Bitcoin Forum

I have boiled down the root causes of mental illness to 3 things; feedback and comments/challenges are encouraged.

1)  Desire (I'll go with the Buddha on this one)
2)  Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control (an offshoot of desire)
3)  Identification with a false concept of identity.

Brief explanations:

1)  Desire:  Whenever a person has any type of desire, it implies that they are dissatisfied with what currently 'is.'  Dissatisfaction implies discontent and a lack of happiness.  If you want something that you don't currently have, this is a problem.

2)  Attempting to control things that are beyond one's control:  This is one of the leading causes of anxiety, anger, etc.  How often do we define our own happiness according to the actions of other people, communities, governments, girlfriends/boyfriends, husbands/wives, etc.?  How often do we become frustrated when our attempts to change these people, communities, governments, etc. fail?

3)  Identification with a false concept of identity:  Who are you?  How did you reach that conclusion?  According to all 11 definitions of identity in Webster's Dictionary, identity implies stability over time.  Yet, how often do we identity/define ourselves conditionally?  For example, let's say that someone says, "I am a teacher."  Ok, great.  Now, if your job is in jeopardy, then your identity is also in jeopardy!  Now, in contrast, how many would have answered this question by saying "I am an observer"?  For, as long as we live, we observe.

Note:  I would expect one of the most common challenges to these assertions would be, "Well, what about chemical imbalances?  What about genetic predispositions?"  To this, I would remind everyone that environment vs. genes (i.e. nature vs. nurture) is a false dichotomy.  It is known scientifically that interactions with our environment has effects on the genome which are then passed down and inherited generation by generation.  Thus, I would assert that any 'genetic predispositions' for a mental illness are the results of the 3 root causes that I listed to begin with, but in previous generations.

What about child abuse (http://fdrurl.com/bib)?

Excellent question.  I would respond as follows:

First, I remember in my undergraduate psychology class a study we reviewed in class with our professor.  This study studied the effects of child abuse on children of various ages.  I truly need to find this study again as I've brought it up in many conversations, but the results of the study indicated that if the abuse occurred before a certain age (specifically, before the time of memory formation or concrete identity formation) then the negative effects of this abuse were minimized to some degree.  While the brain naturally and continually forms associations of the world, it can do so consciously or unconsciously.  As a result, while these early-abused children may still grow up with feelings and associations that the world is a more dangerous and stressful place relative to children who were not abused at all, there was less internalization of the abuse relative to children who were abused at later ages because a concrete concept of identity had not formed yet.  

Second, I contend there is a difference between pain and suffering.  For example, let's say you break your arm.  Obviously, this is painful and this pain can be experienced.  But, I contend that suffering comes from subsequent mental processes such as "now that I've broken my arm, I cannot do x, y, and z, in the future and so my future will be bad."  Relating this to child or sexual abuse, the actual event of abuse is temporary, and while this event can be extraordinarily painful, it is from the following mental processes that mental suffering occurs.  Please do not mistake me for being insensitive to those who have experienced this kind of trauma.  I am in no way saying that the negative associations formed from such an experience are easy to overcome; I am simply trying to provide a logical understanding of mental illnesses themselves.

Third, the preceding 2 paragraphs encompass elements of all 3 root causes that I listed.  For example, the person who has experienced child abuse likely desires that the abuse never happened.  This incorporates both the dissatisfaction associated with desire itself as well as wanting to control things that are beyond that person's control (i.e. to change a past event).  Finally, I would contend that the 3rd root cause, identifying with a false concept of identity, is also present.  Who was abused?  This can be analyzed on 2 levels:

Level 1:  Who was abused?  If you were the child that was being abused, are you still the child and are you still being abused?

Level 2:  If you are an observer, and you observe yourself as having the body of the child that was abused, then were you even abused?  (I.e. was the 'observer' abused?)  This is the hardest concept to grasp.  If I, the observer (the subject) can witness my body (an object), my thoughts (objects), or pain/discomfort (objects), then this implies that I am not any of these observed things.  In other words, I contend that I as an observer cannot possibly be my body, my pain, or my thoughts because I am observing them.  The things that I observe are "over there."

Actually, I think it's based primarily and fundamentally on root cause #3 that I listed (i.e. identifying with a false sense of concept), and that this one little/huge mistake leads to virtually everything else.  Although, I also think that this mistake is not entirely our 'fault' as it is something that also has been passed down as a 'predisposition' of sorts through countless generations.

That's one way to look at it or you could use science and evidence and actually see the damage done to the brain on an MRI. Now that we have the tools to see it we know a brain injury caused by repeated verbal abuse is just as real as a broken arm caused by physical abuse.

Ok, but let's break down what you said.

1)  Why did the damage occur to the brain?  Was it the act of abuse alone that damaged the brain, independent of anything else?  Was there in fact something else that caused the damage?  Was it a combination of things?

Science and evidence also shows us that the beliefs and thoughts we have have indirect and direct changes on brain and body.  Indirectly, this can be through intention.  For example, the thought of wanting to smoke marijuana --> leads to intention and action of smoking marijuana -- > leads to effects on the brain which can be damaging over time.

Directly, thoughts can also have an impact on the brain/body.  The most obvious example would be thinking of moving your arm and then actually doing it.  Next, try focusing on a positive word like "love" or "happiness" for hours on end and you will feel the effects of more efficient dopamine transmission.  Studies have also shown that the muscles of those who mentally imagined themselves performing a workout routine received about 30% the amount of stimulation that they would have received had they actually physically performed the same workout routine.  This gives credence to the idea that if a person simply believes they have been damaged, then the damage can manifest itself physically.

