Diagnosing Others

[acd]

I know it has come up here before, we talk a lot about mental health and personal struggles here. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are. Do you think it's a good idea to take what you've learned of psychology to diagnose others or make diagnostic suggestions either IRL or online?

If you have a degree/qualifications and are a clinician, have you or would you do this--especially when it is not solicited? Is it ethical to do this?

What do you think are the Pros and Cons of doing this? How should you go about it if you suspect an issue?

 

[QuickTwist]

Diagnosing someone of a mental illness is a whole other ballgame than Typing someone, IMO. The two do not even compare.

 

[acd]

Diagnosing someone of a mental illness is a whole other ballgame than Typing someone, IMO. The two do not even compare.

I agree. Two different topics.

 

[QuickTwist]

I highly highly highly doubt anyone would be able to diagnose what it is I have officially been diagnosed with.

 

[James]

I know it has come up here before, we talk a lot about mental health and personal struggles here. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are. Do you think it's a good idea to take what you've learned of psychology to diagnose others or make diagnostic suggestions either IRL or online?

If you have a degree/qualifications and are a clinician, have you or would you do this--especially when it is not solicited? Is it ethical to do this?

What do you think are the Pros and Cons of doing this? How should you go about it if you suspect an issue?

Whatever "guesses" we might make I think it's worth remembering a guess is not a fact. Have you ever heard of the Rosenhan Experiment ? Interesting look at how that field is by no means an exact science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

 

[the]

its a good idea to give unsolicited advice whenever possible.

 

[Gaze]

Are you talking about serious diagnoses only or common issues? No one can fully diagnose someone online. But if you are concerned about a particular case, mention to mods or admins. Otherwise, we can use cautionary disclaimers when we share our views or advice. I guess there should always be a recommendation to consult a professional therapist, and most people here tend to do that. I think most who try to give advice are well intentioned and just trying to help. People like to share what works for them even if it may not apply to everyone's situation. People here are pretty smart and can still offer good suggestions though they may not have a degree. Buy again, seeing that this is an open social forum, we are all responsible for keeping in mind that what many share here are well informed experience or opinion, and can't replace expert guidance. Many can't afford therapy and may use what they read about in psychology to help them out. Best thing we can do is use disclaimers

 

[QuickTwist]

Are you talking about serious diagnoses only or common issues? No one can fully diagnose someone online. But if you are concerned about a particular case, mention to mods or admins. Otherwise, we can use cautionary disclaimers when we share our views or advice. I guess there should always be a recommendation to consult a professional therapist, and most people here tend to do that. I think most who try to give advice are well intentioned and just trying to help. People like to share what works for them even if it may not apply to everyone's situation. People here are pretty smart and can still offer good suggestions though they may not have a degree. Buy again, seeing that this is an open social forum, we are all responsible for keeping in mind that what many share here are well informed experience or opinion, and can't replace expert guidance. Many can't afford therapy and may use what they read about in psychology to help them out. Best thing we can do is use disclaimers

As far as diagnosing goes, I think this should strictly be avoided online. I will, however, encourage people to ask someone to seek professional help if it is called for. Also, when dealing with life's difficulties, I see little harm in offering helpful advice, but this is completely separate than giving mental health advice. I also think that one's mental health should be a priority. So I would say unless it is a choice between paying your bills or eating and seeing a professional, the easy call is to sacrifice other things to see a professional, especially if the person in question is dealing with SI/SIB, that is a medical emergency.

 

[WonkyOracle]

I know it has come up here before, we talk a lot about mental health and personal struggles here. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are. Do you think it's a good idea to take what you've learned of psychology to diagnose others or make diagnostic suggestions either IRL or online?

If you have a degree/qualifications and are a clinician, have you or would you do this--especially when it is not solicited? Is it ethical to do this?

What do you think are the Pros and Cons of doing this? How should you go about it if you suspect an issue?

In Counselling for example there is a period of theorizing, which is designed to help the counsellor zero in on the clients location mentally/emotionally. But here's the thing. These Theories are to NEVER, be shared with the client, because a great deal of information and time is needed for a better and more informed understanding of the mental and emotional landscape of the client. Also, obviously, a great deal of damage can be done to an individual in a vulnerable state.

People put their trust in professionals so it's even more important for the counsellor to be of sound reputation.

Sadly all too often the job attracts a certain type who only have their own interests in mind.

