Psychology, the study of our various mental processes, and what a complex subject! Perhaps I need more than one Psych course back in college to be able to speak at all intelligently about ANYTHING involving psychology! And yes, I know that's true! But it's my contention that the study of the mind relies just as much upon the subject, the person that is, as it does any textbook, it's a sort of symbiotic relationship between patient and doctor. The patient, in effect, teaches the doctor about his way of thinking, and the doctor, in-turn teaches the patient how to better cope with said ways of thinking.
I'm not sure why I stopped pursuing the Psychology courses, I loved 101! I think we all, usually, get a lot out of those moments when we reflect on our thinking and all the various ins and outs that come with it... it's fun, certainly fascinating, to study our emotions and their motives, and all of the various ways we interpret them to be misfiring... I think they're far too many "illnesses" today, far too many "diagnosis", too many classes, categories, brackets, levels, stages, processes, too many classifications and/or conclusions about our mind and all the ways it's known to operate... It seems gargantuan to me, if not impossible, to master our understanding of the brain and it's processes, and believe me when I say I know that statement alone has the entire "scientific class" scoffing in disgust. But it's this arrogant pursuit of the eradication of all mystery in our lives that seems laughable, even disgusting, to me! I equate the mastery of our brains with the complete and full understanding of life, and when worded like that, I see the appeal, however futile it may be.
Still, is merely "understanding" something a requirement to "categorize" it? To isolate it? To LABEL it? Perhaps a lot of these "conditions", these "categories", are just "the way we are", the way we INDIVIDUALS operate, and we are individuals. I think we've really lost sight of that, for it's this cookie cutter definition of "normal" and "normal behavior" that has us all expecting, even REQUIRING OURSELVES, to be like everyone else, and for everyone else to be like us, or risk being labled "defective", or at the very least "abnormal". Because despite the lack of a clear, concise, and collective definition for whatever a "normal" human being is, acts, or looks like, we still feel justified in labeling someone else's behavior as "abnormal", so we can't also call that individual "normal", right? If so, then we have ourselves an "abnormal normal" person. Or are they just partially "abnormal"? If so, when do they stop qualifying for the "normal" category, and drift off into that one aspect of their way of thinking and interpreting the world that's now been deemed "abnormal"? Or are they really just both sides at the same time? The un-complicated answer would be to classify everyone as normal, with some people perpetually maintaining an eccentric side, but if everyone's normal, than why have any classifications for anything? It's this lack of a definition for the "normal" person that has me tied up and twisted around this philosophical way of looking at it!
It's also interesting to note that the vast percentage of all psychological "disorders" are based entirely on someone's behavior, and not some biological anomaly, not some visible or tangible, physical characteristic that is observably "different" than that of the average human being. Indeed, it's the person's behavior that's spooked them and the people around them enough to seek council, and there is NOTHING wrong with the psychologist/patient approach, it's the methods of such "professionals" that I feel are unnecessary most of the time. Indeed, perhaps our INDIVIDUALITY is not something to be afraid of, not something to be avoided or ignored, not something to be diagnosed, or "cured". No, indivuduality and all of our quirks, are NOT some simple, anomalous, defect that we need to address, we don't even need to acknowledge these behaviors a lot of the time, for to bring attention to it signifies it's uniqueness as something odd, something not on par with the observers understanding of normal behavior.
Indeed, the brain can produce some horrifying realities, and it can do so on a regular basis, to call it a condition however, well, I think it should be case by case, but I find no qualm with the word condition, for it suggests your reality is "conditional", or perhaps it's "conditioned", and it's ultimately up to chance as to whether or not this person emerges from said condition. At least the word "condition" brings with it an open dialogue. I mean, the definition of scores of "diseases" have changed dramatically over the years, yet in each definitions day, it was correct, and just a "fact"; my arguement comes in by suggesting that it was never actually a "fact" to begin with, which means it wasn't a reality as we knew it, for a "fact" can't have multiple definitions now can it? A fact can't mean one thing to one person, and something completely different to another, right? Well apparently it can, we've been allowing that for as long as one can remember. Yet we don't do it universally across the board, I mean, look at a courtroom, or a court case rather, if the prosecution believes that Fact A has a certain meaning, and they're demonstrably correct, yet the defense whole heartedly believes that Fact A has a completely separate meaning, and they too are demonstrably correct, how on earth would anything ever get settled? The truth is, it just wouldn't, and chaos would ensue! A fact is a fact is a fact, a fact can only have one, universally accepted definition or truth attached to it.
