Thread: Is sanity/logic truly defined by the majority?

Logic is like math; it is an abstract concept used as a tool and the rules are true by definition within the system. I'm sure someone else could explain that better than me.

There are people whose brains are damaged or whose neurotransmitters don't work right which cause them to be insane. There are other people in whom the damage may not be recognizable (for example, a psychopath) but whose behavior is so obviously pathological they have to be labeled as insane.

If a society wants to lock up or do something to people whose brains are intact but who have just have different ideas and call them insane, I'd say it is the society that has the problem.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If a society wants to lock up or do something to people whose brains are intact but who have just have different ideas and call them insane, I'd say it is the society that has the problem.

Uhm, so it's alright to lock people up who have not 'intact' brains?

Originally Posted by tommo

Huh? look there for what? I was looking at your first posts from 2003 yesterday by the way, to see your poverty of speech. I couldn't recognise a lot of difference, not being mean, it's just that it wasn't bad at all.
I stumbled across the one where you posted that movie thing, I thought that was your first post? The one where it takes ages to load and nothing much happens. Anyway so yeh, why look at your Hi, I'm new please read thread? I couldn't find it in the favorites by the way.

It is there. But here is the link: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...read.php?t=363

tommo: I think you missed Moonbeams point. (I just realize here that I don't know the gender of Moonbeam, and in respect to recent feminist movements, I always refer to the female reference in cases like this, so please don't be offended...) She was saying that some people who have intact brains need to be helped. This does not mean locking them away and throwing away the key. She was saying that if we locked away a "sane" person, then it is societies fault. We do, however, have to help those that need it (ie. schizophrenics, cataplexics, etc.).
~

But who is to say who is insane?

Originally Posted by Keeper

But who is to say who is insane?

This question can easily be answered. Often we take the term too broadly, but here is a simple way to look at it:

Insane; the incapability to survive or function alone as an individual. To be insane is to depend on others in order to survive and function in any sort of society.

For example; cataplexic schizophrenics cannot survive alone. If they were left alone for a couple of days, they would die. Thus, we can deem them insane in the face that they cannot survive alone.

I think the reason there are many that have problems with the word "insane" is because it has become so pejorative and duragatory to call someone insane. However, there is no problem in saying the word insane when we are referring to someone who actually does need help.

I think we can agree that some people genuinely need help and those people are generally referred to as "insane". Right?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

This question can easily be answered.

Considering that other thread on the ability to be honest that turned into a schizophrenia related debate, i don't think it can be easily answered.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think we can agree that some people genuinely need help and those people are generally referred to as "insane". Right?

Yes, some people certainly need help. By cataplexic schizophrenics you mean they are unable to function right? So overcome by their emotions they basically stop function on a physical level? I'm guessing so.

Put this way I think maybe these people would not be able to function in any society. I know I said some schizophrenics could survive happily in shamanic cultures but whether these cataplexic ones could or not I'm not sure. Maybe they could before they got this bad? I mean it's not like they turned this way overnight. Most of the damage to brain function in 'mental illness' could be attributed to stress/fear. So as they got more and more scared of becoming insane, they adversely caused more damage to themselves.

Anyway, yes, we call these people insane. But what is sane? That is what we need to answer first. If sane is having the ability to interact with and perceive the world as majority of people do, then insane would be defined as not having this ability; thinking mostly of internal things and excluding the outside world for the most part.

I just want to clear this up because I'm not sure where we are going with this to be honest. It's a tough issue to discuss because nobody fully understands the human mind. I mean, who's to say that the so called cataplexic schizophrenics if left alone for a few days on a deserted island, even though dying within a few days, would not experience the most enlightening and amazing things that no 'sane' person could even begin to comprehend?

Why do we choose to 'help' these people when we don't really know what they are experiencing. Of course we shouldn't just let them suffer because they might be having the time of their lives, but I think we shouldn't assume we know what is best for them. Why do we always choose longevity over quality? Because that's how our society is. That's why a lot of teenagers are now doing drugs; to escape this type of thinking. One of the most amazing girls I've ever met is a big time drug user, she says 'live fast, die young'. Of course she wouldn't care if she lived to be 100, but she isn't wasting her time, she has fun as much as possible, and she would live every one of those days doing something she loved. I myself find it hard to accept because I want her here for longer.

