The stupidity of the anti-vaxx nutcases

[WouldBe]

He's got a lot on you know

Developing new strains of covid.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I mean, we've got multiple belief systems on this planet that can influence entire populations of people into trying to talk a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient entity into interceding for them (which is contradictory, surely such a being would already know what they want?). This behaviour persists in spite of a continual lack of any evidence whatsoever.

So no, it's not "obvious" that people doing things contrary to sensibility are automatically mentally ill. Unless you want to argue that religious believers - still a majority of the world's population - are all mentally ill.

If a religious believer set themselves on fire in public screaming about the how the devil was out to get them, then yes, I would assume that they are mentally ill. But most believers in God don't do this, so your comparison between them and this man is not a good one. It's not simply the belief that is the issue. It's the behaviours that present themselves alongside the belief.

 

[kabbes]

Whether the man that set himself on fire was suffering a schizophrenic episode or whether his exposure to group dynamics, misinformation and subjectifying norms within a subculture had led him to co-construct his own reality in which this was the correct action — either way, I don’t see that it is funny that he burned to death.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

If a religious believer set themselves on fire in public screaming about the how the devil was out to get them, then yes, I would assume that they are mentally ill. But most believers in God don't do this, so your comparison between them and this man is not a good one. It's not simply the belief that is the issue. It's the behaviours that present themselves alongside the belief.

What about suicide bombers? They’re all mentally ill? I’m sure some are and are exploited into it but not all.

 

[Supine]

People with MH issues aside there are plenty of completely normal people who are anti vax. They are sane, rational and completely stupid because they get their research from the wrong places. Shame on them the dappy cnuts.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What about suicide bombers? They’re all mentally ill? I’m sure some are and are exploited into it but not all.

I'd say that takes a combination of mental illness and a prior disposition to doing harm to others, yes.

But surely you can see the difference between someone that seeks to blow other people up and someone who, as far as it appears, was more intent on doing harm to himself?

 

[existentialist]

I'd say that takes a combination of mental illness and a prior disposition to doing harm to others, yes.

But surely you can see the difference between someone that seeks to blow other people up and someone who, as far as it appears, was more intent on doing harm to himself?

Keep going with the armchair psychiatry...

 

[IC3D]

Keep going with the armchair psychiatry...

Cos suicidal idealation is a sign of a happy, healthy mind and doesn't warrant any psychiatric support. Are you kidding.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I largely agree with you about that person that set themselves on fire. It's sad more than anything. No idea if he was suffering from a mental health illness, but I think you're likely right that he probably was, or at least vulnerable and taken advantage of by more together anti-vaxxers (hence some of my hatred for the more calculating ones who I think are often exploiters of the vulnerable). But I also think you're rushing to judge many on here too quickly, it's possible to get a laugh from things like that when the internet provides distance and be compassionate in reality ItWillNeverWork.

You're probably right on me rushing to judge people. I don't wish to do that, although I may well fail in that wish too often.

It's definitely true that most people tend to act more compassionately in person than over the internet, so apologies if you felt I was being unfair. Most people are good hearted, and the medium of the internet doesn't always communicate that well unfortunately.

All the same, I still think it's important to not dehumanise a person simply because we don't have them directly in front of us. I'm sure I've done that before myself, so once again, I'm not trying to be judgy.

 

[existentialist]

Cos suicidal idealation is a sign of a happy, healthy mind and doesn't warrant any psychiatric support. Are you kidding.

Ask ItWillNeverWork if you can squeeze into that armchair with them.

Motive: I'm a mental health professional (though not a psychiatrist), and as such am only too aware of both the prevalence of tendencies towards armchair psychiatry, and the level of shit it engenders. Watching people blithely ascribe motives for people on the flimsiest of information, and seeing the consequences on others of that kind of thing offends me, professionally and personally. I might occasionally make general comments about tendencies, but there's a big difference between doing that - with suitable disclaimers - and people deciding that this or that behaviour must definitively mean a diagnosis of X.

 

[High Voltage]

People with MH issues aside there are plenty of completely normal people who are anti vax. They are sane, rational and completely stupid because they get their research from the wrong places. Shame on them the dappy cnuts.

So, just to check, is it still OK to laugh when they die of covid?

 

[IC3D]

Ask ItWillNeverWork if you can squeeze into that armchair with them.

Motive: I'm a mental health professional (though not a psychiatrist), and as such am only too aware of both the prevalence of tendencies towards armchair psychiatry, and the level of shit it engenders. Watching people blithely ascribe motives for people on the flimsiest of information, and seeing the consequences on others of that kind of thing offends me, professionally and personally. I might occasionally make general comments about tendencies, but there's a big difference between doing that - with suitable disclaimers - and people deciding that this or that behaviour must definitively mean a diagnosis of X.

Bulshit anyone with half a brain would recognise someone with suicidal idealation needs professional support. I'm shocked someone in your profession Lols at people killing them selves tbh. I know it's the internet but still that doesn't sit right and is inappropriate.

 

[kabbes]

There is no clear dividing line between being “mentally ill” and “mentally well”. A medical model of “disease” for psychological concepts is almost never accurate (albeit that there are specific exceptions). Humans are way more complicated than that, and society, which gets to define what is and isn’t normal, is more complex still. Hence my point that it isn’t helpful to try to put a boundary around pathology as being the determinant of whether or not it is appropriate to feel sympathy for a dead man.

 

[Supine]

So, just to check, is it still OK to laugh when they die of covid?