2)  Also consider the event from the offenders point of view.  The offender commited said abuse through some combination of the 3 root causes I mentioned as well, especially desire.  Now, as I have already pointed out that nature-vs.-nurture is a false dichotomy, then his desire will have its consequences on the environment as well as himself.  In other words, the root causes of mental illness as manifested in one person can cause negative effects on the environment, including other people.  This is how community psychology functions, and there truly are such things as "sick" and "healing" communities.

How is blaming "desire" for the problem not merely an avoidance mechanism to deprive the abuser of both agency and accountability?

Good question.

To clarify, I'm not saying that desire itself is to blame, for each person has the choice of whether to follow that desire (and thus perpetuate it) or work to overcome that desire (and thus decrease the intensity and frequency with which it arises).

The nature of desire is that it can never be fulfilled.  Take sex or drugs for example.  The desire to use drugs (and then actually using them) tends to increase the desire to use drugs.  The desire to have sex (and then actually going out and trying to get or having it) tends to increase the desire to have sex.

Desire itself is intentional whether it is conscious or unconscious desire.  And, because it is intentional, it can be systematically increased or decreased by chasing after the object of desire or letting go of the object of desire respectively (attachment vs. detachment).

I'm still not seeing the point of all this.

One could say that a child feels pain when he tries to move his broken arm because of his desire to move the arm and that he could avoid pain by learning not to want to move his arm but that would be asinine.

The only thing blaming "desire" accomplishes is to obscure the cause and effect relationship between the infliction of trauma and the resulting dysfunction. It's a way of letting the perpetrators escape recognition for what they have done.

Really liked this post, especially the level 2 paragraph at the end.  Reminds of of Eckhart Tolle's "You are not your mind.  You are the observer behind your mind."  This was a good example, at least in the sense that I had an "Aha!" moment reading it :)

I'm off for the evening.  I will gladly respond to all posts tomorrow :)

I will disagree based on your reasons.

Desire originates in the will. It is activated, in the realms in which it is directed, by that which is the motivating force, through the will and the mental abilities of the individual. Desire is the power which drives our physical, our spiritul self, while will is the directing force. It is the intent of mind that strengthens desire.

This is a symptom not a cause.

This is a logic problem. Invalid logic is still logic.

I would think mental illness, except for those with a disease causation, schizophrenia, or those with a spiritual causation, obsession and possession, are mental patterns that are stuck or fixed in position. I believe also, that nutrient deficiencies can lead to or exaserbate mental illness.

For those with a nutrient deficiency where mental illness manifests, combinations of specific vitamin/mineral supplementation has been shown to be effective at creating a remission of the mental illness.

For those absent of a nutrient deficiency, their is an abnormal mental pattern of functioning, much like an 'addictive personality'. This probably could be seen via a brain wave graph. To place mental illness into remission in this instance requires, meditation, biofeedback, or some form of guided image therapy that will reset the abnormal pattern. This process can take 6 months to 2 years.

Drugs and alcohol modify these mental patterns also, but combined with addiction require multi steps to achieve the mental illness remission.

True schizophrenia, not a misdiagnosed case of possession or obsession, is a degeneritive disease which progresses over many years. It destroys nerve sheaths and a gold deficiency prevents their regeneration, also, excess spinal fluid entering the brain destroys brain cells. 90%+ of all true schizophrenia can traced back to a traumatic birth.

Obsession and possession can be resolved with prayer and exorcism actions. These are non-invasive methods, though those suffering may erroneously complain of death, pain or some form of anguish, and when employed by competent specialists can achieve 100% remission of the mental illness in a short period of time.

To anyone in this thread:
So, based on your theory, what do we do about it then?

It is difficult to provide a specific answer to a vague question.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is with respect to your first sentence.  Pain is pain, and it is simply an experience as any other.  As I have stated, I contend pain is not equivalent to suffering.  The distinction I am making here is that pain (for lack of a better term) is experienced prior to any interpretation of it, even the interpretation of calling it pain.  But, for the sake of this discussion, I have to call it something to convey the message.  The 'suffering' that can result after the experience has been interpreted as pain is the product of the drama that unfolds in the mind through negative thoughts about the future as a result of some past experience (e.g. "I hurt my arm in the past, and now my future will be worse because of x, y, and z."  But, as I do not understand what your point was, this was probably an off-topic response.

Also, as I stated in a previous post, blaming "desire" as an isolated phenomenon is not accurate.  Desire is intended, and the intent to follow (attach) or let go of (detach) from desire is also a choice.  The choice of whether to attach to, or detach from, a given desire is what makes desire itself intended.  In other words, the desires that we have now are the product of attaching ourselves to (or following) similar desires in the past.  Desire is habitual in nature.

I agree with you completely, so I'm actually not sure why you disagreed with what I said.


I acknowledged this in my original post when I stated that root cause #2 is an offshoot of root cause #1.  Perhaps it is the phrase "root cause" that tripped you up, and to this extent I agree that it is a misnomer.  In fact, I would say that root causes #1 and #2 are both offshoots of root cause #3, in which case both are misnomers.  And, I also could point to ways in which root cause #3 is an off shoot of some other primary cause.

When I began typing this post, I faced an immediate conundrum:  How do I convey what I want to say in a way that speaks to a wide variety of people, but also in a way that won't leave some logical/philosophical purist in the dust.  This is why I completey left out any discussion of a comprehensive model which would necessarily entail self-resolving logical paradoxes explained by relative levels of syntax (where higher level logical syntaxes can help resolve paradoxes in lower level logical syntaxes).  I didn't want things to get so utterly confusing to the point where the intended message would be lost to 99.9% of the population.  I am posting this more for practical reasons.


