/lit/ - Literature

>>20021734

Psychology and philosophy is how we study the world.

lol how many people contract schizophrenia from eating salad

>>20021753
I don't think eating vegetables gives you a mental disability?

>>20021740
>materialism isn't true because thinking exist
Oh wow, reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Psychiatrists can't even empirically diagnose so-called mental "illness"
Psychiatry's definition of mental illness is entirely subjective and changes based on whatever normalfags think is "abnormal" at any given moment.
Psychiatry isn't a "science" it's a Jewish scam no cap

>>20021734
good thread, shit replies so far

the "brain chemical imbalances" has been debunked some time ago, and there's no real surefire way to diagnose someone. It really isn't nearly as clear cut as with physical diseases, they can't just take a blood sample or do a brain scan to diagnose you with depression, instead they basically rely on a simple questionnaire.

tl;dr they should be approached philosophically because we don't know if they are actual medical diseases.

>>20021809
>they can't just take a blood sample or do a brain scan to diagnose
What about fMRI?

>>20021809
So then why doctors still just handing out ssris like candy? Did they not get the memo?

>>20021734
the problem with associating "chemicals in the brain" or neurons firing to phenomenological aspects (e.g. "how it feels to be sad", "how it feels to see red", etc.) is that you can never determine 100% how they are connected - meaning that we have no certainty whatsoever over which is the cause of the other or not, we just know they move in parallel. Google "qualia problem" "explanatory gap in qualia" e "hard problem of consciousness".

let the person who is ill describe the world, then let someone who isn't interpret it back.

>>20021734
If you seem to know me so much you'd make this image and mock me with it, at least provide some guidance too.

>>20021929
profits. they don't care for the mental aspect. you can be fucked in the head and they'll just keep popping pills into you. i'd be more curious to see how one can warp their idea of writing due to this.

>>20021734
TELL ME THE EXACT CHEMICAL BALANCE A HUMAN BRAIN SHOULD HAVE RIGHT NOW!!1

>>20021734

If we use this definition of philosophy then why would we not approach it philosophically?
"1. the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour and beliefs"

>>20021734
What the fuck, I am or was at least 90% of that image including the head crushing "fantasy"

>>20022230
Ok, I checked qualia and hard problem of consciousness. But I don't think that problem is quite far from this problem, like one flaw on chain and other flaw in chain 2 feet away.

Imagine this proposition - "if you cut pinky finger then one feel pain".
My question correspond with "pain is from pinky, so we only need to bandaid pinky". But you saying is correspond with "it's hard to know that how cut from pinky, and feeling pain, connected to it."

>>20022354
Oh "But I think that problem is quite far from this problem" correct to this

>>20021734
Mental illness is not a chemical imbalance, it is a societal imbalance. People are only mentally ill because the world is fucked and losing your mind is a perfectly rational response to it. Trying to treat it with drugs will only exacerbate the problem.

>>20022299
Yes. You can do that. But my saying is it will be same as treating cholera with philosophy - it only deals with trivial thing.
>inb4 "science is also philosophy"

If you want a somewhat entertaining introduction to how unscientifically "mental illnesses" are created, diagnosed, and treated The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson is actually quite good.

>>20022367
Yeah, I'm OP, and I think that is the closest approach I can come off with.
But how can we tell apart whether the problem be chemical - or societal?
OK, let's bring another mental illness : schizophrenia. Do you think schizophrenia is a societal problem?

>>20022393

>>20021734
>Isn't a philosophical approach to mental illness as trivial and far from treatment as a philosophical approach to cholera?
No because it affects the mind. Having said that, no philosopher cares about mental illness maybe aside from leftists because they're mentally ill themselves.

Also not /lit/

>>20022367
>it's not my fault, it's everyone else's fault!
Yup, we got a tranny on our hands.

>>20022367
Yes it is partly a societal problem. I read a good post here the other day about self-help/modern pop psychology, it aims mental illness back at the individual rather than the circumstances surrounding it

That being said, how do you propose we find solutions rather than navel gaze? It seems we place a lot of negative connotations around some mental illnesses, glorify some disorders, then we also normalize a culture where *everything* counts as a traumatic/mentally disturbing experience. (thus making disorders seem trivial and a non-issue)
I am conflicted about this topic because I do not see a lot of room for improvement. Personally I have lost faith in most social safety nets, common people do not want to discuss these topics because it's safer not to, and the big picture is still unaddressed

>>20021734
Its not real

>>20021753
>diseases are always caused by diet
Schizophrenia is a genetic disorder, and is also heavily linked to bipolar disorder.