A recent example I can think of is a former Mormon who has since become a vocal protestor against his former church, who just happens to be a counsellor, although having recently completed a degree in Psychology now calls himself '' Dr '' Anyways he is a sketchy character as his online presence is still there to be seen and you can see umpteen posts from him, diagnosing people left right and center online, on a forum for why ? Because he didn't like them or they had the gaul to have a different opinion from himself. He always presents himself as a harmless , sensitive caring guy, even described himself as a '' Big Cuddly Bear '' at one point when someone questioned his ethics.

He's also set up a nice niche where he has published hundreds of materials online designed to cause strife and doubt within Mormon families that he just so happens to have the answer to, at £145 for 45 minutes of his time.

Like many of his ilk, he likes to present himself as a savoir and the moral standard, also likes flaunt his degrees and qualifications whenever possible.

Fact of the matter is,

Claiming to be a health care professional, then diagnosing someone over the internet is morally disgusting and highly unprofessional. It would be entirely reasonable to question said persons motives. Personally I'd stay well clear of such people as they tend to be rotten to the core.

It's a crying shame as they give the rest of the profession a really bad name.

Good thread, well worth looking into.

ps, Pro tip.

See when they start talking about '' Journeys ''And using a load of old symbolism in their laguage, they're basically wafting the gas works of their brain farts at you. Stop the session and go find an adult.

 

[Gaze]

As far as diagnosing goes, I think this should strictly be avoided online. I will, however, encourage people to ask someone to seek professional help if it is called for. Also, when dealing with life's difficulties, I see little harm in offering helpful advice, but this is completely separate than giving mental health advice. I also think that one's mental health should be a priority. So I would say unless it is a choice between paying your bills or eating and seeing a professional, the easy call is to sacrifice other things to see a professional, especially if the person in question is dealing with SI/SIB, that is a medical emergency.

People will naturally put food over therapy. Agree that serious diagnoses should not be made online but it doesn't help to escalate a situation by assuming the worse case scenario either. That may create more anxiety and it could lead someone to believe that it's something worse than it is. For many people, simply talking it out or writing it out helps, or feeling that others understand makes them not feel so alone.

 

[QuickTwist]

People will naturally put food over therapy. Agree that serious diagnoses should not be made online but it doesn't help to escalate a situation by assuming the worse case scenario either. That may create more anxiety and it could lead someone to believe that it's something worse than it is. For many people, simply talking it out or writing it out helps, or feeling that others understand makes them not feel so alone.

Yes, that is why I mentions SI/SIB.

 

[QuickTwist]

In Counselling for example there is a period of theorizing, which is designed to help the counsellor zero in on the clients location mentally/emotionally. But here's the thing. These Theories are to NEVER, be shared with the client, because a great deal of information and time is needed for a better and more informed understanding of the mental and emotional landscape of the client. Also, obviously, a great deal of damage can be done to an individual in a vulnerable state.

People put their trust in professionals so it's even more important for the counsellor to be of sound reputation.

Sadly all too often the job attracts a certain type who only have their own interests in mind.

A recent example I can think of is a former Mormon who has since become a vocal protestor against his former church, who just happens to be a counsellor, although having recently completed a degree in Psychology now calls himself '' Dr '' Anyways he is a sketchy character as his online presence is still there to be seen and you can see umpteen posts from him, diagnosing people left right and center online, on a forum for why ? Because he didn't like them or they had the gaul to have a different opinion from himself. He always presents himself as a harmless , sensitive caring guy, even described himself as a '' Big Cuddly Bear '' at one point when someone questioned his ethics.

He's also set up a nice niche where he has published hundreds of materials online designed to cause strife and doubt within Mormon families that he just so happens to have the answer to, at £145 for 45 minutes of his time.

Like many of his ilk, he likes to present himself as a savoir and the moral standard, also likes flaunt his degrees and qualifications whenever possible.

Fact of the matter is,

Claiming to be a health care professional, then diagnosing someone over the internet is morally disgusting and highly unprofessional. It would be entirely reasonable to question said persons motives. Personally I'd stay well clear of such people as they tend to be rotten to the core.

It's a crying shame as they give the rest of the profession a really bad name.

Good thread, well worth looking into.

ps, Pro tip.

See when they start talking about '' Journeys ''And using a load of old symbolism in their laguage, they're basically wafting the gas works of their brain farts at you. Stop the session and go find an adult.

