WP,pg1: Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness

Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 10, 2005; Page A01

The 48-year-old man turned down a job because he feared that a co-worker would be gay. He was upset that gay culture was becoming mainstream and blamed most of his personal, professional and emotional problems on the gay and lesbian movement.

These fixations preoccupied him every day. Articles in magazines about gays made him agitated. He confessed that his fears had left him socially isolated and unemployed for years: A recovering alcoholic, the man even avoided 12-step meetings out of fear he might encounter a gay person....

***

Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.

Advocates have circulated draft guidelines and have begun to conduct systematic studies. While the proposal is gaining traction, it is still in the early stages of being considered by the professionals who decide on new diagnoses.

If it succeeds, it could have huge ramifications on clinical practice, employment disputes and the criminal justice system. Perpetrators of hate crimes could become candidates for treatment, and physicians would become arbiters of how to distinguish "ordinary prejudice" from pathological bias. Thorny discussions about how mental illnesses are defined would get even more prickly....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html

Then I don't know what is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...and smacks of the Third Reich, don't ya think?

by such bias, which is the form their particular crushing and unreasonable fears seem to take.

"That boy ain't right" as per King of the Hill.

And likely in EXTREME denial!!! Daddy musta told him he wuz 'goin' to hell!!!"

I don't think that homophobia or racism are ILLNESSES, per se, they are CONDITIONS that are TAUGHT. Young kids who grow up in homes without negative influences do not seem to suffer these problems, unless exposed to extreme peer pressure from kids who have been exposed to hate speech.

And if you LEARN WRONG, you can be un-taught, to put it simply, and LEARN RIGHT.

I am not saying therapy or some sort of course correction isn't in order, but to classify it as an illness gives people an excuse for being haters. Hey, Judge, you can't punish me for dragging that (fill in name of ethnic minority) behind my truck....because I HAVE AN ILLNESS!!! It ain't MY FAULT!

The haters' Twinky Defense, enshrined in medical texts!

Dear Mr. Holleran,

We view Ford's decision to end advertising in homosexual publications and sponsorship of homosexual events as nothing more than a weak attempt to direct attention away from a greater problem--the subversion of your company by a homosexual fifth column. Denying it will serve no purpose. The evidence is obvious to those of us who are adept at spotting homosexual influences in our culture.

Every time I get behind the wheel of one of your products I'm assaulted with temptation. The dashboard's seduction is subtle at first. I'll reach for the volume control and I'll hear the word, "knob," in my head. Soon, my head reels as I consider that word's various connotations while my conscience screams in protest. The gearshift, sensing my weakness, calls out to my hand, lustfully commanding its immediate attention. My fingers respond, gently stroking the shaft and teasing the shift-lock button until I want to cry out, demanding release. Before I know it, I'm standing on a Broadway corner, wearing a sailor suit, and striking up a conversation with the first guy I see. And I'm 110% heterosexual. I can only imagine how much worse it must be for those who are cursed with a weaker commitment to heterosexuality

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

:rofl:

Thanks for the laff this morning--that is fucking beautiful!!! :applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl::applause::rofl:

If someone is intolerant to the point of obsession, chances are they ARE mentally ill. I don't think they'd need to be treated for the intolerance as much as for whatever it is they're using the intolerance to cover up.

Anyone who hates a class of people so much they'd go out of their way to avoid or even harm them has a major screw loose.

Those fears take many different forms. It's about time these kinds of delusions are moved from the realm of mere "political views" when they mentally and emotionally cripple a person.

Of course, one shudders at the thought of BushCo taking the reins of such an operation, but those of all political and religious stripes can incorporate their bias into their paranoia and personal (unfounded) fears.

Gee, remember that woman on the TEEVEE ( Switching Spouses?) with her shrieking, emotionally violent fear of the "dark-sided" ones?

The "War on Christmas" paranoia has elements of unfounded fear, persecution complex and anti-social behavior all folded within it. It is a most attractive movement for those who suffer from any or all of those forms of personal mental anguish.

I would say that the extreme right-wing throughout history have exploited the mental illness and delusions of many of its followers as a matter of course.

recieve therapy that benefits them as individuals-by extension society is great.

It has ramifications worthy of careful discussion, but I do believe it is time to consider it.

I feel the same way about individuals who engage in extreme forms of social sadism. It is a sickness as well. I've seen two judges in my time who have gleefully created misery for others for their own pleasure. Such people will sometimes seek out such positions to engage in and exercise a very sick emotional pleasure and sense of power.

