๐ณ๐ฑ
@louis Yes I better understand your stance. I dont agree with it entirely but I do understand what you were trying to say now.
On the one hand I do agree that most psychiatric disorders are a bit arbitrary. In the sense that they just describe arbitrary set of behaviors that tend to be self destructive. They are not particularly special compared to any other personality traits you could describe
The key here is two fold though. 1) that these traits are self-destructive, thus why psychiatry or other forms of help are important. 2) Medications DO help, and some people need them and they are certainly better off than not having them. Of course a person should strive to not need them, as a solution with fewer meds has fewer side effects (like being a zombie). But they are often a necessary stepping stone (and for some perpetual). I have seen it work for people who otherwise would have killed themselves long ago. Solutions arent perfect though sadly. So they dont always work either.
You need first to learn basics, then talk of the surface. There is no real help in drugs that make person dumb, and senseless, it does not solve any problem, neither ever solved.
@louis Depends on which psychiatrist we are talking about. I have no doubt there have been plenty of prejudice psychiatrists and teachings throughout the years. That is true of almost any subject sadly. But I dont think that it is valid to make those statements as sweeping statements of all psychiatric or even the majority of modern day psychiatry.
As for solving problems, it depends. Generally what it does is put someone in a sane enough head space to seek therapy, then (at least sometimes) get healthy enough to get off the medicings.
I know countless people who spent many years suicidal and depressed. Some of them went on medication and a few years later with therapy were better, their problem was "solved". Even though they cant solve everyone's problems medication can be a route to a solution for many.
Agreed if a source or even a person has very clear bias and agenda, rather than an objective evaluation of fact, it usually means its too low a priority on my to-do list for me to get to it. It isnt about willful ignorance so much as just prioritizing your time to bes maximize how you learn useful new information. Discredited sources generally waste time in that pursuit more than other ventures.
