| New Evidence From The Human Genome Project At Last we get the evidence to scientifically challenge a number of fundamental assumptions, made about the organic / genetic nature of some serious forms of 'mental illness' and forms of behavioural 'syndromes'. This evidence: Challenges the validity and very existence of these features as syndromes, in the clinical forms described and as diagnosed; Supports the various, potentially positive, alternative manifestations of this 'genotype', where negative consequences can exist, as well as the 'adaptive' positive manifestations, and; Suggests that there are, in effect, Social and Clinical contributions to these assumed 'syndromes', which misrepresent these genetic features and actually cause them to manifest as Mental Illness, due to 'disadvantageous' social context and prescriptive clinical treatments.
There is now identified Genetic Evidence, from the The Genome Project (and other important sources), which substantially confirms two important predictions I had made. These predictions are the outcome of my 'Theory of Relativistic Cognitive Processing', and 'Theory of Genetic Disposition towards Human Social Adaptation' (Also potentially applicable to other higher primates). These predictions were based upon my direct evidence and through Operational Research; while operating a Therapeutic Community, Undertaking Community Work, Therapeutic Social Work & Counselling, Social Work Advocacy, Community Mental Health - Care Practice, Commercial Operations, Social Care Consultancy and by helping establish local, Support Groups and later, therapeutic 'Service User' Networks (Voluntary Sector). This direct 'talking treatments', self help, group work, community work practices and operational research (including longitudinal, family, group and institutional studies) was professionally undertaken over more than a 40 year period. The full period of 'study' and 'experiential & existential' practice, is actually 54 years, including experiences and 'the work done' in my childhood, literally from the age of 6. I will explain why I think that these early experiences are important and valid, as they affected 'how' I understood peoples experiences in simple, direct terms and concepts, which have influenced me till now. This summary will set the context:
There were experience I can recollect before this time and no doubt there are other important experience (I leaned of some of these later), but the age of 5 - 6 age is the earliest that I can remember and accurately, critically & reflectively recount in anything close to adult, intellectual terms. It is from this time that I clearly started observing and experiencing and recognising, physical & emotional abuse, neglect and poverty. I started asking adults and other children, why they were 'unhappy', along with the usual searching questions. This was, of course my brothers, first sister and mother to start with (I was the oldest of 11 eventually) but soon included distress children and bullies I met in Children's Homes, where I and my siblings stayed for period of months, from time to time. This enquiry later extended to cousins and school friends. I also remember that there were periods of almost complete absence of these interests and childhood 'sociological' and 'psychological' enquiries. These were very practical enquiries, seeking to understand my experiences. At these times I remember progressing in 'art' (under my mother's skilled influence), music (under my Grandmother's tutoring) and, in a private, rather advanced interest in the sciences and technology (acquired through my grandfather's electronic & DX radio interests). By the age of 11, I had obtained a very full and wide range of extreme negative and very fulfilling positive experiences. One of these was persistent bullying, which almost certainly was because of my social circumstances and rather 'reclusive'. This bullying I usually eventually resolved for myself, counselling and befriending some of the bullies but never giving in to their demands, rather taking a beating instead (you do get used to it). I also used this approach in defending my friends, brothers and sisters.The earliest experience I recollect (at 6-7 years) resulted in me being knocked unconscious by a brick (at the back of the head). This, I recollect was traumatic .I actually 'shut down' in some ways and became quite private. It was definitely a stimulus to seeking to find out why people treat each other so badly, research that continues till today.. I don't know the medical details about this incident but I had a very real sense that some damage had been done. It is from around this time that I recognised my retention of memory was problematic, later, I realised that it was more about my 'recall'. There was no clear evidence that this was the cause of what I now realise was complication of dyslexia. It is from this time that I realised I had real difficulties reading & understanding what I was reading, re-reading sections of texts dozens of times to get the meaning and re-writing my school work (usually at home) until it looked and read to my satisfactory understanding. Admittedly, some of what I was reading was beyond my age, but I was determined to advance my interest and knowledge in science and technology. This problem remained with me until the invention of computers (I was an Adult by then), where it made the 'review' of my material easier and less time consuming. I was particularly affected at times of the need for intense study and revision, where the time pressure usually aggravated the problem. I soon learned to read, instead, for my personal