Psychoanalyzing psychiatrists

Most people regard lobotomy as a "mistake". But few people ask what is the reason behind such a mistake? And especially look at the pattern of mistakes: lobotomy, shock therapy, and so forth, all of them point to some kind of sadism. So do you think psychiatrists are simply sadistic by nature, and their choice of profession was simply an outlet of how to express their sadistic nature? I mean if they were to simply abuse their husbands or wives, then it would be too obvious. But if they were to abuse mental patience then it seems like they have an excuse. So is it just a cover?

Its could be some of these things, lets label the label makers


Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

Believing that you're better than others
Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
Exaggerating your achievements or talents
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Taking advantage of others
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem
Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

In addition to these symptoms, the person may display arrogance, show superiority, and seek power. The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others, when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. It is this tendency that is characteristic of narcissism as opposed to other psychological conditions affecting level of self-worth...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

The sadist enforcer...


This category of sadist can sometimes be found amongst military sergeants, deans of universities, prison overseers, police officers or other authoritative functions, because they are in a position where they feel they should be the ones controlling and punishing people who have broken rules, regulations or laws. Though they believe they are acting for the common interest, there are deeper motives than just that. These sadists generally seek out the rule-breakers in their domain of authority, or in society in general, and exercise the most severe punishments they are able to give out for the individual case. If enforcing sadists are employed by society as, for example, police or prison staff, their actions are not perceived to be unjust and they have far-reaching freedoms to dominate, victimize or destroy others at will. They are supposed to act fairly but their personalities are not able to put limits on the emotions that drive their sadistically vicious behaviors.The more these sadists dominate and punish others, the more satisfaction and power they feel. Their self-perception of righteousness is reinforced and their ego increases. The satisfaction the enforcing sadists gets from punishing other people can reach a state of intoxication where they cannot stop their behaviour and lose their awareness of reality in these situations. In most cases this does not attract any negative attention because they are acting within their legal authority to exert power and behave completely normally in everyday situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic_personality_disorder#Enforcing_sadist

This is a good question. I did not select one of your options as I don't think it's really any of those options. I really do believe that MOST psychiatrists do have a desire to help people. They are taught however a completely different way to help people than what is actually helpful. They truly believe that medication is the only way for people with a psychiatric diagnosis to feel "better" as this is all that they are taught.

Now I'm not negating the fact that there are definitely some psychiatrists who do not fall into this category. I have known and met some who definitely do not fall into this category as I know many others here have as well.

Cheze2 wrote:This is a good question. I did not select one of your options as I don't think it's really any of those options. I really do believe that MOST psychiatrists do have a desire to help people. They are taught however a completely different way to help people than what is actually helpful. They truly believe that medication is the only way for people with a psychiatric diagnosis to feel "better" as this is all that they are taught.

Now I'm not negating the fact that there are definitely some psychiatrists who do not fall into this category. I have known and met some who definitely do not fall into this category as I know many others here have as well.

That's why I brought up the example of lobotomy. Like how can they possibly think lobotomy is helpful? And the fact that the people who do lobotomy are the very same people who invent psychiatric drugs should tell you something -- in fact they used to call thorazine a "chemical lobotomy", but of course they dropped the name once lobotomy went out of fashion. Now I can see why SOME psychiatrists might not think that far as far as psychiatric drugs are concerned and they might not realize that their original express purpose was "chemical lobotomy". But then again, IF lobotomy was still in practice, they would go along with this too (and in fact they stopped doing lobotomies due to one person dying during operation AS OPPOSED TO the brian damage it causes to patience that are alive -- which kind of illustrates their philosophy: its ok to damage people's brain as long as their physical existence is assured). And, of course, they are going along with shock therapy. So this should tell you something.

causalset wrote:

Cheze2 wrote:This is a good question. I did not select one of your options as I don't think it's really any of those options. I really do believe that MOST psychiatrists do have a desire to help people. They are taught however a completely different way to help people than what is actually helpful. They truly believe that medication is the only way for people with a psychiatric diagnosis to feel "better" as this is all that they are taught.

Now I'm not negating the fact that there are definitely some psychiatrists who do not fall into this category. I have known and met some who definitely do not fall into this category as I know many others here have as well.

That's why I brought up the example of lobotomy. Like how can they possibly think lobotomy is helpful? And the fact that the people who do lobotomy are the very same people who invent psychiatric drugs should tell you something -- in fact they used to call thorazine a "chemical lobotomy", but of course they dropped the name once lobotomy went out of fashion. Now I can see why SOME psychiatrists might not think that far as far as psychiatric drugs are concerned and they might not realize that their original express purpose was "chemical lobotomy". But then again, IF lobotomy was still in practice, they would go along with this too (and in fact they stopped doing lobotomies due to one person dying during operation AS OPPOSED TO the brian damage it causes to patience that are alive -- which kind of illustrates their philosophy: its ok to damage people's brain as long as their physical existence is assured). And, of course, they are going along with shock therapy. So this should tell you something.

I think this is a great topic and I do agree with so far everything posted, normally I dont but its me.

To start off I do find myself psyco analyzing psychiatrists now often, both because they have done it to me almost infinitely so often and the fact some of them have made such asinine life changing conclusions from their theories that I absolutely had to wonder what thought patterns they were using. In the past though I never did, thinking of them as practicing something fixed and proven to help. The psycho analysis part started a few years back when I began to wake up from my programming so to speak. I found out that psychiatry wasnt helping me at all and making things much, much worse. I have suffered terribly at the hands of certain psychiatrists. As a result it got me thinking, a lot about what psychiatry really is. I decided to do the same as they did to me, come up with theories as to why they do what they do.

