Prediction of Psychosis in Youth at High Clinical Risk--also in ATS'ers?

reply to post by deezee

It's just the first filter, to see if a person should be further looked into.

Okay, if that is the case, then who is determining that said person needs to be "looked at further". I guess I just don't get it. Why do they need to be looked at further just because they exhibit these traits. I am in agreement with memoryshock here. I exhibit some of these traits and I tell you what, I will be damned if I am going to be deemed as someone who needs to be analyzed. I think this is just another way for the sheeple to label those who question what is really going on around them. Most shrinks do not think outside the box. If I were to sit down on their couch right now and dump on them all that I believe is going on in the conspiracy world, chances are they would say I need further help. When, in fact, I have no underlying issue where I need to feel special as you say. To me, everything I believe is backed by logical thought and evaluation, not a desire to belong. I am looking at this as a first step in the direction of getting people who believe they are being lied to by the government, under control. If it can be medically determined by the use of studies like these that truth seekers, like most of us on ATS, the real people in control of this world are getting what they want..."homegrown terrorists" snuffed out and under their control. As someone previously stated, be on the look out for chips as a controlling device for those who are determined to be "schizo" or bipolar, or a "homegrown terrorist".

Originally posted by palehorse23
Okay, if that is the case, then who is determining that said person needs to be "looked at further".
I guess I just don't get it. Why do they need to be looked at further just because they exhibit these traits.

Again, these traits do not imply mental illness.
But they are present in mental illness.

I'm not saying all ATSers are mentally ill. We are just slightly more leaned towards considering ideas, which would sometimes be deemed insane by others.

But you, or someone else saying they believe something, is not the type of belief i meant. I will try to explain this better below.

Originally posted by palehorse23
If I were to sit down on their couch right now and dump on them all that I believe is going on in the conspiracy world, chances are they would say I need further help. When, in fact, I have no underlying issue where I need to feel special as you say. To me, everything I believe is backed by logical thought and evaluation, not a desire to belong.

You base your "beliefs" on probabilities. You might be slightly more sensitive to certain ways of thinking, but you're not exhibiting traits of mental illness.

If you did, i would notice it by now.

Also, the difference between your "beliefs" and the beliefs of a delusional person is, that you just consider certain things as the most probable, while a delusional person "KNOWS" what he believes is true and it is impossible for them to even consider a different explanation.

They don't base their beliefs on logic and rational thought, but on random manic thoughts which make them feel special and important, often because they really have an almost inexistant level of confidence.

This is almost always the result of some huge emotional trauma in their childhood. Like physically or mentaly abusive parents and sometimes sexual abuse.

It's not those traits mentioned in the OP, that get them "further looked into", but instead their inability to cope with reality and the need for an imaginary one.

Usually they are admitted by concerned members of their family and in rare cases the police, if they're caught exhibiting a very bad psychotic break in public.

During evaluation, the psychiatrist is going to talk to them in order to establish which traits they exhibit, in order to better understand what's going on.

I can try to list many of the traits that really constitute mental illness, if you want.

But anyway, what the content of the OP was supposed to mean, is that people with those more general traits are slightly more likely to suffer from mental illness.

It does not mean that everyone with some or even all of them has mental illness. Just that the likelyhood is higher.

It's statistics and nothing more.

And saying that these traits CAUSE mental illness is backwards use of statistics.

It only means that the group of people exhibiting these traits is going to contain x% of people who either have mental illness or are going to develope it in the future.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee
If you were ever personally involved with any of them, you'd know what i mean.

If you want, i can ellaborate and explain why i think so in great detail, but i don't know if it belongs here.

Have I ever had personal experience....hhhmmm.....yes I have.

And the greatest disservice you can afford an otherwise intelligent human is by assuming that they are inclined to a 'mental illness'. Once this has occurred and gets communicated to the "mentally unstable's" family and friends, the behaviour towards the stated individual changes. Things get assumed for and around the stated individual to the extent that the stated individual can't interact with their environment on a healthy level. Relationships become strained and unfortunately, through the implicit acceptance of the 'negative traits, the symptoms of 'mental illness' may intensify.

There was an article a while ago that I find favorite, I'll have to make an attempt to locate it....but it was a report detailing a higher success rate of the 'curing' of schizophrenia in India because they centered on an unchanged, caring familial environment. Love, Caring, and a cognitive communication process with the afflicted that did not end once the individual left the clinic environment. No pills either.

And I think an ellaboration certainly belongs here...if you would be inclined. I find that your assessments are rational and my immediate aversion to the stance you took may have been a bit hasty. I warn that I may respond...however...

Originally posted by GradyPhilPott
This is not true.

Great to run into you again, Grady. Glad to see that you are still around.

And I would concede to the extent that...It is not necessarily true...


[edit on 12-1-2008 by MemoryShock]