pleasure of learning, ignoring the rather irrelevant task of sitting exams, which actually felt was 'abusive' as far as I was concerned. I still do, unreservedly, as I do in relation to any artificial, tokenised, uncritical study for the sake of passing exams. I chose some subjects that I would compromise (usually those I had a natural affinity for) in order to 'do' exams. Initially the results were poor but, in subjects that made logical and contextual sense, I usually did very well (Grade A's). In subjects which had little logical sense, or were taught and tested at too simplistic a level, I had the greatest difficulty and often go Grade 'C' and even 'D'. I took me years to realise that some of what I was reading was actually wrong and inconsistent, or so simplified that it was fine as a collection of facts (good for passing exams, where real understanding seems to be irrelevant) but were not designed for 'deeper understanding' and theoretical advancement. This situation even proved true at Undergraduate Level in psychology and sociology and I instead took a professional opportunity to progress to Post Gradual level research and study, then continuing this study and research independently up until the present time. Studies in IT were less problematic, because of their substantially logical nature. The only area of real challenge is at the interface between people and technology. In computers, the design of this interface is not always a user friendly as it could be. This interface requires a good 'creative' understanding of the technology and the various skills and limitations of the computer user. This is an area I have developed and expertise, because of by peculiar style of learning. Although I remember being distressed by personal experiences and learning difficulties, I also remember being able to resolve this distress for myself, to the point where I was able to progress my 'learning' in my own terms, dismissing much of the 'nominal' advice and support from the adult support services available. This also meant that I took a very analytic approach to problems I encountered (including those of others). The was not 'psycho-analytic' (of which I have a historic & some 'conceptual' interest), it was psycho-social' analytic. This was a natural choice, resulting form my experiences and having found a 'better', more testable, more predictive form of understanding people's behaviour and problems (personal and social). In the absence of my Father (for extended periods), in a rather Freudian sense; I did take over the Parental Role, helping my Mother to care for the younger children and providing reassurance of her, in her distress. She had no option, I was persistent even when she clearly felt it inappropriate to respond to some of my impertinent questions. The child 'care support' that I provided, was mostly sound but I can remember occasions where it clearly was beyond me and I can only describe my reactions as very occasionally 'abusive'.  This section is in the stage of preparation.
I learned at the age of 7-9 that some With the exception of a handful of teachers who clearly understood and supported my natural enquiries, I mostly quietly studied on my own. ........ a close and intelligent friend of my mother and This section is in the stage of preparation. I remember, even from this early age, being very direct, sensitive and determined in my enquiries. I found people responding to my questions (interest) with incredible, candid detail. This form of enquiry is quite natural for kids, I know. The only exceptional feature was that I believed, even then, I had a measure of 'empathy' (because of the early abuses to myself, my mother, brothers and sister). Because of this I was able to The point is, I started my 'Mental Health' experience and education very early, through the direct contact with the social circumstances that generate most Psychological & Emotional problems and distresses. This was an accidental opportunity to engage with the 'causations' and the 'natural' means that are available to people (and communities) for resolving the underlying causes and overcoming the consequences. arly insight into abuse & deprivation and having the natural ability to ask questions & to seek answers, concerning the traumas that children experience. as a result of their own abuse, neglect, poverty and trauma and the impact upon them of the trauma and social distress of their parents I soon realised (certainly by the age of 14) that I had a perspective on these family situations that second phase of childhood development and Prediction 1: Research will not find direct evidence of the predicted Schizophrenia gene, or, for that matter a Bipolar Genotype), but there may be a genetic association with creativity, genius and other potentially beneficial social adaptations, (Organic psychosis is otherwise accepted as a 'similar' manifestation, which can be due to genetic, organic, or any serious toxic agent or serious trauma). My assertion is (based on the Theory): Schizophrenic symptoms are predictable negative manifestations of socially & environmentally induced practical, cultural, psychological, or emotional trauma and the social inhibition (frustration) of a person's natural creative process & expression. This temporary disruption and resultant social perception, is often initially triggered by temporary 'toxic', or 'cultural' shock, then maintained by inappropriate social & clinical treatment, or actions, following a misdiagnosis of organic (or genetic), rather than a functional condition. This has negative impact on a patients 'expectations' for sustained recovery