Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that psychiatry finds it more plausible to change the individual rather than the society that is making him or her miserable.

But the society is made up of individuals. So if it is how we behave with each other and how we interact with each other and what we force each other to do that makes us miserable, then why wouldn't psychiatry address that? If it directed its efforts towards that that would be much more effective.

In the current state psychiatry protects the status quo and ensures that it will remain relevant in the future, as many people will never adapt to what they are forced to endure. But there are many people who don't force others to do anything. It is usually the ones who are forced and constrained who suffer, and those who force others who are seen as the healthy ones. So fundamentally psychiatry protects the few who benefit from the constraints imposed onto the majority.

The one under pressure slaving away every day suffers and is diagnosed as mentally sick, as if to say why do you suffer? A good slave doesn't suffer. So let's give you some chemicals so you can be a good slave again. While the one putting the pressure enjoys the rewards and the good life, and protects his position in part thanks to psychiatry which justifies the status quo. If you're a slave and you suffer, it's not because you're a slave, it's because there is something wrong with you.

The problem with psychiatry is that a lot of those practicing it are themselves nutzo.

I wanted to answer this question but, overwhelmed by the many notions I would need to explain first, I decided not to. Where to start? Ufff... Does it happen to other people? The simple answer is: the first comment is wrong because is based on a whole representation of the Universe that is wrong, at odds with manifest reality, especially as social and human spheres are concerned. It is possible that other members feel the same about my comments, as I know so little about many things. But now it´s my turn to feel overwhelmed.

Your view on this doesn't really make any sense, because it can't be just environment. In other words, it's almost as if you're trying to remove the affected individual from the equation.

The environment can be the cause of the affected individual's issues. But the environment can't be identical to the affected individual. We still have an affected individual that we need to deal with, and that means addressing how they've been affected, which means addressing what's going on with their brain. That may not solve the problem long-term. If the cause is something environmental, then the environment needs to be changed or you'll never permanently relieve the affects the environment had on the individual. But you can't pretend that there's not an affected individual, as if the issue is ONLY the environment.

Mental issues are going to arise via some combination of genetics/internal causes and environment/external causes, with the balance being different in different situations, with different individuals.

All of this is just the same with non-mental ailments. The cause might be genetic/internal or environmental/external. When we're talking about an environmental cause we still have an affected individual --the guy's arm is still broken because his neighbor hit him with a baseball bat. It's not as if the neighbor is the extent of the problem. We have a broken arm to deal with, too. If we treat the arm and don't take care of the environmental issue then we might wind up with another broken arm, but that doesn't make it the case that there isn't a broken arm, just like focusing on environment doesn't make it the case that there is no issue in someone's brain.

Psychology/psychiatry have always proceeded with an awareness of environmental causal factors, by the way.

Also, environmental causes are often things like diet, or toxic contaminants in buildings, soil, etc. It can be interactions with other people, too, of course, and it might be interactions with a particular person.

The problem with psychiatry is that a lot of those practicing it are themselves nutzo. — Jake

Yeah, the old joke is that "Betty majored in psychology in order to try to figure out what's wrong with her."

Psychiatry is partly right and partly wrong. There's something wrong with a human who manifests a response to antagonism by being harmful to oneself thus causing their own suffering. Unlike caged animals, we have the capacity to think and work our way out of problems. However, it is also true that usually, our problems stem from our conditioning (both internal and external) and, to some significant extent, from our interpretations of those conditions.

I think the best solution would be psychology and psychiatry working together to determine as much of the causes of mental suffering as possible and where the environment (external conditioning) cannot be changed, perhaps, the individual (internal conditioning) must.
One of the prevailing symptoms of our primitivity is that, the human collective or society, still demands that we sacrifice individuals for its sake. The society has not yet learnt how to take care of all its members and their distinct proclivities. Thus, we must endure this collective madness a while longer.

There are physiological markers (hence the shift from “mental illness” to “brain disorder”). They are not black and white and not easy to see.

Medication does relieve the suffering of many. That said there is a lot we don’t understand, but it is clear enough physiology is not defined by “environment” only. Some people are predispositioned to this or that and the “environment” can trigger innate “disorders.”

it can't be just environment. In other words, it's almost as if you're trying to remove the affected individual from the equation.

We still have an affected individual that we need to deal with, and that means addressing how they've been affected.

But you can't pretend that there's not an affected individual, as if the issue is ONLY the environment.

