Verified by 
50COMMENTS
I am not talking about the content of the article, but the way this article is written.
Ann Olson Psy.D.
Skinner’s variable interval ratio reinforcement is aligned with chance rewarding of chance behaviors. The “variable interval” component of such a reinforcement schedule reflects the fact that behavior is rewarded inconsistently after a variable interval has ensued. This means that arbitrary periods of time elapse between rewards. The “ratio” component of this reinforcement schedule indicates that the subject will be rewarded in varying amounts based on chance alone or an arbitrary schedule of reinforcement. Overall, this means that the subject will be rewarded off and on, more or less, for emitting no particular behavior. Based on the subject’s “understanding” of this reinforcement schedule, the subject will learn to enact behavior that represents whatever they were doing at the time that the reward was forthcoming. This is how superstitious behavior is learned.
Skinner was able to produce superstitious behavior in pigeons by rewarding them arbitrarily for no particular behavior or any behavior that they were enacting at the time of reinforcement. These pigeons had, in the past, learned that reinforcement was contingent upon behavior, similar to human beings, who learn that pay is contingent on work or that friendship is contingent on some kind of loyalty. In terms of contingencies, the emergence of superstitious behavior in pigeons resulted from the fact that they were rewarded for arbitrary behavior that produced chance reinforcement of chance behaviors.
It is a questionable postulation that superstitious behavior that implicates largely mental action, as opposed physical behavior, could even be considered behavior because it is not observable. Nevertheless, superstition in people involves mental associations between behavior and belief. Belief is not generated scientifically. It has arbitrary emotional components, for example. An athlete wearing his “lucky socks” at a baseball game emerges as superstitious behavior due to the fact that this “luck” regarding his socks is perceived by the athlete, even when it is based upon chance rewarding of chance behavior.
There exist intentional mental acts that might be termed behavior if the definition of behavior did not generally imply action that is observable by the five senses. Cognitive theorists would agree that mental acts, as constituted by thought, are covert behavior. This article postulates that superstitious belief results from mental acts that are primitive in their use of reason.
Reason may be seldom used by individuals in determination of belief. Individuals may believe what appeals to them, with little thought of rational aspects or consequences of belief. A large majority of people operate with belief systems or world views that are inconsistent, and, although some use of reason pervades the rationale of most people, rationale for beliefs is not necessarily tied to fact. Perhaps fact and precise knowledge does not impact belief as much as is believed by people globally.
Perception also involves mental skewing of information that is derived from sensory experience.This implicates Gestalt theory. Perception is not fact, although perception continually impacts belief, and, although sensation largely may be aligned with fact, perception is always an interpretation of sensory experience. It is the baseball player’s perception of his situation and the circumstances that entail “luck”, for example, that constitutes his basis for belief.
Interaction and synergy between the individual and his environment is implicated by belief. This does not mean that belief generated from this synergy is reliable. This synergy is this interaction that results in chance reinforcement of arbitrary behavior. It is the individual’s perception of sensory information derived from the environment that results in superstitious belief. The Heisenberg principle is an example of the extreme consequences of perception based on observation. An individual’s observation of the world changes how the environment “responds” to an individual. The idea that our perceptions shape reality for us is an interesting idea, and our perceptions alter that which is perceived.
Mental actions are performed routinely. An example is represented by math equation. However, questions of belief are generally not examined by individuals in terms of their belief systems, even though recognition of disparities between conflicting beliefs make people uncomfortable, and discomfort is a natural reaction to cognitive dissonance. Most people and perhaps all people have inadequate consistency in terms of their beliefs, and their inadequate systems of belief that reflect contradictory elements.
Deviations in belief are widespread, and religious belief is an example. There are many conflicting views regarding religion, and some people adhere to their views vehemently. Religious perspectives represent beliefs about which there is perhaps insignificant evidence, whether one adheres to a Christian, as Buddhist or an Atheistic view. Even though some religious beliefs may have minimal to moderate support in the scientific community, ideas such as the miracle of consciousness may represent a basis for religious belief.
Very extremely few individuals have consistent belief systems. Perhaps no one does have a systematic and contingent set of beliefs representing a world view. As ‘evidence” for religious insight is derived from the mental realm generally, it is not based largely upon observable behavior. This makes the basis for religious belief somewhat dubious. Christian faith could be said to be reinforced by a variable interval-variable ratio schedule of reinforcement, based on chance alone. The miracle of consciousness, however, may be construed as profound.
Psychosis and delusions, in particular, that are reinforced by chance events, amount to something similar to cultivation of superstition as defined by Skinner, but with recognition of a cognitive element. Note that psychotic ideas or delusions can find arbitrary “responses” from the environment. Superstitious behavior, based upon faulty cognitions and beliefs, are common.
This is seen in the athlete that finds evidence for a superstitious belief in the environment even when the evidence does not exist as a matter of fact, as opposed to belief. This is seen in an athlete’s conferring upon a baseball glove or sock’s the attribution of ‘luckiness”. Perhaps, largely, evidence does not exist or need to exist in this matter of belief.
In terms of the psychotic individual finding evidence for his delusions in his environment, there exists a problem in that this perceived “evidence” is not rewarding, and, due to its punitive qualities, it should not persist. Although delusional experience may not produce observable rewards, some aspects of delusional experience are rewarding: delusions of grandeur erotomanic delusions, delusions of reference, even delusions of persecution. Such delusions can allow one to feel a sense of importance, and this may be rewarding to individuals who may be said to represent, to an extent, a discarded element of our society. There exists the reality that the schizophrenic will receive punitive experience based on his own perception of the world. However, vigilance and awareness of danger in one’s environment can be reinforced through belief that such vigilance, constituted at times by paranoia, renders one more safe. This is true even when paranoia is a punitive experience that would not be expected to continue if it is not rewarding.
Behavior, in a strict sense of that which is observed by one’s senses, may differ significantly from the quasi-behavior represented by automatic thoughts or delusions and the visceral experience of hallucinations. Sensory experience can be automatic, whether it represents hallucinated experience or not. As a visceral experience, hallucinations, and corresponding delusions, might be automatically assimilated. Moreover, accumulation of thought, emotion and belief can be construed as a continuous, rapid and ongoing process.
Much psychotic experience and accumulated delusional material are based upon primitive understanding of the world. As primitive experience, there is little bases on which a schizophrenic might understand his false sensory experience. There is reason to fear this type of experience. To be told that what you seem to sense is not reality is terrifying. Delusions can be punitive, leading to learned helplessness and reduced frontal lobe activity, but the effort to find reinforcement while adhering to delusional perspectives may be compelling, if only in that the psychotic individual may feel that he will be able to “prove’ the legitimacy of his perspective, and thereby earn respect that is not forthcoming as he remains in the shadow of stigmatization as a “psychotic” individual.
Clearly, this implicates labeling and stigma as they are associated with mental illness. If mentally ill psychotic individuals were not denigrated by others in society, perhaps there would be less of a need in these affected individuals to “prove” that they can be understood, may receive empathy and can feel themselves to be human beings. The consequences of alienation are emotionally destructive, and prescribed for the mentally ill at this time is a kind of psychological anarchy on the level of the self. Clinicians may be able to discern this as an initial step in treating psychotic individuals compassionately and therapeutically.
