Science Confirms Selfies Are Linked To Mental Disorders

[Umair Nawaz]

I am crucified ... I often take selfies. Although that is because I want to trial out my iphone and mostly when I doing my daily walk in the park alone ...

are they as horrible as yr avatar?

 

[Transhumanist]

Thats what i am saying. Science deals with the empirical not the non-empirical..

I'm not sure, but I think the problem he has isn't with your definition of science, rather it's with this:

Science has got nothing to do with what people call "mental disorders".

As he noted, both Neurology and Pharmacology, sciences, do concern themselves with mental disorders.

In science there is problem with the brain if we can see it in the brain scans, we cant say there is some brain problem if a person didn't eat the apple the right way. That's not science.

True, no one would make a determination based on such limited info, but even psychology and psychiatry go much further in-depth then that, and they are supported by neurology - pharmaceuticals altering the behaviors described by the psychologist and exhibited by the sufferer only reinforce this.

Psychology is a science, a soft-science - one that isn't supported by mathematics, but it is still scientific and follows a clear progression of evidence and supporting factors. Diagnoses aren't made on whims, they are supported.

@SvenSvensonov @Nihonjin1051 - both of you are psychologist or have psychological backgrounds, can you provide more input and clarity?

 

[jamahir]

Wrong title. Science has got nothing to do with what people call "mental disorders". Whole psychiatry and psychology are non-scientific mumbo jumbo.

psychiatry is not only mumbo-jumbo fakery, in india it is also used by crooked family members in family disputes to get a member declared unwell and have them out of their way.

Husband declares his wife ‘mad’ for filing harassment complaint! | Deccan Chronicle

psychiatry should be abolished.

 

[Transhumanist]

psychiatry is not only mumbo-jumbo fakery, in india it is also used by crooked family members in family disputes to get a member declared unwell and have them out of their way.

Husband declares his wife ‘mad’ for filing harassment complaint! | Deccan Chronicle

psychiatry should be abolished.

"27-year-old mother of two was allegedly branded mentally unstable by her own family" - The psychiatrist didn't make that determination, her husband did.

"He managed to convince his in-laws that she had a psychiatric disorder." - again, the husband, not a psychiatrist.

The article doesn't mention a diagnosis or prognosis allocated via the psychiatrist. The best it mentions is:

"Her parents brought her to the hospital, saying she had anger issues," said the psychiatrist who treated her, on condition of anonymity. "When we counseled her, we realized that she was having marital problems, so we asked the couple to come in for joint counseling. We managed to sort out the problem amicably, they wrote apology letters to each other and she was even willing to withdraw the complaint by the time she was discharged," he said. "We explained to her that her life would be very difficult, being unemployed and uneducated, with two small children in a male-dominated society," he added.

But nothing is ever diagnosed or ascribed to the women other than by her husband, who isn't mentioned as a psychiatrist.

What you've described here;

"In India it is also used by crooked family members in family disputes to get a member declared unwell and have them out of their way." - isn't psychiatry, it's abuse.

 

[jamahir]

But nothing is ever diagnosed or ascribed to the women other than by her husband, who isn't mentioned as a psychiatrist.

What you've described here;

"In India it is also used by crooked family members in family disputes to get a member declared unwell and have them out of their way." - isn't psychiatry, it's abuse.

1. her husband and her own parents.

2. those bangalore psychiatrists made themselves judge, jury and executioner who will declare some "bi-polar" or some such thing just on the word of her husband and her parents, without looking at the circumstances... this makes their approach unscientific and since they are dealing with lives and in fact destroying lives, it makes them a criminal party to family disputes.

3. "When we counseled her, we realized that she was having marital problems, so we asked the couple to come in for joint counseling. We managed to sort out the problem amicably, they wrote apology letters to each other and she was even willing to withdraw the complaint by the time she was discharged," he said. "We explained to her that her life would be very difficult, being unemployed and uneducated, with two small children in a male-dominated society," he added. ... so they were in fact pushing her into more abuse by her husband and the continued apathy of her parents.

4. "Shalini, in the end, was admitted to a psychiatric facility in the city last week, where she remained for a period of five days. "... illegal confinement.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Selfies remind me of Modi, He is now called Selfie PM

 

[Gauss]

I'm not sure, but I think the problem he has isn't with your definition of science, rather it's with this:

Science has got nothing to do with what people call "mental disorders".

As he noted, both Neurology and Pharmacology, sciences, do concern themselves with mental disorders.




