I might have undiagnosed ADHD and OCD but I don't want to take medication that might permanently fuck up my brain so I just remain unmedicated instead.
>>84398122>that pic>female psychiatristyou deserve anything bad that happens to you
I'm diagnosed with a bunch of shit including ADHD and OCD symptoms whatever that means just say no to the meds, retard. Getting a diagnosis doesn't mean you'll have meds shoved down your throat immediately
>I don't want to take medication that might permanently fuck up my brainYou don't have to. The only one I take is the klonopin for extremely severe panic attacks and Adderall for when I'm at work. Otherwise, I don't take them at all when I'm not working.
ADHD and OCD aren't real, psychiatry is a pseudoscience
>>84398175Yes and no.Behavior patterns exist, and you could categorize them to some degree.However, the issue is on the level of what the behavior actually means. That's where modern psychology actually says fuck all, and if you ask me basically 95% of it would be just wild projections, ironically enough since they coined the term in the first place.
What a horrible edit of that meme. If you did that you have a bad sense of humor. It was funnier when she had a calmer face
(((Psychology))) and (Psychiatry))) Name bigger Jewish grifts than these
>>84398819Good ol' psychoanalysis is fine.The modern versions? Yea, sure, do go on. At this point I'm actively seeking more arguments against it. Misguided at best, actively harmful to the individual at worst.
>>84398175Funny enough those two are the most 'real' out of most common disorders in respects to a genetic/neurological basis. ADHD is tied to a primarily to a single dominant gene and is herited 70% of the time including robust twin studies and new breakthroughs in neuroscience show that OCD is indeed primarily neurological basically their prefrontal cortex is fucked up from birth.If you ask me autism is a larp though for most new diagnoses. Why do you think diagnoses exploded after DSM-5 expanding it from the mentally challenged to include that quirky antisocial or blunt tech bro which would have been a perfectly normal personality a century ago
>>84398122>I might have undiagnosed ADHD and OCD but I don't want to take medication that might permanently fuck up my brainTheres not really good meds for OCD the most effective treatment by far is ACT or talk therapy anyways. As an ADHD have I can say the meds are absolutely necessary it feels like being a normie for first time in my life and is absolutely the closest thing to a miracle cure you don't even need take it regularly like SSRIs it's instant and goes away after 1 day like coffee++
>>84398858Leaving the actual correlations between neurobiology and behavior aside.What do you think about the idea that neurodivergence is actually a fairly severe prejudice against what is essentially the regular mechanism of introversion?Specifying two things here, just for the sake of clarity:"Introversion" as in, the original definition of the term as per Jung, not the modern definition.And I'm talking about the mechanism itself, not necessarily the "introverted type"(though of course, it's going to be predominant in those types, and only compensatory and "inferior" in extraverts, which generally explains the projection and prejudice).
>>84398891I think no such prejudice exists considering neurodivergence (ASD+ADHD?) has no bearing on whether you direct your energy inwards or outwards. Emiru is autistic and pretty obviously so but she is extraverted in every sense. Chris Chan is also autistic but I see very little evidence of effort into inward reflection or energy. Chickn the same. ADHD even more so. I think what you're suggesting is vacuously false since neurodivergence has nothing do to with intro or extraversion. To be blunt, psychoanalysis as science or god forbid treatment was one of the most damaging things that happened in the history of psychology, except maybe Skinner and all the horrors born from that ignorance. Freud and Jung as venerable as they were pioneered in a time where psychology was half philosophy and 0% science and their theories are hopelessly outdated and too often just...wrong.The best analogy I could draw is Hypocratuses theory of four humours and Aristoles theory of four elements. I do think these early theories deserve credit for how accurate they modelled reality for what they had to work with at the time, Hypocratus could treat cancer and Aristole could predict some reactions but especially the latter did more harm than good many of the time and would certainly be malpractice by today's standards. With what we know about the underlying causes there's no such excuse.To be blunter anyone who takes Freud and Jung seriously in modern clinical psychology is the pseud is in every sense of the word. There's a good reason you read about them in psych 101 mostly as a history lesson then never really again...They still cool though, timeless writers and undeniably still the authority (IMO) in the esoteric world of dreams. Freud helped me lucid dream among other things, but that's an area so complicated not even modern science can grasp.