This article was originally published on the brainblogger website.
skinner made valuable
Submitted by xoleuess on October 26, 2013 - 6:19am
skinner made valuable contributions to the world of veterinary psychology.
unfortunately, the animal you today are attempting to compare with pigeons doesnt have the ability to fly without mechanical assistance.
so, while true pigeons may breathe air, as a common behaviour shared with humans, it also does not make apples appear to taste similar to oranges.
thats a very long-winded approach to saying that religious people are superstitious and therefore insane.
and that is one of my very exact concerns regarding progressives ability to differentiate between reality, and ideal reality. in many cases that distinction is lost.
a prime example of that is me in fact. today people will judge me by the fact that i dont have the "badges of merit" i should have if they were in my place. for example the superpastor joel osteen is obviously far more worthy of me, then me. except for the fact that typically, and this seems lost on progressives, during the course of an anthropological field study you generally do not use fireworks and flashing neon lights.
now, the problem the religious today are having in fact is that the leaders of religion are today far more prepared to protect their corruption, and against anything and everything, rather then accept truth. similar to the manner in which science seems to now function, if everyone agrees to not see the gorilla, then the gorilla must not exist. while that may make for some intereting group dynamics, what happens if the gorilla takes the ball and keeps it? will the players then continue to go throu the motions? it would appear so wouldnt it? that would create some troubling behaviours wouldnt it? and over a period of time could that illusion be maintained? or would the group cohesion completely break down at some point?
truth is when it comes to social engineering, transhumanism, and all the other "godly" endeavours today, its all nothing new. the pharoahs built their great temples, they didnt call it religion. they called it science. you? not so different.
response
Submitted by Dr. Ann Olson on November 16, 2013 - 1:04pm
I did not entirely understand your comments. However, I can respond to some of what you said.
I believe that Skinner knew very well that his experiments with pigeons applied to human beings. That was the point of his work.
I read a scientific article recently that argued there is no way to differentiate between psychotic experience and religious experience. While I believe that psychotic experience may be dysfunctional and religious experience may be functional, both are mental experience and they rely on mental realm for their presentation and their dubiously subjective validity.
In terms of science, yes, this does rely on consensus between people regarding sensory experience in the material realm. However, I also read an article on color-blindness that supports the argument that sensory experience relies on subjective percetion, as well.
very educational
Submitted by Annie on October 26, 2013 - 10:54am
I wasn't aware of the Skinner experiments that induced "superstition" in pigeons, but the mechanism described is fascinating.
The mechanism or technique you described involved giving rewards randomly, which then becomes open to individual interpretation as to "why?" by the pigeons, who apparently try to associate behaviors they happened to be doing at the time as having an influence on getting the reward.
I noted that its important to first teach the pigeons that certain specific behaviors will consistently earn them a reward, so that the pigeons learn that some specific actions have specific and reliable results.
It seems to me that this same mechanism (rewards *and punishments* delivered randomly) could possibly be applied to the conditions that a small child faces when in the care of a parent with borderline personality disorder. BPD features rapid mood swings, switching back and forth from idealization of an individual to devaluation of the individual, high impulsivity, paranoid ideation under stress, and difficulty controlling anger.
A child in the care of such an individual (who is moderately to severely impacted by bpd, unsupervised and not under treatment) would be at high risk of developing bizarre "superstitious" beliefs about reality, because mommy is so unpredictable.
I read a description of an experiment with rats, in which the rats were given random "punishments" (brief, mildly unpleasant shocks); one set of rats were first given a "warning alert" that the shock was about to occur, while another set of rats were never given any alerts or warnings of any kind. The rats who first received a little "alert" were MUCH healthier both mentally and physically than the rats who were randomly shocked with no warnings.
A child who never knows when a punishment will be given (because mommy is so unpredictable) would naturally develop hyper-alertness in an effort to glean SOME kind of warning that punishment was about to occur. And such a child might also develop bizarre "superstitious" beliefs about what kinds of behavior might elicit a reward or a punishment, as well.
Thanks for sharing your information about the development of "superstitious" beliefs and behaviors, its fascinating.
I think
Submitted by anonymous on October 27, 2013 - 12:27am
That is a BIG STRETCH! Wow the lengths some people will go to keep the stigma of BPD alive...
consistent with multiple studies of bpd mothers
Submitted by Widget20 on October 31, 2013 - 11:58am
Actually, the post by "Annie" reflects the conclusions of several studies about borderline personality disorder RE parenting. An unpredictably volatile, self-harming, other-harming parent would indeed induce bizarre coping mechanisms in the child ("superstitious" beliefs specific to the parent-child relationship). The children of bpd mothers ARE at higher risk for disorganized attachment and adult psychopathology; emotional instability/unpredictability in the mother are factors in this increased risk.
I refer you to this comprehensive article at BPDResources.net (and its references/annotations):
http://bpdresources.net/top_articles/bpd_children.htm
Excerpts:
"Characteristic symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder are likely to hinder the ability of a mother with BPD to parent effectively, thereby negatively affecting the social and emotional development of the child."
" ...the powerful, alternating idealization and devaluation characteristic of BPD, are likely to obviate a positive mother-child relationship and negatively affect the child’s developing interpersonal skills and sense of self."
The article went into detail RE the effect that the unpredictable behaviors of a mother with bpd have on the attachment status of the child:
"Children of mothers with BPD show a significantly higher prevalence of ‘disorganized’ attachment than children of mothers without BPD (Hobson et al., 2005). Mothers with BPD’s intrusive insensitivity, affective deregulation, confusion over role expectations, and unresolved traumatic experiences have been identified as precursors for this disorganization (see Van IJzendoorn et al., 1999; Hobson et al., 2005). Disorganization in children typically arises in response to recurrent stress."
WW
This article is about the need to let go of stigma...
Submitted by Jill Kaplan on October 31, 2013 - 1:15pm
not keep it alive.
The author states "Clearly, this implicates labeling and stigma as they are associated with mental illness. If mentally ill psychotic individuals were not denigrated by others in society, perhaps there would be less of a need in these affected individuals to “prove” that they can be understood, may receive empathy and can feel themselves to be human beings. The consequences of alienation are emotionally destructive, and prescribed for the mentally ill at this time is a kind of psychological anarchy on the level of the self. "
Trying to label BPD mothers as harming their children doesn't help the mother with BPD get the help and respect and treatment she deserves for her BIOLOGICAL illness.
I think it is safe to say that having a parent with any mental illness is going to cause "Disorganization" to a child and isn't optimal although, I actually read a biography of an FBI agent who became one of the best in the field and he credited growing up with his schizophrenic mother for "honing" all of his razor sharp perception skills.
When we do away with stigma we help heal.
Speaking the truth openly is not stigma
Submitted by Widget20 on October 31, 2013 - 2:35pm
Speaking the truth about conditions and situations that are harmful to children isn't stigma.
