Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill How Sad Are Psychologists?

Eremetic

Eremetic

Neo Luddite • Unknown
-
Joined
Oct 25, 2023
Posts
3,784
Evaluating the mental health of mental health
of mental health professionals.


There’s long been a stereotype that the people providing mental healthcare are sad or mad themselves. We see this in movies and TV shows, where therapists have been portrayed as moody and neurotic (Frasier and Niles from Frasier), temperamental (Robin Williams in Goodwill Hunting), and even psychopathic (Hannibal Lecter). More grounded depictions, such as Jennifer Melfi from The Sopranos or Denzel Washington in Antwone Fisher, tend to show therapists struggling with their own psychological and emotional issues as they try and help their clients.

Even in online forums like this, certain inside jokes tend to arise amongst regular participants. For example, posting formulas like ' theRapist' / ' JewPills' or sarcastically stating that 'foids are the large demographic for mental health'.


Over time, these types of playful inside references tend to evolve as a natural part of communal bonding within a group. While nothing stated here is factually incorrect, I digress.


Are mental health professionals likely to have or have had mental health problems? The answer seems to be yes. While there isn’t good data on psychiatrists, there are a few academic studies of clinical and counseling psychologists’ mental health, and the results all point in the same direction:

Gilroy et al. (2002) surveyed 425 American counseling psychologists (55% F) and found that 62% self-identified as depressed and 18% had experienced suicidal ideation.

Pope & Tabachnick (1994) surveyed 476 American clinical, counseling, and school psychologists (52% F) and found that 51% had experienced an episode of clinical depression, 24% had had suicidal feelings, and 3% had attempted suicide.

Grice et al. (2018) surveyed 348 UK clinical psychologists in training (86% F) and found that 67% had experienced a mental health problem, 59% had experienced anxiety, and 46% had experienced depression. 29% of respondents were currently suffering from a mental health problem at the time the survey was conducted.

Tay et al. (2018) surveyed 678 UK clinical psychologists (82% F) and found that 63% had experienced a mental health problem, 44% had experienced mild to moderate depression, 26% had experienced anxiety, and 8% had experienced severe depression.

Victor et al. (2022) surveyed 1692 American and Canadian clinical, counseling, and school psychology faculty, graduate students, and trainees (80% F). They found that 82% had experienced a mental problem, 48% had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, and over 50% had experienced depression. 92% of grad students and 59% of faculty with mental health issues had experienced symptoms in the past five years.

For reference, about 21% of Americans experienced mental health issues in 2020 (NIMH, 2022), 21% experience major depressive disorder in their lifetime (Hasin et al., 2018), and 55% experience a mental disorder of any kind in their lifetime (Kessler et al., 2007). These numbers go up or down about 5% when you look at males (-5% ) vs. females (+5%). Comparing the studies above to these population benchmarks, it seems fair to say that clinical and counseling psychologists overall have rates of mental health issues that are about the same or worse than the general population. Of course, it’s likely that those with psychological training are more likely to accurately identify when they are suffering from mental illness than the population, and those in the general population might be underreporting. But it also seems plausible that some psychologists might overdiagnose themselves due to something like medical student syndrome.

In the Victor et al. (2022) study, over 80% of respondents with mental health issues said they had started experiencing mental health difficulties before grad school. So it’s unlikely that being a psychologist leads one to develop mental health issues, and more likely that those with issues are drawn to the profession. There’s one study of psychology majors that found they suffer more from mental health problems than other majors (McLafferty et al., 2022), but they only had 81 psych students in their sample.

There aren’t studies that look at whether therapists with mental health issues are better or worse than those without them, but my guess is that it probably doesn’t make a big difference, since therapist-level variables tend to explain little of the variance in clinical outcomes anyway (Dawes, 1994). However, these findings do raise the question of whether we should be confident in clinical and counseling psychology’s ability to provide useful and effective treatments if so many of the people working in it are afflicted with the issues they purport to have the remedy for. I’m sure if you asked clinical psychologists about this they would say that they’re not miracle workers, and their expectation isn’t to cure people but just to help them manage whatever issues they’re dealing with, as they do themselves. But I think if the public knew that so many psychologists suffered from mental health issues, it might lead them to trust the " professional " less.
 
