hello. i've recently become interested in psychiatry, but i'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is and how it works.
if there are any psychiatrists here who would like to share stories or tips or just a definition that would be amazing.
also if there is anyone who has been to a psychiatrist as a patient and would like to share a story from their point of view that would also be incredibly helpful.
thanks.

Medical student here. I'm not sure what exactly your question is, but I can give you a short definition of Psychiatry at least.

Psychiatry is a medical field that uses clinical and psychological practices to examine and treat mental disorders including pharmacological treatments. It is closely linked to neurology and psychology, but over the years it has developed into an independent field. Where I'm from you have to get your doctor's license after which you specialise in clinical psychology and psychiatry in order to be allowed to work as an approbated psychiatrist.

What else would you like to know?

>>2 Could you now define psychology, please? So I can finally get the difference.

sry for the lack of clarity. basically i'm just trying to learn more about this topic.
one other thing i was wondering is: what is your interaction with the patients?
also thanks for the definition that was really helpful.

Psychology - Wholesome scientific study of the human mind including its experiences and behaviourial elements. It incorporates both neurological (anatomic/physiological) components and social aspects and therefore draws upon sciences and social sciences.

Psychiatry - Study and treatment of mental health problems that combines psychotherapeutic and medical/clinical approaches to reach the best possible outcome for the patient.

Neurology - Study and treatment of nervous diseases including those of the brain. It emphasises the neurobiological (anatomic/physiological) and medical/clinical aspects of nervous disorders and less their social/behavioural side.

>>4 So far we only had an introductory course on the psychology and psychiatry of mental illnesses. Some of our professors brought a few longterm patients with them. The patients told us about their patient history and the way they experience their illness, and our professors would clarify and complement their descriptions. Afterwards we usually held a short Q&A session.

Any other questions?

Whoa, all this stuff is pretty sweet.
So how does this stuff ? Like, can someone give a minor case and its...uh...remedies (yes, yes, I know, but I don't know what to call em)? And then a major case and its remedies (trust me, I'm cringing)?
I just wanna know.

I have researched this, but I'm still a bit unsure about it. What are the differences between a psychopath and a sociopath (if any)?
This question is just out of curiosity: is it possible for someone to have a phobia bad enough to have to visit a psychiatrist?

A psychopath basically can't form an emotional attachment, they're more organised however and can easily mimic emotions to blend in. In fact they seem normal, you wouldn't know who they are, any crimes they commit is more likely to have less evidence, harder to track. Usually calm and collected.

A sociopath however, is more disorganised, more emotional, they're more likely to have an attachment to an individual or group. They tend to be more nervous and easily agitated. More likely to be violent.

Both of them would do crimes, but the styles of doing it is different and the type of crime.

Your other question, yes, phobias can cause the need for that. Depends on if the phobia is so bad it's effecting the individuals life. Like fear of women, or fear of outside world, there's some really special cases out there.

-studying clinical health psychology soon, passed psychology lessons in the past XD-

Whoa. That's cool.
I swear I'm learning more from you guys then my teachers. XD

Thank you all! This has been incredibly helpful already!
If any of you have done any experiments would you mind explaining them?

>>11
I think you're forgetting the main parts of what make them what they are. While I'm not saying you're wrong, here's what my (extensive) research has yielded.

Some say psychopaths and sociopaths are the same thing, others say they're not (but that they're similar). Psychopath seems to be the old word for sociopath though, since so many people associate psychopaths with crazy, blood-lusting killers.
Sociopaths (or psychopaths, however you want to refer to them) feel no guilt or empathy. This means they don't feel anything when they hurt people or when people get hurt (such as someone's close family member or friend dying). They do feel emotions, but they're shallow. Think of it as everything they feel being watered down, and then guilt and empathy are gone completely.

They don't feel attachments to people the way people normally do. Others are seen as mere objects. If they're useful, use them. If not, get rid of them. Of course this means they're very manipulative. They're also often described as charming because of all their years of "training" to mimic other people.

They feel bored all the time, to a very severe point. This, combined with the fact that they don't fear punishment means they will sometimes commit crimes as a way out of their boredom (or because it's beneficial to them). They also often sleep with many people or people they don't know well.

High-functioning sociopaths are generally more careful in covering up any kind of evidence (that evidence being something as simple as the fact that they don't feel bad for X person to something as big as a very complex crime). Low-functioning sociopaths are not. I think what you were describing as a psychopath is the high-functioning sociopath and what you described as a sociopath is the low-functioning sociopath.

I think I covered everything, but there's always something you forget when writing something long.

>>14 Psychopaths and Sociopaths have the same 'symptoms', but for different reasons. Psychopaths have a physical irregularity in their brain that causes their symptoms, while sociopaths had a psychological trauma that caused the same thing.

>>15 The "physical irregularity in their brain" is damage to the frontal lobe.

Psychopathy and Sociopathy share a lot of characteristics, and in spite the long-standing efforts to define and distinguish them, a suitable classification has yet to be developed. Officially, they don't have their own entries, yet, but they are both considered antisocial personality disorders (cf. ICD-10 and DSM-V (page 2, right side of the grid) entries for antisocial disorders). Take a look at the current state of things on your own.

Phobia is a frequently found specific subtype of anxiety disorder. The need for therapeutic treatment depends on the psychological strain it puts on the individual patient and their social environment, which applies to most mental illnesses. It might be associated with other forms of anxiety disorders or obessive-compulsory disorders, which increases stress for the patient significantly; therefore it raises the likelihood of a patient's request for treatment.
Here's the ICD-10 entry for phobias:
Phobic anxiety disorders

ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) is the most important international classification system for diseases by the WHO. Along with the psychiatric DSM-V classification (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it has become the most referenced classification for mental disorders. The numbers indicate the classification's number of revision, ICD-10 has been published in 2012, DSM-V in 2013, which are the most recent versions in both cases.

Wow! This is really informative!
Are there any MBTI personalities that would be less likely to succeed at this job? just wondering...

