Talk:Recovery psychology/Lesson3

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is for discussing what the recovery movement is.--Recovery Psychology 05:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitation and Recovery[edit source]

Recovery Innovations has an education program which starts consumers out as clients getting counseling services, and as the counseling progresses the clients move through an expeirince which is recovery, transforming their identities from "mental health service reciepiants" in to fully integrated college students with Associate Degree's in a subject regarded as "Recovery." This qualifies the graduate for employment in mental health services, but also opens the doorway for upper level education. The service itself is a therapuetic rehabilitation service, it allows the person recieving the service to learn through their own recovery. All of these processes and expeirinces that these persons learn through is a first hand account of "recovery" and there is a psychological process to this recovery. Recovery psychology only requires charting the progress of students to constitute a "recovery psychology" See META --Recovery Psychology 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Leave Your Comments[edit source]

[1] Interesting. Emesee 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2:10-2:39 :-) Yes, people tend to label others pretty fast. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the "confusing" section I hope that clears it up, please tell me if it didn't and thank you for your input.--recovery psychologist 12:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that helped some thanks. Are you trying to say that recovery psychology does acknowledge the concepts, movements, and groups or are you suggesting that recovery psychology should like it does antipsychiatry and propsychiatry views? I'm also having trouble following what is said because it seems like each sentence isn't building on the previous sentence or like the connection is missing. Like what does the two classification in abnormal psychology and Developmental Disability Psychology courses have to do with the separation of mental illness from developmental disorders, or what does that have to do with Developmental Disability Psychology and Clinical Psychology failure to acknowledge or mention things? These things don't seem to flow naturally into each other or into the thoughts/statements about recovery psychology and Neurodiversity. I hope I've provided enough information to help you understand what I mean. Please feel free to ask for clarification if I haven't been. --darklama 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will have some rewording to do, to clarify this. I am trying to say that in the way that Clinical Psychology does not acknowledge "recovery" DD psychology does not give mention to the nuerodiversity concepts, which are similar to recovery concepts in some degrees or some ways. The major crux of this idea "recovery psychology" flows from this: academic disciplines or courses of study are some way related to social sciences (or behavior sciences.) If a person graduates in school majoring in psychology, they may become a psychologist. They may specialize in clinical psychology, which deals with mental disorders. There is some relation between education and the work profession. So when the U.S. Presidents Commission on Mental Health says that people with mental disorders do recover from mental disorders, that there needs to be national education campaign, and that the mental health profession needs to be a "recovery" oriented profession. Then the head of the American Psychological Association says psychology is "uniquely qualified" to lead the shift toward "recovery" but clinical psychology (academic and scientific)still focuses on what is pathological or what is remission from disorder (as opposed to recovery from a disorder), so basically I am trying to ask is "recovery" just a buzz word or is it a real psychological phenomena? If it is a real thing, then logically there are errors about it if it is not researched scientifically. I researched to learn this "recovery model" as it is called, I kept running in to the statement "recovery is a process." I ask then what is that process. Which leads me back to psychology: the study of mental processes. If recovery from mental disorder is a process, should not the science of mental processes that specializes in disorders focus on this process. Neurodiversity would be similar to anti-psychiatry (the historical foundation philosophically of recovery) in that it does not feel there is anything wrong with the mental processes of certain people just becuase they have labels. I am a DD specialist (psychology program certified) and a CPRP (rehabilitation and recovery professional certfied) in studying for these two and also continuing clinical psychology, I see the wide gap between these concepts, (worlds apart) one that should not be...if all academic disciplines were truly objective in their prespective, it is not uncommon for clinical psychology courses to spend a little bit of time discussing anti-psychiatry, so if would be good for time to discuss recovery (pro-psychiatry), recovery (antipsych), recovery (process or behavior) and nuerodiversity (concept)...So if that helps you understand what I am trying to say, then I'll gladly appreciate your input. I'll look at it and try to better word it.--recovery psychologist 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another jab at it. Have I managed to capture what your trying to convey, or have I misunderstood? I think I understand a little more now how A (clinical psychology) and B (developmental disability) relate to C (recovery psychology). I understood that Clinical Psychology does not acknowledge recovery and that Development Disability Psychology doesn't recognize neurodiversity concepts. Are you saying that Recovery Psychology does acknowledge these things and are you trying to explain how Recovery Psychology acknowledges these concepts? Are you trying to explain how Development Disability Psychology could be improved to deal with neurodiversity concepts? Are you also trying to explain how Clinical Psychology and Development Disability Psychology can be improved through what Recovery Psychology does? If I haven't misunderstood you and the answers are yes, I guess the next step would probably be to clarify the clinical psychology and development disability psychology problems that are the focus of the Neurodiversity section, and how Recovery Psychology can help with that. I hope my last attempt at it has helped, and I would be willing to try to clarify the problems that are of focus and how Recovery Psychology can help, if I knew the answers to that. --darklama 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be correct! I will have to think on how that can be explained. I feel you may have given the words I need to say exactly what I am trying to say in the section. It is how we think of issues and how we connect the dots and the attitude we have about those connections that leads to innovations.recovery psychologist 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think that recovery psychology would be helpful in the perspective of saying lets not look at what "abnormal" or "mentally ill" people do that is considered disordered and trying to stop the abnormality; but to focus on what "normal" and "mentally healthy" things they are not doing; and can we help them learn or try to do these things that they may wish to be doing...much like positive psychology is a psychology of being "positive" or "happy" but adapted for and discussing the "reality" of psychological disorders. Positive Psychology, although I have not done an in-depth study of it, does not seem to acknowledge the reality of the disorder. If the person is without problems, they may not need any kind of psychology in their life at all. If there is no problem...there can be no solution, which is my only critique on positive psychologyrecovery psychologist 07:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Context of Recovery Psychology[edit source]

OUTLINE FOR RECOVERY PSYCHOLOGY AS THE STUDY OF RECOVERY PHENOMENA Maybe some this is redundant, but these are the major points that I feel recovery psychology would cover as a subject.

