The No-Cure Model - Page 2 - Discussion - Depersonalization Community

Jump to content


Please Read the Community Forum Guidelines Before Posting.


Photo

The No-Cure Model


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#13 Where

Where

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • Moderators
  • 701 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 12:35 PM

Many professionals adhere to the science behind what they're doing in a way that is fully dogmatic. The differences between trying to pray a tumor away versus cutting it out don't depend on the practitioners' belief systems. There could easily be a church of removing tumors, as well as a science of trying to pray them away, and throughout history there has almost certainly been both. I'm thinking of the natives who would perform surgeries, and "Christian Scientists."

This is very relevant to mental health, because the science behind what most practitioners are doing "informs" them that people suffering with mental illness who have been correctly diagnosed will never fully recover. They base this on the fact that their ineffective treatments, in conjunction with society's routine way of oppressing these people, rarely have impressive positive effects. When a person fully recovers, they'll sometimes claim, "This person couldn't have had [insert disorder], because full recovery isn't possible," or at the very least, "We have to look for signs of pathology in this person, because full recovery isn't possible."

Psychologists don't even know what DP is, or how to classify it, so I'll save any newbies who are reading this some time and say hedge your bets. Psychologists can help you with things they remotely understand, if they buck the inadequate science behind mental illness, its treatment, and actually treat you like a human being. I think many psychologists do buck the stupider trends in relation to mental health, but they do have a tendency to fall back on the inadequate schooling they paid tens, maybe hundreds of thousands for.

#14 PerfectFifth

PerfectFifth

    Regular Contributor

  • DPSH Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 01:38 PM

Many professionals adhere to the science behind what they're doing in a way that is fully dogmatic. 

And? It's still a thousand times more effective than trying to pray a tumor away. 

This is very relevant to mental health, because the science behind what most practitioners are doing "informs" them that people suffering with mental illness who have been correctly diagnosed will never fully recover. They base this on the fact that their ineffective treatments, in conjunction with society's routine way of oppressing these people, rarely have impressive positive effects. When a person fully recovers, they'll sometimes claim, "This person couldn't have had [insert disorder], because full recovery isn't possible," or at the very least, "We have to look for signs of pathology in this person, because full recovery isn't possible."

Mental health/psychiatry is garbage science. It's closer to a pseudoscience than an actual science. It's barely better than taking your diagnoses from the Bible as they're arbitrarily given by majority vote. People arbitrarily decide that certain human conditions are diseases. Yeah, psychiatry is just about the worst example of a science. It lacks the empirical rigor of for example physics. 

 

I don't know where you get the "recovery isn't fully possible", though. Source? I haven't come across anything like that. I'm under the impression that the consensus is that people are expected to fully recover from most mental health-related things, with or without medicine. If not expected to recover per se, then at least not expected not to recover. 



#15 Where

Where

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • Moderators
  • 701 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 01:45 PM

This is stuff that's true, coming from my side, not a debate. I understand many people think full recovery from mental illness is possible, and I hope clinicians don't have the same fatalistic view in your region that they've had in the US for lifetimes. By your standards of what's a real science, science has only existed for a few centuries, if that, and might retroactively not have existed as new, more advanced theories and knowledge come into play.

#16 PerfectFifth

PerfectFifth

    Regular Contributor

  • DPSH Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 01:52 PM

This is stuff that's true, coming from my side, not a debate. I understand many people think full recovery from mental illness is possible, and I hope clinicians don't have the same fatalistic view in your region that they've had in the US for many lifetimes. By your standards of what's a real science, science has only existed for a few centuries, if that, and might retroactively not have existed as new, more advanced science comes into play.

A lot of medical science is good; psychiatry is just its rotten underbelly. I'm afraid your comment regarding my idea of science is a strawman as I never suggested anything like that. 



#17 Where

Where

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • Moderators
  • 701 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 01:59 PM

A lot of medical science is good; psychiatry is just its rotten underbelly. I'm afraid your comment regarding my idea of science is a strawman as I never suggested anything like that.


So we agree that bad, quacky science is still science? Including clinical psychology? I'm saying many practitioners adhere to it like dogma, or actually much stronger than the religious dogma I've seen personally. This is a topic I find aggravating, like an ex religious fundamentalist might look at religion.

#18 PerfectFifth

PerfectFifth

    Regular Contributor

  • DPSH Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 02:11 PM

So we agree that bad, quacky science is still science? Including clinical psychology? I'm saying many practitioners adhere to it like dogma, or actually much stronger than the religious dogma I've seen personally. This is a topic I find aggravating, like an ex religious fundamentalist might look at religion.

Bad, quacky science as in psychiatry? I'm very hesitant to call it a science rather than a pseudo one. I'd probably rather not. Psychology? Yes, though it's definitely a "soft" science. 



#19 Broken

Broken

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • DPSH Members
  • 758 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 February 2020 - 02:40 PM

"a scientific way of knowing is not much different than a religious or spiritual way of knowing".

Couldn't disagree with you more.  Believing is absolutely different from knowing. Just as a fact is different from a "maybe, maybe not"

 

You can untangle this further though, as science is still seen as God in our lives. I don't refute the importance of science whatsoever, but because we can accurately observe the effects of something we still have to BELIEVE the hypothesis as the truth, when often the cause cannot be seen.

 

For example, we can accurately predict how fast a ball will drop to the ground but the theory right now is gravitational waves. So there is an element of belief in that knowing. The outcome is known, but the theory is a belief. We cannot see or know, it could be magic elves from another dimension moving things.

