Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: historic CSA *trigger*

Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 20:44:01

In reply to Re: historic CSA *trigger* » Estella, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 12:22:05

> The term "schizophrenia" isn't in the literature because it was invented in the 19th c. This doesn't mean that clusters of symptoms, or behaviors, later categorized as schizophrenia weren't mentioned.

Yeah, I hear what you are saying, but it is also controversial that the clusters of symptoms (that were later named 'schizophrenia') were reported prior to the 1800's. There have been some reports... But I'm not sure that they are completely uncontroversial.

For example:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/106561942/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0#search=%22schizophrenia%20prior%201800%22

> it's harder to argue that what we would call "madness" did not exist.

though some have.

apparantly there are indeed reports of depression, mania, delusions, hallucinations prior to the 1800's. A lot of people who would be considered 'mad' were they to live in western culture aren't considered 'mad' in their own. though psychiatry is spreading around the globe, of course.

All I'm getting at is that IF that is right and there isn't an uncontroversial case of schizophrenia (though it doesn't have to be called that) prior to the 1800's THEN I'm wondering how Harrison Pope would respond to that. Seems he has two choices:

1) He can appropriate his arguments for repressed memory and say that failure to find a case means the disorder never existed. Schizophrenia must be a clinician's invention by his lights.

(Though of course that doesn't follow. One idea is that schizophrenia hasn't been reported prior to 1800 because it is the result of some virus or pathogen that became prevalent during the industrial revolution. Maybe there is a similar explanation for recovered memories?)

2) Failure to find a case doesn't mean that the symptom / disorder is bollicks. I mean... Money is a fairly recent invention in the history of the world... It is universal now, but needed a niche in order to become prevalent.

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real or legitimate.

Failure to find a case doesn't entail that there weren't any. With respect to providing good support... One could make a comperable case for schizophrenia.

I don't think the authors want to do this...

Do they?



Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:Estella thread:629255
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060808/msgs/678576.html