Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. I.U.P.S.

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. International University Of Professional Studies David Allan Lane April. 2011

David Allan Lane

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. I.U.P.S.

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment There is a long-standing and on-going controversy in the psychology community regarding diagnosing individuals. To what extent to you agree or disagree with the author's observations and conclusions? Include suggestions for remedying the issue of labeling and diagnosing. Upon first reading of the article Is Everybody Crazy? January 26, 1998, I was not altogether certain whether the continuing controversy over the topic of label, not label, too much labeling, not enough labeling, is a valid one. However, the article inspired me to read more on the subject and deeper into the annals of history where the first seeds of the situation had begun to germinate. I read the book Making Us Crazy Kutchins and Kirt, 1997-The Free Press, which was mentioned in the article, and found a wealth of insightful information, though primarily adverse to the DSM, (Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders), which was also mentioned in the article. I then delved further into the many articles on the subject posted the world-wide-web. I talked with friends and associates. Following each encounter I became more and more discouraged as to how a perfectly well intentioned machine built for the express purpose of assisting clinicians in the field of psychology at the processing and of diagnosing their patients. It also became very clear to me, mans inherent compulsiveness toward categorizing and labeling everything so that we might have more control over it. The other thing which became clear to me was the greed of special interest organizations and institution who, for purposes of privately or conglomerate-ly profiting from it. Out of this there began to emerge a picture of pathological-holism, if there can be such a thing. I began to see some

David Allan Lane

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. I.U.P.S. basic problems concerning the diagnostic approach as a whole. I came to the following conclusion; that the psychological community would do well, to re-examine the categorization process and question; to what purpose the constant labeling of every

quirk that rears its head from the depths of evolving human, and the incessant analyzing of everything about him down to the last minutiae of a nana? Still, everything has its place and we are right to question what should or should not be considered a disorder in a world that is based on economics which determines whether or not the pharmaceutical companies will make a buck or a mental health facility will or will not be appropriated the needed funds it requires to stay in business and serve our citizens and our communities. One of the consequence of this condition is the risk of stigmatization, often resulting from the labeling of personality traits, socially induced characteristics and behavioral conditions, racial or cultural idiosyncrasies and as mentioned in the article, quirks of the personality. Another problem I see is that of to need to differentiate between classifications of illness based on conditions or disorders of a Neuro-pathological or Biochemical cause. Not only is stigmatization a problem but the fact that we have these many labels from which to choose in the diagnostic process is deductive: only objective, and tends to lesson the need for developing the needed and proven beneficial methods of diagnosing which is subjective and intuitive: a skill that every therapist should have in order to address each patient on a personal basis according to their individual make-up, instead to equilaterally. Not withstanding this, it is true that much progress has been and is being made in the field of genetic research for which there are many books and articles one can read

David Allan Lane

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. I.U.P.S. supporting the material in this article which uses only a few case examples regarding the discovery; that genes or a combinations of particular genes, contribute to the development of certain mental disorders as well as other diseases. One may assume the eventual discovery of any number of genes, which might contribute to a propensity for any, and all manifestation of illnesses under the sun, but this will not be the end-all and be-all for diagnosing a patient, and most assuredly not an entire culture. My only contention is the one-sided approach namely the strictly objective and

deductive method of diagnosing and assessing during the evaluation process with patients solely based on -the observable: outer conditions. For many, if not most of the situational conditions with which one is presented in their practice, the major component exhibited is that of an emotional nature. Many symptoms can be retraced back to brain lesions caused by an accident for example, or anatomical disease, or hematological infection and others brought on by stroke or resulting from Autism or any other bio-chemical disturbances, still much of our work as psychotherapists is with patients whose symptoms are of an inherently traumatic/emotional nature. In view of this, we may consider rather, becoming more effective by drawing from our ever-evolving experience of the inner-intuitive; ascertaining and diagnosing disorders occurring in people and not of people, which by definition is more personoriented and subjective in application and procedure, toward an effective prognostication and healing process. With this developed skill there is no need for the diagnostician to be bias, for or against, the subsequent symptoms of a crazy society comprised of labalticians, but rather, make equal use of various approaches toward a more person-oriented method.

David Allan Lane

Is Everybody Crazy? Assignment. I.U.P.S.

David Allan Lane