My reply to this is mostly conveyed above.  Again, it's hard to present a comprehensive model for such assertions without getting into a "tower of turtles" which requires a very lengthy philosophical argument to even attempt to explain and resolve.  I am trying to present the information in a way which I recognize is ultimately fallible in its logic but will still provide a basis by which people can benefit.  And, by benefit, I mean to benefit in ways that I think are both atypical with respect to typical psychological therapeutic models, and are also not so overwhelmingly complex that it would take months if not years of contemplation to understand.

Don't forget, virtually any 'sound' conclusion is true on one syntax level, but is invalid on a higher syntax level.

Edit:  A good analogy for the "tower of turtles" would be the physical dimensions.  Let's say that I assert "That bird is over there."  Well, in the 3rd-dimension, that statement can be true.  In the 4th dimension, that statement is both true and false because the 4th dimension represents the sum of all possible configurations of the 3rd dimension.  So, in the 4th dimension, that 'bird' is both 'over there' and 'not over there,' and the 'bird' is also a 'non-bird.'  

But, then any statement made about the 4th dimension yields the same problem, and you need to go to a higher syntax (the 5th dimension) to shed light on the issue.  And so on, and so on.

Logic itself works the same way.  "A barber has a sign in front of his shop that states 'I will shave all those, and those who do not shave themselves.'"   This is a paradox.  If the barber doesn't shave himself, then he shaves himself.  Most people would just say "this is plain stupid," but we must remember that the assertion has already been made, and if we simply shift to a higher level of syntax, then these paradoxes become self-resolving.

The problem with human intellect is that it only works according to yes OR no operations, and not yes AND no operations.  Every (not-every) word (not-word) in (not-in) this (not-this) sentence (not-sentence) is (not-is) only (not-only) understood (not-understood) through (not-through) yes (not-yes) or (not-or) no (not-no) operations (not-operations).

As a result, we must pick one syntax level and use it as the highest level of syntactic operation, and then try to explain everything else as a lower level of syntactic operations.  If we were able to intellectually perform yes AND no operations simultaneously, then this wouldn't be so fucking confusing :D

A great question:

Here is my humble advice.

1)  First, try to identify more with yourself as being an 'observer' rather than a 'participant.'  If you think "I am thinking," try to shift it to the idea that "there is thinking."  If you think "I am sad," try to shift it to the idea that "there is sadness."

Thoughts are like boxes.  Whenever we have a thought or idea, its as if our mind jumps inside that thought-box and whatever that thought-box contains becomes our entire reality.  Now, if that thought-box is full of negative things and we jump inside of it, then all of those negative things can hurt us.

The trick is to learn how to float above and hover around those thought boxes.  If we can make the box be "over there," then our mind becomes free.  Thoughts are the constraints on the freedom of our mind.  By learning to identify ourselves as observers, we can place some distance between ourselves and the boxes.

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, what about good thoughts?  Why not jump inside those boxes?"  Well, why need to?  Have you ever just looked up at the clouds and enjoyed the view, or watched the sunset?  It's not like you need to be right next to the clouds or the sun to enjoy them, you can enjoy them from afar.  Besides, if there's many good thought boxes, why jump inside only one of them?  Why not simply enjoy all of them from a distance?

2.)  When you learn to identify with yourself as being an observer rather than a participant, then naturally your desires will decrease in frequency and intensity.  You will learn to be more content and satisfied with what you observe. 

Keep in mind, observation is related to stillness.  Any good photographer knows that in order to get the most clarity in a photograph, he needs to be calm and still.  Observation itself is the method of stillness and calmness.  When we become better observers, we naturally become more calm and more still, and less anxious and stressed. 

I love the term mental illness. It sells a lot of books. Personally, I don't believe it exists. What we perceive as depression, delusion, ADD (bullshit), schizophrenia (most diagnoses are inconclusive), etc. is nothing but our inability to cope with our own weaknesses in helping each other. Basing a worldview on several thousand year old year myths is as useful as empowering self-serving authorities to steal the freedoms of individuals for personal profit. If a person can be labeled as mentally ill, then groups of people should be labeled as socially ill. Where are those peer-reviewed journals? In fact, most of civilization is pretty fucking nuts. That's why we sometimes read, watch, and worship fiction that gives us a glimpse of how things maybe should be if we weren't so goddamn willfully ignorant to do anything about it.

What I disagree with I highlighted. In your view, all desire is negative. Is self-preservation or hunger a lack of happiness? Is it necessary for us to give up all desire for us to be happy?
The positions in which we find ourselves are drawn to us through our desire; What we are has been built through desire. The 'is' was achieved through desire. Therefore, happiness or a lack of happiness is desire fulfilled already.

Note:  While I do hold a masters degree in social work mental health and a bacehlors degree in psychology, I am not a licensed professional and am not legally qualified to speak professionally on the diagnoses of mental illnesses.

That being said, the DSM-IV is the basis upon which all mental illnesses are diagnosed.  The DSM-IV itself is simply a book outlining categorical criteria that form the basis for mental illnesses.

Do I think that mental illnesses exist?  Well, that depends.   Now, if I were to say definitively that "yes, mental illnesses exist," then I would seem to be contradicting myself when I went into the whole "identity implies stability over time."  In other words, if someone was and is mentally ill, then this would imply that the mental illness would never, EVER go away, nor would that person have been free of mental illness at any time in the past.

