Okay, then drop your perceptions.
Wow, ok sure I will get
right on that.
Why are you stuck on three mental illnesses versus personality disorders?
Since you were trying to use histronic PD as an example and to illustrate your points, I am comparing other disorders to it. I've also seen you profess shaky views on stuff like this and haven't said anything, so I am saying it now.
I asked for a list of all of them.
You realize this is a completely unreasonable request, right? Unreasonable requests don't prove someone right. I am not going to go through the DSM and list out every single one just to appease your request. What I did instead, was point out the top three that are regarded by the psychological community as the most frequently severe mental disorders. I have never come across a case, or heard of a situation where a personality disorder limited functioning to the levels that those disorders so frequently do. I'm sure it can happen, but it would be extremely rare.
There are lots more than the three you've mentioned repeatedly and personality disorders. Why have you not acknowledged that there are different sets of criteria for what might be considered most severe?
I have, I pointed out that some disorders are
more frequently severe than others. The severity of a disorder is dictated by how much it tangibly effects functioning.
I am not and was never talking about which disorders are the most frequent across populations and I don't think anyone else in this thread was. We were talking about someone saying that people who fake mental illnesses have histrionic personality disorder, remember? And then you said that people who have histrionic personality disorder do not have a very severe mental illness at all and ought to have their shit together.
I did not say that. It would be extremely rare for someone with histronic PD to have a case where it is so severe it limits their function as the NIH link outlined that I provided. I took issue with the fact that you seemed to be excusing that, seeming to try and express disdain for psychology again, and trying to say kyueei was being hostile. All of which I disagreed with, and have been explaining as to how and why. I brought up frequency because that's how its defined,
So I asked for a list of the most severe mental disorders from most to least severe. Meaning most severe, not most frequent, so that we could all qualify when someone with a mental illness might not be considered to be faking their mental illness.
Most frequently severe is how it
has to be defined, because disorders are not cookie cutter for individuals, they can manifest differently. That said, there are common threads within individuals with disorders. There are individuals with schizophrenia for example, that function in day to day life with little effect on functioning, but that's
rare. It must be spoken in terms of how often a disorder manifests severely.
So then what's the issue with me expressing doubt about the field? It is logical for me to express doubt. Things aren't set in stone. When scientists doubt it's called making progress. I'd have to be delusional not to have my reservations.
Reasonable doubt is fine. Yours does not appear to be (the doubt appears to go too far). There's an old saying "don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" (note: I am not implying your brains are falling out, or that you are dumb in any way. It's to illustrate a point). It's fine to question something when there is a reasonable basis for there to be. Does psychology have issues? Yes. Nearly every field does. Psychology appears to have more due to the inherient subjective nature of it, and the complexity of brain biochemistry. Scientists cast doubt when there is evidence to do so.
The current theory is not statistically accurate enough from clinical evidence to support use of medication.
Yes it is. If it weren't people wouldn't be prescribing medications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_medication
Use of medication is not proven either way.
Yes it is. See it above.
It is a complete shot in the dark. Clinical studies that are negative tend not to be published as much as positive ones. If medication works for you then I support you completely. But don't push your personal and anecdotal experience onto the wider population.
I'm not even remotely using anecdotal evidence for this. I am an organic chemist by trade, so I know quite a bit about this sort of stuff. Medication works for the majority of individuals who use it. If they didn't,
they would not be marketable or be approved by the FDA. Period.
I find it to be very dangerous and offensive for individuals to demonize medication like this, when there is scientific evidence that supports their use. It's akin to anti-vaccine bullshit. Are all of them good? No, some of them are questionable at times and require a lot of monitoring (for example, I regard venlafaxine as a "risky" medication due to it's side effects. But, it's approved, and it does indeed help quite a number of individuals, so as long as things are triaged by a psychiatrist correctly, it's a viable option). But they can be an absolute boon for individuals. Are there individuals with moderate to severe mental disorders who might not benefit from medications? Sure, but the only way for an individual to know that is to try. Psychiatric medication by the nature of the beast requires trial and error for individuals. It sucks, but it's how it has to be with how medicine currently is, and it's the best we got.
And for the record, I have actually had several
bad experiences from medications. I've actually never had a psychiatric medication work for me properly.
They provide direction. They don't necessarily provide validity.
Sure, and in practice they work well enough to give us an understand of a portion of what's going on, and enough direction that we can use it as a model and method to develop new treatments. Models that don't work are rejected by the scientific community. It will be in place until enough research is conducted to provide an improved model.
My opinion isn't wrong. You just admitted that it wasn't. You are really on very shaky ground right now.
Some of your opinions are fine, others aren't. I am not on shaky ground at all.