Psychology attracts neurotic types. No wonder there are so many Jews in the field.
 
they cant help incels get sex with women its that simple. they might even give you stupid advice and say, women like you just talk to them.
 
Last edited:
...?

1700312960598


A considerable literature attests to the emotional, health, and behavior risk problems of mixed-race adolescents. The most common explanation for the high-risk status is the struggle with identity formation, leading to lack of self-esteem, social isolation, and problems of family dynamics in mixed-race households.1–6 This literature is not entirely consistent. In some studies no differences are found between mixed-race and single-race children.7–9 This article explores the risk status of self-identified mixed-race compared with single-race adolescents using a large, nationally representative sample.

Most studies are based on clinical reports or reports of mixed-race samples without comparison to single-race groups. It is not surprising that such samples lead to the conclusion of emotional and behavior problems, as clinical samples are self-selected for problems. No national data on adolescents have been reported, except from the sample we used.

In 2000, the Bureau of the Census introduced a new system of reporting race, providing a list of races and asking respondents to check all that apply. Because an adult in the household filled out the census, children and adolescents had their race reported by a household adult. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) has been using a check-all-that-apply race classification for data collection for 20 years, but data on the health of those reporting mixed race is only recently being reported.10 In the NHIS, race for adolescents and children is reported by a household adult.

These 2 national sources will provide new data on mixed-race adults and children. However, such data are not suitable for examining the racial identity of adolescents, as their race is reported by another person in the household.

We test the prevailing view of the literature that mixed-race adolescents are at higher health and behavior risk than single-race individuals because of stress associated with mixed racial identity. An alternative and simpler hypothesis is that mixed-race adolescents are affected by the cultural experience of both races and will have risk status in between their 2 component races. We test the hypothesis that mixed-race adolescents are within the boundary values for the nonrisk individual and family attributes of the 2 single-race groups that constitute their identities.

We compared race identification for individuals who responded both in school and at home. About 16% of home responses were different from school responses. For White only, Black only, and Asian only at school, exact agreement at home was above 90%, and most changes made at home involved adding or substituting “Other.” Exact agreement at home was below 50% for school respondents who reported more than 1 race. American Indian has a unique pattern. Agreement was low, with 34% of those who selected American Indian only at school selecting White only at home, and 77% of those who identified as White/American Indian at school identified as White only at home. Except for American Indians, we may conclude that single-race responders are highly consistent. Multiple-race responders are inconsistent. Their inconsistency may be to the result of differences in method of administration (self-report op-scan vs report to interviewer), context (school vs home), ambiguity in the question used, or lack of a fully developed self-concept in the adolescent.

In the 1997 NHIS, unpublished data collected on a representative sample of Americans indicate that only 1.4% selected more than 1 race, a figure stable over the last 20 years.10 The 2 sources from which data on mixed-race children have been estimated (census and NHIS) use reports of child race given by a household adult.

To measure the differences in health and behavior risks between single-race and mixed-race respondents, we used 2 different methods of race comparison. In the first method, we compared respondents who reported that a specific race alone with those who reported race plus any other race by computing the odds ratio between the mixed-race group and the single-race group. The ratio is more than 1.0 when the mixed-race group is at greater risk and less than 1.0 when the mixed-race group is at lower risk. These ratios are shown in Table 2. If single-race and mixed-race groups have the same risk, their odds ratio will not differ from 1.0 (evaluated here at the .05 level, 2-tailed test). Home-interview risk variables are based on a sample only one fourth as large as variables from the school questionnaire.

