

Then buy a goddamn textbook you shit-eating plebian

>Mental illness
You are part of the problem

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?cmd=historysearch&querykey=1

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=TitleSrchURL&_method=submitForm&sterm=psychology&md5=888575da1e42a20e09a299085c95bb2d

A hardly comprehensive list of psychological journals, publishing peer reviewed research, openly describing and detailing their methodology for the benefit of other researchers. Advancing a field of knowledge into various sub-fields each of which gets a microscopic examination by people specialising in that area. The scientific form of modern psychology means countless studies and experiments are conducted to test theories and hypotheses against experts in their respective fields all the time. The scale and extent of this effort is enough to falsify the claim that modern psychology is unproductive, in a literal sense. Though I am sure you take productivity to mean 'well I'm not aware of any current psychological research I think is valid' which is equally falsifiable. Modern psychology has seen progress pretty much across the board, in terms of understanding mental illness' e.g. depression, schizophrenia in the numerous landmark twin studies, etc. Happiness with the hedonic treadmill and positive psychology) pain (catastrophising and the psychological moderation of pain) psychology's relation to the immune system and so on. Social psychologists have advanced our understanding of things like conformity, group dynamics, social learning and so on. Evolutionary psychologists have contribute to our understanding of sex and mating far more than Freud could ever have hoped to. Learning theorists have discovered and detailed several ways facts about how humans learn and there's much more to add and more than I could possibly even when it comes to individual theories and experiments which do attest to the fact that modern psychology is a worthwhile pursuit. If you wanted other kinds of evidence how about the fact that there are pscyhology departments in Harvard, Standford, Cambridge, Oxford and so on. The kind of worldview that holds that psychology as it stands today is unproductive requires explaining an awful lot. And also dismissing a lot of techniques which those psychologist employ to gather and interpret data, set up experiments an so on.