Having guidelines to diagnose such individuals would help in removing them (if healing does not occur) from society when they are far too smart in otherwise "gaming" the system to avoid removal.

I agree with your posts - the person being described spunds mentally ill - based on the extreme his paranoia rules his life. To suggest that this is different than other paranoias or extreme anxiety - with the object spurring the paranioa being "extreme bias".... almost suggests that were no bias present (and I agree with another poster who suggests that biases are taught) - suggests that the paranoia/anxiety would go a way - as if they are intrinsically linked. Without a demostrable link - I think it is just plain old paranoia and anxiety.

all share. that would be up to the experts to observe, catalogue.

It seems almost to have become a massive group disorder in this nation that perhaps shares some identifiable markers. Even the report in 2004 about voter's beliefs seems to indicate mass delusion and denial. (what was the name of that report, the group?) PIPA?

We hear of mass disorders given as an explanation for things like so-called psychosomatic reactions ( sick building syndrome). We hear of mass-hysteria. There may be something in this regarding the rise and reinforcing of bias that triggers mental health problems in those susceptible individuals pre-disposed to psychiatric disorders. Groups seem to actually reinforce and give credence to delusions such as, say, the "War on Christmas."

I dunno, it's worth investigating as it does seem to be a growing societal problem.

yes, there does seem to be a group reenforcement of some of these paranoias. Sad thing, is it seems to be very intentional in terms of some orchestration to garner this effect.

Btw, am I correct in remembering your nic as one I met at a DU gathering in Indy - one organized by our greatly missed Keph? If so :hi:

in the Chicago area at the time.

Isn't the anniversary of our Keph's passing drawing near? I can't recall the exact date.

However, I have seen you here at DU many times over the years, and am grateful for that. :hi:

:-(

The gathering I speak of was back in 02 - in Broad Ripple... There was a poster there whose name I was not familiar - and was unique... somehow along the years of reading your posts (which I always find thoughtful and thought provoking - something I value greatly) I somehow connected your nic - to this other person that I met. So now that I have this clarified... I can seperate the identities (who the other person is :shrug: - but I certainly recall you through your posting :hi: )

to seek to force everything into a disease model. I think it's often more productive to look at some of the so-called "diseases" and "syndromes" from a learning perspective.

by putting demons into the equation.

I came across 2 or 3 "possessed" people while living in S.America. One was my neighbor. Long story - rather personal, and scary. Moral: Black magic, voodoo, etc. is bad ju-ju.

eta "thread hijack over"

This is nothing more than the result of literary fraud -- otherwise known as clever advertising.
The "massive group disorder" that I think you might be talking about is the result of propaganda.
Giving credence to something like this disorder would be very dangerous. It would let a lot of people off the hook. If a person is sick they aren't responsible.
What was described in the OP was a situation where a person who has a mental illness in which it is common to fixate on various things, fixates on a Bias. Treating the disorder itself would hopefully help with those symptoms.
To consider the actual bias a part of the mental illness is to legitimize it.

No need for another dx. Those folks who hate and make it through the world more successfully than this guy often fit an Axis II dx of Narcissistic Pers Disorder. I don't see a need here but it is good to study this kind of hate. Erroneously putting Homosexuality on the "list" of mental disorders back around 1973 has been a huge obstacle to overcome, even to this day b/c of the stigma. It was removed, but it still is a problem. I wouldn't mind people who hate at an exteme level to be stigmatized instead. Yes, it is not nice, but I'm not that evolved yet to not enjoy some retribution.

we can observe narcissistic individuals being drawn to the movement, as there are perhaps five other holidays being celebrated by Americans within the same period. So why would a healthy individual become so incensed by a "happy holidays" greeting that encompasses all of them?

Of course for some it is merely a lack of manners and consideration for others around them, which may or may not indicate a pathology.

in economically trying times - there is less sense of security... perhaps making some more prone to the "us" vs "them" - and seeking a sense of superiority in the "us" position... though that doesn't explain the compulsive combativeness - that, per your earlier post, seems to be manufactured by blowhards such as ORielly that reenforce the us v them - and steps it up a notch to acting out on the sentiment.

to many who are not so inclined, but if there comes a point when it becomes uncontrollable, all-consuming and demonstrably irrational AND is provoked into anti-social, illogical behavior (self-destructive choices) by individuals like an O'Reilly--one wonders if a study shouldn't be made.

