Alright, this rant is for anyone who wants to be diagnosed with some disorder. What it comes down to is this: stop. Just stop.
I'm going to start out with what I feel is an important point pertaining to real world living. If you get diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, then that's legally a part of you. Depending on where you live, you may be forced to declare it whenever you have to take certain responsibilities. This is solely so that others can judge whether or not they think you have the capability to hold those responsibilities given your condition, and then take action. That can even include just getting or renewing a driver's license, and many places will slap a hefty fine on you if they find out that you've been diagnosed with something but didn't declare it. Unless you're still in school and need to take the watered down tests or something, being legally diagnosed with something is really not going to help you in any way, only potentially hinder you. Best case scenario, having the diagnosis will change nothing.
My next point is that no natural (e.g., not based on disease or drug use) psychiatric disorder has ever been concretely linked to a specific cause. We don't know what causes them. Research that correlates specific disorders to various brain differences are only based on finding enough participants with a statistically significant trend. Let's say that there are five known different forms of a brain receptor that people can have, and we'll call them rA, rB, rC, rD, and rE. You get a study group together entirely of people who have disorder X, and you feel like one or more of the mutations of that receptor might be responsible for X so you test out each of the participants. What you find, from rA to rE respectively, is that the participants can be divided into the following sections based on whose brain has what: 17%, 18%, 14%, 39%, and 12%. So rD, at 39%, is more than twice as likely to exist in persons with disease X, according to that study group. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still less than half of the people with X who have rD! Now that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a connection; rD may in fact make someone more likely to end up with X, for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean that it's the cause, or even a cause. It could just be an influencing factor to something that's entirely psychological, and more than likely a test group that includes controls (people without X) would also find some people with rD. All scientific experiments for psychiatric disorders are done like this.
Here's an actual example. There's been a statistically significant correlation between a 5-HT2A receptor promoter gene polymorphism called -1438A/G and various disorders depending on the study you look at. These include OCD, anorexia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and others. However, for at least almost as many tests that have shown a correlation between that polymorphism and these individual diseases, there have also been tests that haven't. Furthermore, it's interesting to see some of these in the same list; OCD, for example, is generally considered to be something that you're born with, while anorexia is something you develop. OCD and anorexia can be comorbid, but one can exist without the other too, and that polymorphism can be found present in people who have both, either, or neither. However, if you know anything about the 5-HT2A receptor and those diseases, it actually does make a whole lot of sense that they could be linked. But if OCD is caused by a 5-HT2A promoter and yet some people who have that promoter don't have OCD or other apparent issues, what was different about them that allowed them to escape it? Was it simply environmental factors, supporting the idea that while some people may be more likely to get OCD, it is ultimately a psychological issue? Even schizophrenia is said to have the ability to be "dormant" until something brings it out, often things like stress or drug use. So was it really there at all before, or were you just more likely to get it at some point than some other people?
Another thing about these disorders, similarly to which receptors you have, is that they're pretty much all been linked to both high and low concentrations of the same brain chemicals over time, especially dopamine. But when articles and studies try to sell these findings as absolute fact, they leave at some very important information: we change our dopamine levels willingly all the time. When you imagine something, your brain releases dopamine to activate the same process that creates dreams when you sleep. When you eat delicious foods over mediocre foods you get more dopamine release. When you listen to more stimulating music you get more dopamine. Our dopamine levels are in constant flux depending on the way we live our lives. Furthermore, dopamine isn't endless. After a period of high dopamine, you have a period of low dopamine. This is exactly what happens from addictive drug use, and it's why meth and coke and heroin addicts always need that next fix: dopamine rises for the high, and then severely drops afterward. So if any of those psychiatric disorders can be associated with high dopamine, it would make sense that they can be associated with low dopamine too, right? But the important thing to remember here is that we voluntarily influence these levels. I believe that this is the core draw of maladaptive daydreaming, when you daydream so much that you spend more time in the fantasy world in your head than living your real life. Dopamine is addictive, and the more you train your imagination and visualization the more dopamine you tell your brain to release. But it also has many drawbacks, and the outcomes of heavily fluctuating dopamine levels (e.g., stimulation/anxiety, nervous ticks, high emotional needs/blunted emotional responses, etc.) can be seen no matter if you get your dopamine from daydreaming, disorders, drugs, or elsewhere. That being said, could it not be that those who are diagnosed with many disorders are simply those who fall into the spectrum of people who naturally raise there dopamine levels a lot and happen to have a predisposition in whatever direction?