Could have stopped at the bold and I would have understood. Glad you explained tho.

 

[WonkyOracle]

Could have stopped at the bold and I would have understood. Glad you explained tho.

I had second thoughts as to the length of the post, but I think it a matter of public interest to let people see and understand which rocks these creeps hide under. So that the unsuspecting victims can better protect themselves. Just sad to see so many creepers in positions of responsibility and using it to get off on it.

 

[Enkidu]

I know it has come up here before, we talk a lot about mental health and personal struggles here. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are. Do you think it's a good idea to take what you've learned of psychology to diagnose others or make diagnostic suggestions either IRL or online?

If you have a degree/qualifications and are a clinician, have you or would you do this--especially when it is not solicited? Is it ethical to do this?

What do you think are the Pros and Cons of doing this? How should you go about it if you suspect an issue?

Personally, I think this is a slippery slope, even if it's well-intentioned or out of concern for someone you're close to. I heard a professor once warn (my mom heard the exact same advice in grad school) that no matter what you learn in this class, you have to resist the temptation to diagnose your classmates. Partially out of respect for the unknowns of their circumstances, but mainly because diagnosis should be a compassionate conversation - not a labeling, or at worst, condemnation of social defect - of individuals that aren't neurotypical. I'm particularly hesitant to make guesses about people because I'm not licensed and still in school, lack the experience, and have to defer to others to make any calls. In the case of people that can't speak for themselves (like kids or disabled adults), it's even more important to rely on a network of professionals. I work in early intervention and do play-based home therapies for kids with broad spectrum developmental disorders, and while I'm registered, none of my observations, charting, or opinions really change the outcome of my clients because I'm a part of the therapy team and follow their schedule. Just like their assessments are usually done by pairs of therapists, DSM diagnosis should be an ongoing, systemic process with sympathetic therapists involved working together. That same temptation of boxing people into treatment classes, I think, should never be the sole responsibility of one professional for the same reason that untrained strangers, friends, or family need to take great care making (well-intentioned) assumptions about someone's mental state - because by doing so they share in their struggle, and often shoulder some of the responsibility for that suffering. Generalizations aside (and in defense of little bitties), I think it's unethical to diagnose peers, even family members.

 

[Asa]

I try to refrain from diagnosing anyone with a specific mental illness because I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I'm usually vague about it, and say the person 'seems mentally ill', or 'exhibits symptoms' of certain illnesses.
In a few cases, I have labeled people, but only if I know them very well.
It bothers me when people haphazardly label others with the mental illness du jour.

 

[SuperManda]

I think lay-people often know more than the MDs/PhDs, thanks to Google. If you go to a doctor and you don't already know what is wrong with you, you're screwed.

Anyhow, people should diagnose others, because it's a means of self-protection. For example, our old supervisor was a murderer-- she killed one subordinate (on the job!) because the subordinate reminded her of her mother, and one of the other subordinates took out a restraining order on her. In this day and age, it's not uncommon to hear of a crazy person who starts shooting a gun or something. Likewise, if you go on a date, and someone seems like a total narcissist or some kind of nut, you should drop the person right there and then. I don't think it's wrong to diagnose someone if it's a means of self-protection-- remember that the ones left alive are the ones who picked up on the other person's mental illness and ran from it!! INFJs are good profilers, and I think we should absolutely use that to our advantage.

 

[the]

I think lay-people often know more than the MDs/PhDs, thanks to Google. If you go to a doctor and you don't already know what is wrong with you, you're screwed.

Anyhow, people should diagnose others, because it's a means of self-protection. For example, our old supervisor was a murderer-- she killed one subordinate (on the job!) because the subordinate reminded her of her mother, and one of the other subordinates took out a restraining order on her. In this day and age, it's not uncommon to hear of a crazy person who starts shooting a gun or something. Likewise, if you go on a date, and someone seems like a total narcissist or some kind of nut, you should drop the person right there and then. I don't think it's wrong to diagnose someone if it's a means of self-protection-- remember that the ones left alive are the ones who picked up on the other person's mental illness and ran from it!! INFJs are good profilers, and I think we should absolutely use that to our advantage.

That first paragraph is truely laughable... actually this whole post is insane.

 

[Gaze]

I think lay-people often know more than the MDs/PhDs, thanks to Google. If you go to a doctor and you don't already know what is wrong with you, you're screwed.