Its just the truth.
If we speak the truth, speak openly about problems that need to be addressed and worked on, then we can deal with the truth and make things better for the person with a debilitating mental condition like bpd, and her kids. Or the person with alcoholism and her kids. Or the person with schizophrenia and her kids. Or the pedophile father and his kids.
but what is the point
Submitted by Joan on October 31, 2013 - 4:37pm
every mental illness could possibly be harmful to children… you don't know which child of which mother is going to be affected by that mental illness and to what extent. Hopefully they have another parent who can help their confusing situation out… in the meantime to trash the person with a mental illness and to assume that they are abusing their children just because they have a mental illness isn't necessary.
Why talk about the possibility of it harming children when you have a person who actually has a mental illness that is "harming" themselves we need to have open and non stigma perpetuating talks about the mental illness itself and how it relates to the person suffering not fear inducing what if about their children...
the point
Submitted by WW on November 14, 2013 - 9:37pm
The point of discussing all this is so that the children in such circumstances can be helped.
If the spouse or other relatives of the parent with bpd (or substance abuse, or whatever mental disorder the individual has) can become educated that having a secure attachment is *crucial* for a young child, then hopefully the spouse or other relative WILL STEP IN and provide the child with that crucial secure, safe, reliable attachment and caregiving, and will get the disordered primary caregiver parent to agree to get into therapy, for their child's sake.
The children of the disordered NEED for their other, more mentally healthy parent (or the other relatively mentally healthy adults in their family) to step in and be there for their child in a calm, consistent, reliable, rational and loving way even if their emotionally-disordered or substance-abusing parent can't be… and not just brush it off as a non-issue by thinking things like "Hey, kids are resilient, so all the screaming and hitting, or all the self-harming and suicide attempts, or the paranoia, or the dissociative behaviors, or all the neglect and rejection are no big deal…!" or "All mothers are good-enough mothers."
Denial or minimizing will prevent the minor children of the disordered from getting the help THEY need.
From the NAMI website
Submitted by anyom on November 1, 2013 - 9:38am
Even among other mental illnesses, BPD is surrounded by a phenomenon that maybe termed "surplus stigma."
Issues that promote stigma and, thus, further the BPD misunderstanding include: 1) theories on the development of the disorder, with a suspect position placed on parents similar to the erstwhile schizophrenogenic-mother concept
a direct quote from the NAMI website
Submitted by Widget20 on November 1, 2013 - 10:36am
I'm not understanding where you got your information; the following was copied, cut and pasted from the NAMI website:
"What is the cause of borderline personality disorder?
The exact causes of BPD remain unknown, although the roles of both environmental and biological factors are thought to play a role in people who develop this illness. While no specific gene has been shown to directly cause BPD, a number of different genes have been identified as playing a role in its development. The brain’s functioning, as seen in MRI testing, is often different in people with BPD, suggesting that there is a neurological basis for some of the symptoms associated with BPD.
Neuroimaging studies are not clinically helpful at this time to make the diagnosis and are research tools. A number of hormones (including oxytocin) and signaling molecules within the brain (e.g., neurotransmitters including serotonin) have been shown to potentially play a role in BPD. People who experience traumatic life events (e.g., physical or sexual abuse during childhood) are at increased risk of developing BPD, as are people with certain chronic medical illnesses in childhood.
The connection between BPD and other mental illnesses is well established. People with BPD are at increased risk for anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, eating disorders, and substance abuse. BPD is often misdiagnosed and many people find they wait years to get a proper diagnosis, which leads to a better care plan.
Many people with borderline personality disorder have a first-degree relative with a serious mental illness (e.g., bipolar disorder or schizophrenia). This is likely due to both genetic and environmental factors."
my quote was from an interview NAMI did with Perry Hoffman
Submitted by anyom on November 1, 2013 - 12:41pm
Save to myNAMI
20075
Borderline Personality Disorder: A Most Misunderstood Illness
by Perry D. Hoffman, Ph.D., President, National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality DisorderSurplus stigma
Even among other mental illnesses, BPD is surrounded by a phenomenon that maybe termed "surplus stigma."
Issues that promote stigma and, thus, further the BPD misunderstanding include: 1) theories on the development of the disorder, with a suspect position placed on parents similar to the erstwhile schizophrenogenic-mother concept; 2) frequent refusal by mental health professionals to treat BPD patients; 3) negative and sometimes pejorative web site information that projects hopelessness; and 4) clinical controversies as to whether the diagnosis is a legitimate one, a controversy that leads to the refusal of some insurance companies to accept BPD treatment for reimbursement consideration.
The schizophrenogenic-mother concept (as I am sure you are aware of) refers to when in psychiatry they tried to say that schizophrenia was caused by the mothers mental illness and or the assumption that some fault in mother/child bonding was the cause of schizophrenia. Then the focus of research moved on to examine marital relationships between mothers and fathers with the assumption that some kind of distortion in these relationships might impact on children and cause schizophrenia. Finally researchers began to take account of the family environment as a whole, theorising that any member of a family, or all the members of a family together, might somehow create conditions of stress that produced schizophrenia in a family member.
My point being that is eerily similar to what you are posting about BPD mothers and doesn't account for biology genes and that some children who have mothers with BPD are going to turn out perfectly ok so why further stigmatize the person with BPD? You are saying "it's just truth words that don't stigmatize" I am saying that Experts in the BPD field say that kind of word linkage DOES INDEED STIGMATIZE and dehumanize and cause further misunderstanding of a person with BPD
Your speaker appears to disagree with NAMI
Submitted by Widget20 on November 2, 2013 - 2:36am
The speaker you quoted apparently disagrees with the NAMI website article describing the underlying causes of bpd, then (NAMI indicates that its most likely due to a combination of inherited genetic predisposition plus an invalidating environment aka poor parenting.) So, there are apparently differing legitimate opinions about the etiology of bpd.
A recent study of schizophrenia patients appears to indicate that a subset of schizophrenia patients were initially misdiagnosed due to the presence of repeated suicide attempts, repeated self-harming behaviors, depression, and impulsive aggression, all of which are common to or associated with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. I've submitted a question regarding the initial diagnosis of these patients RE the possibility that in some patients, borderline personality disorder can mask underlying schizophrenia. I think this avenue of research deserves further study.
Regarding "stigma". Every single alcoholic I know who has openly admitted that they have alcohol addiction, admitted that they needed help, sought treatment for themselves, and are staying sober, has had to overcome the initial shame or "stigma" of admitting that they have a serious problem that they can't deal with on their own.
But each one of these people I know personally is a decent, caring human being who has put the needs of his or her family over their own personal feelings of being shamed or humiliated. I honor those people. I give them my support and encouragement, because they are brave and they care more about their family's needs than their own "dignity."
I feel the same way about those who have other addictions, or other mental disorders such as borderline pd. I admire, encourage and support those who are actively seeking help for themselves. That takes a lot of courage; "real balls", as you might say.