>>20022402
Oh yes. "schizophrenia is not a chemical thing", by schizophrenia
I mean seriously. Why I should believe Psychoanalysis when they are dogmatic as hell? I heard that recently the most of french university decided to remove Psychoanalysis in subject.
(BTW I heard Deleuze's term schizophrenia is more of an "fragments of will to power in oneself" - philsophical than a psychological concept, so they are vastly different. Is this right?
Aaaand I heard that when guattari brought real mental patients he said they are, in fact, not sane)

>>20022434
I'll take a look at the book you've posted but I strongly disagree. Obsessional disorders and hysteria are mentally tormenting. If you fit perfectly well into your role in society you may never consider it from a patient's perspective. Some of these disorders are hellish yet there is so much disinformation, psychobabble, lack of clarity and support for patients who are afraid to seek help. There are also people who see no option other than suicide because lack of support by others around them. I beg you to look at it from the perspective of a psychotic/obsessional patient. Or consider it statistically, patients with severe mental illness go undiagnosed and have much higher rates of suicide

>>20022393
It literally is. Schizophrenia is not some magic separate thing that somehow has more biological evidence of basis than any other "mental illness." Your question is retarded because the literal pharma-commercial meme that forms your evidence is very much up for debate / not proven / disproven... And to the other person who suggested using fMRI to diagnose mental disorders like it were some kind of gotcha, same situation. A mental disorder is the subjective evaluation / opinion of one person in a strong unilateral position of power to render the phenomenology of another person's experience into a constructed, non-empirical category. And THAT is why it is a philosophical issue.

(And it's not even that there's no literal physiological testing to indicate a mental illness, it's also that the way the metaphorical categories of mental illnesses themselves are defined are themselves extremely messy.)

Slightly irrelevant but to quote Lacan: "The symptom is a metaphor, and THAT is not a metaphor."

>>20021734
>When mental illness is just a medical disease caused by changes in chemicals in the brain.
That in and of itself is a philosophical position, you absolute melon.

>>20022464
That's not the argument, at least not the one in that book (that Szasz gives). Anti-psychiatry very much acknowledges that mental disorders "exist (ex-sist)" in the sense that the pain they cause exists and is very real, but the issue is how they are understood by the institutions of power and society is deeply harmful and built on fundamentally untenable assumptions.

>>20022517

>>20021793
>1972
>nothing has changed in 50 years of research
This opinion of psychiatry is repeatedly touted by people with zero contact with clinical psychiatry.

>>20022527
this but the reverse

>>20022449
I have not read much of Deleuze and I am a little off-put by his terminology, so I understand your point of view. He seems to mystify schizophrenia, or paint it with some kind of occultist lens
Schizophrenia definitely contains biological markers like you've said (possibly the dopamine imbalance theories too)
The problem is that psychoanalysis and the neurochemical imbalance hypotheses don't seem to be well explained together, but they both have ties inside of psychotic disorders. Factors in schizophrenia can be misidentification with self-other distinctions, disordered thinking may have explanations tied to maladaptive perception of metaphor/metonymy in language. Basically schizophrenia has symptoms relating to language (sort of what Deleuze alluded to) and also chemically
Can I get your thoughts on Lacanian psychoanalysis?
I believe there is a paradigm of symbolic and chemical interaction in schizophrenia, I am not sure where to find literature about that though

>>20022251
>profits
SSRIs are prescribed in countries where health care is state financed as well. Where there is no economic incentive for doctors to prescribe any medication.

>>20021734
Why is a philosophical approach to cholera trivial?

>>20022393
Reminder that in medieval times the village idiot was an accepted part of the community with a social function. It wasn’t until later the that the madman became a pariah who needed to be isolated from society and “cured” of his madness.

>>20022406
Not what I’m saying. Society isn’t other people, it’s what is constituted by the totality of social relations. Saying there are societal reasons for mental illness is not “blaming everyone else”, that’s reductive and stupid.

>>20022433
>how do you propose we find solutions rather than navel gaze?
It’s a tricky situation. I personally believe that mental illness is symptomatic of a society that is in a state of decline, but as individual agents we have no control over the direction of complex systems. So I see little that we can do to circumvent the proliferation of mental illnesses, beyond a complete overhaul of the system (a near impossible feat without total collapse).

