P

[custardcreams]

A long standing trend in the treatment of mental illness is to objectify the subject into a series of catogorical process. How can the self help book work for the individual, when it simply boils down their existance to a series of impersonal terms, applied unilaterally?

For me this doesn't make sense. Simplicity and an understanding of what makes us ill and how to combat it, are obviously essential. But to apply the same simplicity to every individual and expect it to cure them is slightly ridiculous. By virtue it implies that instead of us being individuals we can all be defined by our symptoms. The part that is constantly left out in the attempt to objectify us is we react to those symptoms, how those symptoms affect us personally, how we came to have them. All these to me seem as important as identifying the symptom itself.

Obviously it is important to allow us to not feel alone in our struggle against mental illness to show that many people suffer from the same problems as you. I think think this is fine. It is the start of understanding. The problem for me is that the attempt to understand soon becomes something that is understood implicitly simply by recognising the signs of what mentally ill people do. In this and the supposed cure that follows, we do nothing but offer a plaster for a cure, and attempt to delude mentally ill people into beleieving that that they can be ok on a surface level whilst never attempting to tackle the real problems.

[bluebottle]

I used to think like this too but now I disagree. There are some great books out there which leave lots of room for individuality, while at the same time identifying behavioural and thought patterns that most people have in common. I think it just depends on what book you read - there's such a huge choice of them now that it's possible to actually choose some that work for you.

If I can give any advice to anyone, try to steer away from those books written for psychiatrists and psychology students - they tend to be very technical and sound heartless and cold. I first started reading about SAD in 2003, but what I read was this kind of book and it depressed me no end, so that I decided to completely forget about that condition and its name and I succeeded very well most of the time. Now, 4 years later, I have realised that I do need to focus on the issue again as it is the root of most of my problems, but thankfully I have discovered that a number of self-help books out there are actually helpful. I would rather use a book and work through it in my own pace and in a way that suits me, rather than trust a therapist who might not be in the mood to do his job well.

[Admiral Fool]

Ooops, I'm using the same computer as CustardCreams and somehow managed to post this half completed message under her name.

I think I must have been writing it out in her username before realising I needed to switch to my own and something something something..


Thanks for your reply Bluebottle, i'm not sure I agree entirely but I hope your method works for you

[custardcreams]

cuh...

a thread under my name using capital letters

[Zayed]

Originally Posted by custardcreams

A long standing trend in the treatment of mental illness is to objectify the subject into a series of catogorical process. How can the self help book work for the individual, when it simply boils down their existance to a series of impersonal terms, applied unilaterally?

For me this doesn't make sense. Simplicity and an understanding of what makes us ill and how to combat it, are obviously essential. But to apply the same simplicity to every individual and expect it to cure them is slightly ridiculous. By virtue it implies that instead of us being individuals we can all be defined by our symptoms. The part that is constantly left out in the attempt to objectify us is we react to those symptoms, how those symptoms affect us personally, how we came to have them. All these to me seem as important as identifying the symptom itself.

Obviously it is important to allow us to not feel alone in our struggle against mental illness to show that many people suffer from the same problems as you. I think think this is fine. It is the start of understanding. The problem for me is that the attempt to understand soon becomes something that is understood implicitly simply by recognising the signs of what mentally ill people do. In this and the supposed cure that follows, we do nothing but offer a plaster for a cure, and attempt to delude mentally ill people into beleieving that that they can be ok on a surface level whilst never attempting to tackle the real problems.

Yes, I totally agree with this. I can’t read more than 10 pages of an SA-related book without feeling frustrated as a part of it is me but there are many parts that are not.

I’ve had cbt at THE Maudsley Hospital and it started off really well, as obviously some symptoms are universal. However, eventually I felt that my therapist did not understand me and I became more confused about certain issues.

This led me to go and see a private psych, he said that although he acknowledged my SA, I shouldn’t embark on a road to recovery purely encompassing this label. We did end up giggling because my life has been such a tangled mess and I would love to see him weekly – but he charges £210 ph, which is a little on the steep side.

Anyway, I’m now on the waiting list to see a NHS shrink, hopefully I won’t be 103 before I get an appointment.

It takes time, and maybe layered recovery elements for some people to really get to the root of what the problem is and how to solve/manage it. And I come from a family who think even basic counselling is for wimps