So, why use the phrase 'mental illness' to begin with?  Well, why say 'AIDS' or 'cold' or 'flu'?  Isn't every AIDS case different in intensity, duration, etc.?  Don't some people recover from colds in 5 days while others recover in 7?

The phrase 'mental illness' is used to reflect a certain group of characteristics that seem to reflect certain patterns.  The term 'depression,' for example, is simply used to describe a certain number of categorical criteria in an individual.  Using such phrases have benefits -- for example, they make communication between professionals and academics easier.  In other words, they help you to form a general idea of what a given person is going through, what their characteristics might be, what you may be able to expect from them, etc.

My personal belief is that the phrase 'mental illness' is a term just as any other, but truly it is the 'experience' that we must try to understand.  When I say the word 'apple,'  what kind of apple did you think of?  Was it a red apple?  Why didn't you think of a green apple?  Should we hound anybody that uses the phrase 'apples and oranges' for not saying 'red apples and green apples?'

Long story short, any good mental health professional/paraprofessional/student should learn to understand experiences, and from that understanding we can learn ways to bring about more positive experiences.

It is from my emphasis on understanding experiences that my emphasis on identifying with an observer arises.  Observation is a fundamental, self-evident experience.  It aligns with Occam's Razor, and it is hard to get more fundamental than statements like "I observe" or "I am."

Is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?

Your statements lead into those "self-resolving paradoxes" that I talked about.

When we look at our world in the 3rd dimension, we can describe what the 4th dimension might be like.  But, no matter how hard we try, it is impossible to intellectually understand the 4th dimension as it is the sum of all possible yes AND no operations in the 3rd dimension.

When I present an assertion such as "desire is a root cause of mental illness" which then leads to the inevitable conclusion that "all desire is negative," this naturally brings up questions such as "is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?" or the questions that you posited.

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, due to the human intellect being confined to yes OR no operations only, we must pick a certain level of logical syntax and act as though it is the highest level of syntax.  From this syntax we can then resolve paradoxes that arise in lower levels of logical syntax.  The questions that you posited, and the question that I posited "i.e. is the desire to eliminate desire negative?", can be thrust into this lower level of syntax and resolved, even when we are actually talking about things that are only fit for a higher level of syntax (e.g. trying to understand the 4th dimension as if it were the 2nd dimension).

So, I would respond as follows:  On a certain level, yes, the desire to eliminate desire, the desire for happiness, the desire to eat, the desire to love, to obtain wisdom, etc.  is negative as it still implies dissatisfaction.  I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry, I get rather cranky.  When I long for knowledge or wisdom that I do not have, I feel inadequate.  Even when I desire to eliminate desire, I long for a certain state of contentment that I have only had glimpses of while in a state of deep meditation.

But, on a different level, desire can be good.  Desire and intention allow us to successfully navigate the world around us, to go out and obtain that food when we are hungry, to help the sick or poor in need, to learn, to develop skills, etc.  But remember, on a higher level of syntax, just as the 4th dimension relates to the 3rd dimension, desire is both good and bad simultaneously, and neither good nor bad simultaneously.  However, this type of statement simply cannot be comprehensively intellectualized.  

If you want a glimpse of how yes AND no operations operate, try to focus on your direct experience of phenomena.  Direct experiences in and of themselves prior to any intellectual abstraction are the unification of subject of object, and an experience of duality itself.  If you pay attention to the studies and works of quantum researchers, they are completely disinterested in any phenomena that cannot be observed.  Ever hear the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it (i.e. observe it), did it make a sound?"  Quantum researchers don't care whatsoever about this kind of question -- it is more or less a nonsense question that isn't even worth trying to formulate any kind of intelligent response.

Quantum researchers only care about what is observed, and with good reason.  It is through the direct experience of phenomena that a glimpse of yes AND no operations arises, and it is something that the intellectual mind cannot fully comprehend.  In an attempt to understand direct experience, the rational mind must parse the experience -- whereas a direct experience is akin to duality itself, the rational mind parses duality into halves (remember, the root word of "rationale" is "ratio").  It is only from a comparison of yes and no states that anything can be rationally comprehended.

Important Point:  Keeping this in mind, lets go back to the question, "Is the desire to eliminate desire negative (if all desire is negative)?"  Well, if desire eliminates something negative, then it seems to be the opposite of negative (after all, it is axiomatic that removing the cause of something negative removes that which is negative).  So, this means that the desire to eliminate desire must be non-negative at the same time that it is negative!

So... basically CBT except leave out the social conditioning. You go blablabla and then some dude is gunna pull down his pants and say suck it in a threatening manner cause hes sad and pissed because he got a DUI and is now being punished for it and can't get a job. I've seen it.

I don't understand what is vague about it. If you recommend dietary changes or whatever, how do you go about convincing someone to modify their behaviour to reap the benefits you think they will get?

My personal model of therapy incorporates  CBT with a heavy dose of existentialism.  I cannot control how others respond to what I say.  I can only do my best to present what I have learned in my 10+ years of experience and intense study into the origins of human happiness and suffering.  I recognize that the people on this forum are generally of a different type and are generally more homogeneous than the clients I have worked with in hospital inpatient settings, and so my responses here are vastly more intricate than the ways in which I would present them to most clients that I have worked with in the past.   After spending some time with a client, I try to present my model in a way that I think the client will be able to resonate with.  Usually, I find that analogies work extremely well, so I often try to incorporate as many analogies as I can when working with someone.

Do you have system though? Or is it all just kind of an artform? Some people only respond to threats/violence (and will say so) which is not an approved therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

This is the type of person who I have had most contact with I guess. Perhaps your clients have different problems.

