Love the work of Lucy Johnstone and others who are challenging the psychiatric system.She is a much needed voice in a system that has gone unchallenged for too long,well at least since the sixties.
I’ve read a book of Dr Johnstone’s and an article or two and will be reading the framework. I am currently an under graduate (mature student) so not the best informed etc. But I can wholeheartedly share that I agree with an appreciable amount of which the good lady says.
This is so exciting to me, Thankyou! I'm now en3olled and studying masters of counselling but last year when I became very interested in mental health/disorders/issues (I am diagnosed with OCD and anxiety) I started trying to understand all disorders and my friend who's doing honours in psych asked me what mental disorder do you think you would never relate to and I said schizophrenia...so I attempted to research and understand schizophrenia and my conclusion was that it is in a way a manifestation of extreme distress/anxiety. It's all clicking together so well for me today. We all know the biomedical model is flawed, so I really want down the compassionate enquiry path stipulated by Dr Gabor Mate and now hearing this ties it all together; that concept of power imbalance rather than chemical imbalance makes more sense than anything else I've come across in a lifetime of inquiry. Maybe biology is a fraction of the puzzle, maybe trauma is a fraction of the puzzle but why does trauma exist? Power imbalance!! I've got my fingers crossed it does not take twenty years for this idea to become widespread into practice 🙈
The lady in the audience talking about class made a very valid point, the great sociologist Richard Sennett published a book on this topic: "The hidden injuries of class". Thank you for the very interesting lecture :)
Transference, projection and assumption make genuine analysis impossible. DSM 5 would cause less injury if used directly as a bludgeon. This lecture is good why is it so under circulated?
First half was pretty good, but boy did it take a turn after that. Repackaged Foucault, postmodern power analysis, deconstruction, radical relativism, critical theory, and skepticism towards meritocracy and capitalism are not going to solve these problems or help the vulnerable people who are the intended beneficiaries of this exhausted rhetoric. What will help them is a return to the nuclear family structure - meaning marriage, intact families where kids have both a mother and father, and the culture of sexual conservatism and committed monogamy that allows for these outcomes. Viewing these issues through the generalizing lens of "social" iniquity and "epistemic injustice" removes the focus from individual people's traumatic childhoods and adolescences, which in turn clouds our awareness of what otherwise is so painfully obvious: just how eminently avoidable the vast majority of these dysfunctional domestic situations that generate such high ACE scores for children are. It thusly serves to remove responsibility from individual parents for the profoundly irresponsible behavior and poor choices that bring unwanted, unloved, and inadequately supported children into the world. There is no iniquity or injustice floating in the conceptual ether of "society" that is greater or more profound than the iniquity visited upon any one specific individual child by his or her own mother in the act of having created them "accidentally," without a plan or loving intention, as a mere undesired consequence of pursuing irresponsible sexual behavior with a man who is unprepared to be a father and with whom she shared no real or committed relationship. And there is no societal power disparity that remotely confers more potential for consequence-free abuse as the actual, literal power disparity between parent and child - right down to the unilateral act of their creation. Children need fathers in order to thrive, and female promiscuity leads inevitably to fatherless children with high ACE scores and worsening intergenerational transmission of trauma. Women who choose monogamy and sexual conservatism force men to get their lives together and become competent, committed providers as a condition for having access to sex. Cultural relativism, sexual "liberation" and the "interrogation" of traditional values with regard to relationships and families are what led us here. More of the same focus - more Marxian sociology, more subsidizing of this socially destructive personal behavior through the dumping of endless welfare benefits on the communities where it's most common (the literal paying of people to have unwanted children under the inexcusably naïve notion that this program will lift them out of intergenerational familial dysfunction and the poverty it generates), and more encouragement of people in these dysfunctional communities to further externalize their felt locus of control through high-minded intellectual frameworks of class and privilege that project responsibility for local and personal dysfunction onto society as a whole - is going to continue to give us an escalation of the same results.
Your comment is so eloquently written and, nevertheless, almost completely misses the mark. The question I would like to ask you is this - is the society shaped from the bottom-up, or from the top-down? In other words - what exerts more influence unto a specific individual life - the framework and conditions (and the ensuing possibilities for an individual) of a given society or the individual himself by assuming personal responsibility? I imagine you would agree that if we lived in an old-school conservative society where people are "forced" (e.g. by law/ by social pressure) into the specific/limited cultural (e.g. the husband, the wife), the assuming of personal responsibility would be more easily achievable than it is now within given conditions. However, you attribute the woes of our society to "cultural reasons". What about the economic conditions and its influence onto the individual? What if the lack of meaningful jobs, low pay and uncertainty about everything contribute to this "cultural demise" (the single parents) much more than the actual cultural liberation? You have made many unfounded assumptions that would require quite a lot of time to question them. I will stick to a single point: think if the people with the most capital are not the most capable of shaping the world according to their own ends? Maybe they are the most responsible that the remaining people are forced to live fragmented, hedonistic, meaningless lives?