If we want to help these 'insane' people live longer, more boring lives, then that is really insane.

We are born different and that makes us unique. Why not incorporate the way our brains function into our lives? I mean, people who are unbelievably good at maths could be deemed insane if it weren't for the fact that they are needed in certain jobs.
If maths wasn't a part of our society they would sit at home, which would probably be the streets, completing maths problems in their head or drawing them on walls with rocks because this is how they were made to function. If we then took them and 'rehabilitated' them, causing them to stop thinking about maths altogether. They would then be called sane.

In our society right now, we would call that action, insane.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Originally Posted by tommo

Uhm, so it's alright to lock people up who have not 'intact' brains?

Yes, if they are a danger to others. People who are not dangerous are generally not locked up in our society. People who are insane are generally unhappy, and will seek help if they can. If that is not within their capacity, they may suffer without help.

Originally Posted by Keeper

But who is to say who is insane?

A trained medical professional? A friend or family member who notices extremely odd behavior?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Insane; the incapability to survive or function alone as an individual. To be insane is to depend on others in order to survive and function in any sort of society.

That is a good way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by tommo

Considering that other thread on the ability to be honest that turned into a schizophrenia related debate, i don't think it can be easily answered.

It digressed.

Yes, some people certainly need help. By cataplexic schizophrenics you mean they are unable to function right? So overcome by their emotions they basically stop function on a physical level? I'm guessing so.

Put this way I think maybe these people would not be able to function in any society. I know I said some schizophrenics could survive happily in shamanic cultures but whether these cataplexic ones could or not I'm not sure. Maybe they could before they got this bad? I mean it's not like they turned this way overnight. Most of the damage to brain function in 'mental illness' could be attributed to stress/fear. So as they got more and more scared of becoming insane, they adversely caused more damage to themselves.

No, cataplexis schizophrenics become to be so (and it can happen over night) because of central nervous damage and theories exist simply to explain how emotional distress might exacerbate it but not ilicit it. Make no mistake, schizophrenics do not choose to be so.

Anyway, yes, we call these people insane. But what is sane? That is what we need to answer first. If sane is having the ability to interact with and perceive the world as majority of people do, then insane would be defined as not having this ability; thinking mostly of internal things and excluding the outside world for the most part.

Right, so we can define it operationally. Just because we do so does not mean we have to make the leap of saying, "how dare you judge x and y!" becaue we need certain judgments in order to facilitate a functional society. Correct? Unless you want to argue that anarchy is actually more beneficial, which would obviously digress into another topic of discussion.

I just want to clear this up because I'm not sure where we are going with this to be honest. It's a tough issue to discuss because nobody fully understands the human mind. I mean, who's to say that the so called cataplexic schizophrenics if left alone for a few days on a deserted island, even though dying within a few days, would not experience the most enlightening and amazing things that no 'sane' person could even begin to comprehend?

We could say the samething about any person; every person has individual and relative experiences.

However, a schizophrenic, left alone, will die. It is easy to see this by simply referring to evidence.

Furthermore, even if a schizophrenic experienced something "amazing", they would have no means or even understand any way to convey that experience to any other mind because schizophrenics are so lost in their delusions that they are not even aware of an externally existing reality.

Why do we choose to 'help' these people when we don't really know what they are experiencing. Of course we shouldn't just let them suffer because they might be having the time of their lives, but I think we shouldn't assume we know what is best for them. Why do we always choose longevity over quality? Because that's how our society is. That's why a lot of teenagers are now doing drugs; to escape this type of thinking. One of the most amazing girls I've ever met is a big time drug user, she says 'live fast, die young'. Of course she wouldn't care if she lived to be 100, but she isn't wasting her time, she has fun as much as possible, and she would live every one of those days doing something she loved. I myself find it hard to accept because I want her here for longer.