The preponderance of our evidence supports the conclusion that adolescents who identify more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks when compared with those who identify with 1 race only. This applies in a general way and is not distinctive to any particular race combinations. Further, it is not peculiar to any particular type of risk, but to most risks, both health and behavior.
Because risk among mixed-race adolescents is higher for all race combinations, some across-the-board explanation must be inferred. The most common explanation in the literature is stress associated with identity conflict. We cannot test this hypothesis directly. Many of the school variables tested for mixed-race risk are possible consequences of stress (e.g., most of the general health items, considered suicide, and drinking). Stress, then, is a possible explanation of mixed-race high risk because our risk assessment is based on possible stress symptoms. Whether the stress is associated with identity conflict is beyond our resources to test. Gibbs3 warns against jumping to the conclusion without direct evidence that the stresses of mixed-race adolescents are a consequence of race identity problems.
The findings of this study are subject to the limitations of respondent reporting and cell sizes. Adolescents did not always report their race. Of those who were in both the school and the home survey, 16% gave different answers to the 2 surveys. For a sociological interpretation of the inconsistency in race responses of Add Health respondents, see Harris and Sim.14 Previous studies have found that answers to race questions vary by nativity (foreign or native born), parental ethnicity, national origin, and school racial composition.15–18
Go to:

CONCLUSION​

Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race. Nevertheless, most mixed-race adolescents are at low risk. Most of the risk items we assessed may be interpreted as related to stress, so we may therefore choose to interpret mixed race as a source of stress. We cannot identify further the source of the stress. Subsequent research can start with the assumption of greater risk for the mixed-race-identified adolescent and try to identify the sources of stress. Only then can we recommend programmatic attention to mixed-race youths. Our comparison of mixed-race-identified adolescents on family structure, parent education, GPA, and PVT shows that on these culture-related nonrisk characteristics, mixed race youths have values in-between the constituent races, confirming a mixed-race cultural experience.

 
1700313053204


The American Psychiatric Association has never officially recognized extreme racism (as opposed to ordinary prejudice) as a mental health problem, although the issue was raised more than 30 years ago. After several racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have extreme bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that because so many Americans are racist, even extreme racism in this country is normative—a cultural problem rather than an indication of psychopathology.
The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index.1 Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.
To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.
Extreme racists' violence should be considered in the context of behavior described by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice.2 Allport's 5-point scale categorizes increasingly dangerous acts. It begins with verbal expression of antagonism, progresses to avoidance of members of disliked groups, then to active discrimination against them, to physical attack, and finally to extermination (lynchings, massacres, genocide). That fifth point on the scale, the acting out of extermination fantasies, is readily classifiable as delusional behavior.
More recently, Sullaway and Dunbar used a prejudice rating scale to assess and describe levels of prejudice.3 They found associations between highly prejudiced people and other indicators of psychopathology. The subtype at the extreme end of their scale is a paranoid/delusional prejudice disorder.
Using the DSM's structure of diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder,4(p329) I suggest the following subtype:
Prejudice type: A delusion whose theme is that a group of individuals, who share a defining characteristic, in one's environment have a particular and unusual significance. These delusions are usually of a negative or pejorative nature, but also may be grandiose in content. When these delusions are extreme, the person may act out by attempting to harm, and even murder, members of the despised group(s).

Extreme racist delusions can also occur as a major symptom in other psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Persons suffering delusions usually have serious social dysfunction that impairs their ability to work with others and maintain employment.
As a clinical psychiatrist, I have treated several patients who projected their own unacceptable behavior and fears onto ethnic minorities, scapegoating them for society's problems. Their strong racist feelings, which were tied to fixed belief systems impervious to reality checks, were symptoms of serious mental dysfunction. When these patients became more aware of their own problems, they grew less paranoid—and less prejudiced.
It is time for the American Psychiatric Association to designate extreme racism as a mental health problem by recognizing it as a delusional psychotic symptom. Persons afflicted with such psychopathology represent an immediate danger to themselves and others. Clinicians need guidelines for recognizing delusional racism in all its forms so that they can provide appropriate treatment. Otherwise, extreme delusional racists will continue to fall through the cracks of the mental health system, and we can expect more of them to explode and act out their deadly delusions.

1700313107364


 

Similar threads

NorthernWind
Replies
19
Views
578
NeverHadAChanceTard
NeverHadAChanceTard
Eremetic
Replies
4
Views
500
OutcompetedByRoomba
OutcompetedByRoomba
Balding Subhuman
Replies
13
Views
635
DarkLight
DarkLight
darkdungeon
Replies
19
Views
463
PillarofReality
PillarofReality
F
Replies
12
Views
817
PurgatoryPass
PurgatoryPass

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top