>>20022536
Reminder that Deleuze isn’t actually talking about clinical schizophrenia, that’s really important to avoid confusion. His use of the term refers more to a latent process in the machinations of capital.

>>20022368
>inb4 "science is also philosophy"
Yes.

In dealing with cholera, would you not "1. the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of cholera and its behaviour and functions" ?

>>20022514
I cannot refute you largely because your argument is based on non-empirical caregory.
So, I will agree with you, if you give some paper/article/book on how fMRI is mostly failed to diagnose mental disorder, because I think that is false to me.

>>20022541
state financed still means that the doctors/pharmacies get paid, it's just that the government pays the bills instead of the consumers

>>20022536
>Can I get your thoughts on Lacanian psychoanalysis?
i am majoring in mathematics, so...
(Kinda love fuko tho he no use math)

>>20022558
>Why is a philosophical approach to cholera trivial?
Ignore all the science shit, let's just see what philo major learn on university.
epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, logic, philofsci, philoflang, philofmind, ethics, metaethics, phenomenology, aesthetics.
Can you see the point?
I mean, you can still find something, maybe some master would written "Changes in the concept of human rights due to the cholera epidemic in the 18th century", but it is far from solving illness.

>>20022514
>Slightly irrelevant but to quote Lacan: "The symptom is a metaphor, and THAT is not a metaphor."
Meaning a symptom is some projection from the subject where he ascribes qualities of X causing the problem to some semi-random Y instead?

>>20022634

Are you serious? fMRI's are not used to diagnose mental disorders. This is a basic clinical fact. I could cite my experience, but that's obviously not what you're asking for. At this level it is simply lazy to ask me to "prove" this and simply conveys astounding naivete and lack of familiarity with the field at hand rather than a veneer of skepticism. In any case, look at literally any scientific literature in the field of psychiatry. The problem with "source?" is that if we're both working from completely different levels of familiarity with a certain topic, I can't discourse with you while also educating you.

>>20022706
Fuk u
Imagine what I do, not a doctor, to find how whether it can be done or not.
What I do, is just to google "fmri findings in depression". Try that. Google "fmri findings in depression".
Immediately you can see this fucking report, "Cognitive impairment and fMRI in major depression".
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17062370/
In Abstract they said "fMRI has already produced a series of consistent results in depression, identifying increased activity of rostral anterior cingulate and other medial prefrontal structures during effortful tasks", an if this is not the evidence, then I don't know what even certified to be evidence.

>>20021734
>When mental illness is just a medical disease caused by changes in chemicals in the brain.
If you think about it for more than 5 seconds you will realise that
1/ the fact that a mental illness is associated with some phenomenon in the brain does not mean that countering this phenomenon is a way to cure the illness
2/ the concept of “mental illness“ itself is really hard to define
3/ our diagnostics points to a cluster of observable phenomenon, but that doesn’t tell us what the mechanism behind the illness is, and we cannot say that this clustering of phenomenons is ideal

Case in point : diagnostics of depression have been steadily rising in the past decades. Is this simply an increase in diagnostics or does it correspond to reality? Probably more of the latter since the rate of suicides are rising as well. Given that at least some of the events in the causal chain are found outside of the subject, how do you justify “curing“ the subject without trying to change the externals causes?

>>20022706
>"look at literally any scientific literature in the field of psychiatry"
>not explicitly mentioning the title

>>20022725
>how do you justify “curing“ the subject
You can always modify the subjects genetically or behaviorally, so that their relationship with the environment is altered in a way that the previous detrimental external circumstances are made to be subjectively beneficial. There's not really any inherent ethical problem here despite what many people will claim, unless you subscribe to some sort of "ideology", like the purpose of human life being the pursuit of God, truth, wisdom, or something like that.

>>20021921
impossible to diagnose based on fmri, only half-good for research

>>20022742
>>20022724

Christ you fucking people. What fucking title? That's my point. fMRI's are not used to diagnose any mental disorder. They are obviously used in research *to try to find* neurobiological correlates for people already judged as meeting criteria for a specific diagnosis (not using the neurobiological correlates not even close to being operationalized to actually diagnose people). You cannot point to depression on a brain scan. You cannot go to a psychiatrist and take the schizophrenia lab test to see positive or negative. Any and every psychiatric diagnosis is established subjectively on reporting of the experience of the patient, observed behavior, and the evaluation of the clinician. That is it.