>>19 This is only my personal opinion, but I'd say anything that contains an I or F.

I as in introverted. You will probably have lots of patients and will need to communicate with them. Pretty self explanatory, I think.

F as in feeling. From my understanding, F would be more empathetic and all, as opposed to T. With patients who (sometimes) have pretty bad disorders, it is probably better to not feel really bad for them all the time, but to be able to analyze everything and help them.

That being said, I don't really know which types are less likely to succeed at the job. As I said, this is just what I think.

cool. i'm INTP, but despite being introverted I really like discussions as long as they're in small groups. Now, if psychiatry included many large social events, i wouldn't even have bothered looking it up. but, i am getting a lot better at handling social anxiety + occasional tactlessness (which would probably be a more drastic problem for a psychologist, but it's a good habit to block in any case).

>>19 >> I can say a few things about the aptitude to work as a clinical psychiatrist, but I can't help you much in terms of the Myers Briggs type indicator. When I first heard about it years ago I had to look it up because it isn't too well known in my field. The MBTI seems to be fairly popular in the US, but it is hardly used at all in my country, and if it is, it's mostly for certain professional assessments (e.g. in coaching).

To be honest, I don't think too highly of the MBTI because it doesn't meet the standards of a scientific personality test. First, it derives its conclusions from C. G. Jung's theory of personality types which is considered outdated in its rigid and quite simplistic original form. It's acknowledged as the historic root of other modern theories about personality psychology, but that's it.

That aside the MBTI itself doesn't fulfil the requirements of a scientific psychological test. There are three main criteria for scientific psychodiagnostic measures in general: objectivity, reliability and validity.

Objectivity indicates how independent a test is from its supervisor and its surroundings. A ideally objective test will produce good results no matter who conducts it and what situation the proband is in.

Reliability measures how well a test can be reproduced without producing errors. A perfectly reliable test will always produce the same results for the same test person regardless of the circumstances.

Validity assesses how significant the test results are, i.e. whether the test actually measure the desired trait and is it possible to make a sound decision based on the test results?

The problem with the MBTI lies with its poor reliability and validity. Even if the test supervisor and the test environment remain the same and the same person is tested in the same way, their results may easily change within a couple of weeks. Such low reliability is hardly credible for a personality test.

In terms of the test's validity, among the 16 allegedly unique personality types certain groups resemble each other so much and specify so little - which is also the reason why people often don't identitfy with their declared type - that the results cannot be regarded as of significant value. Plus, the test is unable to take many behavioural patterns into account that do not fit its factors' binary scheme.

In conclusion, the Myers-Briggs personality test is good if you want to have some fun with pseudo-psychological tests, but for important decisions like career choices, you'd better stick to your own judgement, for the MBTI won't produce any stable or significant results.

For further reading on the difficulty concerning the MBTI:
Nothing personal: The questionable Myers-Briggs test (newspaper article)
Measuring the MBTI... And Coming Up Short (scientific explanation)
--------------------

So after this long explanation on the MBTI, here's my own opinion on what you need in order to be suitable to become a psychiatrist or a clinical psychotherapist.

In contrast to the common belief that psychiatrists are almost as mentally strange as their patients, scientific evidence has shown that the average professional in this field is more mentally healthy and stable than the average citizen.

Personally, I agree that psychiatrists have to be really resilient in order to stay as calm, understanding and discriminate as they're required to be. Working with people whose illness has altered their mind and original behaviour and that you often cannot hope to cure, sometimes as young as 11-year-old children who talk about not seeing any meaning in living, dealing with failure which may result in suicide or the complete loss of cognitive abilities and witnessing these consequences...

As a psychiatrist, you've got to cope with all these possibilities and more every single day and still keep your cool without letting your sensitivity grow dull, so you yourself won't be ruined. This profession is both tough and gratifying, as you can influence people's lives and often directly see the results.
Even though, I'm aiming for a similar profession that also requires you to deal with people's lives, illnesses and deaths, I don't know if I'd be able stand that kind of pressure.

Anyway, if you yourself don't feel psychologically resilient, you probably won't make it on the highly stressful educational path of a clinical psychiatrist or psychotherapist. You'd better go for other psychological fields like industrial psychology which don't involve the same kind of responsibility.

Apart from these psychological requirements you also need intelligence and a lot of perseverance to dig through the long years of studying, training and specialisation. Some interest in Statistics and Sciences like Biochemistry would be favourable, for you'd have to learn a lot about neurophysiological and pharmacological processes. Oh, and some social skills would be good, too ;)

>>9 Could you explain what you mean in detail? I don't understand your question.

I remember a documentary about a filmmaker's self-experiment about psychopathy. It was about him accompanying a psychopath and filming his own reactions towards the other man's influence. Does anyone know the documentary's title?

>>22 Well I'm pretty bad in the social skills area. I get along with people, but I get confused when it comes to some situations in which it's (apparently) expected for you to know how to react. I started looking into psychiatry instead of psychology because I thought it required less "people skills". Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. For the studying part that's something I enjoy (well more like the learning part, but studying is necessary for that).
As for psychological resilience, I have found that I somehow manage to calm down completely in front of other people. So even if something was stressing me out it wouldn't show.
I agree that the MBTI system is very vague and not too reliable. I didn't take the actual MBTI test. I just know from experience that I have tendencies that are more characteristic of I, N, T, and P than E, S, F, and J. I wasn't sure if it made a difference so I thought I might as well ask.

>>24 that sounds amazing.

>>25 Hm..., from your description, I'd say that it might get tough for you if you have problems with tactfulness or "people skills" in general. In general, patients are often vulnerable and very sensitive to every single word you're telling them due to the stress their situation puts them in. Being able to communicate accordingly is an indispensable skill for a good physician.

I'm pointing this out because as far as I know most countries require you to become a medical doctor first before you can specialise in psychiatry, thus you'd have to deal with more and more patients as you advance in your education, even if you were to become a researcher afterwards. It usually takes at least 10 ten years to become a certified psychiatrist.