I would really, really, love to see you say this very thing to the following cases (all schizophrenics):
- Someone who eats their own fecal matter and believes that they are Jesus
- Someone who is insistent that George Washington if their father and that they have to collect all the straws in the world to create a dam to stop him from raping them.
- Someone who is paralyzed and cannot even feed themself.

As I said, we can take your line of logic and say, "Oh, why should we help someone with a bullet wound? They may be experiencing something amazing and who are we to say that we should stop them from experiencing a bullet wound?" It is because it is obviously a terrible thing to experience and the goal is to be able to help someone to the point where they can decide wether or not they want to experience these things and let others know. If a person has the incapability to even do this but still communicate on other terms, then they are doomed! It is as simple as that. We can also argue, from your point of view, that we should not help suicidal people because they may be on an enlightening path that we should not interrupt.

My point here is that, just because we help someone, does not mean we are a tyrant over their life. The goal of psychiatry and medicine is to perpetuate individual providence.

If we want to help these 'insane' people live longer, more boring lives, then that is really insane.

What are you suggesting? So, if we should not help people live longer, because their lives will be more boring; then we should, logically following, shoot anyone that comes to the hospital?

We are born different and that makes us unique. Why not incorporate the way our brains function into our lives? I mean, people who are unbelievably good at maths could be deemed insane if it weren't for the fact that they are needed in certain jobs.

If maths wasn't a part of our society they would sit at home, which would probably be the streets, completing maths problems in their head or drawing them on walls with rocks because this is how they were made to function. If we then took them and 'rehabilitated' them, causing them to stop thinking about maths altogether. They would then be called sane.

In our society right now, we would call that action, insane.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is not how I am using the term insane. I defined it earlier as the incapability to function and survive alone and, as a result, depend on others in order to survive. Furthermore, we can add implications about how their delusions can be a danger to others (ie. those that believe that they have to drink others blood in order to keep their father from cutting off their penis).

I see what you are getting at with the latter part, and I think that is the wrong function of the word "insane" when it comes to the medical world. The layman has a completely distorted and different definition of insane that seems to be analogous to "retarded", "stupid", "idiotic", etc.

Needing help should not be a pejorative term. Please do not perpetuate the negative connotation. For the love of all medicine and those that depend on it.

What do you think...?
~

Well, you misunderstood a few things I said. So i'll point that out and also reply to thing you've said, obviously.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Make no mistake, schizophrenics do not choose to be so.

I have no doubt this is true, unless you purposefully ingest a few grams of LSD. But yes, I am well aware of the fact that schizophrenics do not choose to be schizophrenic.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, so we can define it operationally. Just because we do so does not mean we have to make the leap of saying, "how dare you judge x and y!" becaue we need certain judgments in order to facilitate a functional society. Correct? Unless you want to argue that anarchy is actually more beneficial, which would obviously digress into another topic of discussion.

I don't think judging is a matter of debate here. We are judging them right now. Not necessarily in a bad or good way, but we are judging.

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, a schizophrenic, left alone, will die. It is easy to see this by simply referring to evidence.

Furthermore, even if a schizophrenic experienced something "amazing", they would have no means or even understand any way to convey that experience to any other mind because schizophrenics are so lost in their delusions that they are not even aware of an externally existing reality.

Ok.... so what? Why does it matter whether they are able to explain it to us? Besides, if we let a schizophrenic live out her or his delusion for a few days, in a cataplexic state, then gave them an anti-psychotic. They would easily be able to explain what they experienced, unless of course it was impossible to explain without feeling, like some high dose hallucinogen trips for example.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I would really, really, love to see you say this very thing to the following cases (all schizophrenics):
- Someone who eats their own fecal matter and believes that they are Jesus
- Someone who is insistent that George Washington if their father and that they have to collect all the straws in the world to create a dam to stop him from raping them.
- Someone who is paralyzed and cannot even feed themself.