And by the way, one of the problems with the endless fMRI research to unveil neurobiological correlates is that they are studying populations who have all been grouped together under one specific diagnosis, that is, under a social construct of loosely correlated experiences and behaviors. This is why I said the diagnoses themselves are defined sloppily. Because if a psychiatrist decides this group of people have depression based on their subjective appraisal, then they all sign up for the research study in the fMRI machine, and nothing conclusive is returned because, say, there's actually five or six different clearly delineated neurobiological correlates that all cause the same or similar overt clinical symptoms. This is a problem in the research into the neurochemistry of schizophrenia currently, as an incredibly heterogenous disease, both psychologically and, now, neurologically. But my point is this research is conducted in the first place precisely because *there are ZERO conclusive laboratory markers of ANY mental illness.* So, yes, it is a societal / philosophical issue or whatever the fuck the unfathomably retarded people here wanna argue about.

>>20022925

>>20022447
>Linked to bipolar
Really? My psych says there’s no way I have bipolar even though I barely sleep until 6 am. He thinks if I’m not in constant mood swings and never sleeping, I can’t be Bipolar. He’s convinced I have only schizophrenia.

>>20021734
This image made me realise I never even read much philosophy but always talked about it or memed it. Why would I do that?

>>20021781
All of reddit are materialists dumbass

This image is repulsive

>>20022568
>His use of the term refers more to a latent process in the machinations of capital.
What a pseud. I cant stand these philosophers that use Capital or Capitalism as though it were some conscious entity. These types are no different than an evangelical preacher ranting about the devil. Reading this has confirmed for me that Deleuze was a pseud and that I can comfortably ignore all of his work.

>>20021781
way to miss the point negroid

good image desu

>>20022683
Yes, I can see the point

>>20022764
>You can always modify the subjects genetically or behaviorally
>There's not really any inherent ethical problem here despite what many people will claim
>unless you subscribe to some sort of "ideology"
Yes, there is absolutely an ethical problem here, and the fact you don’t seem to notice the obvious contradiction in your post is genuinely worrying. You used the words “subjectively beneficial“, what does this mean? For any definition that you will give you are dangerously misguided if you think this is somehow an objective criterion that gives you the right to perform any behavioural, let alone genetic (!!!) modifications to a patient.

You work at an Amazon dispatch center and the crushing work hours and meaninglessness of your life are making you increasingly depressed. Thankfully, I happen to have just the perfect drug for you, one that will make you happy with your pathetic existence until the merciful kiss of death. Is this a “treatment“? We’re you “ill“?

>>20022248
same for me - absoutely uncanny...

>>20021734
not even american or white but this image describes most of my issues, seems like a combination of depression and lack of testosterone

>>20022248
>>20026072
it simply means you are an npc

>>20021734
Because a person's philosophy impacts how they feel. A medical approach would be to just give them a prescription and become a dependent worker where as a philosophical one would be to understand and dampen the (likely) philosophical cause.
This is the one time where those reddit stoicbros may be right and they should stop playing video games, stop browsing social media (including image boards), start reading, and hit the gym.

>>20025575
No u

>>20021734
Not all. Read Szasz and Breggin

>>20021753
>>20022447
>>20021756

Schizophrenia is actually very much tied to the stomach

>>20026807
I’ve always struggled with this. I can think something through. Justify the way of life or action through logic and application of ideological prerogatives but it never actually clicks. To change as a person is a long meandering of small choices to change the subconscious. I have never “decided” on something from a philosophical standpoint and stuck with it based on principal, many times it feels like a series of accidents that ends up improving myself. What was it that shopie said? One can will what they want but they cannot will the will to want?

>>20027369
That's why any therapist worth a damn will attempt change heuristically rather than saying "ur sad because u hate ur dad" and charging you 400$.
If you want the pessimistic view, you will only be able to refine your current philosophy and not change it.
Your philosophy causes you pain because it's inconsistent. Now either spend your life escaping it and refining it.

>>20027395
How do I merge the material existence with the theoretical schema of thought?

>>20021734
Because a man’s philosophy is what makes them change themself and how they feel about the situation at hand simple as
/thread

>>20027403
You don't merge it, you filter it through senses and previous thought. You are transfiguring a copy, hardly merging.

>>20026362
>>20026072
>>20022248
it's a bait image using things lots of people can relate to.