>>84399088>a time where psychology was half philosophy and 0% science and their theories are hopelessly outdated and too often just...wrong.You are just going to state that matter-of-factly without even explaining why would the method be faulty other than "it feels wrong" and "it's not REAL science"? As if "being scientific" means being automatically more valid and true, especially in a field where the subject(as in, the person's own psychology) is what matters the most.> There's a good reason you read about them in psych 101 mostly as a history lesson then never really again...Not really, no. Again you just claim that but without saying what would the good reason be. At best I can agree Freud was too focused on the idea of sexual libido and complexes that have to do with it, but Jung fixed that without invalidating the whole thing, just went in to say that there is more and you expand the concept of "libido" as a general term for "psychic energy".>esoteric world of dreamsRead: facts that are actually happening in your psyche, but we are just going to pretend it's not there and it means absolutely nothing because uuuhh...>but that's an area so complicated not even modern science can grasp.Because their attitude turned dogmatic against falling back to the people who actually studied the unconscious.
>>84399137I'm not having this debate because it's been done a billion times but Popper put it plainly, it's unfalsifiable what more is there to say? At it's fundamental level if you look at the scientific method... it's not an algorithm for finding truth. It's an algorithm for destroying ignorance. The latter and former are connected but epistemologically there's a significant difference.In any case I think the term pseudoscience gets a bad reputation and in particular something being considered "science" gets too much praise. Science as far as I see it is an extremely stringent standard, not all wisdom or knowledge need be 'scientific' and in fact I would argue that most of it is not. Engineering as a discipline for example is not a science in any sense of the word but it's full of intuitive wisdom that contributed as much if not more to human understanding science. You might argue I'm just being pedantic, but I think the meaning of words matter especially in this case.
>>84399268Keep in mind I am a physicist by discipline so I have a pretty hard baseline bias for what is considered science by definition, which is easy since I study rocks that remain rocks wherever you put in the world, while the mind may not adhere to such clean reproducibility. That being said I think modern psychology in every respect a hard science and one of the most underestimated ones at that in terms of rigour, and it's important to distinguish psychology which largely seeks to model human behaviour and psychiatry the application of such models into effective, functional and treatments, not nessarily understanding full why it works. The former is a science. The latter is a practical discipline that is no more science than engineering though like engineering is strongly based on and supported by scientific principals and models. It should also be noted that psychoanalysis has a large contribution to psychiatry in the form of Talk Therapy which I would argue is by far Freud's largest contribution and still effective for reasons that modern psychological models can't fully satisfyingly model. That being said, psychoanalysis still isn't a science and neither is psychiatry for that matter. Words matter I don't think peoppe should not associate intellectual value with whether something is a science or not which is why I am adamant about this. In fact, a weak science like economics in my opinion is far less reliable than a rigorious and strong discipline like psychoanalysis, but that's another debate altogether...
>>84399268>I'm not having this debateThink you might be confused about what I'm even bringing up here. To be perfectly clear, I didn't ask whether you consider Freud and Jung hard science.>it's unfalsifiable what more is there to say? At it's fundamental level if you look at the scientific methodPersonally, I find it to be very limited when we are dealing with psychoanalysis. At what point can we admit that a field dealing with the subject needs to be subjective, to some degree? The very first step would be determining the type you are dealing with, otherwise you are forcing a harmful reversal of attitude which is guided purely by the analyst's own misguided biases and projections.>In any case I think the term pseudoscience gets a bad reputation and in particular something being considered "science" gets too much praiseSure, I guess? But we can speculate there might be a connection in what Jung was researching and what people are researching nowadays when they talk about typical/divergent. Been nooticing too many uncomfortable parallels as I dig deeper in the literature.It goes without saying that I don't believe they are adopting exactly the same perspective, in fact that's precisely the most pressing issue and why I would argue it has shifted to a more prejudiced view. Even the words themselves suggest as much, with the assumptions of a "typical" type, and a "non-typical" or "divergent" one.>>84399270>That being said I think modern psychology in every respect a hard scienceWhich if you asked me, doesn't exactly make it better. In fact the focus on the objective and raw behavioral categorization is missing a very important half of the entire discipline.I get where you are coming from, but you didn't really engage with the initial claim.Pointing out that you could classify some (very arguably) extraverted people as having ASD was already predicated by my second point.