Certainly not some random disease, syndrome, or label by some other name, a label that we stigmatize as defective, as not normal, when in fact it's quite normal for the person experiencing it, for the person living it, it's their baseline, it's who they are! It's like we've all lost our understanding of ourselves, and individuality has become something taboo, and we did so by classifying each and every anomalous human being as some sort of defective machine, one that must have a label. It can't just be, it can't just exist inside them as our "normal" exists inside us, nope, we need a clearly defined name for that person, that way we can more easily separate ourselves from them, distance our "normal" selves from the defective freak in the corner... What's that Timmy? You don't want to go play on the swing-set and chase your friends around with sticks like some primate? You'd rather stay inside and..... aND..... READ?!?!?! Oh my god, I've got so many phone calls to make now, the principle, the school "health advisor", your parents, maybe even Child Protective Services should get a call, because I've got to inform everyone that "in my professional opinion" (which is a sentence or formality that's developed way too much power or esteem) as a mind reader, your son has "problems" socializing with the other kids, he's shy, he's not got too many friends, and he'd rather stay inside during recess and read his book than go outside and chase his friends around with sticks like some primate... and that alone is just such a red flag, actually, I think your son may in fact be a serial killer...
Okay, maybe I exaggerated a little bit, but am I really that far off?! Seriously now, think about it! OMG your son likes to run around a lot, he's got so much energy, well, unfortunately that's not "normal behavior", he's got a condition called "A.D.D.", and it might even be worse than that I'm afraid. Worse? Yes, worse, I've got all sorts of acronyms I could label your son with, but for now, he needs to take this pill, everyday, until he's either got less energy naturally, or becomes his own decision maker (hits 18) and takes himself off of it... and now adays more kids than not (it seems) are either on some sort of medication, or at the very least labeled as something "not normal"...
Now, I thought science is supposed to be as exact as possible, in fact, when science is involved, if you can't duplicate the results of whatever it is you've discovered, created, or altered, and do so on-demand, than it's not a proven phenomenon, whatever that phenomenon may be... Independent scientists need to be able to duplicate your findings, using your parameters, and reliably so... now, how on god's green earth do they have the first clue what's going on inside our heads?! And how on earth is it so reliably detectable that it deserves a name of it's own? When does a person's thought leave the parameters surrounding the definition of "thought", and morph into this "syndrome"? This "disease"? At which precise moment is a person's behavior, as it relates to their way of thinking,"not normal"? Is it only "not normal" if the person has too many of any particular thought or thoughts? If so, exactly how many times does the person have to think about it before it leaves his "normal behavior" and becomes his "abnormal behavior"? And as I stated earlier, if a person acts a certain way, and does so regularly, even if the behavior's pattern is to come around every once in awhile instead of constantly, isn't that just "who they are"? When does their behavior leave the category of "normal" and become something else? Something to be viewed as separate from "normal behavior"? After all, we can't have it both ways, we can't decide to label someone's mind as problematic and outside the norm, and then call them normal at the same time, right? So what's left? Abnormal is all I can see, and still I can't see, or can't understand, the precise moment in which a person stops being unique, stops being eccentric, stops being bloody NORMAL, and becomes something undesired, or someone who endures the undesired unwillingly? And what are the behavioral actions themselves that need closer scrutiny? And is it how those actions are displayed that makes it noteworthy? For instance, is it only "not normal" if the person speaks his thoughts aloud, versus just saying it in his head? If so, when does talking to yourself become "unusual", at what defined moment? Is it only "not normal" if he says his thoughts aloud, too loudly? If you could sort of make out that his lips were moving but you couldn't really hear him, is he still "not normal"? If so, then it seems to me like a person only becomes "abnormal" and requires labeling if their "strange" behavior leaves their personal space and invades ours, and if that's the case it's by no fault of the individual in question, and appears to have everything to do with us and how we perceive it, rather then something wrong with them.
What about these voices we all joke about so much? Is it when a person hears so-called "voices" in their head that makes them defective? Makes them something to be labeled separately? Well, we all have that voice inside us, every single one of us hears voices all day long, so it must be what this voice is saying that bears closer examination then, right? Well here we are again, talking about something we all do, and that's to think a violent thought, which is generally perceived as "normal", until acted upon or even perhaps ranted about, but the thought itself isn't dangerous, right? Apparently not, apparently it's quite dangerous, and it requires a diagnosis, not for everyone, just for some. So, when does a person's violent thought, or even thoughts plural, leave the "normal" category and move into the "abnormal" category? Is it still the number of times it happens? Is it the details of the thought? The level of violence? Wait, does violence actually have different levels? Or is it the quantity of violent thoughts? Well at which exact number does it become a "problem" then? How many times does a person have to think "God I wish you'd strike this jerk down right now!!" before it becomes "a symptom" of something that needs to be diagnosed and labeled?