and effectively, progressively disables them. This initially 'disrupted', "natural, socially adaptive and psychi protective, genetically predisposed, psychologically adaptive mechanism", is seen as further evidence of an 'assumed' underlying organic disorder. The supposed syndrome's treatment (and all natural reactions of the patient to this) then precipitate a self perpetuating, self fulfilling prophesy; generating increased 'reactive' paranoia and 'reasoned' resentment on the part of the patient. The clinician then typically sees this as further evidence of a psychosis and undirected, or misdirected and inappropriate aggression. Sometimes this eventually leads to entrenched aggressive reactions & persisting social antagonism, or chronic, superimposed depressive symptoms (catatonic). These are the consequences of clinical, legal and social treatment and the reduction of patient's positive life 'expectations' and frustration of their 'innate' potential for fully 'actualising' themselves within their family, culture and wider society (who's own expectations now have also been altered, through the publically disclosed 'expert' perspective and advice. This was a prediction I made over 40 years ago, after my first professional encounter and many, very similar encounters since then. Most were partially, or completely resolved through sensitive and insightful recognition of the patient/client's insight into their ''social and internal experiences", usually resulting in a formal statement of 'misdiagnosis' by clinicians. Of course, those patients who were treated early, by more intelligent, sensitive or insightful practitioners were never misdiagnosis in the first place and the problems never reached such dramatic, intractable proportions. When this institutional misdiagnosis & treatment is finally proven (from the developing genetic & psycho-social; 'fundamental human rights' evidence), the potential impact upon Mental Health services; by way of revision of diagnostic practice and the potential for law suits, will be dramatic. It will force a complete, radical rethink of Mental Health knowledge, understanding, practice and treatment, and a serious revision of human mental / cognitive functioning. This revision is already over due. Understandable 'institutional' fears will resist this further, as the pressure mounts to acknowledge the failures and inappropriate policy & practices. There is already substantial sociological, educational, institutional, 'alternative' practice and logical evidence, to require a thorough and radical review of theory and practice in the area of mental health, behavioural medicine, formal education methods and curriculum, and institutional & community education. Summarising my basic theory: "We should not be surprised that we see serious dissociation of thoughts & feelings, when a person's otherwise legitimate perceptions and 'cognitive and emotional conceptions' are in advance of 'others' (including practitioners) current awareness. The internal psychological and emotional conflict that a person can experience, when they assert that they can 'see' conceptual consequences of events and circumstances, affecting themselves and others, which the clinician and others are unable to understand, or comprehend in those same terms, although the objects and events of both parties may be 'shared' in some measure (at least to start with). The current 'rationales' and 'treatments', effectively forces the clinician's (and then others) 'socially prejudicial' rational onto the patient's incongruent 'alternative perspectives'. The patient's experiential evidence and cognitively sound (if sometimes erroneous - like us all) logic and conscious concepts are undermined and become confused. The person's 'emotional state and disposition remains unchanged. The higher level 'intuitive' intelligence continues to feed the 'emotions' with increasing evidence of a 'threat' which now exist more than ever, not now just as an 'intellectual' threat but as a full blown 'existential' threat. This effectively forces a intellectual/emotional wedge between thoughts and intuitive understanding (including emotionality). Eventually the person is made more uncertain and agitated, with increasingly unpredictable results. The person is effectively 'driven mad', or at least made more distressed and socially disabled. The patient's legitimately conceived concerns (with some 'errors',) in interpreting the collective thinking & inappropriate, prejudiced, irrational social / institutional attitudes and behaviour of others are balanced by the person's emotional understanding (extended, or 'intuitive' intelligence)  See: www.psychminded.co.uk
Feature: Sept 5: Schizophrenia gene, where art thou? Molecular genetics has failed to reliably identify DNA for schizophrenia. So has the search been a complete damp squid? Adam James examines the evidence.
Terry Couchman suggests that we now get on and work with the real, underlying social causes." Wake up 'Mental Health'. More shocks to come. It is Social Health we need to be looking at".
This section is in the stage of preparation. | See: www.psychminded.co.uk
1st October 2008
 October 1: Drugs should not be first-line treatment for ADHD, doctors told - and NICE says medication should not be prescribed at all to pre-school children with ADHDSee: www.psychminded.co.uk
1st October 2008
Feature: Sept 5: Schizophrenia gene, where art thou? Molecular genetics has failed to reliably identify DNA for schizophrenia. So has the search been a complete damp squid? Adam James examines the evidence. NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