Quite literally, the health and well-being of the world is at stake as we do rely on rational, reasoned individuals to make choices in a Democracy.

And your point as I see it is the FEAR that is fostered by those who hope to benefit from it. Fear is the perfect tool to destabilize an individuals mental health, to cloud their thinking and set them up to look to an individual to protect them from that fear when ones own capabilities have been worn down.

a sense of safety and pride can always be created--real or not--within the them/us dichotomy.

Some people speak of it as the "Don't build yourself up by tearing others down" rule. Others create entire movements based upon breaking the rule. It's easy to do. It's human nature at its most fearful. I think it's fair to say we all know what it's like.

I think we've been told that about Germany in the 30's, also an economically bad time.

I'm so tired, I'm going to have finish up a few things and sign off now. :hi: (this is a goodnight wave...) Take care.

look at the difference between FDR in response to the public after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (we have nothing to fear, but fear itself); and Bush in response to the public after the 911 attacks (we have nothing to fear, but their taking away our lifestyle and freedom (pushing fear)... oh and go buy, buy, buy!)

Have a good sleep - pleasure to exchange thoughts with you! :hi:

It's called 'paranoia', it's called 'obsession'. The paranoid are also frequently narcissistic.

What's more, many of them end up on drugs, so there is another medical problem.

The scary thing is that we have clinical obsessives and paranoids in positions of 'authority' and wealth
in this country.

Have you all seen the film 'The Corporation'? They diagnose the most dangerous
and reckless ones as psychopathic in nature.

This is the real reason the fascists make war on psychiatry. To discredit its foundations
and its research.

Is it a documentary?

I have a friend who gets netflix who would also be interested. Perhaps I can urge him to order it if they carry it.

Edit:They do carry it. I'll check it out...thanks!

"This documentary charts the spectacular rise of corporations as a dramatic, pervasive presence in our lives. Filmmakers March Achbar and Jennifer Abbott present a timely, entertaining critique of global conglomerates as they chronicle the origins of corporations, as well as their inner workings, controversial impacts and possible futures. The pros and cons are weighed via interviews with social critics such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.

Starring: Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky ...
Director: Jennifer Abbott ...
Genre: Documentary
Format: Widescreen ...
Language: English"

when he said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", regardless of the cause of our fear whether it be The Depression as he was referring to or heights, spiders, racially based, sexually based,or just leaving the house,it can become disabling.

The Republicans have adopted a strategy of obtaining and maintaining power using our fears to divide and conquer. A party with an ideology based on fear to stay in power has to produce "leaders" with these same psychosis as their followers, I believe this irrational fear played a part although not by itself in the incompetent followup to help the people in New Orleans. The government was paralyzed by it's own irrational fears, I have come to conclusion that the Bush administration and their neocon cohorts are mentally ill.

P.S. on edit. This link is another example of Bush fear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1977334&mesg_id=1977334

He was in a unique position to lead a nation out of fear and continue on in the midst of a calamity.

He knew the damaging nature of fear first hand, and had enough moral discipline to keep from using it to his advantage. One doubts that he even could have in that day and age.

I daresay many in that era would have excoriated our current government for "cowardice" and "pantywaist-ism" for all the chicken-little fear they spread. It really is one form of their own terrorism.

I think many mothers of the era would have kicked some folks around for needlessly giving their children nightmares. ( I'm put in mind of Norman Rockwell's painting "Freedom From Fear" where parents are tucking in the kiddies for the night.)

On its face it seems reasonable that one would question individuals who encourage fear and then tell you that they will protect you from that fear. That's a protection racket, ain't it?

Edit: I agree that we have some very unhealthy folks in government. What I find most interesting is the level of co-dependence between them and the relatively small band of "true believers' who will never leave BushCo's side no matter what evidence is presented to prove such trust to be baseless (or faith-based), and many times--such as economically--self-damaging.

If they're sick, they aren't responsible.

When something such as extreme bias becomes an obsessive phobia or paranoia, then yes, this can be called a form of mental illness. Instead of being afraid of dirt or germs (see Howard Hughes) one could be afraid of gays, blacks, blonds, whatever. The key term is "disabled by these beliefs."

I figured someone else would say this. Reading the article I saw little difference between this guy and clients I have had who were disabled by fear of germs or fear of Satan in disguise. Whatever it is.