>>84399583>I get where you are coming from, but you didn't really engage with the initial claim.Maybe I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I agree that the terms 'neurodivergent' and 'neurotypical' especially the latter aren't very good terminology. There is some interesting evidence to suggest that human neurochemistry is diverging in a broad sense with theories and potential causes from the fact that humans haven't been subject to propery natural or sexual selection for nearly a century never before in the history of humanity have the vast majority of people reproduced like the current population boom - we are ameliorating and that always causes vast genetic drift in theory, and the internet also is said to play a role since human neurochemistry is drastically impacted by early childhood experience. In any case, this is largely inconsequential and only really interesting in a scale for academics. However neurotypical is just terrible and an oxymoron; human brain chemistry and psychology is incredibly diverse always has been and the idea of an average even if there is some kind of normal distribution meaningless in the scale of this variance - classic problem of the non-existent average. In a sample where everyone is uniformly distributed from 1 to 10k the 'typical' or 'average' person would be 5k, despite only a vast minority of people being around the range 4.9k to 5.1k. Tldr the term neurotypical is just bad...but to be fair it wasn't pushed by psychiatry.
>>84399724Never attribute to malice what is explained by incompetence or imperfection. As far as I understand the push for the term 'neurodivergent' came from a large push in the counselling or political side things in a campaign to reframe mental health - admittably telling your 7 year old kid they are neurodivergent is probably much damaging to self esteem then telling them they have something clincal and scary like 'attention deficit hyperactivity disorder'. Then I'm pretty sure these so called neurodivergents started calling people neurotypicals in frustration of the perceived challenges or whatever which as I explained is just bad language, same situation as the term normie if you ask me. I don't think its a coordinated effort just the Internet and people toying language as usual. But I agree, those terms are bad especially neurotypical which is entirely meaningless considering there's no typical human as much as a typical animal or typical plant and should never be used in a clinical sense. Neurodivergent is more complicated but it's mostly an attempt to reframe stuff and doesn't nessesarily implie the existence of a neurotypical.
>>84399583>Which if you asked me, doesn't exactly make it better. In fact the focus on the objective and raw behavioral categorization is missing a very important half of the entire discipline.I think the level of rigor is absolutely nessessry. Psychology has an extremely dark history with eras where Skinner and Freudian psychoanalysis convinced a large month women to not give touch to their babies which caused alot of them to die or be born retarded, to stuff like attachment therapy, the prefrontal lobotomy and the skinner model as well as a cornucopia of other horrors. It's a shame that psychology and the models they produce are so inherently tied to psychiatry and therefore can't mess around or be creative like others can, but speaking from a utilitarian sense the price of being wrong is very vast. I'm glad psychology gets the rigor it requires.
>>84399724>Maybe I don't fully understand what you're sayingJust wondering if this entire view and classification - regardless of neurobiological correlations(as you have just pointed out now I guess) - had to do with a prejudice against the introverted standpoint, or the entire mechanism itself. Ideally, the introvert would want the external object to not affect them at all, though in actual reality this is impossible and it is only happening largely unconsciously for them - the latter leads to certain exaggaretely disproportionate(either in the sense of too intense, or too inhbited) reactions, or behaviors that aren't easy to predict on the basis of external conditions, so they create all sorts of misunderstandings. Given that, I wondered if you could relate the more typical "signs" of ASD to the concept of inferior functions for the introverted types, and well...>IF type projects their (largely negative, archaic, perverse etc.) Thinking into others, which can convince him people think in largely the same way or they are especially scheming against the subject(because of course, others are always thinking the worst things for them)>IT type swings between coming across as having no feeling for anyone, to being overly sensitive about social evaluation or getting attached to certain people's personal evaluation>IS type can become afraid of change or unfamiliar situations becaise their intuition laser focuses on "what could go wrong">IN type is particularly aloof to physical reality and sometimes it looks like they just don't react to what's in front of them, or go all the way into partially hypochondria, and partially increased sensitivity of sense organsHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...>>84399824It's not about rigor, it's about what we are even looking at.Also hey, I'm clearly more on the side of looking at Jung than Freud here, though I can't exactly dismiss the latter entirely. With Freud I take it with a grain of salt.
