Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
Here's what it said:
-Eating disorders and intellectual disability - this one makes immediate sense to me, not for any logical reason but because the anorexic people I've known were generally intelligent and driven.
-Schizophrenia and specific phobias
-Autism and bipolar disorder
-OCD and substance use disorders - this one makes sense too. People with OCD don't like feeling out of control so they don't enjoy the disinhibition that substance use causes.
Vaccinephobia & Autism?
Lol.
I wonder why schizophrenia and specific phobias don't line up.
You need to look at this from an economic point of view. The mental health disorders that are least likely to be co-occurring, are the ones that are least likely to be profitable for mental health specialists to "treat".
So what you are saying is that between autism and bipolar disorder at least one of these doesn't pay? Or if your autism patient has bipolar disorder, or is diagnosed with it, good luck collecting on that.
I guess I'm confused by your logic. What about those specific pairings would be unprofitable to diagnose, but would be profitable to diagnose individually? What would cause that?
You're underestimating my cynicism. Most mental health diagnoses are work creation projects for mental health professionals. They mean nothing, or very little. So, basically, they'll simply dismiss diagnoses that aren't convenient or profitable for them.
Of course, dysfunctional behavior is quite real. It's caused by brain damage, malnutrition, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and emotional trauma. These aren't really "diseases", however, in the normal sense of the term.
I understand your cynicism. But why would this impact what diagnoses are paired or unlikely paired?
They are diseases. You are somewhat arguing that there is a physical cause in all of these cases, and I agree. The brain is physical and not meta-physical. But when the body malfunctions and doesn't do what it should we call this a disease or an injury. I would argue the line between disease and injury is blurry.
Maybe there are unhealthy principle agent relationships between patients and therapists. I 100% think that's a thing going on. But a lot of these diagnoses align with actual observations. Even if you want to be 100% cynical a corrupt psychologist has every reason to try to appear credible and pick a diagnosis that at least a little bit fits the victim/patient.
-Eating disorders and intellectual disability - If someone with low IQ has an eating disorder, they're not going to bother with a mental health professional, they're just going to say that's what they want to do. And, they wouldn't pay any attention to a mental health professional, either.
-Schizophrenia and specific phobias -- if someone's seriously delusional, what's the point in treating them for being afraid of something, since they don't have a clear connection to reality, anyway?
-Autism and bipolar disorder -- The concept of autism is so vague and diffuse, there's no need to speculate on whether they also have the extremely commonly diagnosed bipolar disorder. Potentially limitless opportunities for "treatment" exist for autism, alone.
-OCD and substance use disorders -- If someone is obsessive, they are unlikely to cooperate with any treatments of any type, and substance use disorders are so prevalent, that the therapist will simply be dismissed, and would be wasting their time.