When we're talking about an environmental cause we still have an affected individual --the guy's arm is still broken because his neighbor hit him with a baseball bat. It's not as if the neighbor is the extent of the problem. We have a broken arm to deal with, too — Terrapin Station

Of course the problem is not the environment alone, it is the combination of the individual plus their environment. When I was saying the problem is within the environment, I was taking the point of view of the individual, who is told there is something wrong in in his brain that is the cause of his suffering, while it is often the constraints imposed upon him that make him suffer, constraints that go against his desires.

Faced with such constraints, the individual may come up with intricate strategies to cope with the associated suffering. If he doesn't find a way to cope then that manifests as depression. Maybe he will constantly be on his guards and that will manifest as generalized anxiety. Maybe he will assume others' intentions and that will manifest as paranoia. Maybe he will internally imitate such or such person depending on the situation and that will manifest as schizophrenia.

I'm saying that a lot of mental suffering stems from the constraints imposed by society. And that a lot of psychiatry has to do with trying to adapt the individual to these constraints, rather than finding out why these constraints are there in the first place and how we could remove them.

Some constraints are seemingly unavoidable, we want to survive and we need water and food to survive, so needing water or food and not finding it would be suffering. But many constraints in society are imposed by people onto others, in some direct or indirect way, and those are responsible for immense suffering, but psychiatry doesn't attempt to address them and assumes them to be healthy, and instead attempts to cure the constrained individual who in fact suffers because of how he is constrained.

Of course it is easier for the one who constrains to say that the individual who is constrained suffers because there is something wrong in his brain, rather than because he is constrained, even though if the roles were switched the newly constrained would be the one suffering.

In looking for issues within the brain, psychiatry is legitimizing the way society function, with its rulers and its ruled, and blinding itself to the fact that many are constrained by others in ways that would make pretty much any human being suffer if put into the same situation. Attempting to cure an imagined illness in their brains seems like a hopeless venture.

I see a broken arm as a poor analogy for a "mental illness", I would say a more accurate analogy would be that of breathing poisonous air. Some people are more susceptible to it than others, it is more poisonous in some places than some others, some are more able to find helpful techniques to cope with it than others, some become affected durably by it and we give them sleeping pills so they forget about their suffering, but we never focus on the root cause which is the poisonous air and the root issue which is how to clean it.

What sorts of constraints are you talking about? Could you give some examples?

Psychiatry is partly right — BrianW

Great! In respect of the part that is right, it must be right in that part, to be right. Tell us then, what part is that, and how is it right in that part?

What sorts of constraints are you talking about? Could you give some examples? — Terrapin Station

Being forced to do a mind-numbing repetitive task for 8 hours a day every day, being treated more or less badly by some superior who tells you what to do, feeling constrained to submit for fear of losing that job, having to do that for 20 or 30 or 40 years before you can have a house that you can call your own, being unable to go settle anywhere without some landowner telling you that you can't settle there and forcing you to leave unless you have enough numbers on an account to give him in exchange, thus being forced to take part in society which often involves doing a mind-numbing repetitive task for 8 hours a day every day...

Being forced to do a mind-numbing repetitive task for 8 hours a day every day, being treated more or less badly by some superior who tells you what to do, feeling constrained to submit for fear of losing that job, having to do that for 20 or 30 or 40 years before you can have a house that you can call your own, — leo

Okay, but for something like that, presumably we would (or at least could) be talking about a job where there are a lot of employees, right? So if we're going to claim that the mental issues are caused by the environment there, is the environment causing the same mental issues for everyone? If not, why not? Wouldn't the only room for difference be something about the individual's mind?

What "psychiatry says" needs to be heard together with other forms of psychology, including clinicians who are not doctors in the way psychiatrists are trained to be. The very terms of diagnosis found in the DSM are not "physical" in the way other problems of the body are described. At the very least, evidence in regard to what is wrong involves engagement with the person and what they say. It is not an MRI.

There are lively disputes in the profession how to establish good models. I linked to the most far flung global example to suggest how steamy it gets when you get close to actual cases. But that background lets me point out that most institutions use teams where different kinds of evidence are considered before deciding upon treatment.

Great! In respect of the part that is right, it must be right in that part, to be right. Tell us then, what part is that, and how is it right in that part? — tim wood

It is right to find ways to quell the internal conditions of a disturbed person. It does not mean that it's the ultimate solution but it's a good standby option. For the moment, mental problems are harder to diagnose and so there's a lot of dependence on a trial and error basis of progression.