Concerning your psychological resilience, do you tend to mull over things afterwards even if your unsettlement doesn't show on the outside? This is less about appearances and more about self-protection. To prevent yourself from falling ill, you need to be able to let go of your work-related experiences when you call it a day and leave for home.

Anyway, I think non-therapeutic psychology (e.g. industrial psychology) might be better for you as you won't need the same degree of "people skills" right away and you'd still be able to study the human minds and hone your social and observational skills at the same time.

bump to get rid of duplicates

>>26 concerning my psychological resilience: yes. i overanalyze pretty much anything that i consciously do or think. this is just how i come up with solutions. that's one reason i'm interested in psychiatry: i know i would enjoy it. i'm guess i'm what you might call a "workaholic". if i try to completely relax or clear my mind, i get bored and start panicking because i can't think of anything to think of and then i think about my whole thinking process which leads to the typical over-analysis. this will happen regardless of what job i end up with. i think a job that actually provides me with something to think about would be healthier than something i could just detach from. also, i find it a lot easier to concentrate if it's a topic i'm interested in. otherwise my mind wanders and i can't get back on track easily.

in the "people skills" category: i'm getting better! improving my verbal filter. of course this is back to how i was a few years ago (nearly silent), but at least i've found a way to make myself think over things before saying them. i figured out the original problem: i'm pretty much scared of improvisation (which i already knew). so i get nervous when i don't have a plan (and a backup plan. and another backup plan). for conversations (which i have found are not things that you can easily plan for without completely avoiding them) i just say whatever comes to mind because i don't want to seem antisocial and i feel more comfortable talking about things from my own mind (stuff i'm sure i understand).

i looked into industrial psychology. i think i'll just work on my social skills. it just seems so reliant on pure data. important information could be lost if you leave it up to people to explain themselves entirely (which would be necessary if you don't personally come into contact with them) because they are almost certainly biased. the amount of variability just annoys me a bit. sounds awesome. i would just stress about it too much.

something i forgot to include:
i'm not sure exactly how this works: i'm awkward and often tactless in average conversations, however i'm apparently good at giving advice to close friends (excepting death. i have no clue when it comes to death. any possible responses seem overused and impersonal. but, if you didn't know the person who died, how can it not be impersonal?). my main skill is that i listen without interrupting (because i'm thinking up a solution) and i come up with solutions that make everyone happy (or at least equal). i keep my personal opinions completely out of it. pretty much the opposite of what usually happens. this is why i'm confused...

It's good that you're able to listen to other people and that you're trustworthy enough for them to open up to you. It's an indispensable skill for these kinds of professions.

I'm more worried about your tendency towards workaholism. The highest percentage of work-related mental health problems occur in the medical field. The long working hours and heavy responsibilities are exhausting enough. So continual overthinking may seriously affect your health in the long run if you go into the medical field, even more so in psychiatry.

You wrote about how you enjoy finding solutions and how you keep your mind occupied with a problem until you've reached a conclusion. The critical aspect of psychiatry is that there simply is no solution to many problems you will encounter in terms of mental illnesses, and over-analysing them will only wear you down.

Many people still seem to be under the assumption that psychiatrists can cure people. That is neither in their ability nor what they aim for in most cases. Psychiatric treatment is mainly about improving a patient's health-related quality of life to the point that they can lead a fairly normal everyday life, and sometimes you can't even accomplish that.

Due to the nature of their work, psychiatrists are confronted with issues they don't have any influence on. The willingness of a patient to accept help is one of these issues. Psychiatrists encounter quite a number of people they could help but the patients refuse to take them up on that offer. Those people will end up in your clinic time and again, and every time you help them get back on their feet, they'll leave and continue on with the same destructive lifestyle as before, until the ambulance drops them off on your threshold again.
In these cases, you have to be able to detach yourself from the cases your working on. Otherwise, you'll just end up running in circles.

If you're interested in this field because of the complexity and relevance of psychiatry and psychology, you could also try other less clinical disciplines like developmental psychology or cognitive neuropsychology/neuroscience.

About your "people skills", I find it difficult to assess them from afar. You sound like you're an introverted person who's bad at small talk, which you'll always need to some degree, but you can learn that. However, I don't know about other graver situations.

As a medical doctor (including psychiatrists) you always have to consider that you aren't just any kind of counselor to your patients. In their eyes, you are or should be the one person that is able to do something about their very personal and possibly life-threatening problem, and they'll mull over every single piece of information that leaves your mouth. They're anxious. They feel that their life is in your hands, even though that may not be the case. This absolute trust is one of the reasons for which some physicians turn into arrogant a*seholes who act like they're god.

Of course, you won't be able to meet these expectations all the time. However, they are as persistent as they are unrealistic, so the patient or their family may even sue you legally if they are under the impression that you have misinformed them or erred in your diagnosis or treatment.

I took the long-winded approach here, but what I want to say is that your communication skills are essential as you cannot afford to slip up even if you have to improvise. If you go into psychiatry, you'll get some communication training during your medical studies and specialisation course, but don't expect to be able to prepare a backup plan for every possible situation.

Here's a common scenario that every physician has to go through at one point in their career. Imagine that one of your patients died during an operation and as their attending doctor, it's your duty to tell their family that you couldn't save them. You never know how they will react, but you still have to keep your cool.

I don't want to discourage you from your interest in this psychiatry, but pleae consider these aspects before you decide on what you want to study. Maybe you could gain some work experience in a psychiatric clinic to test your compatibility with this field? Major clinics usually offer practical training positions to interested people. Or you could go to a study advisory service to inquire about the requirements psychiatry in your country.