>>20021809
It was not debunked, rather it was found that the kinds of people who are helped by the antidepressants we have are people with severe melancholic depression, the kinds of people who go for a walk and randomly start crying for no reason and are constantly thinking of suicide. In other words not very many people

>>20022340
that's because we're all doomed

>>20022393
>Do you think schizophrenia is a societal problem?
That's a really interesting question. I'm a doctor and I've seen over and over the transition schizos go through between a psychotic episode and normalcy after giving them haloperidol. It deadens their affect and they stop babbling about Tucker Carlson sending them on a mission to kill God. Most of them prefer to be medicated, but in a way we're depriving them of that experience, and depriving society of having a madman in our midst
Fun fact: families with a schizophrenic in them tend to be more creative

>>20022764
>previous detrimental external circumstances are made to be subjectively beneficial
I can't believe you typed this out without realizing how frighteningly dystopian this is

People with mental illness are a result from a poor soci-economic status and were abused by the materialistic and scientific assimilation of the spiritual family, namely father mother child. I have mental illness. If I had a father who was not dead or a mother that was there for me when i was growing up I wouldn't have been called mentally ill while I was learning to do everything by myself. Doing things alone is the most human thing you can do. You don't need anyone. Socilization is actually not backed by science, its only a interacton that occurs not anything that is required to breath, and survive like we will be when there are no longer publishers printing all the small inklings of words that are distractions. What a lot of people don't realize is they are zombies, they can't cook, they can't do any function without the grocery store, electricity, cars.... they've been around for 200 years or so and will disappear when the power is out. Do you know what this society represents? Babylon, Egypt, captivity. They want to kill who will not be slaves and keep the ones that will. If you think you are ready for the whirlwind of ratcheting, violent consequences you are not. The people with mental illness are struggling with their spirit, it rejects the world and the position man has wrestled us. Science indicates this, Arhimanic logic says that spiritual organs will be replaced synthetically to
1. Disprove the soul. If retards like you think anything but love and the unknowable god will provide a solution for mental illness, then that will be the easiest way to convince you
2. bring us closer to a transhumanist form, i.e baphoment
anyways i'll let you fags toil I already know the truth

>>20023569
look up schizoaffective disorder anon, then ask your doc if maybe you could have that

>>20021734
the next time you see a nazi spewing anti-semitic rethoric, remember that your anger is just a chemical imbalance and there's nothing wrong with the holocaust as long as you take your meds.

>>20021734
Up until like, 10 or so years ago, psychiatrists separated out a person's problems into 5 categories:
1: clinical disorders like depression, schizophrenia, delirium, bulimia, bipolar
2: personality disorders like borderline
3: medical conditions that might affect their mental health, like if having bad COPD meant you couldn't leave the house
4: psychosocial and environmental factors like homelessness, having no family/friends, unemployment, legal trouble, getting divorced
5: how functional they are

Psychiatrists do this because they are aware their sphere of treatment is only #1. Everything else affecting a person's mental health is beyond their control. The point is you can have actual brain problems that need medical intervention, but there are a lot of other things that can affect the way you feel that aren't mental ILLNESS, more of a mental STATE, and that should be addressed in different ways, including both philosophically and by deleting facebook and hitting the gym

>>20029106
it's fascinating how every time somebody creates a braindead post like OP, people always have to explain how things have been done in the past in order to reach a deeper understanding of the problem. it's almost as if learning about history and philosophy can change how you percive the problem, therby allowing you to reach different solutions. but I'm probably just being a schizo so let me go take my meds and not think about it.

>>20024259
> I cant stand these philosophers that use Capital or Capitalism as though it were some conscious entity
He doesn’t, machinations was a poor word choice on my part, I should’ve just used “workings”. You’re getting all flustered over semantics.

>>20021929
I'm not a neuroscientist so my information might be flawed. Depressed people are prescribed SSRIs because we know that mood correlates with increase of certain chemicals such as a serotin. The thing is that anti-depressants are akin to bandages thus they don't really fix the root. The root might be found in our neural pathways which are created by habits, etc. so you need to rewire them. That's the point of therapy.

>>20029194
I've been diagnosed likely fucked serotonin and prescribed SSRIs, and based on my own research low serotonin is almost certainly at the root of my issues. But I've never taken them because I suspect that just chemically forcing my brain to leave more serotonin in the bloodstream doesn't make much sense if the root of the problem is some kind of complex recursive feedback loop with multiple stages that have to interact smoothly.

