Suatu hari Aku ngeliat ada 1 private message di forum. Dan pas dibuka, wow, dari seorang member yang terkenal karena sarkasmenya (meski, banyak yang lebih parah daripada dia). Sebut saja namanya Dis (bukan username asli). Berikut PMnya.
Hi A,
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
For now,your reply to xx's schizophrenia thread has me questioning...
You mention "Freudian perspectives" of (commonly)psychotic self-defensive channeling... metaphorical outlets. Do you have a source? What are other (modern?) alternatives to this seemingly obvious mechanism?
FYI, I'm not in school (I wish) but am attempting to tackle a project and government incentive against early interventions to schizophrenia. My approach is broad, subjectively thorough... but I need professional guidance to help form my tentative (future) publications. Awe struck I can't think of anyone else to ask but you?
So what are you at, regarding the field?
:ears:
hehe, later :)
Woooh...., ulangi lagi!
Hi A,
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
Lagi!
I've very much admired your posts in the psych subforum. Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior. (hehe I'm arrogant! :curtain:)
Lagi lagi!
Your deeply rooted perspective has flagged you as my rare superior.
Waaah! Lagi!
...you as my rare superior.
Telinga ngembang, badan terbang, GEBAAAAAAANG!
Gebang/gebeng: bahasa Bangka yang artinya tinggi hati, bisa juga kegeeran, sombong, dll. Biasanya lebih diarahkan untuk ejekan. (Interpretasi pribadi). Orang yang gebeng biasanya gak nyadar kalo dia pada kenyataannya gak sehebat yang dia bayangkan (baca: Aku gebeng).
Aku bales:
Hello dis.
Wow, thank you for the ego boost right there
(watch it, I'm quite arrogant myself). It is commonly known in psychology that the Freudian perspective sees all mental dysfunction as rooted from anxiety and defense mechanism. Before learning that, you might want to read about Freud's personality dynamic.Source? I hardly able to point one (I guess, saying 'school' would help). You could start with reading any book about Freud (best with historical background and a whole explanation to his theory; of course, if this perspective is indeed your preference) or a book regarding abnormal psychology (try Durand & Barlow, or Davison & Neale). What I explained exclusively comes from psychodynamic perspective, but lately interests to this explanation declined greatly. Nowadays, experts refer to neurobiological and genetic approaches . One of the most popular studies that support genetic approach was about a set of twins who suffered schizophrenia, the Genain Quadruplets.
Hmm, could you elaborate on how the government is going to execute the idea? What kind of early intervention? And why exactly do disagree with that? You know, healing schizophrenia is a challenge even to professionals. Early intervention sounds like a good help.
Yang malah dibales:
Hi A
My arrogance is on and off, in its worse a compliment. Baby I'm mean, try to jog my switches, I'm your guinea pig
Thanks for the refreshers on Freud, it's been long since I've been into his works.
Personally, I'm very offput by genetic approaches to schizophrenia. Although there exist four year olds who are extra-terrestrially creative or unfortunately violent and delusional. Let me give you and easy question. What is schizophrenia, and what can you tell about it given the meds at first line of treatment? (Your perspective please?)
You forgot to say what you are doing in school! You worth my time or no? I'm busy here
As mentioned above, solve this puzzle, and postulate the possibility of a phenotype rather than genetic/racist malady?
Early intervention is... early. What do the symptoms of the prodrome mean to you? I see people treated as delusional lazies before delusions appear. Is this the optimal social rehabilitation route? Compound with meds ' effects and lack of therapist time. What happened to badass psychiatrists that jog and shape your mind ago? No more Jungs and Freuds? (Or am I too far out of academics?) I'm not impressed by the doctors in these clinics.
Looking forward to your thoughts, if you can keep up ya?
Thanks, anything you want to discuss about your personal interests in the field?
