Epocalymus

How normal can a normal person be, without getting himself “labelled” by professionals as psychologically challenged, or psychotic (to put it in a very blunt manner)? According to Corcoran et al (2007), families of psychotic children in their teens were interviewed. They provided several key characteristics of what constitute the premorbid stage of psychotic disorders as well as the profound but gradual changes in behaviour and mood during the teen years.

In the premorbid stage, the child is:
- Functioning normally and looks happy, but particularly sensitive to negative remarks or insults; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Exceptionally vulnerable to hurtful things; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Easily startled by loud noises;
- Shy and socially withdrawn; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Feels awkward or uneasy among people or within crowds; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow developer both socially and sexually; (I thought I have it in the past, only the social part)
- Social immaturity and lack of insight; (I thought I have it in the past as compared to now)
- Very insular person (a book-reader and computer-oriented person);
- Problems concentrating; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Bad spatial sense;
- Dyslexic but yet possesses good memory; (I thought I have it in the past)
- Slow to the point that he or she started reading late in the early life; (I thought I have it in the past, for me it’s English)
- Slow in school or dislike school as a result. (I thought I have it in the past, and everyone dislikes school in some sense)

It seems that I could fit into the risk of psychoticism as I attempt to relate my past with the characteristics as described by parents of psychotic children. Either I am wrong, or that I have totally bad memory of my childhood. However, I think anyone can just pick a trait or characteristic and relate to it as though he or she had once possessed it, but does this make them, or me, or almost everybody, proned to be psychotic? As far as I can predict, everyone is at risk for everything and anything! The measures of behavioural traits using what is deemed as science have yet to explain the ambiguity of the possible causes of a certain dependent variable, which is the mental illness itself. How does one distinguish between normal individuals and “normal” individuals, as well as individuals who are mentally ill?

Is being slow in school a starting point for problems later in life? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is being extremely introverted a prodromal to mental illness like schizophrenia? It could possibly be one of the characteristics, yet it could possibly not be so. Is being extremely prone to anger a risk of psychotic manifestations? Or is it just the anger problem that needs some management? Is sleeping all day (hypersomnia) a symptom of laziness? Or is it just depression, or affective psychosis, or other mental illness that has hypersomnia as its comorbid symptom? Cormobidity – the co-existence of various behavioural traits and deficits that makes everything so confusing.

Furthermore, the consumption of antipsychotic drugs somehow paints the picture in my mind in a way as though the mentally ill were despised of their actual behaviour (however ways in which they attempt to be who they are). Picture this: You see a weird person on the street who talks in a different accent or uses unique words to describe a subject during a conversation. He seems to be walking well but yet, in a slow manner. He tends to speak with several pauses and appears to have quite low self-esteem as he stutters at the start of his sentences. He was a slow learner in school and dropped out while doing his sixth grade. He was disinterested in attending social events but loves to be by himself reading novels and fan-fictions alike. He goes out alone and seems to enjoy computer games alot. He has a few “game buddies” whom he plays game with but doesn’t really consider them as close friends, but rather, acquaintances. He avoids eye contact while talking to strangers as he is rather shy. He has extreme stage fright and doesn’t feel comfortable being together with a huge group of friends or people. He hates social gatherings but seems to perform better in his job as a cemetary caretaker. Of course, this character I have described is deliberately made up. But what I am trying to bring across is that anyone will tend to possess certain qualities reflected upon the descriptions of what constitutes the prelude of a psychotic disorder. Does this mean that the guy I’ve mentioned above is to be warded and treated like someone who is of higher risk, and therefore, institutionalised as a patient?

What do we do to people like this? Certainly, we drug them, give them psychotherapy, and keep them in our observation list for a life-long period. So by drugging these individuals, are we trying to tell the world that these individuals are despised by the society for having different or special traits that go against the social norm? Thus in addition, by removing these despised traits, which in turn depriving them of some other essential bodily functions, is considered just and in line with the humanistic view of basic human rights? Imagine that someone who is singing out loud with a voice that appears to be rather unique, and it does not gain the popularity (consensus) of a population (society). So what do we do? We spike his or her drink to ensure (in the hope) that the prescribed drug would take away the symptoms of singing aloud in a rather disturbing voice. In return, assuming that we do not get a singing individual with a lousy voice, but someone who appears to have difficulty standing or moving about, what does this drug seem to prove? Yes, we have successfully taken away the singing symptoms, but somehow paralysed the individual after removing what we despised as a “bad” trait.

I have no issue with the utility of drugs on patients, but I am concerned about the biological markers that are yet to be determined for quite a number of psychiatric disorders. So for those who are about to sign up for a psychology class in tertiary college, do consider the fact that understanding human behaviour is not enough for one to place immediate judgement as to who is suffering from what kind of disorders. Therefore, in conclusion, I want to make it clear to those who have interest in studying the human brain, avoid the psychology major, and go for Neuroscience. The current trend to studying and comprehending the embodiment of the human mind is nothing other than Neuroscience itself. With it, it holds the key to your future understanding of why and how disorders come about. It will, I believe, provide future answers and solutions to solve our current ethical issues of whether certain psychotic drugs are useful, or whether mental illness even exists.

p.s. I do have the journal as cited in this entry. Do email me for it if you are interested.