I have a general system, yes.  I utilize a set of what I believe are Universal principles and then try to tailor them to an individual's situation.

Assuming a person is in full control of their mental faculties (i.e. they are not delusional, hallucinating, mentally retarded, high on drugs or withdrawing from drugs to the point where they are significantly incapacitated, etc.), then my first goal is to simply develop a rapport with the person and try to understand what kind of information they are likely to absorb, and the best ways of helping them to absorb this information.

It is my belief that people naturally are drawn to that with which they can identify. This is why (generally) nerds hang with nerds, beautiful people hang with beautiful people, gym rats hang with gym rats, whites hang with whites, blacks with blacks, happy people with happy people, and 'mentally' ill' people with 'mentally ill' people.  Accordingly, this is why I have found analogies are useful.  I try to use analogies that people can relate to, and as such I find that people are more ready to absorb information presented in the form of an analogy rather than simply spilling them loads of dense information.

After I've developed a certain rapport with a client (the strength of this rapport is usually restrained by the client's length of stay), I then try to emphasize the importance of increasing self-awareness within the client, and try to help them understand why increasing self-awareness is the critical first step to recovery.  Virtually any and all genres of therapy including CBT, REBT, psychodynamic, existential, etc. are designed to increase a client's level of self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness helps us to become more in tune with the subtleties of our thought patterns, behavior patterns, habits, and tendencies.  

The more we become aware of these patterns (i.e. by becoming more observant of them), we can begin to develop some increased insight into our situation.  We can begin to identify negative habits and tendencies more readily, and by becoming more observant of these habits and tendencies, we can begin to find ways to intervene in situations where we would ordinarily react without thinking.  Becoming more observant of these tendencies allows us a moment of stillness for insight and clarity, and it is during this moment of stillness that change is possible.  We become more distant and disconnected from our negative habits and tendencies the more we observe them, and when we are distant from them, we become more free to act differently.

To give an example, how many times have we become so completely angry or frustrated that we literally wanted to grab the nearest thing to us (e.g. a remote control, a phone) and chuck it across the room.  Sometimes, we actually do this!  Other times, we actually have the object in hand, and we even may make the arm motion to begin to throw it, but then something stops us in our tracks.  We might have the thought, "I can't throw this, I'll have to spend $250 replacing my new I-Phone!"  Somehow, we had a moment of clarity.  We were able to intervene.  We were able to, for a very, very brief moment, distance ourselves from our anger and have a moment of rational clarity.  Now, the question is, why were we able to intervene?

We were able to intervene because we briefly became more observant of our situation.  We took a look at the situation in a broader context.  No longer was it simply "Me and my anger"  but it became "Me, my anger, my phone, my money, my future need to replace my phone if I break it."  In other words, we distanced ourselves from the situation, even if only slightly.  Sure, we might just go back to being really frustrated, but we must not forget that moment of clarity.  The more observant we become, the more moments of clarity we will have like this.  How often do we change the channel when it reaches a commercial without even thinking about it?  Do you even know why you changed the channel, or has it become so instinctively natural for you to do so that you haven't even realized that there was anxiety present?  "Oh, this channel doesn't satisfy me anymore, I desire something else."

So, the first step is to drive home the importance of increasing self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness is a skill that is developed through continued practice.  As we become more self-aware, and as we gain more clarity and insight, then we can begin to find ways to replace negative habits of thinking and acting with positive ones.  Increasing self-awareness which results in clarity and insight develops hope for recovery, and hope for a better future when we realize that positive change is possible.  From hope stems motivation, from motivation stems positive intention to do better and think better which will reap positive results.  This is the path to recovery.

TL;DR:    
Understanding the importance of increased self-awareness leads to...
Motivation and intention to increase self-awareness leads to...
Increased self-awareness leads to...
Increased clarity and insight leads to...
Hope leads to...
Motivation to do better and think better leads to...
Positive habit formation leads to...
Positive results and recovery

By the way, I truly want to thank everyone so far who has commented.  You have no idea how helpful your comments have been.

If I was already pissed, the "we" thing would just piss me off more. " You don't know me or my problems!"... just sayin.

... are you my client now or something?  I think that response was a bit foolish.

I have been counciled before, I also have an undergrad in a related field and have done some of that work. I'm just trying to convey the lessons learned from my experiences to you. Sorry if it came off as irrelvant.

It came off as irrelevant because you asked about my method, and then instead of commenting about the method itself, you commented on the way the explanation was presented.  Furthermore, you commented on the way it was presented as if you were actually a client being given this information.  It's really not a fair critique of any sort.

I get what you're saying, but I acknowledged in the very same post that as a therapist I need to find what the person can identify with so as to make the information more easy to convey.  The posts on this thread are to a general audience, not just you, hence I used the word 'we' and used very general examples.

Now, if I go on to write a book or something (which I intend to do at some point in my career) then I agree, I will need to be especially choosy about the language I use.  But I'd still bet that the majority of us have had experiences similar to the examples I just used.

For the record, I've been counseled too.

Edit:  Here's a little more detail to explain why I think the critique wasn't relevant.  A client who is genuinely interested in learning my method will likely ask about it after we have developed some kind of personal rapport.  If this is the case, then I will have some basic idea about the way to approach them as an individual.  You seemed to be forming your critique from two differing perspectives.  If you're simply an individual on the Bitcoin forum asking about my method, that's one thing.  But then to also simultaneously take the perspective of a resilient, emotional client puts my explanation at a disadvantage because you can play both sides when convenient.  In other words, it seemed that when you asked about my method, you were asking from the perspective of a curious person reading this thread.  The response seemed to be from a client's perspective. 