Terus ditambahin sama dia:
My question maybe not fair (according to level and branch), I don't mind how ever may be vague, take your time
. No formal training so I'm lacking some, yet have bits of post-doc hobo magic. For real in and out of school, but intj-ish so I never stopped learning. Ran into project opportunity, looking for intelligent affiliates, you've so far impressed me.
You may ask about my questions (uni-branch semi-medical logic -- to verify) -- and feel free to pass by your own?
Later
Tuh kan. Mereka tuh kalo muji gak pernah gratisan *nabok wajah.
| Originally Posted by discontinuous | |
My question maybe not fair (according to level and branch), I don't mind how ever may be vague, take your time |
Hey dont look down on me. You've complimented me, you DONT take it back ever. 
| Originally Posted by discontinuous | |
Hi Porcelain |
I'm a psychology student okaay 
. I havent graduate, but I'm going to be a professional one day. I even had my time with some schizophrenic patients (we drew houses together, made hats, and played pirates game).
You gave some questions right there. Let me take a deep breath before answering...
. I havent graduate, but I'm going to be a professional one day. I even had my time with some schizophrenic patients (we drew houses together, made hats, and played pirates game).You gave some questions right there. Let me take a deep breath before answering...
Personally, I'm very offput by genetic approaches to schizophrenia. Although there exist four year olds who are extra-terrestrially creative or unfortunately violent and delusional. Let me give you and easy question. What is schizophrenia, and what can you tell about it given the meds at first line of treatment? (Your perspective please?) |
Firstly, I'm not a medicine fanatic like those psychiatrists. Neurobiological approach has reached its fame these last decade and, sorry to fans, I'm not a supporter. I was trying to engage you in a... pop approach. I wont be naive by saying we dont need medicine on some psychological disorders, we do in some axis of diagnosis, only when there is a tangible prove of physical damage (even to the neural and central functioning level). Depression, for me, doesnt need to be fixed with medication. Autism and severe schizophrenia.
Personally, I opt for psychosocial and even behavioral approach. Even the Freudian analysis I told you is fully made up by me (At least I didnt see it in my book, I believe they mostly dont use psychodynamic to explain schizophrenia). Its hard to ask psychology students to make a personal interpretation of a disorder (because it would be biased by their knowledge), but my point on schizophrenia is a matter of disengagement to reality. Genetic, of course, would contribute some. Based on research though, genetic wont affect the personality as much as the environment or experience (40:60, if I'm not mistaken). It is highly expected to have a shizophrenic family members to a schizophrenic patient. In my assumption, genetic would only brings you a risky position, but experience triggers the disorder. How so? Because most families dont just transfer their genes to you, but also parenting style and living environment. I imagine a shizophrenic person to have a poor coping style (toward stress and pressures). This could be rooted from a bad childhood (therefore, the person did not adopt a healthy coping style).
There are three types of coping styles: problem focused, emotional, and something else (I forgot the name). Problem focused coping is, well, fixing the problem causing the stress directly. Emotional coping is accepting the condition or even decreasing the emotional pressure (cathartic methods). The other..., is something that I almost forgot, but has something to do with changing your cognitive construct about the problem, like changing your goals, denials, or even manipulate your perception on the problem.
Schizophrenic people have poor coping style and a huge gap between reality and expectation. Therefore, the pressure for these people are double the pressure for normal people. The human mind is a mysterious and super entity. It can manipulates your perception of reality, and suddenly people call you schizophrenic.
...well, yeah.
To be honest, this so-called concept of schizophrenia is questioned by many. Some cultures regard this as a gift, some said its a clinical problem, some said its possession. So, I'd rather focus myself on the application of it's medication rather than the cause...