But there are some behaviors that *should* carry stigma, and should propel an individual who engages in such behaviors into treatment of their own free will: being an abusive, negligent, exploitative, suicidal, self-harming, paranoid, or rejecting parent are among such behaviors. *Whatever* disorder or addiction that causes a person to engage in such behaviors does need active treatment, for the sake of their children if for no other reason.
Minor children aren't meant to endure maltreatment, neglect or rejection by their parents, nor is a minor child meant to be or able to be their parent's live-in therapist, substitute spouse, or substitute parent; its an injustice to the child that needs to be addressed and ameliorated.
If alcoholics can take the "stigma" of saying, "Hi, my name is John, and I'm an alcoholic, but I'm in treatment for it now and I've been sober for 2 years" then those with other substance addictions and those with other mental illnesses need to "man up" and do the same.
You disagree with this author then
Submitted by anyom on November 2, 2013 - 1:46pm
you are implying that those that suffer psychosis, in order to avoid labels and be stigmatized, should admit that their sensory perceptions are skewed and "man up" as you say to achieve "real balls". (I think you are saying the courage of real balls makes you a real person?). Despite feeling shame, alienation and stigmatism, once they are able to say "Hi my name is John, and I am a psychotic schizophrenic, in treatment and I openly admit that my perceptions are faulty, then they deserve support encouragement admiration and you will honor them according to your post. Your saying the psychotic person needs to use reason and be rational to be valued.
I got from this article that perception (whether or not it involves fact) is very real to them based on their sensory and belief (perhaps superstitious belief) systems that may or may not involve reason but are still rational in some way to them whether or not they are reliable…. and this is something that on some level we all can relate to doing (whether we have a mental illness or not)…
"Reason may be seldom used by individuals in determination of belief. Individuals may believe what appeals to them, with little thought of rational aspects or consequences of belief. A large majority of people operate with belief systems or world views that are inconsistent, and, although some use of reason pervades the rationale of most people, rationale for beliefs is not necessarily tied to fact."
Since we all on some level do this, perhaps we should have empathy for the psychotic individual because
"To be told that what you seem to sense is not reality is terrifying. Delusions can be punitive, leading to learned helplessness and reduced frontal lobe activity, but the effort to find reinforcement while adhering to delusional perspectives may be compelling, if only in that the psychotic individual may feel that he will be able to “prove’ the legitimacy of his perspective, and thereby earn respect that is not forthcoming as he remains in the shadow of stigmatization as a “psychotic” individual."
"If mentally ill psychotic individuals were not denigrated by others in society, perhaps there would be less of a need in these affected individuals to “prove” that they can be understood, may receive empathy and can feel themselves to be human beings. "
You don't need to stigmatize and alienate an individual because they have a mental illness... because on some level we all use similar "skewed" perception, superstition, beliefs, reason, and rationalizations etc….
of course not
Submitted by Widget20 on November 2, 2013 - 3:57pm
Of course not. A person who is chronically, constantly or frequently psychotic (having frequent or continuous hallucinations, paranoia, fixed delusional ideation, impulsively violent, etc.) is sadly not capable of seeking help for themselves.
This sort of thing happens with senile dementia, for example. The person with advancing senile dementia often becomes a danger to himself/herself or to others *but isn't aware of it*, and so the legal guardianship of the individual is then assigned to someone else, like a spouse, a relative, or the state.
Its obvious that if a person is severely impacted by a psychotic disorder, then that person is going to need their family members or their doctor to get them the help they need, in some form of supervised care.
And as I mentioned before, its only when a person (with ANY disorder or addiction) is being chronically, frequently, intensely abusive to their kids, or to other people, or to their own self, those are the behaviors that should urgently propel a person to seek help for themselves (if they are functional enough to do so.) Even to the point of checking themselves in for residential treatment for a while, for the sake of their children.
Abusive behaviors (whether they're due to alcoholism, psychosis, brain injury or personality disorder, etc.) should NOT be tolerated (aka, *should* carry stigma) and a person who hurts or neglects their kids *ought to* swallow their pride and seek help for themselves if they're doing that kind of sick stuff.
A person who could openly say "Hi, my name is Jane and I have borderline pd, but I am in treatment for it and working hard to get better, because I love my kids and I want them to be safe and happy." should be commended and honored.
No One
Submitted by Grethen on November 2, 2013 - 7:11pm
NO ONE is condoning abusive or violent behavior (regardless of if it is done to children or adults BTW children can and do abuse/show violence to adults it swings both ways). But not all people with the same mental illnesses express abusive or violent behavior. In fact most schizophrenic (and your beloved Borderlines) are NOT violent.
I think that what people are trying to say is that some of the way mentally ill people "prove" their perceptions (they may do this violently) perhaps WOULD NOT OCCUR QUITE AS OFTEN If we as a society and a therapeutic community didn't stigmatize, alienate, and treat them as abhorrent and less than human. It is established that schizophrenic patients fare better in a more caring, supportive environment -the same is true for most mental illness. One way to do that is to get rid of the stigma by understanding perceptions... ours and theirs can share common ground. Even if they can't say "Hi, My name is Jane and I have…"
respectfully disagree
Submitted by Widget20 on November 5, 2013 - 10:56am
The research papers I've read show that any disorder that features high impulsivity and intense, inappropriate anger / difficulty controlling anger / chronic anger is going to result in aggressive behaviors directed towards others, including children. Its simply not true that those with borderline personality disorder are rarely violent. Statistics indicate that a high percentage of both men and women arrested for domestic abuse (including the abuse of minor children) have disorders that feature high impulsivity and anger-control impairment.
article
Submitted by Ann Olson Psy.D. on November 10, 2013 - 12:02pm
Thanks for your interest. The fact that random punishment can elicit behavior instead of quelling it is an aspect of my article that is counter-intuitive. One would expect that any punishment would suppress behavior. However, I agree that borderline pathology can create hyper-vigilance, even though punishment of the child as a result of the caregiver's erratic moods might diminish certain behaviors in the child.
The problem can be represented as a need to scrutinize the effects of punishment on the child in an effort to understand how the child's behavior is being reinforced. Moreover, there may be an element of cognition that leads to reappraisal of the circumstances of punishment in a way that allows the child to find positive and negative reinforcement in the punishment.
I agree
Submitted by Malty on November 13, 2013 - 1:54pm
It is the specific factor of "randomness", in either reward or punishment, that needs more study.
If a pigeon or a child has already been conditioned to understand that some specific behaviors will reliably elicit a reward, and other specific behaviors will reliably elicit a punishment, then to introduce the new factor of *random* rewards or *random* punishments, would throw the child's world (or the pigeon's world) into chaos. If no real, logical thread of predictability or control is available, then superstition will be substituted.
Why would this occur? My theory is that human beings and most mammals are not designed to endure chaos. We need some degree of predictability, and some control, or at least the illusion of predictability and control, in order to function to the best of our abilities: to thrive.