Point taken. I don't mean to be so antagonistic really. You are clearly out to help people and just trying to bounce ideas off of others with this thread. It's just talking about abstract concepts that guide human behaviour feels out of date to me. I got out of pysch, etc because noone really knows what works or keeps track very well, so it results in people endlessly arguing with each other with no real evidence supporting either side.

Let me put it this way:
Do you keep a list of successes and failures and score each patient on various parameters, then try to analyze this data to find correlations, followed by building a model of what factors are important in determining the success/failure of a certain approach? If not you should. Last I was involved the field really needed that.

Well, in terms of 'scoring' successes and failures, I haven't done that in an objective manner, no.  I documented therapy sessions with clients in the form of case notes, but none of my roles in the workplace have necessitated such a scoring, nor would I have been allowed time at work to devote to such objective scoring, nor would it have been feasible to even try.  That's definitely the downfall to being an intern -- I could only do so much.  My 'scoring' has only come from feedback from clients. I personally think I was quite successful with many people.  But, the average length of stay for patients at the hospital where I was working is only 5-7 days.  That doesn't really give you any length of time to form baseline data, apply an intervention, collect outcome data, then formulate correlations or conclusions.

I don't think you are antagonistic enough. While there is some useful philosophy that comes out of studying human behavior, behavior itself is only perceived through our self-prescribed lenses. Correlations don't in themselves prove causation. We have barely scratched the surface with finding tools to allow our organic and fractal gray matter to evolve to keep up with the complexity that our technological civilization has evolved into.

Forgive my harshness in regards to this topic. It's the industry of mental illness and the educational system that has been coopted by Big Pharm, the prison industry, the insurance industry, and every other self-serving over-bloated bureaucracy that created that abomination called the Bible "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

Atlas wants to talk to you, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89284.msg984122#msg984122

Is there a safe threshold of self-awareness ? the more the better?

Believe me, I get what you're saying.  I dislike the DSM-IV as much as you do at the same time I recognize the benefits it can have.  It's a slippery slope...a very slippery slope.

Good question.

In every-day usage, self-awarness seems to correlate with introspection.  This can be very dangerous.  Becoming too introspective can leave a person trapped in a world of thought.  Many depressed people are this way, and they find themselves catastrophizing their thoughts -- they become so aware of their thoughts that they become utterly drawn to them, and one negative thought can snowball into the next.

Have you ever sat and just watched the clouds pass by?  I'm sure virtually all of us have done this.  Now, have you ever tried to control the clouds, to twist them and mold them into a particular shape?  No?  Well, what would happen if you did?  Do you think that you would become frustrated very quickly once you found out that you can't shape the clouds to your liking?

Now, apply the same logic to your thoughts.  Many people with mental illness will tell you that they get frustrated by their negative thoughts, and no matter how hard they try to control them they fail.  I contend that this is similar to trying to change the clouds in the sky.  The clouds will continually pass by, taking on various forms and shapes, just as your thoughts do.  But, if you can simply observe your thoughts rather than trying to control and manipulate them, you will find that you can calm and relax yourself even when the most negative of thoughts are passing in front of you.

Ideally, I contend that your awareness should be placed on equal-parts subject and equal-parts object.  I believe you need to be aware of your role as an observer at the same time you are aware of what is observed.  As a result, you will be focused on stillness and chaos equally.  Then, you will still be able to navigate the world with your body, intending to reach your goals and accomplishing them whether they are as simple as getting a glass of water when you're thirsty or studying for a doctoral degree.  But, you will also be aware of that underlying stillness that is associated with your very nature as an observer.  This will help you to remain calm among all the chaos unfolding before you.

Edit:  I believe this boils down to focusing your awareness on your direct experience of phenomena.

You're probably familiar with gnosticism? They say that true knowledge comes from within. Well, not exactly, but we certainly learn about our own optics there. Breaking dependencies on worldly things are nothing compared to the strange connections that form in human bonding. We are unaware of nothing about our relationships with others until we experience our own relationships between our two brain hemispheres. Let me tell you that the journey is indeed very dark and dangerous, but the rewards are in finding those places your problems dwell. I'm talking about the places where 'others' exist. These are how we perceive each other, where dreams come from, and I suspect where our altered personas sleep. I have never taken hallucinagens, but I do not think they would offer any more connectivity than finding yourself in what we think are the people in our lives.

I don't recommend the journey into deep depression, but if you write what you experience it will help you to become very in touch with yourself and your creative powers.

I read that as there is not enough funding to go around so people are forced to do half-assed jobs. It is a common phenomenon in science right now.

Solutions:

1) Increase overall funding for [enter field here] so the job can get done right. Disadvantages: Increases waste, costs more.
2) Be more selective in who gets funded and give them more money so the job can get done right. Disadvantages: Less people get to be scientists/councilors/etc leading to less diversity of ideas.

Well, that's part of it.  Funding is definitely an issue.  In Illinois where I live, funding has been severely cut to social service departments in recent years and it's not looking to improve anytime soon.  I wasn't paid for my internship at the hospital, and even still we were grossly understaffed.  3 counselors (myself and 2 social workers) are not nearly enough to work with a 30-person inpatient milieu.  It's not just counseling that we're responsible for, its assessments, discharges, case-management, and documenting every single interaction with the patients.  For example, if we have a group counseling session, then a case note is needed for every single person that participates in that group.