You misunderstood here, I said

Of course we shouldn't just let them suffer because they might be having the time of their lives, but I think we shouldn't assume we know what is best for them.

So I mean, we shouldn't leave them be on the basis that we think they might be having a great time, because for all we know they could be suffering.

Originally Posted by O'nus

the goal is to be able to help someone to the point where they can decide wether or not they want to experience these things and let others know.

Ok, that's a good point, I agree with this. But that is not what people are doing, we are trying to make them the same as everybody else; making them functional for our society.

Originally Posted by O'nus

My point here is that, just because we help someone, does not mean we are a tyrant over their life. The goal of psychiatry and medicine is to perpetuate individual providence.

A goal is a goal, not an outcome. Prison is supposed to rehabilitate.
A psychiatrist may say that this person needs to not hallucinate to live properly, this person needs to not have OCD to work in a proper job etc etc. Soon this person thinks "I have to be the same as everybody else or I will not be able to live." Whereas someone with OCD could function perfectly in a job which requires perfection and order and therefore support themselves to live. A schizophrenic who hallucinates could do perfectly well as an artist, writing music or drawing what they see etc etc. Then they can support themselves also.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What are you suggesting? So, if we should not help people live longer, because their lives will be more boring; then we should, logically following, shoot anyone that comes to the hospital?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....
Of course not! I'm not saying a long life is a boring one. I'm saying IF schizophrenics were experiencing great things, this life would be boring. Who are we to force our ways upon them. But going back to what you said before we should get them to a point where they can tell us what they want to do. Without brainwashing them into the 'civilized' way of thinking.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is not how I am using the term insane. I defined it earlier as the incapability to function and survive alone and, as a result, depend on others in order to survive.

And that is exactly what I was saying. People who's brains live to do maths NEED to do maths. People who's brains conceive conglomerations of creative ideas cannot function how they are supposed to without expressing them.
The only difference between them and a schizophrenic is that the schizophrenic does not have a place in society to incorporate their way of thinking into a productive manner, for society too, but for mostly themselves.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The layman has a completely distorted and different definition of insane that seems to be analogous to "retarded", "stupid", "idiotic", etc.

I know this, believe me. I'm called insane, crazy and 'skitzo' a fair bit because of my way of thinking and doing things.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Needing help should not be a pejorative term. Please do not perpetuate the negative connotation. For the love of all medicine and those that depend on it.

Of course it shouldn't we need help, every single one of us. I apologize if I seem to perpetuate the negative connotation, I'm not trying to and it is not my point at all. It is also not going to destroy medicine etc. If I was against medicine I would not be saying anything on this topic besides 'what the fuck does anyone know? medicine is a stupid plot to take out money' or something of the sort. I am for medicine and it has done a lot of great things, also many bad things, but that's all part of the progress.
On the side note of money, this just came to my head. Why do psychiatrists/ologists get so much god damned money? If they really cared they would do it for nothing or very little. How can you put so much faith in these people?

Oh, and about the easy answering thing where you said it digressed. I meant that this debate is fairly long and therefore it is clearly not an easy question.

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok.... so what? Why does it matter whether they are able to explain it to us? Besides, if we let a schizophrenic live out her or his delusion for a few days, in a cataplexic state, then gave them an anti-psychotic. They would easily be able to explain what they experienced, unless of course it was impossible to explain without feeling, like some high dose hallucinogen trips for example.

You misunderstood here, I said
So I mean, we shouldn't leave them be on the basis that we think they might be having a great time, because for all we know they could be suffering.

Ok, that's a good point, I agree with this. But that is not what people are doing, we are trying to make them the same as everybody else; making them functional for our society.

Right, I think we have come to the same terms. There are flaws in the psychiatric design in modern days and it is manipulated too frequently. However, I would also argue that people in general exacerbate the issue by claiming that they need help and perpetuate the requirement for these rehabilitation institutions (ie. how many celebrities do you think actually needed to go to rehab compared to those that staged it for publicity?).

