U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2009, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 3,342,664 times
Reputation: 959

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
Of course a lot of the people who "need help" really need to be locked up. They're not suffering from mental disorders; they're just inflicting their ya-yas on other people. Sending them to therapy is likely to make them feel even better abnout what they're doing; therapy is designed for neurotics who feel inappropriate guilt or inhibition, not bungholes who get a charge out of victimizing others.
Well, now we're getting somewhere.
How can we tell the "bungholes" from those that "really" need help? What's the criteria to differentiate one from another? (don't get mad, I am ASKING--I am not MAKING A POINT via a question).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2009, 03:50 PM
 
5,343 posts, read 9,149,268 times
Reputation: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by artsyguy View Post
Is psychotherapy useless?

After all the cases and books I've read of disappointed clients and unethical therapists and counselors I've come to my conclusion that psychotherapy and psychology is virtually useless.

Your thoughts....let's be for real.
I completely disagree with you EXCEPT that the problem is there is no quality control among therapists/counselors etc.... a good one can work wonders, but they are few and far between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Texas
51 posts, read 79,418 times
Reputation: 41
Yeah the title of the thread is misleading. Psychology isn't useless... But I see that wasn't really your question...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2009, 11:03 AM
 
4,883 posts, read 4,319,198 times
Reputation: 3968
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Well, now we're getting somewhere.
How can we tell the "bungholes" from those that "really" need help? What's the criteria to differentiate one from another? (don't get mad, I am ASKING--I am not MAKING A POINT via a question).
I've been in mental health work for 15 years. Here's how it's done:

A) Find out if the person has an actual mental disorder. Getting in trouble with the law or acting like an ass, taken alone, are NOT criteria for deciding that.

B) Find out if the criminal behavior is caused or exacerbated by the symptoms of that disorder, if there is one. Carefully rule in or out the possibility that the person simply acts this way because there's something in it for him -- e.g., he beats his wife because when she's intimidated she gives him her whole paycheck and any sex act he wants.

C) Make double-dog sure the person with the mental disorder was actually having an episode with significant symptoms when the crime occurred, and that the symptoms caused the behavior or prevented the person from making a better decision. History is full of psychotics who only commit their crimes when they're stone-cold lucid. Please note that B&E to steal pharmaceuticals which then are used to induce pleasurable manic symptoms so they can have fun beating up a cop is NOT the same as "not guilty due to mental illness."

D) Bear in mind that the best treatment for a lot of people, even the psychotics, is natural consequences. I don't care if you thought they were Martians -- if you killed them you're going to prison. Next time think twice about refusing your meds, Chumly.

E) If in doubt, incarcerate AND treat. Please note you should always be in doubt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2009, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 3,342,664 times
Reputation: 959
[quote=Cliffie;7833857]I've been in mental health work for 15 years. Here's how it's done:

A) Find out if the person has an actual mental disorder. Getting in trouble with the law or acting like an ass, taken alone, are NOT criteria for deciding that./QUOTE]
I agree with that.

Quote:
B) Find out if the criminal behavior is caused or exacerbated by the symptoms of that disorder, if there is one. Carefully rule in or out the possibility that the person simply acts this way because there's something in it for him -- e.g., he beats his wife because when she's intimidated she gives him her whole paycheck and any sex act he wants
OK....go on...I'm not sure about this...can't we infer there is something in it for him for a lot of stuff?

Quote:
C) Make double-dog sure the person with the mental disorder was actually having an episode with significant symptoms when the crime occurred, and that the symptoms caused the behavior or prevented the person from making a better decision. History is full of psychotics who only commit their crimes when they're stone-cold lucid. Please note that B&E to steal pharmaceuticals which then are used to induce pleasurable manic symptoms so they can have fun beating up a cop is NOT the same as "not guilty due to mental illness."
OK....so you're saying if someone tortures little animals because his amygdala was blown out of his brain in a war, maybe that's ok--but if he does it because he gets paid, then it is not ok???