I'm no professional but I was known at being good in advising and I'm interested in the medical field wasn't quite sure where yet but now I have decided to be a Nutritionist. I feel like the best way to say to a person that observes too much is to stop thinking for a minute. There's so much possibilities but all you want is a conclusion. You don't want to confuse anyone because that's why they look up to you to help them. If you're not so quite sure yourself you can't help them so the best thing is to stop thinking and finally reach your best option you can offer to a patient. In the medical field it is tough but we're ppl last hope they look for help to, we just can't stress over it and be as calm as possible to help another.

first of all thanks everyone! this is really helpful!
>>31 those are some extremely good point you brought up. i'm going to keep trying to improve my communication skills, just because those are kind of necessary in general, but i will look into some other fields. i haven't given up on psychiatry, i just need to figure out what i can set as a realistic goal for myself. i briefly considered mental medication development, but i couldn't really succeed at a job that requires a constant or scheduled stream of new ideas. one reason (not the only one) i'm interested in psychiatry is because i thought / think (i'm not really sure which one at the moment) that i could help people because i have experience seeing average society from a not-average perspective (because i think of most things analytically / logically, as opposed to emotionally / in an opinionated way, i can pretty easily put myself in some else's not-average mindset). That's the best way i know to describe what part of brain science i'm interested in.
concerning your second to last paragraph: first question: is there a reasonable possibility of patient death in psychiatry? that's actually a limit of mine. because of the overthinking and wanting backup plans thing, i most likely wouldn't be able to handle the stress. the problem with death is that you can't undo it (if you know how to, please do share. that would be the single most amazing thing that i would have ever leaned).
i'm not sure if you have access to these kinds of recourses, but if you have an example of a problem in psychiatry that people were't able to solve, do you think you could tell me? i don't doubt that there are insolvable problems, i just haven't run into many problems that there was absolutely no solution for (well not necessarily solution. just any improvement in the situation) so i'm having trouble thinking of any. my only current dilemma is choosing to take more physics or biology. i like physics better, but biology seems more important in this field (please correct me if i'm wrong. that would be great actually). just for context, this isn't an urgent decision. i have over a year until i have to choose.

>>33 You're welcome. I'm glad you're thinking this through.
It's a good idea to work on your communication skills as most professions benefit a lot from effective communication. Concerning your analytical approach towards situations, I'm sure that it's useful for many research-related fields (e.g. neurosciences).

As for the possibility of death, yes, psychiatrists will experience their fair share of patient deaths. It's a medical profession, and thus there'll always be the possibility of not being able to prevent death.
During my first work experience of 3 months in a hospital, I met two cases of death and a couple of potential death candidates. One patient whom I had associated with for weeks beforehand, slowly drifted towards his end, and another one whose condition deteriorated from outwardly healthy to terminally ill over the course of two weeks. So, you will have to deal with death during your basic medical education and your specialised course.
Plus, psychiatrists treat suicidal patients in contrast to external life-threatening conditions that occur in other specialisations. This does not necessarily increase the probability to encounter cases of death, but it puts a different kind of strain on the practitioner's mind.

A great deal of the patients with mental disorders that I met had tried to kill themselves at least once. If their family members or other people had not called the ambulance or their psychiatrists in time, they would have died. Some of them still had visible complications like limping due to their failed attempt. Nevertheless, they had overcome their suicidal thoughts, and when I met them seemed more or less content with their life.

I remember a patient with paranoid schizophrenia who voluntarily came to the closed psychiatric ward for treatment. In his case, the treatment kept his condition from getting worse, but it didn't improve much, either. It was like treading water.

Paranoid schizophrenia renders people to be unable to differenciate between things concerning others and those concerning themselves among other symptoms. They feel that everything that happens on earth relates to them.
For example, a paranoid shizophrenic sees a car crash on the news. It turns out that the car's engine had a technical malfunction. The patient, whose car happens to have the same type of engine, will believe that the car manufacturer intentionally build a malfunctioning engine in order to harm him. Their reason tells them that this thought is utterly ridiculous, but they can't help but feel this way.
Another symptom is their extremely pessimistic perception towards their condition. They feel doomed and cannot stop questioning why it is them who have to suffer this fate.

Even though, the above mentioned patient was in treatment, he still felt the same way about his schizophrenia. He told us how he didn't have any zest for life left. He was constantly worried about what we would think of him and when a student their neighbour for something, he immediately assumed that they were talking badly of him. He seemed miserable.
One of the positive effects his treatment had was that it prevented him from abondoning his beloved wife and adopted children in order to live on the streets, but he couldn't hope to be relieved from the above mentioned symptoms.

According to one of our professors, he was fortunate to be able to accept and understand his condition. A great number of shizophrenics refuse to acknowledge their mental illness and thus, they never undergo systematic treatment. They tend to end up as beggars because their distrust runs so deep that they do not dare to stay in one place for too long.

Paranoid schizophrenia is only one example of many incurable mental diseases that make potential patients refuse any help. They cause the bearer and his social environment great distress, but as a psychiatrist you cannot do anything for them as long as they aren't willing to accept their disorder. Those are the patients I talked about before, the recurring cases who you have to let go, only to have them brought back by an ambulance several weeks or months later for emergency treatment.

Regarding your choice of subjects, I suggest that you pick Biology if you aim for a medical field, unless you have difficulties understanding Physics and need more explanations. In a medical course, you'll have to study the basics of Biology, Physics and Chemistry anyway, but Biology and Chemistry to a greater extent. If you have the chance, I'd recommend taking Biology and Chemistry with focus on Biology.

One last thing I forgot when I wrote about death and patients' deaths. It's something you have to experience for yourself. Don't just assume how you may or may not react to it. You can't predict your own reaction even if you have lost someone you knew. You'll establish a professional relationship with your patients first and foremost, consequently their death will affect you in a completely different way than a relative's passing. It also depends a lot on the patient's circumstances.

Same goes for other interactions with patients, your ability to work under stress or yout tolerance for blood, bowel and excrements. Before I had my first, more or less coincidental training at a hospital years ago, I would have never expected that it wouldn't bother me so little and that I'd handle such situations so pragmatically.