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....
Of course not! I'm not saying a long life is a boring one. I'm saying IF schizophrenics were experiencing great things, this life would be boring. Who are we to force our ways upon them. But going back to what you said before we should get them to a point where they can tell us what they want to do. Without brainwashing them into the 'civilized' way of thinking.

Keyword; if. I can tell you, as having been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, that it was far from something good or something that I want to experience again.

Hell, we could say the samething about those that are comatose or in a vegetable-like state, right?

And that is exactly what I was saying. People who's brains live to do maths NEED to do maths. People who's brains conceive conglomerations of creative ideas cannot function how they are supposed to without expressing them.
The only difference between them and a schizophrenic is that the schizophrenic does not have a place in society to incorporate their way of thinking into a productive manner, for society too, but for mostly themselves.

I know this, believe me. I'm called insane, crazy and 'skitzo' a fair bit because of my way of thinking and doing things.

Of course it shouldn't we need help, every single one of us. I apologize if I seem to perpetuate the negative connotation, I'm not trying to and it is not my point at all. It is also not going to destroy medicine etc. If I was against medicine I would not be saying anything on this topic besides 'what the fuck does anyone know? medicine is a stupid plot to take out money' or something of the sort. I am for medicine and it has done a lot of great things, also many bad things, but that's all part of the progress.

I think we are on the same terms here.

On the side note of money, this just came to my head. Why do psychiatrists/ologists get so much god damned money? If they really cared they would do it for nothing or very little. How can you put so much faith in these people?

Uhm, because psychologists and psychiatrists need money in order to pay for an institution to retain medical records, hydro, electricity, staffing, equipment for possible research, computers, etc.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that psychologists are not tyrants; the reason the price is so high is because the demand is so high. When the demand gets to be overwhelming, you must set the price higher in order to simply facilitate the amount of deman.

I put faith in psychiatrists because, first of all, I am trying to be one and have worked with many. They do help people and do not offer dogmatic beliefs.

Are you suggesting that you would rather get help from an evangelist Jesus healer than a psychologist..?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, I would also argue that people in general exacerbate the issue by claiming that they need help and perpetuate the requirement for these rehabilitation institutions (ie. how many celebrities do you think actually needed to go to rehab compared to those that staged it for publicity?).

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that psychologists are not tyrants; the reason the price is so high is because the demand is so high. When the demand gets to be overwhelming, you must set the price higher in order to simply facilitate the amount of deman.

psychologists and psychiatrists need money in order to pay for an institution to retain medical records, hydro, electricity, staffing, equipment for possible research, computers, etc. ~

These parts of what you said kinda go together. If they didn't treat people who don't need them, there would be less demand.

Except I disagree that the demand creates higher prices, of course I just realised you are talking about the mental hospitals, where that means it costs more to have people there. But I was talking about like single psychiatrists, that don't need any money for hospitality.

They definitely get more than they need. But as for the mental hospital ones, or ones that work in large groups, research etc. They also create new medicines etc for the sole purpose of getting money, of course not all of them do this, but a lot do. I have read up a lot about this and I won't explain it all here unless you want me to if you don't agree, but new medication with practically no difference to the old ones are created all the time by all areas of medicine.

So yes, they do good work. Some people exploit this. However, that happens everywhere.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I put faith in psychiatrists because, first of all, I am trying to be one and have worked with many. They do help people and do not offer dogmatic beliefs.

Are you suggesting that you would rather get help from an evangelist Jesus healer than a psychologist..?

It's good to hear! I can see you obviously care. I wanted to be one for a while back but I realise I will probably do better work as a graphic designer or artist, and reading about psychology made me realise the shaky grounds it stands on. Not belittling what you want to do, just how I feel about it. I still want to do something for mentally ill people just not through psychiatry.

And in no way would I have anything to do with religious healers of any sort unless I was in the process of bring their business down lol

Oh and by the way in your first thread you said you weren't diagnosed with schizophrenia? Was this to stop dogma etc? or did you just forget about that thread?

Originally Posted by tommo

These parts of what you said kinda go together. If they didn't treat people who don't need them, there would be less demand.