And you're right; if the guy had that kind of fixation on germs or even blondes, there'd be no question that he was cracked and needed help. This shouldn't be any different; and yet.

It is important to think of the other possible ramifications, were psychiatry to be handed such a powerful tool. I see a slippery slope approaching, were this to become accepted practice. What if the psychiatrist in question is a right winger? Would dissent about the current administration, for instance, be able to be defined as "hate"? Psychiatrists and psychologists currently have wide latitude to apply their own definitions. Could you be drugged for hating Bush? LOL...an extreme example, and pretty unlikely, but you can see where I'm going here. Remember that the precursors of the Nazis were the German psychiatrists, who were into forced eugenics. And don't forget their Soviet bretheren, banishing political dissenters to the gulag.

It is important to understand that psychiatry as it is currently practiced has very little legal oversight. Handing psychiatrists what amount to extra-legal powers over the lives of citizens is a dangerous thing. Medicalizing what amount to values, however valid our reasons for being disturbed by those values (as in the case mentioned in the OP), would invariably lead to far more problems than it would solve. Most truly knowledgeable practitioners will admit that diagnosis is more an art than science, anyway, and being such, that makes this proposal extremely dangerous.

I guess the question one should ask oneself about it is, "who decides"? You can't assume that all psychiatrists would necessarily define "hate" as you would.

But that is why there are professional ethics.

Ethics that nevertheless do not always stop abuses.

I have witnessed how a corporation will attempt to divert liability by setting up an occupational medicine facility and have individuals misdiagnosed with a psychiatric disorder when the workers had in fact been physically damaged by the company's negligence--and even experimentation--with chemicals upon their employees.

What is good within the system is that one can receive a diagnoses from multiple practitioners, and that is a help in weeding out any bias on the part of the practitioner themselves.

I guess.

because that's the only persons to whom such power should be given, right? Well, they aren't. The problem is that even practitioners are human, and none of us humans is completely objective and unbiased. It's just not possible. We all need some sort of frame of reference, and that frame, that particular way of filtering the world, is by it's very nature biased, and could easily lead to problems when psychiatrists are asked to make these sorts of decisions.

And your idea about multiple practioners would prove impractical in many ways. For instance, anyone who is poor might not have the financial resources to take that route. The impressions of any new practitioner(s) could easily be colored by the previous one(s) as well.

Remember, the question we should ask ourselves is who gets to define these things. Do we want it to be the legal system (when such a person might engage in an action on the basis of harmful beliefs - and action provides far better evidence of beliefs), or an extra-legal system? In an extra-legal system there is no real procedure in place to which a person wrongly diagnosed could conceivably turn for relief, as opposed to the legal system, which allows for appeals. Mistakes therefore, could be potentially life-changing and profoundly destructive. The intent is very good here, but this is a really bad proposal.

I am sure they are thinking about the ramifications. This process isn't different from what they have grappled with, with other disorders.

I think you're raising good questions but I don't think the answer is to say that because it is difficult to diagnosis or decide, it should not be done.

The DSM spells out the defining characteristics of disorders. Practitioners can't simply use their own judgment to determine whether someone has a disorder. Certainly there are subjectivity, "gray areas", etc. But the concerns you express could be expressed concerning the diagnosis of ANY mental disorder, e.g., "how do you tell the difference between someone who is just lazy, someone who is temporarily down in the dumps, and someone who is depressed?" For example, one of the criteria that appears in many diagnosis lists is whether the problem significantly interferes with the client's ability to carry out daily activities, such as going shopping, holding a job, etc. The DSM evolves over time, also, and changes are made as problems with the criteria are better understood.

I think diagnosis of this (potential) disorder goes well beyond questions of values.

The profession DOES need to tackle the difficult issues you raise.

Practitioners can't simply use their own judgment to determine whether someone has a disorder.

I'm afraid your statement, in both a practical and legal sense, is false. Once a practitioner becomes licensed, except for incompetence so egregious that they are dragged into court or before an ethics board, psychiatrists/psychologists have pretty much full discretion entirely to use their own judgement. This doesn't mean that many deliberately abuse that power; just that they do have it, with very little oversight. And, as I said, the DSM is riddled with errors and areas where validity and reliability are sorely in question anyway. (This is why diagnosis is mostly an art, not a science.)