So, if human medicine or psychiatry really picked your interest, don't give up or rule out all medical/therapeutic occupations based on other people's views. Gain some personal work experience at a clinic first (at least 3 weeks) to get a sound picture of your personal abilities. After that you can still decide what you want to do in the future.

sry i meant pros of paranoia / schizophrenia.

i'm working on the visual tolerance. the blood doesn't bother me at all. organs are a slightly different story. i'm fine with most diseases. i just look up different things on google images and try to get used to it.

earlier on thins thread someone said that people can require psychiatric help for some phobias. how does treatment through exposure (if that's used. apparently it's very effective) work if the psychiatrist is scared of the same thing? i would guess they would just choose someone else. or the person would have had to get over it before starting work. which of these (if any) is true?

>>36 You're so far off, I don't even know where to begin. Sorry, but please look paranoid schizophrenia up (ICD-10, Wikipedia) and don't try to assess it as a layman. If dealing with mental disorders were this simple, they wouldn't make up the second largest group of health concerns worldwide.
You can't compare a paranoid schizophrenic's condition to anything a mentally healthy person has ever experienced and your advice is tailored to a healthy mind's standards. Schizophrenia as well as other mental health problems remain unimaginable for those who don't have the disease. Even psychiatrists, who have extensively studied paranoid schizophrenia, can only remotely comprehend what it must feel like from the patient's point of view.

Paranoid schizophrenia is a lifelong illness where you cannot trust you own mind or your own perception anymore. It isn't that patients don't want to change their outlook on life, the problem is that their illness won't let them.
A patient once tried to describe it as having two parts of yourself: A reasonable one that knows the voices in your head are spouting nothing but utter nonsense. And then there's this huge part that controls your feelings and senses and that tells you every single conspiracy theory in the world is true. And you cannot make the latter one shup up or let go of your perception.

If you'd like to get a tiny glimpse into a schizophrenic's mind, watch A Beautiful Mind (but be warned, the film's 'solution' isn't realistic, it's Hollywood's simplistic happy end after all) or get an English subbed copy of The White Sound (more accurate portrayal of a schizophrenic's perception).

>>37 I don't know how that works, but psychiatrists are usually expected to treat the full spectrum of mental diseases including phobias. So, I guess people learn to cope with their own phobia before they can become a psychiatrist. That is if their phobia isn't too severe as they wouldn't make it through the harsh education otherwise.

>>38 ok. sorry about that.
just to make sure i understand: for the most part they realize it's completely illogical, but they can't convince themselves that it's all ok because logic says so.
i don't completely trust anyone or anything. key word: don't. not can't. i'm really sorry i should have thought of that first.

concerning phobias: it seems unlikely that anyone would need psychiatric treatment for the phobia i have. i'll just work on it so i don't freak out in the middle of conversations. which, although almost completely unrelated, reminds me: any tips for improvement of public speaking? for conversations i'm just awkward, but i have pretty extreme stage fright when it comes to speaking.

oh! just though of something. murphy's law kinda describes my mindset (it's meant as comedy, but it's actually pretty accurate). in case you're not familiar with it, the basic idea is: if anything bad can happen, it will (realistically. the small chance I will need a compass in a city that i visit 3-4 times a year is still worth bringing one).

>>38 >If dealing with mental disorders were this simple, they wouldn't make up the second largest group of health concerns worldwide

This is something I wish everyone understood.

>>37 Regarding your efforts to raise your tolerance for digust, I can only repeat what I've written before. Get some hands-on experience. The visuals aren't necessarily your biggest concern, but the smell or your emotional reaction towards intruding in another person's body may affect you.

>>39 Basically yes, only that it's a lot worse than that. Have you ever been in a situation where your head and your heart didn't agree? Where your reason and your logic say, your decision is right, but the anxious feeling in your stomach just won't go away? It's similar to that, only massively amplified.

If some unknown actor in a TV series talked about how they cannot stand people with brown hair, a brown-haired paranoid schizophrenic would feel as personally offended as if someone had just insulted them face-to-face. They are unable NOT to consider everything in the world related to themselves. As a depersonalisation disorder, the illness makes it impossible for them to distinguish between what concerns their own person and what doesn't, so they feel that anything and everything concerns them. Plus, their mind interpretes everything in the worst possible way, so no matter happened, they're subconsciously convinced that every single person on earth wants to do them harm.

>>40 Logically, they know that their own mind and emotions are playing tricks on them, but this subconscious mindset is like a default mode, it cannot be altered. They cannot run from their own paranoid delusions.

Let me give you a more drastic example: Imagine a suicide bombing in the Middle East is reported on TV. A patient with paranoid schizophrenia will assume that this suicide terrorist from a war zone, whose attack was obviously aimed at a foreign military's personnel, actually wanted to kill the patient. Even though it's completely ridiculous to feel personally threatened by a terrorist that doesn't even know your name when you are but a regular citizen who just happened to watch the news on a foreign country TV channel, thousends of miles away from the suicide attack's location, they cannot help their mind's reaction.
Paranoid schizophrenia makes their emotional perception this warped.

In short, their reason and logical thinking is completely fine, but their emotions run riot.
In addition to that a lot of those patients have to bear auditory hallucinations that relentlessly fuel their anxiety and that put them down as a person (i.e. an endless stream of sarcastic remarks, insults etc. that comments on every single one of their actions in a negative way).

I'm not sure whether I can give you any useful advice concerning your difficulty with speaking in front of others. I myself am but a medical student.

In school, one of my teachers used to make every student give a presentation in front of the class 5 times a week for two years in order to prepare us for our oral exams. In the beginning I was extremely nervous and my performance was horrible, but after a few weeks, I just got used to it. The stage fright had disappeared because my subcouscious had learnt that the world won't end even if your presentation is bad.
In the end my stage fright had decreased to the point that I voluntarily joined my school's Drama club as an actor.

Maybe you could try a similar approach. Is there a club that involves public performances (e.g. Drama club, choir, orchestra etc.) at your school that you could join with a friend? A club would provide you with the opportunity to rehearse in a small-scale, familiar environment before speaking in front of an audience, which may ease your nervousnes. Plus, the frequent confrontation with such situations may wear your stage fright down and interactions with other club members may help you improve your self-confidence in holding a conversation. Oh, and it's a great place to make more friends.