Total, utter chaos is anti-survival. The stress that Chaos induces wrecks the mind and the body. Which is why having an emotionally unstable, unpredictable primary caregiver who rewards or punishes for no discernable or logical reason can turn a child's world upside down; the child must learn to adapt to a nightmarishly unadaptable environment, learn to survive Chaos, and that can result in a child who has disorganized attachment: failure to successfully bond, and perhaps ongoing derailed emotional development.
ah yes Chaos
Submitted by Anonymous on November 13, 2013 - 10:31pm
"Which is why having an emotionally unstable, unpredictable primary caregiver who rewards or punishes for no discernable or logical reason can turn a child's world upside down; the child must learn to adapt to a nightmarishly unadaptable environment, learn to survive Chaos, and that can result in a child who has disorganized attachment: failure to successfully bond, and perhaps ongoing derailed emotional development."
This is what causes BPD in the first place. The BPD parent unwittingly got it from his/her parents… chaos is circular...
True, but not just bpd
Submitted by WW on November 14, 2013 - 1:33pm
A child's inability to form a close, loving, trusting bond with an unpredictable, erratic, inconsistent primary caregiver can result in other problems or disorders in the child/adult child as well, its not just limited to BPD.
But because BPD in particular is *defined as* inconsistent, erratic, dramatic behaviors per the diagnostic traits, BPD would be high on the list of conditions predisposing poor or disorganized bonding in the children of such individuals.
I agree with you that it can be a cyclical issue: a poorly parented child can go on to be a poor parent themselves, but its not an absolutely certain outcome.
The individual child's innate (genetically determined) resilience and sensitivity factors can sometimes withstand or overcome the poor parenting they received.
But if poor parenting can be recognized and addressed as a very real issue, and programs can be devised to assist people who are at risk for engaging in poor parenting behaviors (such as patients who have BPD, schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse problems, etc.) then perhaps the cycle can be broken.
BPD and superstition
Submitted by Ann Olson Psy.D. on November 21, 2013 - 2:00pm
I think your idea regarding superstitious behavior as a response to the mother with borderline personality disorder is fascinating, as well. It would be interesting to develop thought in this regard.
Transgender proves stigma hurts
Submitted by Gretchen on October 31, 2013 - 4:41pm
Did you know that 40% of transgender individuals attempt suicide? That number goes down if their family accepts the child and it goes down to just 10% if both the family and the community accept and respect the transgender individual!
This directly shows how stigma and non acceptance of a biological variation can affect one psychologically.
Stigma is Psychological anarchy
Submitted by Gretchen on October 31, 2013 - 5:53pm
according to a study published by the NIH
:The most pervasive factor affecting parents' access to and participation in mental health services is the stigma accompanying mental illness.4 The stigma of mental illness is likely borne out of misconceptions of mental illness and exacerbated by disproportionate media misrepresentations of people with mental illnesses as violent or unfit. The stigma keeps many parents from seeking the help they need,5 particularly in cases where they are afraid of losing custody of their children. The stigma of mental illness is more severe than that of other serious or chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Being labeled with a psychiatric disorder can profoundly and negatively affect the experiences of parents and their family members, adults and children alike.
Empathy is the KEY to working with mental illness
Submitted by Grethen on November 2, 2013 - 2:45pm
Take the dreaded BPD as you all have suggested for instance. It can be a very difficult illness to work with causing therapists untold negative reactions to patients, but a key to working with a BPD is to have empathy true empathy it is the only way to connect with a patient that can't (hasn't yet developed the perspectives necessary) to control her mind in a way that a healthier mind would :
"Jay a mental health worker is overflowing with all the unbearable emotion she (a bpd) inspires in him. Using those feelings as a guide to the patient’s emotional experience (countertransference in the broad sense) is the only way to make the work bearable for the therapist, and the only way you can truly help someone this troubled. In my experience, it also helps you feel more compassionate toward their suffering. It is painful and often terrifying to feel murderous rage.
If Jay the therapist, with his healthier mind and greater mental capacities, finds it so difficult, IMAGINE HOW HARD IT MUST BE FOR HIS PATIENT TO BEAR WITH HER EXPERIENCE. By using your reactions as a guide to understanding your client (instead of feeling quietly guilty because you hate her), you’ll truly empathize with her experience, and probably feel a lot more sympathy as well.
What I recommend instead is to use those feelings to connect with her. In my response to Jay, I suggested that he say something to his patient like this: “When you can’t force me do what you want, it makes you so furious you hate my guts and want to kill me.” It’s clear that she’s struggling with murderous rage and it’s important to name it for her, to articulate the emotions and impulses she’s feeling.
It’s easy to assume that she knows what she’s feeling; the truth is, her mind is continually blown apart by the violence of her feelings; she doesn’t really know what they are in any way you or I would recognize. It’s the job of the therapist to help her bear with those feelings and learn to understand them — very difficult work."
** Of course It is easy for us (with a healthier mind and greater mental capacity) to make value judgements about her right/legal and wrong/illegal behavior and of course anything against the law is NOT condoned as acceptable behavior. Not trying to make excuses for unacceptable behavior, just trying to
GO BEYOND that to EMPATHIZE (not STIGMATIZE) in order to *CURE the mental illness and relate to the patient so they can be cured… it works.
Schizophrenia
Submitted by Anon on November 2, 2013 - 10:29pm
I have a schizophrenic son. I appreciate when people dispel the notion of stigma. Just because some schizophrenic patients are violent doesn't represent all schizophrenic patients. When people hear my son is schizophrenic they seem to write him off as a threat to society and worthless.
Schizophrenia can manifest in many different ways some doctors are theorizing that it is actually several different disorders. My son is doing well in treatment off of antipsychotics. When people hear that he is not medicated they act as if I am a threat to society for not medicating him. I have given up trying to explain as the stigma is too far ingrained for most to be receptive too understanding.
My son has value and worth even if he doesn't think in a logical way or necessarily take responsibility in the traditional way for his actions. I would like people to open their minds up to what they don't understand about mental illness and get away from the concept of is it going to hurt me or not.
What you are asking is pretty much impossible
Submitted by anonymous on November 3, 2013 - 7:42pm
See, I think you are asking for people to do something impossible, when you ask us to get away from the concept of "is it going to hurt me or not?"
Of course I'm going to be extremely concerned if I learn (for example) that a neighbor of mine had been arrested or jailed or been in a psychiatric hospital for engaging in violent behaviors (beating someone up, stabbing, choking or shooting someone, etc.).
I would want to know the reasons for the violence. Was it an act of self-defense, or rage, or was it revenge? I would wonder if my neighbor is an alcoholic, or if he has a mental disorder like intermittent explosive disorder or another disorder featuring high impulsivity and difficulty controlling anger? I would wonder if he had guns in his house. I would wonder, has he done this a lot, or just once? I would wonder, what are the chances that he would become violent toward me, or my family?
My mind would be spinning with anxiety in such a situation.
I'm sorry, but its just not possible to take violence lightly, particularly if you are responsible for the safety of your own children, pets, or spouse.