I'll return to the 5-HT2A example here. That receptor specifically controls dopamine release in many parts of the brain, especially those involved in emotional reward and imagination, and the more 5-HT2A receptors you have the more dopamine you'll naturally be releasing at any given time. If you think about this, and you compare it to what I was just saying, you can sort of form an image of what I'm trying to get at: if you have more of these receptors than normal but you don't push the amount of dopamine you have in you all the time then you may not notice any problems at all, but if you're someone who does have that addictive personality, someone who procrastinates and picks short-term highs over long-term gains, someone who daydreams, then you might push it up to a problem point. Whether or not you're that kind of person may have absolutely nothing to do with your genetic makeup, or what kind of brain you have, so much as just the life you were thrust into, but all you need is that push to get you to that point. So when you think about it it really does make sense that all of these things have been tied to these various disorders, but it also leads you to one blaring conclusion: if all this is correct, then it could be that these disorders are in fact from external influences, and that you may just be a little more predisposed to it based on things in your brain, but not doomed to have it. There are plenty of people out there who have been diagnosed with OCD, bipolar, Asperger's, and many other disorders yet go on to live perfectly normal lives once they get a hold on their condition. Could it not be that they simply summoned the willpower to deal with those addictive, imaginative habits that were causing them to spiral down worse and worse, and after they did they returned to a "normal" range of brain activity?
Of course, I am NOT trying to say that there are no disorders that you don't truly have to struggle with, or anything like that. I'm simply suggesting that many psychological disorders in many people may not be nearly as bad as they seem. But what I really want to get at here is that these disorders do not describe exact causes in your brain; that's not what they're for, at least not until the day comes that we actually can positively say that one thing causes a disorder. When I say "This group of people has OCD.", I'm not saying "This group of people has the -1438/AG 5-HT2A receptor promoter polymorphism.", I'm saying "This group of people has a set of symptoms that are close enough to each other to deal with in a similar way." That's all the labels are for, and nothing else. They don't describe specific causes, they describe people. If you go to a psychiatrist and get a diagnosis, they're going to give you two options you can take to help with it. It's either drugs, none of which work forever and all of which come with side effects, or behavioral therapy. And the reason they offer behavioral therapy is because it WORKS. I hate to tell you this if you have some kind of perfect solution world in mind, but whether you have Asperger's, OCD, major depressive disorder, or you're just plain introverted, the path to becoming a social and outgoing person is exactly the same: you work at it, expose yourself to it, overcome your fears, and integrate it into your life. Some people may have to work harder than others depending on their conditions, but that's what it all boils down to. There is no quick fix.
So the point of what I'm saying is this: you already know your symptoms. You wouldn't want to get diagnosed if you didn't. And I know it's nice to think that a psychiatrist is going to know so much more than you do about what's going on in your head, but the sad truth is, they don't. They're just people, and like any groups of people, many of them are flawed. We also live in an age of information, and if there's one thing I can tell you it's that nothing is secret. All of the information that's available to them is available to you, with the only difference being that you know SO much more about what goes on in your own head than they ever could. The only thing they really have over you is experience, but even that is subject to personal bias and all of the many issues with science and assumptions that I just went over here. So why do you need to get diagnosed at all? After all, if disorders only describe symptoms and not causes, and you're already aware of your symptoms, is a diagnosis going to tell you anything at all? No, it really isn't.
The hard truth is that now that you know what your problems are, you have to start dealing with them like any other person would regardless of how mentally healthy or unhealthy they may be. And that's a struggle, but that's true no matter who you are. Having a label attached to you that you've already attached to yourself will not bring things to light, and it certainly isn't required for your problems to be real problems. If you know you're lazy and you procrastinate and daydream and you're socially inept, then those are real issues. It doesn't matter what caused them. It doesn't matter if your set of symptoms match exactly with a group of others under a given label, because even they don't all have the same symptoms, severity of symptoms, brain chemistry, or ways of handling themselves. All that matters now is that you know what your problems are, and all that's left is for you to figure out what's best for you to get over them by following the examples of others that went before you. Stop worrying about what exactly you are right now and focus on getting yourself to where you want to be instead.
End rant.
|
|
Bookmarks