By the way, do NOT watch the recommended films' trailers (cf. >>38)! They give too much away and weaken the film's visual effect.

is paranoid schizophrenia something someone is usually born with or do they get it due to an event? what's the difference between the two cases? Also, do all mental illnesses have something to do with a difference in their brain anatomy or chemistry?

i'll consider those ideas for public speaking. unfortunately i think i'm regressing. i now no longer feel relieved that it's over with after having talked. just sorta regretful... just out of interest, what do you mean by oral exams? only ones i've heard of have been for foreign languages.

on the bright side, progress has been made (microscopic progress is still progress) on my phobia!

>>43 It's sort of both. The current state of the science assumes that the onset of paranoid schizophrenia and mental diseases in general happens when a person's inborn coping mechanisms become severely overstrained due to psychological stress.

It's basically the old principle of nature and nurture. Everyone is born with a generic setup which sets certain borders, but what happens within those borders is up to the individual's upbringing and lifestyle. In terms of mental illnesses, it means that everybody has a genetic capacity for dealing with stressors (e.g. consumption of certain drugs like cannabis, experience of loss and/or failure, physical health problems etc.), which can be strengthened and increased by environmental factors such as familial and social support, positive experiences (e.g. successful handling of similar situations) and other behavioural patterns. Together they make up a person's tolerance for psychological stress.
Only when the strain one's exposed to exceeds this tolerance, a mental disorder is triggered. You can call it a person's psychological vulnerability.

It's difficult to say what exactly a psychological stressor is for it varies from one person to another or how much someone can endure. The only thing we know for sure is that there are relative differences. Therefore, it's safe to say that a person whose family members suffer from mental health problems is more prone to develop a mental disorder than someone whose family is psychologically healthy. Same goes for those who don't have any close family or friends they can count on, but that should be self-evident.

As for the oral exams, where I'm from, students are required to take and pass at least one oral exam in order to obtain their A-level. Which subject is examined depends on the student's choice and circumstances.

And don't worry about the speed you're improving at. Things like these take some time, so even if you feel like you took two steps forward and one step back, you'll still have progressed by one step!

*genetic setup (second paragraph)

^

still about paranoid schizophrenia:
has it ever been completely cured? is that possible? if so: how often does it work out like that?

First, I got to say this is a really good thread. Very good thanks to Litairak. You're quite informative, and excellent grammar. Probably better than mine. Sorry, I get all giddy when I find 'shiny' grammar.


I've not delved too much into psychiatry, but there was a time when I was a young lad that I thought wanted to be a one. I soon found out that I didn't give a shit enough to do that though. I connect with people individually, but getting paid to do it? Seemed to put a nasty film on things, and I lost interest in the career. The subject however still lives.

I don't agree with the assertions against the MBTI. Just because the answer changes doesn't make it invalid, and it doesn't take long periods for certain things to change. This is discussed right off the top when learning about it. A lot of inaccuracy comes from people as well. I strongly believe you can take the https://www.16personalities.com test thirty to a hundred times, and as long as you don't change your answers on purpose you'll get the same result with the span of a year. Ten years, probably not, but humans coalesce information which causes maturity. The answer should probably change based on that. Several of the different types are very close together, but that's because people are still people. Nuance is the entire point, and if you were looking for glaring differences I'm sorry to say you should have been a biologist.

>>48

I don't believe it's something that can be cured; only managed. I believe it is a state of mind that once it's been delved into isn't reversible. I have mild paranoia myself, but it's mostly reduced by extra-precautionary measures that I take myself. Sort of a ritual if you will. It's a means of self medication without the need for any pharmaceuticals, or illicit drugs.

I have experimented with just about every drug imaginable though, and a LOT of 'dietary supplements' that are generally listed as nootropics in a lot of countries, but the US doesn't classify these so they can be bought on the internet, and shipped here no problem. MDMA was one of these 'dietary supplements' in it's original form, and was used to treat patients with mental illness ranging from Paranoia to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Some have been said to be cured of PTSD with MDMA therapy at a rate as high as 88% (take this with a grain of salt, it was a YouTube video. It looked professional enough but I don't remember it well enough to cite it.)

Thanks for reading. I'll probably pop back in after a while.

I look forward to Litairak's more professional opinion on this though.

>>48 !HInKxu8cQQ is right about paranoid schizophrenia; it is currently incurable. First, we have to understand the pathopsychological mechanisms behind this disease before there can be a cure in sight, but even then it will be difficult to find a cure. Mental disorders pose an extraordinary challenge to all parties involved because they aren't only biological malfunctions; a person's innate way of thinking derails. To get that back on track is very trying.

However, this doesn't mean that their treatment is futile. Psychotherapists and psychiatrists can help suppress certain symptoms and find a way for the patient to limit their "thought-derailments" to an extent that allows them to lead a normal everyday life. Depending on the individual, they may even experience periods without any symptoms.
Anyway, the patient learns to recognise warning signs (you could compare them to personal flags):
- When does my thinking go wrong?
- What could help me to put an end to the current "derailment"?
- Who can I effectively ask for help?
- What else can I do in this situation?

Psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment guides and supports people with incurable mental health problems in building a safety net for themselves with the help of various forms of treatment e.g. behaviour therapy, individual medication, social support etc. Patients with a working safety net aren't all that different from people without mental disorders, you may not even be able to recognise them as such as most of the keep their condition a secret out of fear of alienation. I hope that one day, society can be more understanding and respectful towards them, but that is something we all need to work towards.

>>49 You're giving me too much credit. I'm still a student and only know a fraction of what a real professional does. But thanks for the compliment on my grammar. I'm no native speaker, so I'm glad that my grammar comes off as good.