It is right to find ways to quell the internal conditions of a disturbed person. — BrianW

And good too! Of course yours is an extremely vague expression of what some people seem to have as goal. I suspect it's vague to the point of being without meaning. If you care to refine it, I'll read your amendation.

But there's a different point to be made, and for that we'll have to introduce some precision in expression. A psychiatrist is an MD, a medical doctor, with a specialty in psychiatry. What is psychiatry? This from online seems as good as anything for a start, "Psychiatry is the branch of medicine."

A psychologist is a person with an academic degree. What is psychology? From online, again, "Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior."

For completeness, psychoanalysis. What is psychoanalysis? Online: "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind, which together form a method of treatment for mental-health disorders." A psychoanalyst (the term is not protected by law; anyone can claim to be one) is - should be - a person who has undergone both training in psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis itself.

These definitions, if you pay attention to them, ought to give you pause for a lot of thought. First, they're three different animals, as different as a fish, bird and wombat. Second, shallow and simplistic as these definitions are, they're all true at their core. Except that psychologists practice psychology, not science, although some psychology is scientific in form and some psychologists are scientists.

(There are also lots of people in neuro- and bio- fields, not the topic here.)

The only positive distinction, and its value is equivocal, is that doctors can prescribe.

It would be tedious to add another thousand words, and likely nor you nor anyone else would read it. But instead a challenge: for at least psychiatrists and psychologists, write two or three sentences for each saying what it is you think they do.

And here is a sample of the kind of trouble you ought to have: a psychiatrist is "focused on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders." Sounds good; sounds wonderful; but just try to extract any real meaning from it! One place to start is by asking what the words mean....

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm only trying to say what I think is better than a drug based approach to mental health. In my statement, both psychologists and psychiatrists can analyse the psyche, therefore, they both cover the psychoanalysis part. However, psychologists are often more inclined to solve mental issues via cognitive behavioral therapy (cbt) and are therefore complementary to psychiatrists who seem more inclined to pharmacotherapy. This is especially so in modern times when the distinction between a psychologist and psychiatrist has been exceedingly contrasted, unlike in the past.

What I'm saying is that both drug therapy coupled with an understanding of one's mental situation (via cbt) is a better approach to solving problems than one solely based on drug therapy.

I think the key is discovering what the patient needs and when. If cbt alone can work then, the better. But, if drugs are needed, as is sometimes the case, then it should as well be coupled with cbt. The personal participation in one's recovery or therapy is of paramount import.

both psychologists and psychiatrists can analyse the psyche, therefore, they both cover the psychoanalysis part. — BrianW

No, no, no.

However, psychologists are often more inclined to solve mental issues via cognitive behavioral therapy (cbt) — BrianW

More often than what? CBT is a technique some psychologists use. You might well ask why they use it.

...to psychiatrists who seem more inclined to pharmacotherapy. — BrianW

Not so much "inclined" as reduced to, because psychiatry has turned out to be useless and worse than useless for its intended purposes.

This is especially so in modern times when the distinction between a psychologist and psychiatrist has been exceedingly contrasted, unlike in the past. — BrianW

They're different, period. The only people confused on this are, were, the people confused. What both have sometimes done is engage in counseling,sometimes called counseling, sometimes psychotherapy. In being counselor or psychotherapist, neither is doing either psychology or psychiatry (or psychoanalysis)..

What I'm saying is that both drug therapy coupled with an understanding of one's mental situation (via cbt) is a better approach to solving problems than one solely based on drug therapy. — BrianW

Sometimes, in some cases, in particular the cases for which these techniques are indicated, and not where they're not.

I think the key is discovering what the patient needs and when. — BrianW

Which, if you read the descriptions and give the some thought, you will begin to recognize is something that psychiatrists and psychologists and psychoanalysts have never been interested in doing. It's not part of their respective models. Theirs is an essentially Prucrustean plan of treatment.

The personal participation in one's recovery or therapy is of paramount import. — BrianW

Of course, in those cases that admit of meaningful patient participation. This sounds good - not so much in practice.

And as to drugs and other treatments combined being better than either alone, it's the possibility that adds value, not solely the application.

In sum, I agree with you! The availability of differing forms of patient-centered treatment, informed by research and not constrained by theory or particular "philosophy," seems best. But traditional names and titles are today mere voodoo, and certainly can do more harm than good. My complaint for this thread is that you have apparently not engaged your critical thinking abilities - and why would that be (rhetorical question.)