Anyhow, people should diagnose others, because it's a means of self-protection. For example, our old supervisor was a murderer-- she killed one subordinate (on the job!) because the subordinate reminded her of her mother, and one of the other subordinates took out a restraining order on her. In this day and age, it's not uncommon to hear of a crazy person who starts shooting a gun or something. Likewise, if you go on a date, and someone seems like a total narcissist or some kind of nut, you should drop the person right there and then. I don't think it's wrong to diagnose someone if it's a means of self-protection-- remember that the ones left alive are the ones who picked up on the other person's mental illness and ran from it!! INFJs are good profilers, and I think we should absolutely use that to our advantage.

I think you want to separate diagnosing someone with noticing things about them. You can notice things about them without identifying them with a particular illness. For example, someone can have narcissistic traits or simply be egotistical without having NPD. They are not the same. Yes, everyone has the right to self protection, but incorrectly labeling someone with a Diagnosis and spreading that label around is dangerous and irresponsible, and can also violate their privacy.

Reminds me of when people say, "that person is such a B," as if this person is just a bad, horrible or mean person all around, when they were only labeled negatively because they had a bad day, and just didn't treat someone how they want to be treated, though they're normally pretty nice or cool people. People's personal judgments can be extremely subjective and misguided. People can label anyone anything simply because they don't like them, and this can seriously hurt and misrepresent someone's character or personality.

Edit: On the other hand, someone's personality can be misunderstood because someone doesn't know they are going through a difficult experience or may have a personality disorder. Some personality disorders cause someone to be angry, aggressive, violent, or harmful, but it's not personal or intentional. Behavior may also be caused by illness. Labeling someone something they're not can be just as dangerous as misdiagnosing someone, so use descriptions cautiously.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I know it has come up here before, we talk a lot about mental health and personal struggles here. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are. Do you think it's a good idea to take what you've learned of psychology to diagnose others or make diagnostic suggestions either IRL or online?

If you have a degree/qualifications and are a clinician, have you or would you do this--especially when it is not solicited? Is it ethical to do this?

What do you think are the Pros and Cons of doing this? How should you go about it if you suspect an issue?

Nope. No matter how good your intuition may be, you're likely not getting a complete picture of the person based on their online persona, even if you can correctly apply the diagnostic criteria. That's not to say it's impossible. It just isn't responsible. There are labels and stigma associated with diagnoses that can have a really powerful effect on people inasmuch as how they perceive themselves, and how others perceive them.

Aside from this, I think it's important that someone who is actually diagnosing has dealt with a variety of mental illnesses and had related supervision. That doesn't make their decisions infallible by any means, but I'd personally be more trusting of someone who's put in a lot of time piecing together relevant information through direct in-person interaction than someone whose entire experience is via classrooms, google, or other media. Psychology, clinical social work, and MFT internships tend to build this experience into higher learning and subsequent employment.

 

[SuperManda]

For the record, the occupation with the highest rates of what is known as the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) is the Police. I can't tell you how many of them we've either disqualified from hire or thrown off the force. Admittedly, I love firing psychopaths, because it makes it a safer community for folks like you to live in. It turns out that the people who wish to enforce the laws also believe that they are above the law. Perhaps their theory is that, if they commit a crime, they'll be immune from being found out.

Trust me, I know how to profile people correctly. I do psychology for a living. I screen about 1,000 people per year. I'm more concerned with keeping dangerous people away from the rest of us than with worrying about the labeling of every little peculiarity that people have. The most obviously ill people definitely need to be labeled... Otherwise, they'll spend their lives ruining the lives of others. If your life was ruined by one of these clowns because you were kindhearted to them, or married them, or gave them a job, or they killed your relative, you'd see it from my perspective.

Diagnoses represent a clear pattern of behavior over a prolonged period of time. We don't just meet somebody once at one interview and diagnose them, although my first interview is almost always correct anyway. The employment process can sometimes last a year before we're confident that we should pass them on to the police academy (or wherever). My only hope is that the ones who are turned away from employment end up being arrested by those who made the cut!!

Things like depression, anxiety, Dark Triad, and any of the disorders beginning with "schizo-" are usually manifest the first time you meet someone, in my experience... but feel free to disagree. Believe it or not, a lack of humor is one of the things I look for with a lot of these disorders...