The people treating the mentally ill are diligently finding ways to stifle out those that do not require as much help as others. Do you think that people love to work that hard? And don't make the mistake of thinking that they do it for money, there are caps on how much psychiatrists can make in practice via insurance claims. (Of course, this likely varies depending on where you live).

Except I disagree that the demand creates higher prices, of course I just realised you are talking about the mental hospitals, where that means it costs more to have people there. But I was talking about like single psychiatrists, that don't need any money for hospitality.

Uhm. I do not often have the confidence to say this but, you are just simply plain wrong in your statement here. Basic economics "supply and demand" will explain:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
- Note that this is a public source and if you want me to diligently find a more credible source, I am fully confident that I can conisdering the fudamental nature of this.

They definitely get more than they need. But as for the mental hospital ones, or ones that work in large groups, research etc. They also create new medicines etc for the sole purpose of getting money, of course not all of them do this, but a lot do. I have read up a lot about this and I won't explain it all here unless you want me to if you don't agree, but new medication with practically no difference to the old ones are created all the time by all areas of medicine.

So yes, they do good work. Some people exploit this. However, that happens everywhere.

I would say that, for the most part, you're right. Especially in the field of neuropharmacology. However, I would also be just a quickly to also bring in the fact that society and the general populus have a high demand for drugs and quick cures for things.

Do people exploit this..? Of course. My point is that they are not entirely to blame for the consequence of medicine for profit.

It's good to hear! I can see you obviously care. I wanted to be one for a while back but I realise I will probably do better work as a graphic designer or artist, and reading about psychology made me realise the shaky grounds it stands on. Not belittling what you want to do, just how I feel about it. I still want to do something for mentally ill people just not through psychiatry.

Scientology...?

And in no way would I have anything to do with religious healers of any sort unless I was in the process of bring their business down lol

Oh and by the way in your first thread you said you weren't diagnosed with schizophrenia? Was this to stop dogma etc? or did you just forget about that thread?

I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. I am not sure what you are referring to here.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. I am not sure what you are referring to here.

From your Hi, Im new here thread - the last post you made in it....

Originally Posted by O'nus

After the tests and roughly two months of therapy, it was conclucded that the case was merely hysteria and self-perpetuated - by myself.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Uhm. I do not often have the confidence to say this but, you are just simply plain wrong in your statement here. Basic economics "supply and demand" will explain:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
- Note that this is a public source and if you want me to diligently find a more credible source, I am fully confident that I can conisdering the fudamental nature of this.

It says applies to the selling and buying of goods. To be honest I cannot read that drivel, I zone out and cannot concentrate when reading about economics, business etc. So it may seem stupid of me to say I disagree with you. But there is no reason why an individual psychologists would need to charge their clients extra because they suddenly have more clients to deal with. It just doesn't make sense, if anything they would be able to lower their prices because they don't need as much money to survive.
Say you needed $200 from each patient, once per week to live off comfortably. You had 10 patients. You suddenly get 20 patients, you would now only need $100 of each patient to survive comfortably and lowering your prices would help you get more clients because you are cheaper than the competitors.

There is no logical reason as to why you would need more money off each client.

Originally Posted by O'nus

My point is that they are not entirely to blame for the consequence of medicine for profit.

Yeh, that's fair enough.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Scientology...?

God no! lol. Listen, I'm as atheistic (? kinda sounds like a religion in itself lol) as you seem to be, if not more. I don't follow Scientology or condone Jesus preachers. I meant I would like to do something through art. Like artists such as van Gogh, Dali and Peter Booth.

Originally Posted by tommo

From your Hi, Im new here thread - the last post you made in it....

Erm..

So.. I was diagnosed.. but then I self-diagnosed and... I don't think it's a good idea to get into this. It's really personal and not necessary to get into.. To put things straight; I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia by a medical professional (2, in fact). I then treated my symptoms mostly on a self-treatment basis... if you are honestly interested in more than that, please let me know...