So far I have went back thinking about the encounters Ive had. A lot of what Ive seen is psychiatrists tend to base their views about patients from there own experiences or insecurities. Also agreeing with Cheze2, the vast majority of them base their views from what they were taught in school; which is be emotionally distant with patients and prescribe medications where possible. Nearly everything and anything is the warrant to prescribe medication. If the psychiatrist has not felt it himself then its part of the illness. Everything tends to be viewed as a manifest of the illness, so genuine feelings of pain, concern fear and even happiness are "the result of the illness". Any interaction is one way. The system is like a pill dispenser machine. Give a speech, its autonomy is analyzed for patterns, then a medication is selected based on those patterns. A patients own opinion is not valued.

The thing Ive noticed about most psychiatrists is the world to them is authoritarian and nothing else. Everything is "just there". And they become uneasy by those who are not. For them its follow directions, be in a regime, learn from "experts" in order to become one themselves. Yet exert total control over the patients because they are now "experts". Psychiatrists lack imagination, they have concrete ways of thinking, overly simplistic ways of thinking, empathy is blunt. The system of schooling they go through is like a boot camp so to speak, it rewards those who best follow the regime and accept it as the absolute. One really great way to see if a psychiatrist has a discomfort with free thinkers is how often they diagnose ODD, or other non conformity illnesses. Its those who diagnose them the most that are bothered by free will in other people, ie people who question any system even if politely.

I think the majority of psychiatrists are just there to be in a profession that is considered "respected". Often fulfilling the wishes of their parents to be some thing great, to be in a high paying job. If one is a good academic in the scene of memorizing data, good at following a regime, and good at not looking past the surface, getting a degree is easy. Being in the job itself is easy. Minimal psychical work. Mental work is applying memorized facts to a situation. Mistakes are buried under the protection you are given, especially if working as part of a hospital. I think a good deal of psychiatrists latter on regret the choice when the see with what they have to deal with (the difficult patients), but its to late to re invest and go back to school.


But there is a sub group, like those who developed the lobotomies, who are psychopaths. A good chunk of them sufferer from the same major disorders they find in the DSM. I have seen some if them in various degrees. RUN! RUN! RUN! These people have an obsession with controlling others.
I think big pharama and those who are writing mainstream medical books are out to profit as much as they can off human suffering. Who cares as long as they are content? The rest of them who are are actually out in the practice working with patients are exercising their desire to control and manipulate. Some are sadistic, they are primarily found in inpatient facilities where patients have minimal rights. Easy targets. Defenseless patients behind a system that covers their screw ups. And I have seen some psychiatrists who on the outside look professional but inside are major nut bags. I had one, a PHD psych, literally try to convince me several times, rambling on like it was a casual conversation, that my all problems came from the fact I was part of a sadomasochistic roman catholic cult run by priests who were using complex drug mind control on me to run a sophisticated underground crime prostitution businesses. Complete with blood sacrifice rituals and international espionage. Another person who I knew that saw him said he tried convincing him of similar things Uuuum, and you passed med school how again? And yahhhh, of course there those who would probe non stop on say my parent divorce. And even more strange Ive had more than a few ask me to describe my sexual fantasies, which is kind of strange to say the least. Then there is the cruel and cold treatment of inpatients which is another tough to swallow experience. And of course the constant you cant diagnose yourself. You cant choose what medications not to take yada yada.

My end conclusion is that a lot of what psychs say about their patients is how they feel about themselves. After all, as smart as they are, how on earth can they so easily figure out such complex mechanisms of abnormal human behavior, develop psycho analytic theories around it along with the treatments behind it? Mabey they have been through some of it themselves? Or they suffer from mental disorders themselves? I dont know, but Ive always wondered.

Well that was me thinking a loud. My 2 cents.

Of course, when talking about what motivates psychiatrists, there needs to be recognition of interpersonal variables and the principle of reciprocity in human relations. If the patient doesn't get on with the psychiatrist, or there is a real conflict of wills, this can stir up up reciprocal hatred, each individual imitating the desire and negative sentiments of their opponent. So there has to be an understanding of the reciprocities of violence and counter-violence, hatred and counter-hatred, humiliation and counter-humiliation in interpersonal and intergroup relations. This is why we ignore the issue of conflict in psychiatry, between patient and "care-giver", at our peril. This is also why different patients can have such widely divergent opinions of the same "care-givers" specifically, and why different people can have such divergent opinions of the same people generally, because people's motives and sentiments are not fixed, but can change from relationship to relationship depending on its character, although when cultural prejudice intrudes, negative motives can be almost unconditional.

Although I would agree that it is distinctly possible that the preponderating motive for a psychiatrist might at first be to help, whether this survives the crucible of human conflict, or initiation into an abusive environment that takes its toll morally on those who have to adapt their thinking to the environment they work in, is another thing all together. In order to silence the importunities of conscience, people, after harming others, let the self-preservation (and it really it literally is a matter of preserving the self, and not just survival) instinct take over, and begin to construct and borrow rationalizations that heroicizes, sacralizes, and romanticizes their own violence, a process that usually consists of vilifying and demonizing the victim, which quickly devolves into a nasty habit that leads to hatred both of the victim and anyone who conforms to his/her image.