But my son is NOT violent and yes he is mentally ill
Submitted by Anonymous on November 3, 2013 - 8:28pm
Mental illness doesn't necessarily mean violence. There is such a misunderstanding and STIGMA around mental illness that when people hear that someone is mentally ill ,they automatically think they are violent.
On the whole, most people who suffer from mental illness are not violent. PMS can cause violence in it's extreme form. Most women who suffer from PMS are not violent but some can be. Should we then assume that if a woman suffers from PMS she is likely to be violent? Should we stigmatize women in the workplace and those that work with children because of the very low percentage who actually are violent?
My son has a catatonic type of Schizophrenic. When people hear he has schizophrenia and he is not on meds they think I am asking for it, that soon he will become violent. They have no idea what he is really like. He sits like a pretzel for hours. He initially did well on meds but then developed worsening so we took him off and now with therapy he is able to have a better life and is responding well.
You are more likely to become violent than he is. Remember we all have the capacity in us to become violent.
My post was about how people respond to *acts of violence*
Submitted by anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 1:32am
YOU are reading into or *assuming* that in my scenario about a neighbor that I wrote about in my previous post, I would be very concerned to learn that my neighbor was schizophrenic.
But that is NOT what I wrote.
I wrote that I would be highly concerned to learn that my neighbor had *done violence*. And I wrote that I would *wonder why*.
It could be that my violent neighbor is an alcoholic. Or brain-injured. Or perhaps a meth or heroin addict. Or maybe he has intermittent explosive disorder, or borderline personality disorder, or paranoid (non-catatonic) schizophrenia. Or maybe the guy just shot someone in self-defense. I wouldn't necessarily know, but I would sure as hell want to find out, because the reason for his violence would be likely to have an impact on the safety of me and my family, if we were close neighbors.
There happens to be a young man with severe autism who lives in my building under the supervision of his family of origin. They take good care of him when he visits them, and he lives most of the time in a residential facility.
None of us here are afraid of this young man (even though he sometimes makes loud screams and vocalizations which can be startling if you're not used to it) because we've known him since he was a little guy and *he has never done any violence.* I and the other tenants know him, greet him, and are kind to him and his family.
However, if for some reason this poor, severely autistic young man WERE to become violent and hurt his dad or his sister or anyone else, then I WOULD be afraid of him.
Its normal to be afraid of violent people, particularly if you have young children to keep safe.
My POST WAS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO HEARING
Submitted by anonymous on November 4, 2013 - 12:26pm
my son has schizophrenia. They immediately think he is going to be violent! Whether or not he has EVER been violent is irrelevant to them.
I am asking people to do away with their initial media- hyped stigma response of "is he going to hurt me" when the fact is he has never been violent... I wish the media focused more on true understanding of what mental illness is actually like and people would take the time to understand.
By people, I also mean people in the therapeutic community. I think there is a trend to automatically medicate (to placate those around so they feel safe that violence is not going to be a problem) because the patient is in a drug induced stupor he, for sure, won't be capable of violence or acting out. The problem I have is that Some of those patients don't really need to be medicated and can fare just as well in a therapeutic supportive environment without medication!
Medication can the problem
Submitted by Joan on November 4, 2013 - 3:37pm
My sister is ADD, she may or may not also be Bipolar as it may just be the medication she is taking that makes her appear to be Bipolar… She takes Ritalin for ADD.
Ritalin has caused her to have 3 bouts of Psychosis that have landed her in the hospital on a 3 day psych holds. Full on psychosis, during which she was not violent, just insisting that her "the hamburger is poisoning me" perception of the world was accurate so she was stopping traffic and cops in NYC to get help from" the hamburger that was chasing her".
The first time they diagnoses Bipolar and sent her home on a mood stabilizer. She also continued the Ritalin. The mood stabilizer did nothing for her except destroy her Thyroid. They took her off of MS and put her on thyroid meds plus Ritalin. A year later doubling up on Ritalin one day (forgot she already took it)=Psychosis. Psych hold. Another year later same thing. I do not believe she has Bipolar I believe she has Ritalin induced psychosis that looks like Bipolar. But she won't stop taking Ritalin because she is sure she is ADD. I think the Ritalin is messing up her brain!
That's the whole point
Submitted by Babs on November 4, 2013 - 11:11pm
You have illustrated a point I want to make. People who are not able to stay firmly linked to reality for WHATEVER reason (bad LSD trip, mixing the wrong prescription meds, traumatic brain injury, senile dementia or some other psychotic disorder like schizophrenia, or are severely impacted by intermittent explosive disorder or by borderline pd, etc.)... truly are NOT able to care for themselves properly RE taking their medications. They need to be in supervised care.
If you have trouble with your memory and/or have frequent breaks with reality, then you are going to do things like accidentally overdose yourself, or mix medications that should not be mixed, or perhaps just forget to take your meds.
Then you wind up running around in the streets stopping traffic or (God forbid) causing accidents or getting hit by a car, or other dangerous self-harming or other-harming behaviors. Before we found a good nursing home for him, dad (who developed senile dementia) would somehow manage to get outside at night and wander around in the dark, and could easily have fallen into the ravine.
If a person has fried their brains abusing alcohol or abusing drugs or has dementia or a brain injury or a personality disorder that features high impulsivity, or a psychotic disorder, then that individual needs to be in supervised care so they don't hurt themselves or other people. Its sad, but its true.
Wait you missed my point
Submitted by Joan on November 5, 2013 - 8:46am
She doesn't have any disorders. She makes 7 figures selling real estate in Manhattan and is very successful...but someone convinced her that she has ADD. The psychosis came from the medication which she probably doesn't need to take in the first place. She is nearing 50 lots of menopausal women suffer forgetfulness occasionally especially when they are very busy with other things and have a lot going on. She doesn't need to be put in a home she needs to get off of the psych medication ... She doesn't need supervised care... The key word is frequent she does not have frequent breaks with reality. Her psychiatrist needs to take her off of a medication that clearly has side effects that are dangerous for her.
her behaviors are alarming
Submitted by Babs on November 5, 2013 - 9:50am
I'm finding it difficult to believe that IF your sister is seeing a psychiatrist, and has had psychotic breaks due to her misuse of prescription medications the psychiatrist prescribed, that her psychiatrist hasn't done anything about it; hasn't changed her prescription or placed your sister in at least temporary supervised care so she can be observed for a while and has a chance to "dry out" from her misuse of prescription meds.
Does her psychiatrist not even know about the psychotic episode your sister had (or other problems? I believe you mentioned more than one problem your sister has had RE her prescription med usage?) and what caused it?
Either the psychiatrist is incompetent, or is being kept in the dark, or something, because that's a big part of what a psychiatrist is trained to do: observe his/her patients and how the patients are responding to medications.
Its a connundrum.
If a person is having memory problems or psychotic breaks with reality, then simple logic (as well as real-life examples) make it clear that that individual is AT RISK of self-harm, and potentially harm to others.
And yet such a person is not under supervised care. But because she is NOT able to manage her medication properly, she is in real danger of accidentally overdosing herself, or mixing meds that should not be mixed (a combination of anti-depressants and alcohol can be lethal) or, forgetting to take to take her meds, or deciding without her psychiatrist's knowledge that she is "just fine now" and stops taking her meds without the psychiatrist's supervision.