Personally, I opt for psychosocial and even behavioral approach. Even the Freudian analysis I told you is fully made up by me (At least I didnt see it in my book, I believe they mostly dont use psychodynamic to explain schizophrenia). Its hard to ask psychology students to make a personal interpretation of a disorder (because it would be biased by their knowledge), but my point on schizophrenia is a matter of disengagement to reality. Genetic, of course, would contribute some. Based on research though, genetic wont affect the personality as much as the environment or experience (40:60, if I'm not mistaken). It is highly expected to have a shizophrenic family members to a schizophrenic patient. In my assumption, genetic would only brings you a risky position, but experience triggers the disorder. How so? Because most families dont just transfer their genes to you, but also parenting style and living environment. I imagine a shizophrenic person to have a poor coping style (toward stress and pressures). This could be rooted from a bad childhood (therefore, the person did not adopt a healthy coping style).
There are three types of coping styles: problem focused, emotional, and something else (I forgot the name). Problem focused coping is, well, fixing the problem causing the stress directly. Emotional coping is accepting the condition or even decreasing the emotional pressure (cathartic methods). The other..., is something that I almost forgot, but has something to do with changing your cognitive construct about the problem, like changing your goals, denials, or even manipulate your perception on the problem.
Schizophrenic people have poor coping style and a huge gap between reality and expectation. Therefore, the pressure for these people are double the pressure for normal people. The human mind is a mysterious and super entity. It can manipulates your perception of reality, and suddenly people call you schizophrenic.
...well, yeah.
To be honest, this so-called concept of schizophrenia is questioned by many. Some cultures regard this as a gift, some said its a clinical problem, some said its possession. So, I'd rather focus myself on the application of it's medication rather than the cause...
As mentioned above, solve this puzzle, and postulate the possibility of a phenotype rather than genetic/racist malady? |
Are you implying:
1. People mistook somebody for having schizophrenia
2. You're a Freudian fan
?
1. Prognosed as delusional is not enough for a person to be labeled as schizophrenia. Delusion ranges from it's types and it's severity. And there are even normal people who are delusional. I trust professionals to do what is expected of them, we have methods in making diagnosis. But, fools exist, and there goes malpractice. You should peek on the latest DSM to see how we diagnose schizophrenia. If you agree to it, and you deem whatever government it is not applying it, well - your government sucks. If you dont agree to it, tell me which part it is, and we'll discuss.
Details are important for me to understand your context. My vision of psychological practice is idealistic, therefore I hardly notice any flaws (well, I'm still a student. Everything seems idealistic to me).
2. Freud.
Look, I know he seems awesome, but he is not. There are many other contributors to psychology, like Bandura, Maslow, Adler, and others. Even Myers-Briggs contributes more to MBTI than Jung (because, in theory, both approach are quite different. Jung saw the functions as dynamically changing in a person in different situations. MBTI saw the functions as an almost static trait).
What makes people love Freudian approach:
- Its mysterious and has a fantasy-like explanation. Anything mysterious always sells because its interesting, like those mystery novel.
-It exposes the unseen, that is the dynamic of the personality (like ego, superego, Id, anima, animus, etc). Note that it is unseen, therefore it is a human concept.
What makes professionals raise their eyebrows at Freudian approach:
-Lacks of practicality, coach therapy addresses the problems indirectly so it'll take too long to fix the problems
- Lacks of reliability and validity, because Freud made his theories based on interviews with hysteria patients, and Jung made his theories based on... patients too. Many critics said their theories are assumptive.
- There are other approaches with more practicality, validity, and reliability, like the behavioral approach, cognitive behavioral approach, humanistic, etc.
So...
To clarify, psychiatrist and psychologist are different. Psychiatrist focus on meds and neurobiology, because they came from medical studies. Psychologist focuses on mental process and behavior because they came from social studies.
This post is damn long.
1. People mistook somebody for having schizophrenia
2. You're a Freudian fan
?
1. Prognosed as delusional is not enough for a person to be labeled as schizophrenia. Delusion ranges from it's types and it's severity. And there are even normal people who are delusional. I trust professionals to do what is expected of them, we have methods in making diagnosis. But, fools exist, and there goes malpractice. You should peek on the latest DSM to see how we diagnose schizophrenia. If you agree to it, and you deem whatever government it is not applying it, well - your government sucks. If you dont agree to it, tell me which part it is, and we'll discuss.