And yes, the concerns I express do apply to all the current disorders as well. That's really my point! If the process of diagnosing current disorders is not reliable or valid, then we really ought to hesitate before adding diagnoses such as this one, which would be so much more potentially damaging if in error, don't you think?

Even the treatments generally applied, in the case of psychotropic medications, are not the panacea that the general public believes them to be. See this, for instance: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p000824.html . It's a study that argues:



Those issues may not seem so directly related to the OP, but are posted as a general comment to indicate that there are problems in the field, about which the general public is completely unaware, and the field is far from infallible, as many seem to assume. (PLEASE NOTE: this information in no way is posted with the intent of advocating any particular medical treatment, nor is it advice intended to convince anyone to avoid medical treatment.)

Even without going as far as Szasz does, claiming there is no such thing as a mental illness (although I might still have some problems with the "illness" part of the definition), one can see there is a problem, if one looks carefully. That said, there is certainly something going on that's undeniably real with most of the people who are diagnosed. It's just a question of what it is. And without knowing what it is, one can hardly know what to do about it. And ultimately, figuring out what to do about it is supposed to be the goal of psychiatry/psychology in the first place, of which diagnosis is only a part. Are there any known effective cures for "hate?"

amount of empirical evidence that is contrary to some of what you claim. You also seem to be making an "all or none" argument that is not strongly supported--that because practitioners are not policed closely, then extreme bias should not be investigated to determine whether it ever can be appropriately considered to be a psychological disorder. The level of policing is a separate issue regardless of the issue of whether a new disorder should be considered. Whether depression is helped by medication and whether companies want us to buy their medications are irrelevant to whether a disorder belongs in the DSM or whether a diagnosis of it is accurate. And the harm done for failing to consider whether it can be a disorder must be taken into account. I understand what you are saying, but I don't entirely agree, though I acknowledge I share some of the same concerns. That does not make views different from yours "false."

In the "real world", there are second opinions if one is not pleased with his or her psychologist/psychiatrists' views or behavior. And if one is hauled into court with a given diagnosis, both sides have the opportunity to present expert opinion. If you are uncomfortable with the imperfection of this system, then surely you would impose the same high standard on the tangible and intangible consequences of a failure to consider whether extreme bias might be indicative of a disorder and failure to treat it as such if in fact such a view is warranted by the evidence.

we actually are disagreeing about. Let's make sure we are really talking about the same things, so we can know if we really are disagreeing or not.

You see, my arguments are based on many things that I really suspect you probably do agree with. This may be a question of interpretation. For instance, one of my arguments could best be described as the "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" argument. Do you disagree with that?

Further, you have interpreted my statements as advocating the "policing" of practioners. That really does make it sound unreasonable, but I think it misrepresents my argument. I would describe my argument as one that says we should not give police powers to professionals whose training does really not prepare them to have those powers. At the center of the therapeutic relationship is requirement that it is private. It is the privacy of the relationship that makes it work, but the privacy also creates a very unbalanced power differential between the practioner and the client, and that provides the potential for the abuse of power. You see, the privacy inherent in the process also protects a poor practioner from any scrutiny at all. Again, that's not to say that all practioners do abuse their power, but the potential certainly does exist. My argument seeks to protect the average person from new policing powers that I feel are not properly placed, which would be the ultimate result of this bad proposal. We would be creating what would amount to a new policing entity, one that would have no legal oversight, for which there simply would be no appeal process.

Let me also note that were to give psychiatrists/psychologists these vastly expanded powers, some sort of procedure would be absolutely necessary by which we, as the citizenry, could be assured that those powers were being exercised in a responsible way. What possible method could we institute that would not compromise the therapeutic relationship, which by very definition needs to be private? (In a similar light I am vehemently opposed to many provisions of the Patriot Act, because we as citizens have no way to ensure that the system is operating correctly when things are done in secret.)

You said there is a "considerable amount of empirical evidence contrary to some of what you claim," but didn't give me much to go on there, as I said a number of things, and you don't say what specifically you are objecting to there. And what empirical evidence are you speaking of? I'd like to read it. Once I have, then I can know if I agree or disagree.