It makes no sense. It should be obvious that if a person needs psychoactive meds, then they need supervision taking them.
Doesn't add up
Submitted by Widget20 on November 5, 2013 - 10:41am
If your sister "does not have any disorders", then why on earth would she be seeing a psychiatrist? That doesn't make sense at all.
*Any psychotic disorders
Submitted by Joan on November 5, 2013 - 11:57am
I meant she doesn't have any psychotic disorders or any major psychiatric disorder. In NYC everybody that makes big money has a psychiatrist! It's comical. Somehow she went to one (if you ask me I think she heard that Ritalin or Adderall now I can't remember which one (oh no memory lapse!) can help you lose weight and get more work done.
The psych doc said ok you are ADD here is your prescription. a year later she accidentally doubled up and psychotic episode. The hospital didn't say it was from doubling up on Ritalin, no they said Bipolar. (No one has ever told her that you could have a psychotic episode from Rtalin... until a FRIEND who happens to be a pharm. rep. told her and we have been looking into it.)
The psychiatrist said Bipolar and ADD run hand in hand lets try to add a mood stabilizer which did nothing but wreck her thyroid. Off of MS and on to thyroid meds plus Ritalin. No one ever warned her that an inadvertent doubling up of Ritalin could cause Psychosis! She didn't realize she had to be EXTRA careful not to inadvertently double up.
ANYWAY, my point is instead of suggesting that psychosis could have come from Ritalin they led her to believe it was Bipolar! No one has suggested that she try going off of Ritalin for a year and then see if she has any psychosis… instead they keep her on a medication that can cause psychosis and tell her she now has Bipolar! (Do Bipolar's only have 1 episode a year that will coincide with extra ADD meds dosage) YES I think it's irresponsible Psychiatry!!
And when you say she should be supervised and evaluated she was for 3 3day psych holds (the last 2 they didn't give any diagnosis the hospital said defer dx) I think the hospital should have alerted her that taking excess Ritalin can cause psychosis ... they did not!
amazing
Submitted by Widget20 on November 5, 2013 - 4:44pm
In my opinion your sister needs a different psychiatrist; the one she has doesn't seem to be very competent AT ALL. And your sister isn't well enough to be without supervision RE taking her meds, sadly.
Its important to understand that IF your sister actually does have bipolar disorder, that IS a very serious condition and it DOES include psychotic episodes that can occur during extreme manic or extreme depressive states.
Those who are severely affected by a mood disorder like bipolar disorder, to the point where they are on psychotropic medication, DO need supervision so that they will not accidentally overdose themselves or forget to take their meds or decide to just stop taking their meds.
That is my point.
If a person needs serious psychotropic meds, then that person needs supervision in order to take the meds properly.
And people who are on serious psychotropic medication are in no condition to be raising children alone and unsupervised. Children need mentally healthy parenting in order to grow up mentally healthy themselves. Its cruel and irresponsible to leave a child in the care of someone who is so emotionally unstable, emotionally fragile, at high risk for suicide, at high risk for psychotic episodes, that they need to take serious mood-stabilizing medications.
huh? No children involved...
Submitted by joan on November 5, 2013 - 7:07pm
My sister doesn't have any children. Wow you now have imagined her to be harming children … I sense an agenda you have …
She is NOT on mood stabilizers either. She is not suicidal, she is not fragile, she is not emotionally unstable. SHE just can't program her VCR or read the directions for her phone and she gets side tracked easily yet she sells millions of dollars of real estate successfully in NYC. Every wealthy New yorker has a therapist or psych guy so they can "optimize their work" It is like a New York tradition or something ...ask Woody Allen. She is a workaholic.
I think at some point the Doctor or the Hospital should have said "psychotic episode what meds are you on" Oh, that medication could cause a psychotic episode BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO DOUBLE UP instead of saying Bipolar… and leading her down that path when she had no other symptoms of Bipolar… Give me a break about saying she needs supervision when taking meds … making a mistake on your dosage once a year when you have not been warned to be extra careful is no big deal….esp after it happened twice the hospital or doctor still didn't warn her...
MY POINT is Drs need to be more careful when prescribing medication to people... they are VERY QUICK to give Medication out and more medication when MAYBE IT REALLY ISN'T NEEDED!!!
best of luck to your sister
Submitted by Widget20 on November 5, 2013 - 10:31pm
Here's hoping that your sister who:
is under the care of a psychiatrist,
is prescribed heavy-duty psychotropic medication,
is having difficulty taking her meds properly,
and
has been under observation for a psychotic episode (at least once)
will remain *just fine*, because *nothing is wrong with her* and she is
experiencing all this stuff *for no apparent reason*, other than indirectly iatrogenic.
Best of luck to both of you.
(My comment RE children was not specifically about your sister; it was about anyone who is on psychotropic medication due to serious mental disorders that include the behaviors of psychosis, or memory loss, or dysregulated emotions, or difficulty controlling anger, or suicidal or self harming behaviors. But that is a relief that no children were impacted by your sister's psychotic episode; a child would likely find that highly upsetting.)
Black and white
Submitted by Joan on November 6, 2013 - 10:27am
wouldn't be nice if the world was so black and white like that? But unfortunately the world sometimes can have many shades of grey...
typical
Submitted by Widget20 on November 6, 2013 - 11:09am
You are responding exactly the way my personality-disordered dad would respond when I attempted to have a reasoned discussion with him about pretty much any subject. Yes, he was a male who had BPD. He was incapable of conceding a point. If I laid the facts out before him and he couldn't argue back effectively or defend his point, he resorted to calling me crazy, deflecting and redirecting the argument. It was the verbal equivalent of knocking the chessboard off the table and screaming, "You CHEATED!"
So, been there, experienced that. Yawn.
Pot calls the kettle black
Submitted by Joan on November 6, 2013 - 12:15pm
Seems to me I could retort exactly the same way.
My point simply was that hospitals and doctors might be aggravating a mental health situation by the non-judicious use of medication and it's know side effects. I am allowed to have an opinion.
I throw out my opinion on a page relating to psychosis because not all psychosis is due to a psychological disorder. Psychosis can and is caused sometimes by medication. A good thing to know if you are taking medication and don't have any known other symptoms of a psychotic psychological disorder. Medications might not be as benign as one thinks.
people aren't given psychotrophic meds for no reason
Submitted by WW on November 16, 2013 - 12:56am
A psychiatrist would be stripped of his/her right to practice medicine, if he/she were to just hand out seriously heavy-duty psychotrophic medication to a patient who does not need it.
The disorder must exist first; meds are not handed out for no reason.
A patient must FIRST be evidencing symptoms of mood disorder, or psychotic disorder, or anxiety disorder BEFORE a psychiatrist will recommend treatment that may includes a heavy-duty medication that stabilizes mood, quells violence, or ameliorates hallucinating.