It says applies to the selling and buying of goods. To be honest I cannot read that drivel, I zone out and cannot concentrate when reading about economics, business etc. So it may seem stupid of me to say I disagree with you. But there is no reason why an individual psychologists would need to charge their clients extra because they suddenly have more clients to deal with. It just doesn't make sense, if anything they would be able to lower their prices because they don't need as much money to survive.
Say you needed $200 from each patient, once per week to live off comfortably. You had 10 patients. You suddenly get 20 patients, you would now only need $100 of each patient to survive comfortably and lowering your prices would help you get more clients because you are cheaper than the competitors.

There is no logical reason as to why you would need more money off each client.

I can see why you are saying this. What you are saying makes basic sense. The thing is that individual psychologists have the capability to raise their prices and may, in fact, need to. Here's why:
- Start off selling yourself off cheap
- As demand increases, you can eventually give yourself a fair profit
- As you say, some individual will exploit this
- Contrary to this, there are (in some countries/states) caps to how much insurance claims individual psychologists can claim (as nearly all clients seek therapy via insurance, they have to pay via insurance). Thus, there are limits to how much they can make.

All considered, yes, some obviously exploit. However, some do make profit. Honestly, in this line of work - I honestly think they deserve some profit.

Consider:
- They get into the job to help people
- They help people with drastic problems
- They deal with suicidal, depressed, etc. people of all kinds.

I don't doubt you think they deserve some profit.. I just say these to clarify our mutual intentions.

Yeh, that's fair enough.

God no! lol. Listen, I'm as atheistic (? kinda sounds like a religion in itself lol) as you seem to be, if not more. I don't follow Scientology or condone Jesus preachers. I meant I would like to do something through art. Like artists such as van Gogh, Dali and Peter Booth.

Cool. I'll bet you would be intersted in music therapy? Art therapy? I think these forms of therapy are great as they are much more inclusive to the individual and allows for further growth outside an enclosed room. I encourage you to follow this route. You should consider Carl Rogers for reading material. Furthermore, whereabouts do you live? I know some good places for these abstract forms of therapy (that should not be abstract..).
~

The key to the laws of supply and demand is that you must take both aspects in to account. The situation is not that a psychiatrist has 10 patients and now that he is more popular, he has 20 because in that situation the supply has effectively increased which would make your logic of lowering prices valid. The prices increase as the demand increases when the supply stays the same. In other words, when the psychiatrist has 10 patients and now has 20 prospective patients, but still only has time for 10. Obviously the 10 who are willing to pay more are going to get the attention.

I love when two people come to an agreement, that rarely happens in my life lol!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Erm..

So.. I was diagnosed.. but then I self-diagnosed and... I don't think it's a good idea to get into this. It's really personal and not necessary to get into.. To put things straight; I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia by a medical professional (2, in fact). I then treated my symptoms mostly on a self-treatment basis... if you are honestly interested in more than that, please let me know...

Well, obviously you don't wanna share everything, that's fine. But I do have an interest, just in my nature. I like knowing things, plus I am wondering how you self-treated. So you can tell me if you want to. PM or whatever.

Ohhhh, ok so you're saying they need or deserve profit, but cannot go past a certain amount, due to the limit on insurance claims.

So individual have trouble if they take on too many (past a certain amount) because they would be working over-time for the same money, unless they didn't take some money off non-insurance claims. Really this needs an example, it gets too complicated, but I don't think it matters a whole lot.

Just one point, Australia only recently got the insurance thing for mental health care, or tax-deductible, can't remember. But it is only up to $70 per week or something. My psychologist/iatrist (I don't know which one can prescribe meds, mine couldn't) charged $132 per session, one per week. So I had to pay a substantial amount out of my pocket, well my mum's pocket lol.

Anyway, just thought I'd add that in just as a clear up into why I believe they make too much, as that is $132 an hour. It's kinda absurd.