True, no one would make a determination based on such limited info, but even psychology and psychiatry go much further in-depth then that, and they are supported by neurology - pharmaceuticals altering the behaviors described by the psychologist and exhibited by the sufferer only reinforce this.

Psychology is a science, a soft-science - one that isn't supported by mathematics, but it is still scientific and follows a clear progression of evidence and supporting factors. Diagnoses aren't made on whims, they are supported.

@SvenSvensonov @Nihonjin1051 - both of you are psychologist or have psychological backgrounds, can you provide more input and clarity?

First of all OP made a mistake by putting the name of science in the title. Science cant link selfies to mental disorders. Thats beyond science as yet.
Secondly, yes i do acknowledge that science has actually got involved in the area of mental disorders. But that happened only recently. Terms like "mad" have existed for millennia on the other hand.
Thirdly, i've just become motivated enough to right a book on the philosophy of science. It will likely be out the next year. So i will say no more here. But i'll share this easy before ending my contribution on this thread:



Ludwig von Wittgenstein has justly been regarded as one of the major philosophers of the twentieth century, especially for his writings on the philosophy of language and logic. His work on psychoanalysis and criticism of his fellow Viennese, Sigmund Freud have however been generally overlooked.

Wittgenstein is both highly critical of and at the same time greatly admiring of Freud’s work. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that he is not critical so much of psychoanalysis as of Freud’s claim for it. For Freud, it was essential that his work be regarded as science: that he had developed a new branch of medicine based on scientific principles, having established causal relationships between behaviour in childhood and that in adulthood. Wittgenstein, while accepting the usefulness of Freud’s methods, disputes that these relationships are causal, therefore denying Freud’s theories scientific validity.

In causal relationships we can at least imagine contradictory cases. For example, I can imagine placing a pan of water on a hot stone and the water freezing (of course I do not expect t to happen, and would be very surprised if it did). With Freud’s theory, however, this is not the case. One of the central planks of this theory is the pursuit of hidden meanings in such things as dreams work of art, even language (the famous ‘ Freudian slip’). Take the examples of dreams. For Freud these are all sexual wish-fulfilments. While it is clear that some are, clearly some at least appear not to be. Freud, however, will not accept any contradiction to his theory, and argues that in these cases the sexual element is camouflaged, or even repressed. This is a strange notion, for how can a dream fulfil a wish if the desire is so disguised that the dreamer does not even recognize it? More importantly if under no circumstances will Freud allow his hypothesis to be contradicted, how can we verify it? It therefore behoves us to recognize that, despite his assertions, Freud’s theories are not casual hypotheses, and thus not scientific.

One might ask, given this analysis how Freud came to make this mistake, or rather why he believed that his explanations were casual. It is a confusion between what we might call the ‘depth-grammar’ and the ‘surface-grammar’ of certain sentences. If we say ‘the window broke because the stone hit it’ we are outlining a casual relationship between the stone hitting the window and the window breaking, this being designated by the word 'because'. However, if we say 'he hit her because he was angry', whilst it may appear that the word 'because' performs the same function, this is not the case. The similarity lies only on the surface; if we look at the depth-grammar we see that in the first sentence ‘because’ denotes a casual relationship, whereas in the second we are rather talking in terms of motivations reasons and other non-casual terms. Freud’s mistake, therefore, is to believe that both types of sentence are similar: he confuses the surface-grammar.

Despite all this confusion, I have stated that Wittgenstein was highly appreciative of Freud’s work, and this is because he essentially reformulates what Freud was trying to do. Freud believed that he was explaining people’s behaviour, while Wittgenstein suggests that he is redescribing it. To him, Freud is providing a ‘picture’ of human behaviour which may enable us to make certain connections that other ways of looking would not reveal, and by showing these patterns and connections the method may well have therapeutic value. In this case, although the 'picture' described by Freud’s method is not a true one (for by Wittgenstein’s arguments it cannot be), nevertheless it is unique, enabling the patient to have insights into their problem that no other method could provide.

 

[jamahir]

First of all OP made a mistake by putting the name of science in the title. Science cant link selfies to mental disorders. Thats beyond science as yet.

well, selffie obsession is social degradation and that comes from wrong political systems and politics is a practical and everyday science.