Well, the MBTI isn't worthless, sorry my post made it seem like that. It is only unsuitable for scientific psychological purposes as they require the above-mentioned standards. Neither recruiters for a company nor researchers can work with results that keep changing over the course of a few weeks which is likely to happen due to the binary criteria (e.g. introversion of 49% vs extroversion of 51%).

Nonetheless, the individual may take some personal hints from their test result, just keep in mind that it isn't entirely accurate, and don't base life-changing decisions (e.g. your career choice) on it. As with all tests, take the result with a grain of salt, and you'll be fine.

Lots of questions this time.
Is depression caused by shutting off or stimulating a part of your brain? Or something completely different?
If it's caused by a physical alteration in your brain, then could you get depression by hitting your head in a certain way?
Could depression be cured (regardless of time and expense) through surgery?
Why is depression possible? In other words, what's the evolutionary advantage? Or is it not actually supposed to be possible? The only reason I could come up with (although I admit I thought about it for less than five minutes) is that depression is a signal sent to your brain when you're not taking care of yourself well enough.

On more: is it possible to be immune to depression?
I'm still looking into paranoid schizophrenia. I started wondering about this after hearing about the German plane crash in the French Alps caused by a depressive co-pilot (this information is from memory so please don't rely on it for the actual news).

>>50

You're welcome. You're intelligent. Don't sell yourself short. The only difference in a student, and a graduate is how much they've read. It's completely noticeable how well read you are. Don't sell yourself short.

It is important to take ALL tests with a grain of salt though. I'd be a textbook psychopath if I listened to all of it. I prefer the term, "determined."

>>51

I'll leave all that to Lit. I'm pretty sure it's chemical abnormalities that cause depression in a clinical sense, but everyone is susceptible to some degree of it. That's as far as I think I know.

>>52

It is via other disorders such as Alexithymia, and Socio/Psychopathy. It can be hard to identify (or impossible) in subjects with varied levels of altered stats. Like Dementia, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and IDD.

.

is it possible to cure psychopathy or sociopathy? if so: how (simplified of course)?

>>55 I don't think "cure" is the right word... But perhaps "suppress".

Litair?

>>55 There are lots of articles about that to be found. Of course, I'm not any kind of professional or anything, but the articles and my own conclusions point towards no. Maybe not in the future, but at the moment, I'd say it's not curable.

That being said, after following this thread in silence for a while, I thought of something to ask. Why do you want to be a psychiatrist?

This is a great thread! I studied Psychology at University and it is an extremely interesting subject. Just reading this thread has had my brain going! Psychiatry involves the diagnosing and treatment of mental patients so in order to go into that field, you would have to learn not just Psychology, but then go on to do either Clinical Psychology or Psychiatry as a masters/PhD. The Psychopath/Sociopath discussion is an interesting one. Defining two different illnesses which are so similar is tough..like distinguishing between a clementine and a tangerine! But there is a difference. An example of a Sociopath would be Sherlock in the BBC Sherlock series, and an example of a psychopath would be Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. Similar traits but they make a big, big difference.

Actually..here is a pretty good and simple definition of the two..

Psychopathy: a lack of interest in, or care for, the sanctity of human life.

Sociopathy: a lack of interest in, or care for, the rules of a society.

>>56 this was on the basis that there's some sort of chemical or physical difference in the brains of psychopaths and sociopaths. with that assumption i was wondering if people had figured out a way to alter the subjects' brains (either by talking, medicine, or surgery) to fit into the average range (sanity). it does appear to be a very complicated problem though.

>>57 I got interested in the human brain by thinking about thinking. I thought psychiatry would be great because it has both a chemical and behavior analysis aspect, which I find cool. At this point though I'm sincerely doubting my ability to succeed as a psychiatrist considering my lack of social skills (which have actually been getting worse). I'm still very interested in brain science though. just from more of a research & experimentation perspective.

A rephrasing of a previous question:
Is it possible to be sane and be immune to depression?

>>60 I think you're misunderstanding something. Just because you are a psychopath or sociopath, that doesn't make you insane. From my understanding of them, they are very much sane, their brains just function a bit differently than the average human being.

There is a difference between deviating from the norm and being insane.

>>61 I reread my previous post and I see where there might have been confusion; I don't confusion; I don't consider sanity and insanity the only categories of mental health. The definition I learned of insanity is an extreme deviation from the average range. There's plenty that I consider outside of sanity, but not insane (is that definition actually correct?). I'm sorry about the misuse of vocabulary.

Life is filled with depression regardless of your mental state. Hell I think one who isn't quite sane would be more depressed.

Also I don't really agree with how most would describe insane. I consider it to be one who has full blown hallucinations, or schizophrenia. Mainly I think it boils down to will power, and having a severe condition, listed above, doesn't take that into account. One gives in to the craving, desire, need, etc. and acts upon it. Sort of like drugs, they give in to the desire to do it, not because they can't help it though. If they had help they could overcome that desire. But I consider insane to be no amount of willpower, or help, can change what they see or do.

Does anyone know a (preferably "the" if it exists) scientific definition of "insanity"? I just kind of feel like we're just giving opinions here (I love hearing everyone's opinions on all of this, however opinions are, by definition, biased).

Introducing: extreme phobias that inhibit your everyday life.
This one is actually a personal problem. It's not too bad right now, but it's been steadily getting worse over the past few years. How do I get over this fear? And how do I figure out why I'm scared in the first place?

Is there a specific part of the brain that controls your imagination? If so, does that mean it's also possible for someone to not have an imagination? What would that be like?

>>64
There could be many reasons why you have a phobia. It could be something passed onto you from your ancestors, or it could have been caused by traumatic experiences.

I'm not quite sure about other methods of treating phobias, but I know it's often treated by gradual exposure to whatever your phobia is of. However, when not done carefully, this can make a phobia worse.

That being said, most of the answers to your questions can be found on Google quite easily.

>>66 When you say phobias can be passed down from your ancestors, do you mean phobias can be genetic, or that they can survive as a family tradition?