 

I can know that I have DPD. But the beliefs I have about it cause a negative feedback loop, which is one theory as to why the symptoms perpetuate. And that is what CuriousMind is saying. We can argue whether that is a plausible approach to cure this, or whether we have DPD or some other cause of these symptoms. But that does feed back into that cycle that I have found myself in countless times of not knowing the cause and believing that nothing will help.

 

Its possible the way I interact with my thoughts perpetuates this illness. That I need to find an answer to this problem. Also looking at my direct experience as an enemy. The derealization is 24/7 and I cant turn away from it or find relief. Maybe if I shut my eyes. But because nothing is KNOWN, or concrete about this, that cycle persists. And its exhausting. And perhaps that is the point for some of us. 

 

I dont know or anticipate that meditation will cure this for me but it is worth a go at least. Watching those thought patterns come and not engaging. Watching my intention to either follow the thought or attempt to push it out of awareness. And instead see it for what it is, just a thought. And let it burn itself out. Call it 'letting go' or whatever, but watching my attention wanting something out of this moment and taking my hands off the wheel. I've said before just giving a mental shrug to whatever shows up



#20 Where

Where

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • Moderators
  • 701 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:15 PM

Bad, quacky science as in psychiatry? I'm very hesitant to call it a science rather than a pseudo one. I'd probably rather not. Psychology? Yes, though it's definitely a "soft" science.


If I'm not mistaken, psychiatry is an area of treatment, and psychology is an area of study. Clinical psychology is like treatment/study, with talk therapy and some holistic techniques. I think the "no cure" model comes from psychology. All the neurological studies I've heard of focus on what the brain can do, rather than what they assume it can't.

#21 forestx5

forestx5

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • DPSH Members
  • 1253 posts
  • Locationcentral virginia blue ridge mountains

Posted 19 February 2020 - 11:02 PM

Robyn M. Dawes was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.  If I remember correctly, he was a single parent raising a child with mental disabilities.  His experiences led him to write a book which I found to be very valuable

in my quest to find a mental health professional who understood my illness.  Of course I never found one, but I came to understand why, from reading "A House of Cards" by Robyn M. Dawes.

"In this indictment of the therapy profession, the author exposes the misguided beliefs and shoddy practices used by most psychotherapists. He examines the pop psych beliefs and explores the debilitating effects they have on everyone."

If I remember correctly, Dawes notes that the psychology industry once had roots in science, but in today's practice of psychology, it rarely references those roots.



#22 PerfectFifth

PerfectFifth

    Regular Contributor

  • DPSH Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 February 2020 - 07:58 AM

If I'm not mistaken, psychiatry is an area of treatment, and psychology is an area of study. Clinical psychology is like treatment/study, with talk therapy and some holistic techniques. I think the "no cure" model comes from psychology. All the neurological studies I've heard of focus on what the brain can do, rather than what they assume it can't.

Yes, that seems about right.

 

But I don't buy this idea of a so-called "no cure model" having any significant prevalence. Certain individuals are pessimistic, and others are optimistic about their (and others') outcomes; most are initially optimistic until they've tried everything, at which point they become realistic or pessimistic. Obviously there's a potential cure to everything. "No cure" ideas come from there being no proven effective treatment available to certain conditions. AVAILABLE is the key word here. That doesn't mean that there can't theoretically be a cure or that there 100% won't be one in the future. Only a complete idiot would claim there can never be a cure for something. The only thing there will probably never be a cure for is stupidity, though perhaps we can even enhance general intelligence at some point. 

 

OP is going to link some recent research in its infancy here soon as "look, here's proof". A piece of promising research is not enough to establish an effective treatment modality to be considered a proven "first line treatment".

 

Regarding the theme of "just move on, and believe", of course you can try all kinds of voodoo and positive thinking, but believing enough isn't enough to cure this shit for everyone. Some people HAVE tried all of those things, with it having had zero benefit. 



#23 Where

Where

    Senior DPSelfhelp.com Member

  • Moderators
  • 701 posts

Posted 20 February 2020 - 08:33 AM

The only group of people I've heard about no-cure from have been licensed clinicians. I could pull random examples from video lectures or summaries of published papers, but if you want to go the believing is seeing route, that's your business. It really sounds like clinicians in your region, not assuming you've had to meet any, are more uplifting and optimistic than average. Where I'm from, it's a mixture of clinicians at least trying to be optimistic, and others who fancy themselves more scientific and realistic (telling patients they "have" their diagnoses, and that full recovery is impossible).

I don't think partial recovery is a cure. I'm actually not sure what the word "cure" is supposed to mean in precise terms, if anything. Recovery is the word I think most MH practitioners and physicians focus on instead. Treatment is another word MH practitioners love, even if their treatments aren't proven to do anything.

#24 PerfectFifth

PerfectFifth

    Regular Contributor

  • DPSH Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 February 2020 - 08:51 AM

The only group of people I've heard about no-cure from have been licensed clinicians. I could pull random examples from video lectures or summaries of published papers, but if you want to go the believing is seeing route, that's your business. It really sounds like clinicians in your region, not assuming you've had to meet any, are more uplifting and optimistic than average. Where I'm from, it's a mixture of clinicians at least trying to be optimistic, and others who fancy themselves more scientific and realistic (telling patients they "have" their diagnoses, and that full recovery is impossible).

I don't think partial recovery is a cure. I'm actually not sure what the word "cure" is supposed to mean in precise terms, if anything. Recovery is the word I think most MH practitioners and physicians focus on instead. Treatment is another word MH practitioners love, even if their treatments aren't proven to do anything.

Well, if you say so. Yeah, that can be problematic considering people who don't know better actually take psychiatric diagnoses seriously, which they shouldn't considering the utter lack of objectivity. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users