I came from a family structured just as you promote. (I am 54, not a young person, my parents would be in their 90’s if they were still alive). I can attest that such a structure means nothing in relation as to whether a person suffers domestic childhood trauma.
@@tracik1277 I'm very sorry that it didn't in your case, and you're not alone in that experience, but statistically, NOT having it is one of the strongest predictors and correlates of childhood abuse and neglect as well as negative outcomes later in life. Far stronger than poverty, race, gender, sexuality, education, or access to social services. Simply having an intact two-parent household doesn't magically make one's parents capable of giving a child what's needed for thriving development, but the chances of this are astronomically higher in intact two-parent households - in large part because of the simple doubling of total potential free time the parents have to invest in their child's care and engagement, but also because of the unique bond of biological parentage (step-parents of both genders are far more likely to abuse and neglect), and because of the synergistic and balancing effect of having both male and female parenting styles applied simultaneously. It is necessary but not sufficient. It doesn't magically make your parents good people or good parents, but it provides the practical, logistical, interpersonal, and cultural foundations for them to be able to enact good parenting *IF* they are psychologically healthy enough to do so. On the flip side, even a very psychologically healthy and well-intentioned single parent will necessarily struggle to both sustain a career that can support children AND be present enough as a parent to provide for their proper development - and they will also be much more likely to settle for dysfunctional romantic partners to re-pair with in hopes of allaying their own stress and overwhelm, with who in turn will be more likely to serve as a negative influence on the child(ren).
Love the work of Lucy Johnstone and others who are challenging the psychiatric system.She is a much needed voice in a system that has gone unchallenged for too long,well at least since the sixties.
I’ve read a book of Dr Johnstone’s and an article or two and will be reading the framework. I am currently an under graduate (mature student) so not the best informed etc. But I can wholeheartedly share that I agree with an appreciable amount of which the good lady says.
This is so exciting to me, Thankyou! I'm now en3olled and studying masters of counselling but last year when I became very interested in mental health/disorders/issues (I am diagnosed with OCD and anxiety) I started trying to understand all disorders and my friend who's doing honours in psych asked me what mental disorder do you think you would never relate to and I said schizophrenia...so I attempted to research and understand schizophrenia and my conclusion was that it is in a way a manifestation of extreme distress/anxiety. It's all clicking together so well for me today. We all know the biomedical model is flawed, so I really want down the compassionate enquiry path stipulated by Dr Gabor Mate and now hearing this ties it all together; that concept of power imbalance rather than chemical imbalance makes more sense than anything else I've come across in a lifetime of inquiry. Maybe biology is a fraction of the puzzle, maybe trauma is a fraction of the puzzle but why does trauma exist? Power imbalance!! I've got my fingers crossed it does not take twenty years for this idea to become widespread into practice 🙈
An interesting lecture, much appreciated 👍🏻
Some notes/bookmarks:
40:49 3 stage model of truama intervention (Judith Herman, 2001)
Stage 1. Safety and Stabilisation
42:29 Stage 2. Trauma processing, if/when appropriate
Necessities for any approach:
- Trust
- Respect
- Listening
- Witnessing
- Healing
- Validating
43:07 Stage 3. Reconnection - moving forward
Stage one- diagnose with a mental illness and your stages are completely irrelevant
The lady in the audience talking about class made a very valid point, the great sociologist Richard Sennett published a book on this topic: "The hidden injuries of class". Thank you for the very interesting lecture :)
Also> THOMAS J GORMAN Growing up working class : hidden injuries and the development of angry white men and women
Transference, projection and assumption make genuine analysis impossible. DSM 5 would cause less injury if used directly as a bludgeon. This lecture is good why is it so under circulated?
A breath of fresh air!!!!
She is describing my experience
4:51 is starting
Where can I find the lectures she mentions happened "earlier?" Were these recorded? The IAPT one sounds interesting...
I hope this isn't yet another way to keep bpd in...clinicians seem to try all sorts of convoluted lf mind games to justify bad practice
First half was pretty good, but boy did it take a turn after that. Repackaged Foucault, postmodern power analysis, deconstruction, radical relativism, critical theory, and skepticism towards meritocracy and capitalism are not going to solve these problems or help the vulnerable people who are the intended beneficiaries of this exhausted rhetoric. What will help them is a return to the nuclear family structure - meaning marriage, intact families where kids have both a mother and father, and the culture of sexual conservatism and committed monogamy that allows for these outcomes.