As for the dealing with suicidal, depressed, etc. people of all kinds I was gonna say something about this too, and is probably the biggest reason they deserve high profit. I have heard a lot of them end up 'contracting' symptoms of their patients, due to mirror neurons. You probably know about that so I won't go into it any further.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Cool. I'll bet you would be intersted in music therapy? Art therapy? I think these forms of therapy are great as they are much more inclusive to the individual and allows for further growth outside an enclosed room. I encourage you to follow this route. You should consider Carl Rogers for reading material. Furthermore, whereabouts do you live? I know some good places for these abstract forms of therapy (that should not be abstract..).

Hm, sounds interesting and thanx for the reading material reference! I'll be sure to look him up. Sorry I don't feel comfortable revealing where I live too much but, Victoria is the state. Australia of course.

Cheers!

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The key to the laws of supply and demand is that you must take both aspects in to account. The situation is not that a psychiatrist has 10 patients and now that he is more popular, he has 20 because in that situation the supply has effectively increased which would make your logic of lowering prices valid. The prices increase as the demand increases when the supply stays the same. In other words, when the psychiatrist has 10 patients and now has 20 prospective patients, but still only has time for 10. Obviously the 10 who are willing to pay more are going to get the attention.

Thanx for that Xaqaria, so it was just a simple misunderstanding of what supply and demand refer to in psychology.
Guess we should never be so confident in our statements. Huh O'nus?
Thanx for clearing that up Xaqaria. I'll just delete some of this post because it was way too confusing and got cleared up already as I was writing it.

EDIT AGAIN: I just read again what Xaqaria wrote and got all confused. It now makes no sense to me again! haha And Now I just deleted half my post for no reason! Bah, I'm annoyed now, I'll just put it back and wait till someone else posts.

Originally Posted by tommo

I love when two people come to an agreement, that rarely happens in my life lol!

Difficult sometimes, but possible. Text is also a culprit.

Well, obviously you don't wanna share everything, that's fine. But I do have an interest, just in my nature. I like knowing things, plus I am wondering how you self-treated. So you can tell me if you want to. PM or whatever.

I utilized lucid dreaming and, without my knowing, existential psychotherapy. The process of learning to lucid dream, if you keep an eye out on this, also invariably teaches you existentialism - how to be a free individual. It is simply a matter of transferring this confidence from the dream life, to waking life, and obviously keeping your physical limitations in mind, lol.

It took time, but I eventually changed, almost entirely, as an individual. Let's put it this way; I went from wanting to be a weapon engineer for the army to what I am now (psychology/philosophy student).

The diary of my paranoid schizophrenia is something I am considering to share as it may be entertaining to read my hallucinations and poverty of speach.

Ohhhh, ok so you're saying they need or deserve profit, but cannot go past a certain amount, due to the limit on insurance claims.

So individual have trouble if they take on too many (past a certain amount) because they would be working over-time for the same money, unless they didn't take some money off non-insurance claims. Really this needs an example, it gets too complicated, but I don't think it matters a whole lot.

Just one point, Australia only recently got the insurance thing for mental health care, or tax-deductible, can't remember. But it is only up to $70 per week or something. My psychologist/iatrist (I don't know which one can prescribe meds, mine couldn't) charged $132 per session, one per week. So I had to pay a substantial amount out of my pocket, well my mum's pocket lol.

Anyway, just thought I'd add that in just as a clear up into why I believe they make too much, as that is $132 an hour. It's kinda absurd.

Xa. cleared up the supply and demand sense of things, so yes. The price increase incidentally happens with the increase of demand. Is it too bad that it costs so much? Yes, if it could be free, that would be all the more better.

As for the dealing with suicidal, depressed, etc. people of all kinds I was gonna say something about this too, and is probably the biggest reason they deserve high profit. I have heard a lot of them end up 'contracting' symptoms of their patients, due to mirror neurons. You probably know about that so I won't go into it any further.

Precisely.

Hm, sounds interesting and thanx for the reading material reference! I'll be sure to look him up. Sorry I don't feel comfortable revealing where I live too much but, Victoria is the state. Australia of course.

Cheers!

Oh, well I do not know much of the Australian education system, but I hope that it serves you well in your endeavour. Are you considering music/art therapy?
~