Details are important for me to understand your context. My vision of psychological practice is idealistic, therefore I hardly notice any flaws (well, I'm still a student. Everything seems idealistic to me).
2. Freud.
Look, I know he seems awesome, but he is not. There are many other contributors to psychology, like Bandura, Maslow, Adler, and others. Even Myers-Briggs contributes more to MBTI than Jung (because, in theory, both approach are quite different. Jung saw the functions as dynamically changing in a person in different situations. MBTI saw the functions as an almost static trait).
What makes people love Freudian approach:
- Its mysterious and has a fantasy-like explanation. Anything mysterious always sells because its interesting, like those mystery novel.
-It exposes the unseen, that is the dynamic of the personality (like ego, superego, Id, anima, animus, etc). Note that it is unseen, therefore it is a human concept.
What makes professionals raise their eyebrows at Freudian approach:
-Lacks of practicality, coach therapy addresses the problems indirectly so it'll take too long to fix the problems
- Lacks of reliability and validity, because Freud made his theories based on interviews with hysteria patients, and Jung made his theories based on... patients too. Many critics said their theories are assumptive.
- There are other approaches with more practicality, validity, and reliability, like the behavioral approach, cognitive behavioral approach, humanistic, etc.
So...
To clarify, psychiatrist and psychologist are different. Psychiatrist focus on meds and neurobiology, because they came from medical studies. Psychologist focuses on mental process and behavior because they came from social studies.
This post is damn long.
Tuh kan, lagi-lagi fans Freud. Aku gak bilang teorinya salah atau dia itu delusional dan obsesif. Meskipun indikasi itu memang ada, tapi teorinya make sense pada beberapa kondisi. Tapi, semua orang overrate banget soal dia. Dia keren sih, tapi nggak SEKEREN itu juga kali...
Anehnya, orang-orang yang ngefans abis sama Freud banyak yang dari luar kalangan akademisi Psikologi. Aku tidak mengingkari bahwa di kalangan akademisi dan praktisi banyak juga yang menggunakan metode Freudian (saat ini biasanya Neo Freudian), tapi umumnya praktisi saat ini menggunakan pendekatan psikologi positif, humanistik, bahkan kognitif behavioral. Psikodinamika memang populer di kalangan akademisi, tapi secara praktis sudah jarang digunakan sesering terapi lain.
Jadi, ketika ada orang awam yang memuja-muja Freud, seperti mengatakan bahwa dia mengubah dunia dan dunia keilmuwan secara keseluruhan (dan, iya, di forum B itu terjadi), yahh, rasanya...
I dont hate Freud. Bahkan, Aku sering menginterpretasikan suatu isu psikologi dengan teori Freud. Masalahnya, orang overrate banget soal dia. Dan segala hal yang di overrate itu bikin sebelah alisku terangkat. Aku bahkan juga akan membenci overrate terhadap Bandura, Maslow, dan pembuat teori psikologi lainnya. Rasanya seperti mendengar teman sekelas kamu memuja-muja duo M2M secara hardcore, padahal albumnya keluar satu dekade yang lalu dan mereka udah bubar (parah lagi kalo orang ini bhkan nggak tahu kalo mereka udah bubar).
Well, guys, jangan cepet amaze. Ilmu itu tiap hari berubah. Ada hal yang lebih baru, lebih keren, lebih efektif muncul setiap harinya. Ketika menemukan teori yang menarik, pahamilah dan kritisi. Pasang wajah skeptis. Ilmu itu bukan partai yang kamu pilah-pilih dan ikuti dengan loyal, tapi hasil prosesi otak kamu.
You think Freud is awesome? You know what, we might know better, and we'd say he is great, but not THAT great.