Viewing these issues through the generalizing lens of "social" iniquity and "epistemic injustice" removes the focus from individual people's traumatic childhoods and adolescences, which in turn clouds our awareness of what otherwise is so painfully obvious: just how eminently avoidable the vast majority of these dysfunctional domestic situations that generate such high ACE scores for children are. It thusly serves to remove responsibility from individual parents for the profoundly irresponsible behavior and poor choices that bring unwanted, unloved, and inadequately supported children into the world. There is no iniquity or injustice floating in the conceptual ether of "society" that is greater or more profound than the iniquity visited upon any one specific individual child by his or her own mother in the act of having created them "accidentally," without a plan or loving intention, as a mere undesired consequence of pursuing irresponsible sexual behavior with a man who is unprepared to be a father and with whom she shared no real or committed relationship. And there is no societal power disparity that remotely confers more potential for consequence-free abuse as the actual, literal power disparity between parent and child - right down to the unilateral act of their creation.
Children need fathers in order to thrive, and female promiscuity leads inevitably to fatherless children with high ACE scores and worsening intergenerational transmission of trauma. Women who choose monogamy and sexual conservatism force men to get their lives together and become competent, committed providers as a condition for having access to sex. Cultural relativism, sexual "liberation" and the "interrogation" of traditional values with regard to relationships and families are what led us here.
More of the same focus - more Marxian sociology, more subsidizing of this socially destructive personal behavior through the dumping of endless welfare benefits on the communities where it's most common (the literal paying of people to have unwanted children under the inexcusably naïve notion that this program will lift them out of intergenerational familial dysfunction and the poverty it generates), and more encouragement of people in these dysfunctional communities to further externalize their felt locus of control through high-minded intellectual frameworks of class and privilege that project responsibility for local and personal dysfunction onto society as a whole - is going to continue to give us an escalation of the same results.
Your comment is so eloquently written and, nevertheless, almost completely misses the mark.
The question I would like to ask you is this - is the society shaped from the bottom-up, or from the top-down? In other words - what exerts more influence unto a specific individual life - the framework and conditions (and the ensuing possibilities for an individual) of a given society or the individual himself by assuming personal responsibility? I imagine you would agree that if we lived in an old-school conservative society where people are "forced" (e.g. by law/ by social pressure) into the specific/limited cultural (e.g. the husband, the wife), the assuming of personal responsibility would be more easily achievable than it is now within given conditions.
However, you attribute the woes of our society to "cultural reasons". What about the economic conditions and its influence onto the individual? What if the lack of meaningful jobs, low pay and uncertainty about everything contribute to this "cultural demise" (the single parents) much more than the actual cultural liberation?
You have made many unfounded assumptions that would require quite a lot of time to question them. I will stick to a single point: think if the people with the most capital are not the most capable of shaping the world according to their own ends? Maybe they are the most responsible that the remaining people are forced to live fragmented, hedonistic, meaningless lives?
I came from a family structured just as you promote. (I am 54, not a young person, my parents would be in their 90’s if they were still alive). I can attest that such a structure means nothing in relation as to whether a person suffers domestic childhood trauma.
@@tracik1277 I'm very sorry that it didn't in your case, and you're not alone in that experience, but statistically, NOT having it is one of the strongest predictors and correlates of childhood abuse and neglect as well as negative outcomes later in life. Far stronger than poverty, race, gender, sexuality, education, or access to social services. Simply having an intact two-parent household doesn't magically make one's parents capable of giving a child what's needed for thriving development, but the chances of this are astronomically higher in intact two-parent households - in large part because of the simple doubling of total potential free time the parents have to invest in their child's care and engagement, but also because of the unique bond of biological parentage (step-parents of both genders are far more likely to abuse and neglect), and because of the synergistic and balancing effect of having both male and female parenting styles applied simultaneously.
It is necessary but not sufficient. It doesn't magically make your parents good people or good parents, but it provides the practical, logistical, interpersonal, and cultural foundations for them to be able to enact good parenting *IF* they are psychologically healthy enough to do so. On the flip side, even a very psychologically healthy and well-intentioned single parent will necessarily struggle to both sustain a career that can support children AND be present enough as a parent to provide for their proper development - and they will also be much more likely to settle for dysfunctional romantic partners to re-pair with in hopes of allaying their own stress and overwhelm, with who in turn will be more likely to serve as a negative influence on the child(ren).
@@DoritoWorldOrder No need to be sorry for something you had no hand in. And your lecture neither cures nor calms. Have a pleasant evening.
@@tracik1277 Thank you for your contribution.