The way I see it is that there is a problem differentiating between the mentally disordered and the ordered, black and white, the sane and the insane whereas in reality everyone becomes mentally disordered during their lives. A newborn baby is neither ordered or disordered as their mental 'cupboard' is empty, but as it starts to fill up with information it makes false assumptions and thoughts become jumbled and disordered, correcting those thoughts and putting them in order is difficult especially without the love and support of someone.

So what I'm saying is, when people think about sad things, like their own inevitable death for instance, it results in some depression. Instead of then going to a doctor or psychiatrist in the belief something is wrong we should all be educated about mental health from an early age so that we know that most depression is a normal condition for a thinking imaginative and intelligent human being. In other words if somone is never disordered then they are abnormal.

The trick is to understand that everyone is in the same disordered boat and that it's OK to be disordered and to gradually put your cupboard in order as you grow older.

Awareness of mental health should be at the forefront of education, after all everything is based on it.

Awareness of mental health should be at the forefront of education, after all everything is based on it.

Errr. I can't imagine how you reached this conclusion. Perhaps reading is what everything in education is based on? Please, help me with more details of your theory.

What I said was everything is based on mental health, what you say is everything in education is based on reading which I agree with.

Psychiatry doesn't attempt to solve the root of the problem, it assumes that if an individual suffers then that's because there is something wrong within them, rather than within their environment. Psychiatry essentially says, there is nothing wrong with the constraints that society makes you endure — leo

Show me an example of where "psychiatry" says "there is nothing wrong with the constraints that society makes you endure". Psychiatrists live in the same fucking world as everybody else, and they too have to endure various constraints they would prefer to avoid--there is no avoidance. What a psychiatrist might say to a client is "You neither qualify for disability, nor are you independently wealthy, so one way or another you will have to earn a living." Most psychiatrists know that work sucks -- that's why they pay people to work -- no one would do it for free. Psychiatrists don't work for free either. If they stop working, they don't get paid anymore.

I'm saying that a lot of mental suffering stems from the constraints imposed by society. And that a lot of psychiatry has to do with trying to adapt the individual to these constraints, rather than finding out why these constraints are there in the first place and how we could remove them. — leo

You probably know (or you should know) why social constraints exist (social control, a ruthless profit-based economy, severe traffic congestion, high rent, etc.). You are quite right that society drives many people crazy, but there are also endogenous causes like genetics or exposure to toxic chemicals. Families can replicate mental illness in their children.

Psychiatrists are not community mental health engineers. No single profession is in a position to reorganize society. Psychiatrists are also not social workers.

What sorts of constraints are you talking about? Could you give some examples?
— Terrapin Station — leo

You have named the problem:

being forced to do a mind-numbing repetitive task for 8 hours a day
being treated more or less badly by some superior who tells you what to do
feeling constrained to submit for fear of losing that job
having to do that for 20 or 30 or 40 years before you can have a house that you can call your own
being unable to go settle anywhere without a landowner telling you that you can't settle there.

The solution is both obvious and simple: Carry out a revolution; overthrow the existing property relationships; release man from mindless labor for rich people's profits; expropriate the expropriators.... That will take care of many of the social constraints that afflict us. Other social constraints will appear, however, because many people can not exist in close proximity without rules. Even in utopia, people will still need to work in order to produce the necessities of life -- work much less, work under much better circumstances, but work nonetheless. Even in utopia you will not be able to make noise all night and keep everybody awake.

mental health should be at the forefront of education — TWI

Education should at least not drive students crazier than they already are.

The one under pressure slaving away every day suffers and is diagnosed as mentally sick, as if to say why do you suffer? A good slave doesn't suffer. So let's give you some chemicals so you can be a good slave again. While the one putting the pressure enjoys the rewards and the good life, and protects his position in part thanks to psychiatry which justifies the status quo. If you're a slave and you suffer, it's not because you're a slave, it's because there is something wrong with you. — leo

Good points.

The Op over-generalizes. There are cases in which medication is appropriate and beneficial. Some people are so psychotically impaired that this is their only chance for anything close to a normal life. There are also some who benefit from temporary use of anti-depressants. Many doctors ARE too quick to prescribe and too willing to continue a medication, but I wouldn't demonize the entire profession. Better research, better guidelines, and better training is called for.