>>67 If I meant family traditions, I would have said it. They can be passed on through your genes.
There was a study for this involving mice or rats. If memory serves right, they would make them smell cherry blossoms, and then electrocute them. This went on until they started fearing the smell. They then bred the mice/rats and exposed the new ones to only the smell, no electrocuting involved. They apparently feared it as well. I think they also tested it on the next generation after that, which unsuprisingly also feared the smell.

>>68 So it's like small-scale evolution? That's not my situation, but it's still really cool.

It might not necessarily be passed down onto every generation. I'm not sure whether or not the article mentioned anything about this, but it's more than likely that it can skip a generation or two, like other things.

>>69 Small scale evolution, the differences between individual generations, is call micro-evolution whereas large stuff, like the formation of new species from many generations of changes is called macro-evolution.

I think this is more cellular memory though. It's not my field so I don't know much about it, but apparently memories can live on in cells. There have been cases of people who get heart transplants who report changes in preferences or behavior that match that of the donor. I've heard of the possibility of it being passed down through generations like -- mentioned, but I've never seen a study about it.

>>55 (I know you rephrased this later but the original question interests me) First off, sociopathy and psychopathy aren't normally used as medical definitions anymore. Both would fall under antisocial personality disorder (APD). Once again, not an expert, but I have done some reading up on it due to having a family member that displays many of the traits of APD who I view as a threat to other members of my family. That's not to say all people with APD are scary or threatening, but like other people, they can be. Anyway, typically sociopath is used colloquially to refer to any person with APD while psychopath is used to refer to violent individuals who appear to have a disregard for human life. This doesn't mean they have the disorder and I've heard a lot of people who obviously (to me) don't have APD called psychopaths.

Anyway, APD is considered a personality disorder and it's really not possible to be cured of a personality disorder. At that point, it's pretty much impossible to separate a person's personality from their disorder and then you fall into a really offensive "let's fix this person" mindset. There's nothing wrong, exactly, with someone with a personality disorder, they just perceive and react to the world differently than most people would. Through therapy, an person can be taught to control their behavior that is driven by the disorder, but it's such an integral part of them that they can't just eradicate it.

>>60 As for this one, most "insanity" is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain or your brain making connections that aren't normal. I don't think you can really be immune to this. If the brain decides to fuck with you there's not much you can do about it other than take some meds and hope for the best. Maybe you can work through it in other ways, but that doesn't make you immune, it just makes you strong willed. You might be able to treat the symptoms or change the balance through other routes, but you can't be straight up immune.

Does anyone know any system I could use to teach myself how to be more at ease when talking to / interacting with people? Advice on interpreting social cues relating to tone of voice? I have trouble with those. Also, does anyone have tips on being able to tell if someone is hiding their actual emotions / opinions in favor of making everything seem perfectly fine and normal?

>>71
The first two paragraphs of yours are correct, as far as I am aware.

The term you mean to use is ASPD, not APD. Psychopathy/sociopathy is often not regarded as a part of ASPD, however psychopaths/sociopaths do exhibit traits that those with ASPD would also have.

>>72
Interact with people more often. It can also help to look down on everyone, though I would assume most people would feel bad doing that. If you are speaking in public, it is often said imagining everyone wearing only their undergarments, or similar embarrassing things.

Their voice. Listen to it. You can often easily tell when something is wrong. Things that can indicate something is different from the usual are that the person speaks faster, slower, their voice trembles, they use a voice louder than usual, they pause, etc.

Telling if someone is hiding emotions or opinions can be quite tricky, or it can be extremely easy. It all depends on the person. In the case that it is easy, the person may look away, get fidgety or exhibit all other signs of lying, since that is what they are doing. If they pause awkwardly, their voice trembles, they seem unsure or unwilling to speak about a subject, that's another pointer. In the case that the person is skilled at lying, or concealing the truth, there may be no way to tell. Most people will exhibit signs though, as they often want to talk about it, but keep it hidden. In the cases where they don't want to talk about it, they may still feel guilty for lying to you.

>>73 Ok I'll try that. I've been practicing recently by trying to act less shy when I'm ordering food at a restaurant (I know it's ridiculous, but I actually have trouble with this). I'll try the looking down on people approach as soon as I figure out how to do that without sounding patronizing.

I have one more question concerning communication; how can you tell if someone is getting bored or uninterested in what you're talking to them about? I'd expect most people to try and hide their disinterest for the sake of politeness. I find I talk a lot about the same things (because they're interesting to me), but I can never quite tell if the person I'm talking to actually cares or just doesn't want to hurt my feelings by telling me to stop talking about whatever it is I keep talking about.

Body language is a personal tactic of mine that I find quite useful, though for you I would simply suggest listening to the other persons responses. If they seem distant or unresponsive to certain subjects, it is highly possible the have little regards to what you're saying... I could be wrong, of course -one can never really tell.

As someone who has had a therapist, some words of advice would be to be as personable, patient, and understanding as you possibly can. Don't view any clients as tools to help you better understand how the mind works, I absolutely hate therapists like that. Depending on what area you want to go into, you're going to have obscure, lesser-talked about disorders, ones with negative stigmas, don't treat them like they are creatures or children. Just be very cautious of being ableist

>>76 That's actually very encouraging. I naturally tend to speak to / treat everyone in just about the same way (this, I have found, is not helpful when talking to small children so I'm glad it's good for something). Although I am very interested in how the mind works, I would not view anyone as a means to become more knowledgable on the subject. However, I may still not have the right mindset; I would most likely view the person's mind as a problem (no negative connotation intended, I just couldn't think of a better word) that I needed to find a solution to and that I could get more information about by asking the person. Would you or anyone else who has been in a similar situation find this mindset offensive? If so, how would I either change or conceal my views?

New questions:
What's the difference between Autism Spectrum Disorder and Apserger's Disorder (if my information is correct, Asperger's is no longer classified as ASD)?

What are some key symptoms of each?

How are people usually tested for these disorders (in a way that could qualify them for an official diagnosis)?