On an average day, I had to complete 3 assessments (about an hour-long each), document each assessment in the computer, provide a group counseling session and subsequently type a case note for every patient that attended the session.  These tasks alone would take up about 5-6 hours of my 8-hour work day with a half-hour lunch included.  That only leaves about 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours for all case-management related services and discharges.  When all is said and done, there is rarely any time for individual counseling sessions which are desperately needed.  Needless to stay, I often stayed late even when I wasn't required to.

Another issue is an almost complete lack of coordination between the medical staff and the social work staff.  The medical staff uses the medical model which is almost completely opposite of the social work model (though the two could be thought of as complimentary).  So, this adds confusion to the mix because a patient may hear one thing from a medical staff member and then hear something completely different from a social worker, and they're never really given an opportunity to be informed as to how these apparently contrasting pieces of information can compliment each other.

I will say this:  Having actually worked in the inpatient unit, I understand why patients usually receive inadequate treatment.  Given the current system, it's virtually impossible for a patient to really be given the time and attention they deserve.  As a result, you see very high rates of recidivism.  I remember seeing several of the same patients readmitted 3, 4, or even 5 times during the 9-month course of my internship.  It sucks.

Edit:  Another thing to consider is the time given to each patient from the doctors.  Many patients complain that their psychiatrist spends very little time with them.  It's not the doctor's fault.  The lead doctor on our unit works at 4 different hospitals throughout the day, and on average will see 35-40 patients in a day.  This gives him an average of 8 minutes to spend with each patient, and those 8 minutes include all the notes and charting that the doctor must report for each patient.  This means he has about 3-4 minutes each day to listen to a patient and prescribe/adjust medications.  Is 3-4 minutes per day enough?  Fuck no.

Under those conditions, I would say things would be better if that doctor prescribed nothing at all. I have seen multiple people fucked up by bad prescriptions that I would have strongly recommended against if i had been present. For example, giving xanax to someone who drinks... even if they tell you they drink.

I agree.  It's a shame.

There have been many studies that say that the most satisfying jobs are those that involve helping people. So why are the psych professions the cause of so much drug addiction by doctors and suicides by therapists? Simple, we have put the weight of the world on their shoulders. Their 'patients' are created by our monstrous social machines that chew us up and spit us out. Anyone left behind is relegated to a community outside their own..... Ya know what... I can't talk about this anymore. This system is totally fucked for the next 5-7 generations and that's only if we start to do something about it today. That's why I quit the system. The only person I can change is me.

It is because the methods pyschs and sociologists use are largely ineffective and the people who do it know that the literature is not reliable. The anxiety/etc experienced by these people results from realizing they don't know wtf they are doing. There are people with problems who can be helped somehow, but no good, practical algorithm for figuring out how is available. The field needs to focus resources on assessing effectiveness properly and stop throwing a million sociologists with notebooks at the problem. The brain is just a really, really complex machine we don't have the schematics or source code for. If something is worth doing it is worth doing right and I have come to realize over the last year (I am a neuropharm grad student) much of biomed, psychology, and sociology is not being done right. These people need to start figuring out the power of math and real stats.

I 85% agree with you except that there is a solution and it is really simple. I'll give you a hint, a big part of it is why I am in this forum.  ;D

Then Reverse Engineer it. For individuals capable, meditation. For healthcare professionals, tests, Q&A, scans.

That is a work in progress. There are fundamental problems with the current system leading to cronyism, not-enough-funding leading to half assism but not knowing where to put additional funding without wasting it, and just that it is a difficult puzzle to begin with.

I agree, most psychologists and sociologists don't know what they're doing.  Much of the problem is that psychology and sociology is treated in the classroom as an isolated discipline.  If you try to bring up mathematics and try to use it to support a therapeutic model, good luck.  Believe me, I've tried.  Nobody wants to hear, for example, how the mathematical proof of 'the boundary of a boundary = 0' has implications for therapy.  Moreover, in research and statistics classes where mathematics do come into play, people over-emphasize the importance of mathematics to the point where they ignore the limitations of statistical analysis.  Correlation is often mistaken for causation, validity for soundness, and everyone thinks that just because something is published that it must be correct.

Case in point of the stupidity that I was taught, I had a social policy professor claim that "the cause of oppression and injustice in society is the result of bad social policies," to which she added, "which means that the only way to remove oppression and injustice is to create good social policies."

I raised my hand in class and said "bullshit."  Assuming her premise is true (which it's not), then it would be axiomatic that you need to remove ALL 'bad' social policies and start over from scratch.

I firmly believe that the things I am talking about in this thread are going to become more prominent in the future.  I am making a bold statement when I say this, and I know it can come off as very arrogant.  But believe me, I've put in an incredible amount of time formulating these ideas.  I acknowledge that most of them are not new.  But, they didn't come from the predominant psychological and sociological models.  They come from biology, math, quantum mechanics, philosophy and logic, physics, chemistry, etc. in addition to psychology and sociology.  To this extent, the ideas presented here are comprehensive in scope, and there's a ton of information to support my claims that I haven't yet posted.

I've become a complete convert to the bayesian way of thinking. I believe once there is a critical mass of researchers thinking in that manner it will go a long way towards improving the system. Second point is that researchers need to reduce their reliance on government funding in every way possible. The very basis of the funding is arguably unethical, on top of that it relies on a relatively easily corruptible, centralized authority that distributes funds for reasons other than merit. Science is very, very sick right now and I know I am not alone in this opinion. I don't have time now but once I have finished my current project I plan to spend some time developing a system to crowdsource funding of individual components of research proposals (to supplement government funding..for now) and crowdsource some of the tedious work when possible. I would encourage others to attempt the same in their free time.