You also said that I was making an "all or nothing" argument, and on a certain level, I suppose that is correct. There are some circumstances in life that by their very nature simply are "all or nothing." Do we invade Iraq, or not? There really isn't much wiggle room between the two choices there, either, but I wouldn't criticize the "do NOT invade" position on the basis that it was "all or nothing," even if I disagreed with it. That doesn't seem to fit, somehow. And there are other similarities in the Iraq example that also correspond with my belief that this proposal should be rejected. You seem to be unaware that there is a big difference between theory and practice in the field of psychiatry/psychology. (Don't take my word for this; most practitioners would say the same.) It makes no sense to conduct an investigation if the real danger occurs at the practice end anyway. And, as a realistic person, I realize that once an investigation occurs, the idea will take on a momentum that would make it hard to stop, much as all the obsession of the neocons with Iraq for years before 9/11 led us inexorably to an invasion. There will be political factions inside the organizations that decide these things that will make the decision on a political, not theoretical basis. How could they not, it is, after all, a political issue?

So to say that the oversight issue (and again, "policing," is hardly an approps word - my intent is to prevent inappropriate policing) is a separate issue, and that we should just set that issue aside for a while in order to conduct an investigation to determine if extreme bias could be considered a psychological disorder, I ask why open the can of worm in the first place? Why ignore the potential dangers and proceed at all?

And even if one were to look at theory, there are problems there too. To suggest there should be an investigation presumes that extreme bias can be considered a psychological disorder, by definition. I would define extreme bias as a problem of a value system, or a political issue, rather than a functional brain disorder. Wouldn't you agree, when you really think about it? I mean, nobody has claimed that there is a genetic link, surely. As the field of psychiatry/psychology itself does not consider it's own proper role as dealing with the "treatment" of value systems, or political issues, (which this is as well), why on earth would they consider a diagnosis for what are issues of belief or politics?

As far as saying that my arguments were not "strongly supported," I would ask why you claim that. Where's the data that disputes my arguments? I pointed out that these sorts of proposals have gotten us into trouble before, both in the case of the Nazis, and in the case of the Soviets. Another argument against giving too much power to non-legal entities might be seen in the closer-to-home example of the Tuskeegee experiment, another case of absolute power corrupting absolutely, although in that case it was medical researchers, not psychiatrists/psychologists.

And this statement, "...if one is hauled into court with a given diagnosis, both sides have the opportunity to present expert opinion," also suggests to me an unawareness of the actual functioning of the system. The court simply does not concern itself with issues of diagnosis. (I was talking about a hypothetical bad practitioner being hauled into court, btw.) You again suggest that a person who has a problem with an "extreme bias" could get a second opinion; do you disagree with my statement that a second opinion is not available to many for whom such a thing would not be financially feasible? Or maybe frowned upon by the insurance company? And the financial issue is only one that could make the second opinion idea a virtual non-option anyway. What about the problem of such a diagnosis being recorded and sent off electronically to an insurance company, before the person in question could even know about it? The damage would be done, whether or not it was later changed. It could come back to haunt the patient later. And that is just one potentially damaging potential scenario. I can think of a multitude of others. This proposal is something to be avoided.

Here's what most of this really boils down to. We as human beings just aren't unbiased. None of us. We all see ourselves as completely unbiased, and we all are remarkably skilled in discovering the biases of others (those who disagree with us, especially). Meanwhile, we remain for the most part blissfully unaware of our own biases. This applies to psychiatrists/psychologists, too. Practioners aren't magic people, possessed of psychic powers. The practitioner will bring his/her own biases into the therapeutic relationship; it can't be helped. True, practioners, as part of their professional training, are given instruction in avoiding these biases. But none of us is able to see the world but through the prism of our own experience, and that creates bias. What other prism,after all, could we possibly use? The only way this proposal could work is if the evaluator was free of bias himself (or herself), in other words completely objective. But that just isn't realistic. Bias is a fact of life, for practioners as well as the rest of us, and for that reason this proposal needs to be dropped.

DISCLAIMER! I just want to state again that my objections to this proposal have nothing to do with the example used to defend it, namely LGBT issues. It is a problem, imho, no matter to what sorts of biases it might be applied to.

victims of these obsessed people. IMO it is probably better that them isolate themselves rather than exposing others to their hate. Even if drugs could quell the acting on these urges people either forget or just plain will not take their meds. The most obvious place where this problem surfaces is while driving a car, road rage is as common as dirt.

Perhaps he had been abused by an uncle or neighbor. Let's face it, these things do happen, and could easily lead to the sorts of problems the hypothetical man in the example exhibited. Isn't there a horrible danger that a mistake could be made here, with a diagnosis that could easily turn into a rush to judgement of this man that might result in underlying causes never being discovered? Shouldn't the person be helped rather than judged?