If it's the actual content of the thought and not just the thought itself, what content is considered "normal" violence, and which content is just another symptom of a syndrome? If a person's violent thought was just "Man, I really wish the horrible driver in front of me would just drive off a cliff!", is that an acceptable way to wish for someone to die? If the person's thought was more specific or detailed, does THAT make it the dangerous symptom? "Man, I just want to stab the driver in front of me to death!!", is that the type of death wish that warrants a closer look? If so, why? Surely the man would be just as dead if he were to drive off a cliff versus having you stab him to death, right? If you say it with a smile on your face does that make it okay? Maybe you have zero history of violence, so, naturally it's okay for you to be a little more outspoken about your violent thoughts, right? At least compared to someone who might just have been released from prison for some sort of violent crime, right? Well, once again it appears that the scrutinizing and labeling of the man's behavior is more based on us and how we feel around them, than how likely that person is to actually do some harm.
Which has us once again acknowledging that our labeling of another INDIVIDUAL is largely based on our own interpretations and feelings about the person, which that person has no control over! At least not always, of course most people have control over their behavior, so are we just talking about those that appear out of control? How do we know when a person will first become "out of control"? And what parameters must a person stay inside of, or be labled as "out of control"?
Yet it's them who pay the price for being different, for THINKING differently. Does culture play a role? Just life experience in general? And who's to say that YOU aren't acting strangely yourself? Watching everyone, judging everyone, rating their sanity by what you can discern from their physical behavior, perhaps that makes you paranoid? If so, when exactly did you become paranoid and not just curious? Was it the number of people you judged and looked at? Was it how long you looked at them? Maybe it's your obsession with sanity that's really "abnormal", that's really "insane"? Wow, wouldn't THAT be ironic? If so, what label should you have? You're quite good at labeling others, so let's have it, what type of freak are you? I don't know if I've come across as sane at all with this long, drawn out, rambling post, but my point was that everything you read in a psychology textbook, for the most part, is VERY general, very open to interpretation, and that interpretation isn't succinct, concise, or reliably arrived at by separate doctors... that does not seem very scientific to me, and maybe they don't claim to be scientists, but they wield a very dangerous weapon, one of influence, credibility, alleged knowledge, and no, they do NOT try to NOT come across as scientific either... they're perfectly content with you believing their diagnosis is more than opinion, is more than dot connecting, that it's SCIENCE! IT"S JUST HOW MY BRAIN WORKS! Well, I know I'm a stubborn jerk, but I beg to differ, I think we need a lot less labeling, and A LOT MORE LOVING!!
(Let me take a moment to make sure of something. I really do understand there are many, many, many people out there who do indeed suffer from traumatic and debilitating mental illness and the like, a couple members of my own extended family endure such things. So I hope it's clear that I'm only talking about the race to diagnose, classify, segregate, and at times even alienate our fellow human beings, and for things that might in fact be perfectly normal for them, but because it doesn't occur in the majority of people, or it's pronounced enough to regularly draw attention from passersby, there's this underlying need in society to classify that person "as something else", and I can't help but notice that it's really not difficult to spot a person who's perhaps visibly "different" in their gestures and behaviors, their speech patterns, or even just their thought processes, who isn't suffering, who isn't disabled, and who enjoys and participates in life just as much as the rest of us, but because some aspect of their existence makes some people uncomfortable, there must be some medically defined reason for their eccentricities. I don't know, I hope this came out as compassionate as I'd hoped, as it's not a declaration that there's no such thing as "mental illness", that would be absurd. Anyway, be comfortable with who you are, and remember, just because some fellow human being in a white coat declared you as somehow mentally "different" than "most of society", that should be something you're proud of! But at the same time, you don't have to put any stock into it, you're human, just like me, just like your neighbor, and no one has the right to put you in some box, some classification, and then force you to just accept their oh-so-flawless medical opinion! BE HAPPY! BE HONORABLE! BE HONEST! Enjoy life while you have it! We're not here long enough to waste our days dwelling on the things we cannot change! And anyone who wants to change you, well screw them! Okay, I'll shut-up now!)