The Mental Illness Dilemna

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
The Mental Illness Dilemna
221
Wed, 08-01-2012 - 10:51am

Advocates for the mentally ill are faced with a deep dilemma each time extreme and deadly crimes are perpetrated by those with a mental illness. Obviously, such acts are not sane or normal; it beggars common sense to suggest that a person who is thinking straight would choose to kill or wound dozens of strangers. And yet most mentally ill people — even those with conditions that have been linked to violence, such as addictions and schizophrenia — are no threat to anyone other than themselves.

[continued]

For the mentally ill, who might be seen as canaries in this coal mine, stigma serves to wall them off from the social support and medical care that are necessary to spur recovery and prevent illness from leading to tragedy. As a society, we need to understand that risk does not equal destiny — and that believing it does is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s not wrong to see schizophrenia as a disease or even to appreciate its association with violence, but to view people with schizophrenia as hopeless can in some cases worsen their course unnecessarily.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/31/mass-murder-and-mental-illness-the-interplay-of-stigma-culture-and-disease/?iid=hl-article-mostpop1#ixzz22J3U2hHn

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Thu, 08-09-2012 - 11:07am

Yes, but I child can learn before they experience negative thinking that if they ever do, it can be challeged instead of believed. They can learn what experiences others have had with negative thinking and learn from others' experience.

Yes, but I don't think I, or anyone, has opposed this.

Bad things happen all the time, day in, day out. Really bad things are fairly common.

What one views as a "bad thing" ... yes, even a child, is purely subjective. One cannot predict what one will view as a bad thing.

So, yes, you can model and prepare, teach some techniques and tools, but until the moment a child or adult needs to call upon it, do we know how a child or adult will behave. And yes, we can prepare and teach math skills, even throw in a few quizzes, but until a child needs to call upon that information, do we know how well a child or adult will do.

Most people will handle day to day "bad things" rather well. But again, "really bad things" is all in the eye of the beholder. 

If one is unable to cope with day to day "bad things" and resilience means, "Psychological resilience refers to an individual's capacity to withstand stressors and not manifest psychology dysfunction, such as mental illness or persistent negative mood.  This is the mainstream psychological view of resilience, that is, resilience is defined in terms a person's capacity to avoid psychopathology despite difficult circumstances."http://wilderdom.com/psychology/resilience/PsychologicalResilience.html

"Whilst some individuals may seem to prove themselves to be more resilient than others, it should be recognized that resilience is a dynamic quality, not a permanent capacity.  In other words, resilient individuals demonstrate dynamic self-renewal, whereas less resilient individuals find themselves worn down and negatively impacted by life stressors."

then truly, one's mental health, who is not resilient, from a psychological perspective, will be negatively impacted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Thu, 08-09-2012 - 1:03pm

Now I have lost sight of the gist of the discussion

Personally, I would broaden the term "psychological resilience" and "psychopathology" to "resilience" and "pathology", but otherwise I think that I have mentioned already a whole lot of what's in the website you provided within this thread.

If you believe that the link highlights the differences between your definition and my definition, I still don't see it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Thu, 08-09-2012 - 1:18pm

I think what was being questioned was whether or not resiliency can be an innate quality or if it's strictly learned.

I would consider "an innate quality" to be a trait. If resiliency is considered by some to be an innate quality, I would think that they believe that resiliency is a trait.

What does it mean if resiliency is an innate qualify but not a trait?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Thu, 08-09-2012 - 1:29pm

Ommy: I guess, truthfully, I do not agree with much of what you've said on resiliency..

The link you post was a good summary of my views on resiliency, so what are our differences?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 8:54am

I am not sure what you mean? Are others not allowed to post information? Are we allowed allowed to post information once? I don't get it.

 It's neither to challenge you to dispute you or agree with you. It's just information. Many posts come across as feeling challenged rather then just having a conversation. I think most of your posts are saying the same thing, but you keep opposing mine. I thought possibly posting something from a source would give you a better understanding of what I was trying to say ... because, as I said, you keep disputing things I never said. :smileyhappy:  Which I can only assume I am not being clear in my own words.

btw, the link was to an article, not just a definition.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 9:01am

Who considers resiliency to be an innate trait? You keep saying this, but I am not sure where you are getting this information from.

I would consider traits to be things like (not limited to), dependable, cautious, outgoing, objective, demanding, honest, organized, self confident, people pleaser, humorous, serious, picky, dependable, introvert, competent, impatient .... ok, so, that names a few. I would think how (naturally) resilient one is, is greatly influenced by these traits.

lol ... I think we've both be saying to be resilient isn't a trait, but you keep telling me you disagree with me, but then say, "it's not a trait".

And I think, even after reading my last post and post it was in respinse to, you are still only commenting on whether or not resiliency is a trait. Again, I never said it was .. if others feel that way, you are addressing the wrong person.

The article was in response to teaching resiliency in schools and how bad things happen all the time. So, yes, again, "bad things" is a purely subjective concept and yes, most people handle "bad things" without become overwhelmed. From a psychological standpoint, resilency isn't measured until stressors, say, become overwhelming for an individual. Meaning, they are not being resilient, at that moment in time. So, as far as "teaching" as in currriculum, it is very hard to teach the above to students, for one thing, without support from home and two, until something truly stresses a child, can they pull upon those coping skills to see them through it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 1:48pm

From an earlier post:

 I was pondering the roll of parenting skills plays in a child developing a mental illness.... Although I don't think it fair to blame mental illness on the parent, I would also like to ponder to contribution a parent plays in a child's mental health.

In subsequent posts you clarified, I think, that by "developing" you meant "diagnosing". Later you clarified that IYO parents do not cause mental illness.

Your original post as written confused me, whether that was lack of clarity on your part or me leaping to conclusions, is uncertain. A little of each I guess.

Similarly, some of your posts led me to believe that your opinion was that resilience is more nature than nurture. It is now sounding like I misinterpreted your posts - again. I am curious as to how I got confused about the trait, innate thing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 1:52pm

I suspect that this quote is the one that got me off track:

I think patience, resiliency and tolerance are something you are born with. They are personality traits or, I should say, all are influenced by one's intelligence and personality traits.. Both are ingrained in us.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 2:04pm

Jambles, I finally got around to reading the link, here's a snip-it that stood out to me. Thanks for sharing.

To manage stress, Anderson said, people should try to remove themselves from the stressful situation if possible. When that doesn't work, the solutions have to be internal, such as practicing relaxation techniques, exercising and prioritizing sleep. The key, Anderson said, is to tackle one manageable goal at a time.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 08-10-2012 - 2:26pm

In an earlier paragraph you said: My original reading focused on the underlined bits.

Maybe you can explain how you would teach resiliency to a classroom of children? Because I thought I already said why I think it would be difficult to form a curriculum around it. How would handle individual differences among students? How would you get caregivers on board? Most schools I have experience have counselors to help children deal with any major life changes. There's counselors for children who are having a difficult time handling any type of stress. For all students, they form social groups, use self esteem building techniques, teach tolerance, respect and patience, they teach children to identify feelings, how to problem solve, reduce stress to some degree, how to handle conflicts with classmates ..... what would you add to that?

What I read led me to believe that you didn't think resilience could be taught in schools and that only managing a serious, individual stress was reasonable.

I see now that II missed this bit altogether:

For all students, they form social groups, use self esteem building techniques, teach children to identify feelings, how to problem solve, reduce stress to some degree, how to handle conflicts with classmates ..... what would you add to that?

I wouldn't add much to that - I think all those things build resilience, I am pleasantly surprised that schools have programs like that.

Pages