If this were the case, the therapy that was supposed to help the person would only result in the person being victimized twice.

This is presuming of course, that his actions were merely within the avoidance, or verbal realms. If he had actually, say, physically harmed someone, that would create a different situation. I'm still not certain that such a diagnosis would be much help even then, though. More helpful, imho, would be to address root causes.

"Perhaps he had been abused by an uncle or neighbor. Let's face it, these things do happen, and could easily lead to the sorts of problems the hypothetical man in the example exhibited."

If a person was susceptible it very well could. I had to resist the sexual advances of my assistant scout master, a catholic priest and another creep in my home town of about 850 people. They're all over. and I didn't even know what they were trying to do until I went into the service back in 1943. This did have a lasting effect on me as to humans beings being pretty rotten. I did worry some about me being like that, too.

That judge that let that school teacher skate on having sex with the 14 year old had a valid point about her being too pretty to be in jail. Sexual predators, men or women, are partial to good looking kids or grown ups even if the kid is 4 years old. My sister in law has a 40 year old daughter who's a lesbian. She studies my face and says your cute even though I'm 80.

reactions to the examples used to defend it, rather than by an objective (as possible) analysis of its actual merits. That's part of the very problem I see with it. How well can anyone avoid the emotional response we all have to issues of religion, sexuality and to a lesser degree, politics?

(Although here on DU, perhaps politics is the *real* hot button issue!)

Psychology is starting to codify correct behaviors for society rather than just diagnosing thinking errors. Just an observation, I'm not sure its a bad thing, but it really is different than standard medicine regarding this. There are few things considered "diseases" in physical medicine where the person inflicted does not know or think they have a problem!

It's one thing to see that certain people have problems with mental functioning, especially when the patient feels that he/she has a problem, and another thing entirely to assert one knows how people ought to think, to enter the realm of prescription of proper mental functioning.

The DSM is not scientifically valid, nor reliable, according to many studies. The process used to create diagnoses is not a scientific one either. (It requires a vote, and while that may appeal to our democratic impulses, it is not a scientific process.) In other words, if the DSM were scientific, then all practioners seeing a particular patient would give the same diagnosis. In practice this is not all the case. Diagnosis is an art, not a science. For this reason alone this proposal should be rejected.

Experts have voiced many concerns about the scientific validity and reliability of the DSM. I say, at a minimum, solve those before venturing off into these additional areas. (And this isn't a good idea even if those other problems were solved, for other reasons I've stated in this thread.)

It's a fine line...

This smell like a back door attempt to legitimize racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Most of us can sympathize with people having extreme phobias that limit their ability to integrate with our social fabric. To label such extreme bias as an illness would bring in the whole protective legal structure of the last 40 years that brought us Civil/Women's Rights and all the positives associated. If we fight for GLBT rights how could a 'good librul' not support any clinically impaired person's rights? Didn't get a job after insulting and disgusting the black lesbian that interviewed you? File a discrimination lawsuit!

Now if someone could be 'certified' in this area only after receiving shock/aversion therapy or chemical castration or whatever other course of treatment could potentially cure them, then maybe then they could claim the type of disability suggested. Somehow, given the nature of the illnesses described, it might be best to do with them what they might suggest doing with the focus of their dilemma: lock them far away from the rest of us. Think the members of this misAdministration should be at the top of that list, starting with Chimpy and Crashcart!

another individual protected in that way. (the example of a black lesbian interviewr.) it is not discrimination, it is abuse on the part of the interview subject, albeit triggered by a mental disorder. and the individual might also be considered dangerous if prone to physical violence.

But probably yes...some might try to screw with the system, some always do.

There could be a greater amount of individuals attempting to abuse the disability insurance systems, but good luck. It is very difficult for most individuals to prove disabilities and win such cases.

I've often thought people were a little narcisstic and carry some inbred prejudices

others try to deal with it rationally.
Same with greed, and pretty much anything 'evil'.

These personality disorders, which obsessions fall under, are almost impossible to treat effectively.

and you have a classic severe neurotic.

Psychologists apparently have an inferiority complex as a profession; they feel they have to divide the basic groupings of mental illness (schizophrenia, depression, phobias, etc.) into endlessly complicated sub-categories to match the number of specific illnesses and conditions that make up the study of bodily medicine.

yup, I think I prove it actually.

'GAY PANIC' defence in an attempt to justify his client killing some gay person.