I think Christopher Langan said it best about the peer-review system of meritocracy.  First off, unless you have at least a masters degree (and usually only a doctoral degree, depending on the field), nobody in academia really cares about what you have to say.  If I recall, Langan asserted that even those with advanced degrees can only make little "tentative moves" forward, but nobody is really able to do anything too radical to shake things up.

Case in point, I took an undergraduate research design class for which we had to submit a research proposal to the APA board and then conduct a scientific experiment.  The APA board turned down my initial research proposal.  You know why it was rejected?  It wasn't because it was unethical or ridiculous...it was rejected because nobody had done it yet.

In other words, I was not allowed to conduct an experiment simply because I had nobody to cite.  What a load of bullshit.

Well perhaps they wouldn't give you money because you haven't "shown you could do it" which is legitimate when it comes to novel experiments. The problem is that many people considered capable actually aren't, instead CV's and publications are used as a heuristic.

This wasn't even about funding.  It was a simple research experiment (quasi-experiment) using student participants from the Psychology 101 class.  They didn't need to give a dime to any of us.

In that case... SCIENCE FAIL. There is opportunity cost to everything though. What did you end up doing instead?

My rejected proposal involved testing the effects of different types of music on a person's perception of the passage of time while conducting a simple task (e.g. such as a word search).

My accepted proposal involved testing the effects of the presence of a clock in the room on a person's perception of the passage of time while conducting a simple task (e.g. such as a word search).  One group conducted a word search with a clock present somewhere in the room.  The 2nd group conducted the same word search, but the clock was removed from the room.  Participants then answered a questionnaire about the task they completed, and one of the questions asked them how much time believe had elapsed from the time they began the word search until the time they finished.

Results of the study indicated that participants believed that a longer period of time had elapsed when a clock was present in the room than when the clock was not present.  The clock was actually placed behind them during the task so they could only see the clock upon entering the room, but not while performing the task or completing the questionnaire. 

Interesting, I imagine music would serve as a proxy clock. Each song is about 3 minutes long, etc.

I was going to use songs from various genres that are incredibly long relative to the average song.  I had some pre-selected classical and heavy metal tracks (to name a couple of genres) that run as long as 30 minutes specifically because the average time it would take a normal person to complete the word search was far less than 30 minutes.   

Basically ignorance is the root of all mental illness.

The Tibetan (Buddhism) philosophy has it right in my opinion as they acknowledge that their is two truths (but only one is the real truth, just stay with me).
The fake truth is when you watch tv you see a silly cartoon cat chasing a mouse.
The ultimate and real truth is you are viewing tiny dots of light.

So I say ignorance is the root of all mental illness because its ignorant to think one exists at all or even acknowledge an "I", "me" or "you" unless they are talking about the ultimate one "I", the infinite self.

I see what you're getting at.  I think that's half of it, for true knowledge I believe is still useless without application.  First you need to know what is true and correct, and then you need to act with that knowledge.  I think it's kind of like a feedback loop wherein knolwedge --> action -- > more knowledge --> more action etc. with better refinements each time.

I'd still give ya a +1 because I'm pretty sure I know what you mean.

Thanks for the plus one and I think you do get what I mean but check this out, In my perspective what you just said is flawed(aka Not the Ultimate Truth, fake truth) in my interpretation(even though I know what your really saying I just want to show others my perspective of this type of thinking)

Isn't that veird?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5DZexDYyuU#t=0m4s

Lol.

Yeah, the perspective issue is always the confusing part.

I tried to address this problem earlier in this thread with my explanation of different levels of logic.  We must always try to explain higher levels of logical syntax by first thrusting them into a lower level of logical syntax.  The example I gave for this is how we, as 3rd dimensional beings try to explain the 4th dimension by acting as though it were the 2nd dimension and thus capable of being understood comprehensively by our intellect (e.g. by representing the 4th dimension as a tesseract on a piece of paper).

You know I remember watching a video depicting a guy drawing on a piece of paper on youtube one time and I never realised that(until now of course) he was using a 2d object to present the 4d world.... this world is maddness!!

Basically ignorance is the root of all mental illness.


So someone gets raped when they are 10 and now they are 20 and have social anxiety to the extent they can't get a job. You will tell them their "illness" is due to ignorance? How do you turn your hypothesis into something useful to a person like that? Or just in general? It sounds more like something upper-middle-class people (who have been brainwashed so much that only now are they realizing what existential anxiety is) going through midlife crisis will buy books about.

Assuming your serious, I'd have to say that is a horrible situation to think about and I don't wish it on any one and  yes that persons illness came from the ignorance of the people that raped the person in that they thought they actually existed and that they actually thought they were receiving some type of satisfaction from that decision to rape that said person. The person(the victim) is also ignorant for acknowledging that they are "alive" and had a choice to avoid that said situation, even if they did have a choice the infinite true self wouldn't have moved it self in that way or inflicted that action upon itself unless it wanted to.
Your response almost sounds like an emotional fallacy where those who emotionally agree with you will think I'm wrong or something but It doesn’t matter to me since nobody can be right or wrong, it just is so I won't lose any sleep over it :P.

I just care about what is useful. "Every problem is rooted in ignorance" doesn't conjure up useful solutions in my mind.

I wouldn't expect you to think the answer to everything is ignorance... why that would just be ignorant.


We are talking about mental illness, remember?

Ignorance is also the cure to boredom though.

I swear you are just following me around the forums to make me laugh, haha

The cure for hiccups is "digital rectal massage"... look it up on pubmed, it (supposedly) interrupts the firing of the vagus nerve. Better to just wait it out in my opinion.