Secondly, yes i do acknowledge that science has actually got involved in the area of mental disorders. But that happened only recently.

i don't like it that fmri machine setups are being used willy-nilly to arrive at conclusions about reasoning of people

Thirdly, i've just become motivated enough to right a book on the philosophy of science. It will likely be out the next year. So i will say no more here. But i'll share this easy before ending my contribution on this thread:


Ludwig von Wittgenstein has justly been regarded as one of the major philosophers of the twentieth century, especially for his writings on the philosophy of language and logic. His work on psychoanalysis and criticism of his fellow Viennese, Sigmund Freud have however been generally overlooked.

Wittgenstein is both highly critical of and at the same time greatly admiring of Freud’s work. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that he is not critical so much of psychoanalysis as of Freud’s claim for it. For Freud, it was essential that his work be regarded as science: that he had developed a new branch of medicine based on scientific principles, having established causal relationships between behaviour in childhood and that in adulthood. Wittgenstein, while accepting the usefulness of Freud’s methods, disputes that these relationships are causal, therefore denying Freud’s theories scientific validity.

In causal relationships we can at least imagine contradictory cases. For example, I can imagine placing a pan of water on a hot stone and the water freezing (of course I do not expect t to happen, and would be very surprised if it did). With Freud’s theory, however, this is not the case. One of the central planks of this theory is the pursuit of hidden meanings in such things as dreams work of art, even language (the famous ‘ Freudian slip’). Take the examples of dreams. For Freud these are all sexual wish-fulfilments. While it is clear that some are, clearly some at least appear not to be. Freud, however, will not accept any contradiction to his theory, and argues that in these cases the sexual element is camouflaged, or even repressed. This is a strange notion, for how can a dream fulfil a wish if the desire is so disguised that the dreamer does not even recognize it? More importantly if under no circumstances will Freud allow his hypothesis to be contradicted, how can we verify it? It therefore behoves us to recognize that, despite his assertions Freud’s theories are not casual hypotheses, and thus not scientific.

One might ask, given this analysis hoe Freud came to make this mistake, or rather why he believed than his explanations were casual. It is a confusion between what we might call the ‘depth-grammar’ and the ‘surface-grammar’ of certain sentences. If we say ‘the window broke because the stone hit it’ we are outlining a casual relationship between the stone hitting the window and the window breaking this being designed by the world ‘because performs the same function, this is not the case. The similarity lies only on the surface; if we look at the depth-grammar we see that in the first sentence ‘because’ denotes a casual relationship, whereas in the second we are rather talking in terms of motivations reasons and other non-casual terms. Freud’s mistake therefore is to believe that both types of sentence are similar: he confuses the surface-grammar.

Despite all this confusion, I have stated that Wittgenstein was highly appreciative of Freud’s work, and this because he essentially reformulates what Freud was trying to do. Freud believed that he was explaining people’s behaviour, while Wittgenstein suggests that he is redescribing it. To him, Freud is providing a ‘picture’ of human behaviour which may enable us to make certain connections that other ways of looking would not reveal, and by showing these patterns and connections the method may well have therapeutic value. In this case, although the “picture’ described by Freud’s method is not a true one (for by Wittgenstein’s arguments it cannot be), nevertheless it is unique, enabling the patient to have insights into their problem that no other method could provide.

i like your breaking away from celebrating freud immediately.

1. it would help if your work doesn't have "expert academic" words like "causal".

2. there is a spelling mistake in the beginning of fourth paragraph - "hoe" instead of "how".

 

[Gauss]

i don't like it that fmri machine setups are being used willy-nilly to arrive at conclusions about reasoning of people

when i said science getting involved in mental disorders i was thinking more in line of surgically intervening to treat speech disabilities and other paralyses. psst, we know that terms like bipolar and schizo are meaningless scientifically but lets not say it out loud.

i like your breaking away from celebrating freud immediately.

1. it would help if your work doesn't have "expert academic" words like "causal".

2. there is a spelling mistake in the beginning of fourth paragraph - "hoe" instead of "how".

i didnt write the easy, just shared it.

 

[Levina]

put pictures of my family and now I actually regret it because of what some sickos have done but still ...

Did I not warn you about it?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Did I not warn you about it?

True ....

 

[Levina]

True ....

But what happened?

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

this means girls are mad

 

[Levina]

ell, selffie obsession is social degradation and that comes from wrong political systems and politics is a practical and everyday science.

That's a wrong assumption.
Look at these happy faces of children and leaders, these selfies would be part of their good memories.

We have just one life, and let's live it to fullest. Smile and spread smiles....

 

[Indus Pakistan]

But what happened?

Forget about it ...

@jamahir

You keep this up and you can do a thesis on 'selfies' possibly get a Phd ...