Quote:
D) Bear in mind that the best treatment for a lot of people, even the psychotics, is natural consequences. I don't care if you thought they were Martians -- if you killed them you're going to prison. Next time think twice about refusing your meds, Chumly.
E)
I can buy that.....

Quote:
If in doubt, incarcerate AND treat. Please note you should always be in doubt.
One thing I read some time ago was that in 1870 the recidivism rate from the Yuma teritorial prison was 67%---that was one of the worst prisons to be in (from the viewpoint of the prisoner). Today the recidivism rate is 67% (I read this somewhere). If that is a true statement, or is realitively close, then perhaps we are wasting a lot of money by treating hoodlums.

What are your thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2009, 01:38 PM
 
650 posts, read 1,052,995 times
Reputation: 302
I don't agree. Seems and awfully rash and global judgment based on an unclear premise. Maybe you should elaborate on what "After all the cases" means ,and list the titles of the books you've read that lead you to this position.
In my experience, a lot of psychologists are intentionally hurtful, and more are simply incompetant, but the knowledge of how the mind works that has been built up isn't and in the right hands, it is quite effective and helpful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by artsyguy View Post
Is psychotherapy useless?

After all the cases and books I've read of disappointed clients and unethical therapists and counselors I've come to my conclusion that psychotherapy and psychology is virtually useless.

Your thoughts....let's be for real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2009, 05:42 PM
 
603 posts, read 769,250 times
Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
I've been in mental health work for 15 years. Here's how it's done:

A) Find out if the person has an actual mental disorder. Getting in trouble with the law or acting like an ass, taken alone, are NOT criteria for deciding that.

B) Find out if the criminal behavior is caused or exacerbated by the symptoms of that disorder, if there is one. Carefully rule in or out the possibility that the person simply acts this way because there's something in it for him -- e.g., he beats his wife because when she's intimidated she gives him her whole paycheck and any sex act he wants.

C) Make double-dog sure the person with the mental disorder was actually having an episode with significant symptoms when the crime occurred, and that the symptoms caused the behavior or prevented the person from making a better decision. History is full of psychotics who only commit their crimes when they're stone-cold lucid. Please note that B&E to steal pharmaceuticals which then are used to induce pleasurable manic symptoms so they can have fun beating up a cop is NOT the same as "not guilty due to mental illness."

D) Bear in mind that the best treatment for a lot of people, even the psychotics, is natural consequences. I don't care if you thought they were Martians -- if you killed them you're going to prison. Next time think twice about refusing your meds, Chumly.

E) If in doubt, incarcerate AND treat. Please note you should always be in doubt.
What type of MH work?

The first one you mentioned, (A), seems like it would be the most important. "Find out if the person has an actual mental disorder". So, how do you do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,612 posts, read 3,427,772 times
Reputation: 1230
Quote:
OK....so you're saying if someone tortures little animals because his amygdala was blown out of his brain in a war, maybe that's ok--but if he does it because he gets paid, then it is not ok???
you read a lot of stuff that wasn't there into cliffie's post. might want to go back and reread it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2009, 04:57 PM
 
603 posts, read 769,250 times
Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
you read a lot of stuff that wasn't there into cliffie's post. might want to go back and reread it.
Well, he said:
Carefully rule in or out the possibility that the person simply acts this way because there's something in it for him -- e.g., he beats his wife because when she's intimidated she gives him her whole paycheck and any sex act he wants.

And I had questions about that too. Does this not suggest that wife-beating is unrelated to mental illness if there is something to be gained by the act?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2009, 07:37 PM
 
25,170 posts, read 34,023,469 times
Reputation: 6701
Alright some psychology theories are great, however, you make an excellent point that a lot of psychologists are intentionally hurtful. Why do you think that is and could you expand on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutleynut View Post
I don't agree. Seems and awfully rash and global judgment based on an unclear premise. Maybe you should elaborate on what "After all the cases" means ,and list the titles of the books you've read that lead you to this position.
In my experience, a lot of psychologists are intentionally hurtful, and more are simply incompetant, but the knowledge of how the mind works that has been built up isn't and in the right hands, it is quite effective and helpful.

Last edited by artsyguy; 03-12-2009 at 07:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top