a post by Suzanne Kane for the World of Psychology blog
When I was a young girl, I often felt as if I was not normal. It wasn’t that I had a noticeable birth defect or considered myself ugly or stupid, though. My feelings likely stemmed more from a sense that I was too sensitive or fragile or in need of protection and couldn’t stand up for myself.
I had an older brother who sometimes was tough on me, yet I loved him dearly. He was my protector against the bullies in the neighborhood.
Still, I wondered why I didn’t feel normal. My quest to achieve what I considered to be normal took many years. Maybe some of these hard-learned tips can help others learn how to feel normal, or normal again.
Continue reading
Showing posts with label normality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label normality. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 March 2018
Monday, 27 November 2017
The New Normal
a post by Rebecca Lee for the World of Psychology blog
“On a scale of 1-10, how do you feel?”
It’s a question that most psychiatrists ask when assessing mood and medication maintenance. The scale is used to monitor feelings of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. A patient’s response is the main test used for treatment.
But if 1 means that a person feels ecstatic, and 10 means they are suicidal, what is a 6 or a 3? What happens if a patient feels like something is wrong, but nothing has happened? Or if they can’t stop crying since their dog died last week? How much of an impact do average issues have? Are they really feeling an 8 or is the magnitude of sorrow dependent on the specific moment they are experiencing at the time? The scale has problems of its own.
“Normal” is a popular word in U.S. culture. We all want to feel it, but the definition is murky. To believe in something unreal seems abnormal. For example, schizophrenia involves hallucinations or magical thinking that falls under the category of psychosis. This has no basis in reality. Religion, however, involves unexplained theories and ideologies that also may not have basis on this earth. According to the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of Americans are Christian. Are Christian’s abnormal?
Continue reading
“On a scale of 1-10, how do you feel?”
It’s a question that most psychiatrists ask when assessing mood and medication maintenance. The scale is used to monitor feelings of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. A patient’s response is the main test used for treatment.
But if 1 means that a person feels ecstatic, and 10 means they are suicidal, what is a 6 or a 3? What happens if a patient feels like something is wrong, but nothing has happened? Or if they can’t stop crying since their dog died last week? How much of an impact do average issues have? Are they really feeling an 8 or is the magnitude of sorrow dependent on the specific moment they are experiencing at the time? The scale has problems of its own.
“Normal” is a popular word in U.S. culture. We all want to feel it, but the definition is murky. To believe in something unreal seems abnormal. For example, schizophrenia involves hallucinations or magical thinking that falls under the category of psychosis. This has no basis in reality. Religion, however, involves unexplained theories and ideologies that also may not have basis on this earth. According to the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of Americans are Christian. Are Christian’s abnormal?
Continue reading
We need to rethink how we classify mental illness
an article by Tamara Kayali Browne for the Guardian
Psychiatric diagnosis must serve an ethical purpose: relieving certain forms of suffering and disease. Science alone can’t do that
How do we decide what emotions, thoughts and behaviours are normal, abnormal or pathological?
This is essentially what a select group of psychiatrists decide each time they revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considered a “bible” for mental health professionals worldwide.
But questions like this cannot be answered by scientists alone. This was famously demonstrated when homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the DSM in 1973. The decision was not based on new scientific evidence but came about due to pressure from activists. Cases such as this show the limitations of psychiatry and is where I believe philosophers, sociologists and ethicists could be of use.
Continue reading
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who has ever been in contact with psychiatric diagnoses will find this interesting.
Psychiatric diagnosis must serve an ethical purpose: relieving certain forms of suffering and disease. Science alone can’t do that
How do we decide what emotions, thoughts and behaviours are normal, abnormal or pathological?
This is essentially what a select group of psychiatrists decide each time they revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considered a “bible” for mental health professionals worldwide.
But questions like this cannot be answered by scientists alone. This was famously demonstrated when homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the DSM in 1973. The decision was not based on new scientific evidence but came about due to pressure from activists. Cases such as this show the limitations of psychiatry and is where I believe philosophers, sociologists and ethicists could be of use.
Continue reading
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who has ever been in contact with psychiatric diagnoses will find this interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