I wouldn’t laugh when anyone dies. I’m not a cnut

 

[Magnus McGinty]

He obviously wanted to make sure his beating stick was sturdy enough hence the diagnosis.

 

[High Voltage]

I wouldn’t laugh when anyone dies. I’m not a cnut

Gotcha

 

[existentialist]

Bulshit anyone with half a brain would recognise someone with suicidal idealation needs professional support. I'm shocked someone in your profession Lols at people killing them selves tbh. I know it's the internet but still that doesn't sit right and is inappropriate.

OK, just as a case in point, since you seem very keen on diagnosing things by ascribing motives...go and find where I LOLed at the man killing himself.

 

[Supine]

Gotcha

You sure about that?

 

[IC3D]

Likes can be unliked existentialist

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Ask ItWillNeverWork if you can squeeze into that armchair with them.

Motive: I'm a mental health professional (though not a psychiatrist), and as such am only too aware of both the prevalence of tendencies towards armchair psychiatry, and the level of shit it engenders. Watching people blithely ascribe motives for people on the flimsiest of information, and seeing the consequences on others of that kind of thing offends me, professionally and personally. I might occasionally make general comments about tendencies, but there's a big difference between doing that - with suitable disclaimers - and people deciding that this or that behaviour must definitively mean a diagnosis of X.

As a professional, would you agree that this man's behaviour is, at the very least, highly indicative of some underlying mental health issue? If not, why not? If so, what process would you undertake to provide a full diagnosis?

 

[kabbes]

As a professional, would you agree that this man's behaviour is, at the very least, highly indicative of some underlying mental health issue? If not, why not? If so, what process would you undertake to provide a full diagnosis?

What do you understand by the phrase, “mental health issue”? Can you give me some examples of people who do not have “mental health issues”? How are you drawing that line?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What do you understand by the phrase, “mental health issue”? Can you give me some examples of people who do not have “mental health issues”? How are you drawing that line?

By mental health issue I mean a diagnosable disorder of some sort.

 

[existentialist]

Likes can be unliked existentialist

Well, let me be a bit more categorical. And, FTR, you will note that I have on several occasions been decidedly prim about people celebrating suicides.

Categorical time: I have, from the point that the story about this man setting himself on fire was posted, refrained from contributing ANYTHING in regard to that.

You are welcome to accuse me of being a liar. Your call.

 

[kabbes]

By mental health issue I mean a diagnosable disorder of some sort.

What do you mean by a disorder? What does diagnosis of this disorder entail? Is the diagnosis valid and reliable?

I’m not just asking these questions to be a dick. They all are all fundamental for a psychological professional. It’s why a psychological professional won’t just read a case file and declare a diagnosis. In fact, to an entire large subsection of psychology, the mere concept of “diagnosis” is inappropriate in the first place, and they refer to a “formulation” instead as a detailed individual description of how behaviours and beliefs are manifesting, rather than how they fit into some predetermined pathology.

 

[existentialist]

By mental health issue I mean a diagnosable disorder of some sort.

FAIL. Many, many of the people with whom I work - and whom we must assume at least perceive themselves as having some kind of difficulty with their mental health - have no diagnosis.

This is exactly why armchair psychiatry is shit. Well, one of the many reasons.

 

[existentialist]

As a professional, would you agree that this man's behaviour is, at the very least, highly indicative of some underlying mental health issue? If not, why not? If so, what process would you undertake to provide a full diagnosis?

If I were in the business of diagnosing, at the very least I would want to have spoken to that person for a considerable time. That is, not on the basis of a news story reported on a website.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What do you mean by a disorder? What does diagnosis of this disorder entail? Is the diagnosis valid and reliable?

I’m not just asking these questions to be a dick. They all are all fundamental for a psychological professional. It’s why a psychological professional won’t just read a case file and declare a diagnosis. In fact, to an entire large subsection of psychology, the mere concept of “diagnosis” is inappropriate in the first place, and they refer to a “formulation” instead as a detailed individual description of how behaviours and beliefs are manifesting, rather than how they fit into some predetermined pathology.

Maybe not. But surely when a person presents with certain behaviours - in this case setting them self on fire - the process of determining this person's mental state begins. And in the meantime a decision has to be made about how this person is treated. Is he treated as a perfectly well-rounded stable individual? Or maybe as a dangerous ideologue putting other lives at risk? Or maybe we treat this individual as being most likely unwell and in need of support? It has to be one of those three, and I'd find it hard to argue either of the first two are acceptible.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

FAIL. Many, many of the people with whom I work - and whom we must assume at least perceive themselves as having some kind of difficulty with their mental health - have no diagnosis.

This is exactly why armchair psychiatry is shit. Well, one of the many reasons.

I said diagnosable, not diagnosed.

 

[existentialist]

Maybe not. But surely when a person presents with certain behaviours - in this case setting them self on fire - the process of determining this person's mental state begins. And in the meantime a decision has to be made about how this person is treated. Is he treated as a perfectly well-rounded stable individual? Or maybe as a dangerous ideologue putting other lives at risk? Or maybe we treat this individual as being most likely unwell and in need of support? It has to be one of those three, and I'd find it hard to argue either of the first two are acceptible.

Nope. This is another reason why armchair psychiatry is shit.

 

[existentialist]

I said diagnosable, not diagnosed.

Irrelevant. Particularly since you and IC3D seem to feel perfectly entitled to "diagnose".