You are making it sound like psychiatrists put people on psychotropic drugs when there is no disorder (no mood disorder, no psychotic disorder, no anxiety disorder) to begin with, therefor no reason to use psychotrophic meds as treatment, and that just isn't true.
My sister was able to easily
Submitted by Joan on November 16, 2013 - 2:11pm
My sister was able to easily be prescribed Ritalin or Adderall I don't know if they are considered heavy psychotrophic drugs or not. It is quite easy to convince a psychiatrist you have ADD.
The drugs caused a psychotic event. At that point instead of telling her to go off of the Stimulant and then see if psychosis came back or not, they added Bipolar drugs that then damaged her thyroid. etc
NO ONE SAID STOP TAKING MEDS AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY SYMPTOMS. She told her psych doc she was ADD so she could get more work done. Bam... he prescribed. Adderal She never had ANY SYMPTOMS OF BIPOLAR OR PSYCHOSIS BEFORE GOING ON THE MEDS.
While on Adderal, she had psychosis. They then prescribed more meds and it snowballed! IMO they should beware that psychosis can be a side effect of Adderal and if someone suddenly presents with psychosis before diagnosing Bipolar they might want to make sure it wasn't just a side effect of Adderal!
And Psychiatrists do put people on heavy psychotropic drugs when they might not be needed because they AMA pediatrics just warned doctors to stop over prescribing antipsychotics for children because their reports indicated they were WAY OVERPRESCRIBED!!! Prescriptions have now gone down by 50%.
So, your sister lied to a psychiatrist to get meds?
Submitted by WW on November 16, 2013 - 8:22pm
I'm sorry, but your story about your sister just isn't making any sense at all, now. Now you are saying that your sister had no disorders at all but she LIED to a psychiatrist about having ADD symptoms just so she could get some meds?!
Holy cow.
No ethical psychiatrist would just put someone on heavy-duty psychotrophic medication for no reason; so either:
*your story is a complete fabrication, or
*your sister is lying to YOU about what's really going on, or
*your sister is seriously mentally ill (nobody in their right mind lies to get meds that they don't need) and she is messing around with mixing meds that could wind up really harming her (for example: alcohol plus antidepressants is lethal), or
*your sister is seeing some third-rate poorly trained "psychiatrist" who doesn't know what he's doing and should be disbarred… or,
* some combination of the above.
I hope that your sister gets some real help from a real, qualified psychiatrist before she accidentally destroys herself messing around with meds that she doesn't need. Holy freaking cow.
Your Anger inappropriate
Submitted by Joan on November 19, 2013 - 5:37pm
The story is completely true. I don't quite understand your anger about it and all of your imaginings about my sister and her motivations. These kind of things do happen and more often than you might think.
Doctors spend a whole 5 mins with you before prescribing meds... ok if it is your first visit you may get 20 mins of history where you can make up whatever you want. not uncommon. I am told the problem for this is insurance and the amount they will pay the doctor($75 initial/ 35$ med management). If you want a more "thorough consultation" you have to go at your expense ($350 hr)not as an insurance patient.
I do not know if my sister truly has ADD or not. Clearly she thinks that she does. (I am not so sure)
She does not however have Bipolar Disorder! The problem lies in when, at 47yrs old and 6 months of Adderall , she suddenly had a psychotic episode. Without any other symptoms and without taking her off of Adderall they diagnosed her now as Bipolar and started prescribing for that etc etc. I have read her medical records This is true NO ONE TOLD US A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE COULD COME FROM THE MEDICATION they all said it must now be Bipolar. 2 years later at least they aren't saying Bipolar anymore…
MY WARNINGS TO PEOPLE ARE THESE MEDS CAN CAUSE PSYCHOTIC REACTIONS AS A SIDE EFFECT… BE CAREFUL! YOU HAVE TO BE YOUR OWN ADVOCATE DON"T BLINDLY TRUST DR'S as they don't always take the time to get it right!!! quite frankly I really don't care if you choose to believe me or not, the fact is out is true! Ru it by a DR I know they will say this can indeed happen! It is the sad state of our medical system! OK. I'm done. I am not going to respond to you anymore…
The REAL "take away" message:
Submitted by WW on November 19, 2013 - 7:21pm
The real "takeaway" message of your story about your sister is:
"Never, EVER LIE to your psychiatrist about having "symptoms" you do not actually have, just in order to get psychiatric medications that you do not actually need.
That's a really, REALLY dangerous and stupid thing to do because it can result in inducing a really bad reaction in yourself (psychotic episodes) particularly if you take the unneeded meds the wrong way (too many too often, or if you stop the med suddenly, etc.) or mix them with other substances."
THAT is the real message, or the moral of this story.
And I'm not angry, I'm shocked; supposedly rational, reasonable adults can do some incredibly stupid things.
Your sister is genuinely lucky that she didn't wind up causing herself more harm than she did, by pulling a stunt like LYING TO HER DOCTOR in order to acquire serious prescription meds that she didn't need and then she took them incorrectly.
Holy freaking cow.
Talk about harming children...
Submitted by anoy on November 5, 2013 - 8:01pm
This couple is suing to get GAY CONVERSION THERAPY EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SHOW TO BE HARMFUL TO CHILDREN BY THE AmerAssPediatrics. and they are the ones that caused the problem in the first place! read on
A couple has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Chris Christie for signing a law this summer prohibiting licensed therapists from providing gay-to-straight “conversion” therapy to children, saying it infringes on their rights to free speech, religion and to parent their teenage son “free from unconstitutional government interference.”
The unidentified parents sought conversion therapy on behalf of their 15-year-old son, who began “experiencing gender identity disorder when he was around nine years old,” according to the complaint, filed in federal court in Camden.
The teen has “frequently thought of killing himself because he did not like himself. … He remembers having a bias against the male gender and thinking boys were stupid because his mother talked negatively about his father,” according to the complaint. “He experienced feelings of despair because he believed that he would never be good enough if he remained a boy.”
*Of course you are probably going to say the mother is BPD when remember we don't actually know that she might just be an idiot
A PMS BPD link… look out the culprit might really be Estrogen!!!
Submitted by Gretchen on November 3, 2013 - 8:34pm
Individual differences in women's estrogen cycles may be related to the expression of BPD symptoms in female patients. A study found that women's BPD symptoms were predicted by changes in estrogen levels throughout their menstrual cycles, an effect that remained significant when the results were controlled for a general increase in negative affect
Symptoms experienced due to disturbed levels of estrogen are often misdiagnosed as BPD, like extreme mood swings and depression. As endometriosis is an estrogen responsive disease, severe PMS and PMDD symptoms are observed, that are both physical and psychological in nature. Hormone-responsive mood disorders also known as reproductive depression are seen to cease only after menopause or hysterectomy.
Psychotic episodes treated with estrogen in women with BPD show considerable improvement but must not be prescribed to those with endometriosis as it worsens their endocrine condition. Mood stabilizing drugs used for bipolar disorder do not help patients with disturbed estrogen levels. A correct diagnosis between endocrine disorder and psychiatric disorder must be made.
Post Comment
advertisement