My friend once described being on antidepressants as it being like "the lights were suddenly turned on." But he said this only lasted the first couple hours of the first time he took it, and then he had years of much worse depression and feeling crazy. I knew another person who took Wellbutrin who said something similar. Euphoric for an hour and then felt unbearably suicidal for a week until the drug left their system. These and other experiences I've heard about have just reinforced my suspicion that these chemicals are brute forcing a complex system with many feedback loops.

Right now I'm looking into cortisol/serotonin balance, and trying to think of ways to holistically alter my state of mind. I've eliminated a ton of garbage from my lifestyle, I eat healthy and exercise, I quit drinking. I think this has helped a lot. I've had some interesting results with meditation and mindfulness too. Not that I know anything about neuroscience either, but based on what I've read I suspect I have functional dopamine levels because I am motivated and invested in my goals, but my serotonin is the one that's busted.

>>20029235
why wouldn't you even try taking them before dismissing it entirely?

>>20021734
>When mental illness is just a medical disease caused by changes in chemicals in the brain.
it's literally not. what is this, the 90s? fucking read a book or do a quick google search OP you stupid fuck

>>20022925
Forgive them, it's a privilege to be allowed a life that exposes you to the information necessary for comprehension of this stuff.
>>20029106
Yes, but there's a lot of scenarios in which intervention is necessary, since the broad majority of society lacks the privilege necessary for making meaningful changes in their lives: children and low-income folks.

Barring a Brave New World coming into being, I tend to think that literature is all that can help people find what can work for them. There's a lot of noise out there, but mental illnesses are approximate diagnoses for individual problems caused by structural deficiencies on a lot of levels: family, community, education, and economy. A mentally ill person can mitigate *some* of these for themself, but not all. Drugs can help you cope, but not solve underlying problems.
Philosophy might be able to help, but it can never approach the impact of social and economic support. Posting as a lifelong depressed anon who is not schizophrenic, crazies without brain injuries may have genetic predisposition, but that's looking less and less likely. It's far more likely that schizos are the fruit of bad socialization and maladaptive self-talk following exposure to trauma (which is subjective), and drugs or alcohol or poor diet and all of the above. They get bad "lit" in 'em, digest it the worst way, then talk themselves in circles until their inner voice gets out of control, with or without chemicals. That's typically due to isolation, IMO, but that can be self-isolation *and/or* social rejection, since nobody truly lives in a vacuum.

I'm kinda happy /lit/ gets these threads, since there's at least a handful of anons that have bothered to really learn about these things.

tl;dr - Everything matters: individual philosophy is part of it, societal philosophy another, chemicals another.

>>20029705
>>20029106
>Yes, but...
Should be "Yes.", full stop, no "but".

>>20021734
I cured my very deep depression myself by changing my view of life and isolating myself from toxic people. Now I feel like I'm immune to it.

Psychiatry is wrong on so many levels, everything is corrupted by you know who.
I'm a medfag, had a few psychology classes, went to a psychiatric hospital for a few weeks. Everything is so fucked up, no wonder those poor lads aren't getting better. They're all fat and they make them draw hearts instead of making them do sit ups. Any sane person would get depressed after spending a few hours there. It's like kindergarten for adults even though the patients are often smarter than the nurses, it makes no sense.
I hated it absolutely

I don't know shit about psychiatry, but if philosophy has any chance of curing you, then go for it. I think Carl Jung said that schizophrenia might only be some sensitivity to shamanic hallucinations or the spirit world or whatever.
Be very careful, my sister was fucked up but psychiatrists annihilated what was left of her with their retarded pills. She tried to stab me last weekend during a tantrum. Good job psychiatrists !

>>20029705
>I'm just gonna read my way out of thinking I'm the second coming of Jesus and there are hidden messages in BBC News telling me to kill the CEO of Shell Oil
Nobody knows what causes schizophrenia but drugs absolutely stop them from being nuts

>>20029945
> They're all fat
Isn’t this a common side effect of psyche meds?

Anyway, sounds like with your experiences in the nuthouse that you should look into felix Guattari’s attempt to make a non-hierarchical psychiatric clinic where nurses and doctors were considered equal to the loonies they were treating.

>>20030071
>Isn’t this a common side effect of psyche meds
some make you fat, some make you lose weight. The most popular antipsychotic we give schizophrenics is olanzapine and that notoriously makes people get huge which is why you may be under that impression

>>20021734
There is mental illness and then there is demon possession.