  1. Abnormal psychology is a research based discipline.
  2. Clinical psychology is an application based discipline.
  3. Remission from symptoms of a psychological disorder is unlike recovery from symptoms of a psychological disorder (Judi Chamberlin)
  4. Abnormal and Clinical psychology are philosophically based on remission (Nees)
  5. Recovery psychology would be a new category of research in to already used applications such as WRAP (but not as it used in Phoenix at clinics, that would be a poor example of recovery)

OUTLINE FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF A RECOVERY PSYCHOLOGY

  1. Normal is defined by the majority; abnormal is a quality of a minority defined by the majority (Psychology 101)
  2. Abnormality can be an asset, not just a dysfunction or disorder. (see below)
  3. Stigma, discrimination and prejudice can do more harm than psychological disorder in most cases.
  4. Side effects from medications can also be classified as psychiatrically induced mental illness.
  5. David Rosenhan and the Pseudo-patient Experiment “On being sane in insane places”
  • Psychiatric staff could not identify “normies” from persons with mental illness
  • Persons with mental illness identified the “normies” quite easily
  • Rosenhan was never “undiagnosed” from having schizophrenia but was said to be in “remission”
  • When Rosenhan was challenged by psychiatrists he lied and sent no “pseudo-patients” to the hospital. The doctors released all the hospitals patients to flush out the “FAKES”
  • Persons who truly have mental illness have a keener awareness of what is “normal” than the so-called normal person does.
  1. Other famous psychological sociological experiments (Social Psychology)
  • Philip Zimbardo The Stanford Prison Experiment-How a persons role in society determines behavior and cognition
  • Stanley Milgram The Electroshock Teacher “Obedience to Authority Experiment”-How far will people go to conform to an assigned role
  • Jane Elliot-The Eye of the Storm-Experiment on prejudice based on blue eyes and brown eyes, demonstrating that any trait a person has can be exploited to be the dominant group and the subordinate group
  • Solomon Asch-How the group consciousness influences the individuals ability to think for themselves
  • Psychosocial Rehabilitation (Psychiatric Rehabilitation) claims to be the “recovery” model; the premise that changing a persons social environment or status brings about recovery
  1. Identity Politics
  • C/S/X movement Consumers, psychiatric survivors, ex-patients
  • Recipients and non-survivors (the anti-recovery movement)
  • Neurodiversity-this is to Developmental Disability what Recovery is Mental Health
  • Family Advocacy
  • In researching I have found that the word “recovery psychology” as a derogatory slur used by sociologists and other academics to refer to what may appear to be a thorn in their side-references to identity politics such as gay rights and black rights (CSX?)

OUT LINE OF RECOVERY PSYCHOLOGY AS A SCIENCE OF THE LIVING

  1. Dead guys name Freud are boring to psychology students
  2. The living psychologists who have recovered from mental illness, who names could fill the pages of a psychology textbook
  • Dr. Frederick Freese PhD Schizophrenia
  • Dr Ronald Bassman Schizophrenia
  • Dr Daniel B Fisher Schizophrenia
  • Dr Patricia Deegan PhD Schizophrenia
  • Mary Ellen Copeland MSW Bipolar
  • David Oaks Schizophrenia
  • Laurie Berkshire Depression
  • Patricia Ridgeway
  • Priscilla Schiffler
  • Courtney Harding
  • Judi Chamberlin
  • Larry Frisk
  • The list goes on with a little bit of research and they have different theories on recovery like comparing Freud to Skinner to Maslow
  1. What C/S/X general consensus doctrine of recovery states (the common crap that everybody says that makes us sick: “recovery is a process…blah, blah, blah”)#What the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health says recovery is
  2. What psychiatric survivors (anti-psychiatry) says recovery is
  3. What family advocacy says recovery is (people like NAMI)
  4. What Psychiatric rehabilitation says recovery is
  5. What the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry says recovery is
  6. What 12 Step groups say recovery is
  7. The psychological definition of recovery (proposed by this author)
  • Positive symptoms (associated with Schizophrenia) are present in all psychological disorders
  • Negative symptoms (associated with Schizophrenia) are present in all psychological disorders
  • Positive symptoms are abnormal features
  • Negative symptoms are the lack of normal features
  • Remission is to positive symptoms what recovery is to negative symptoms or in other words remission is to cease abnormal behavior as recovery is to begin new and different behaviors
  • What is Positive Psychology and how much of recovery is Positive Psychology (cognitive-behavioral psychology) See Martin Seligman
  • Psychonueroimmunology-Norman Cousins
  1. Motivational Interviewing

OUTLINE OF THE CLINICAL ASPECTS OF RECOVERY PSYCHOLOGY

  1. Clinical psychology descriptions of mental disorders
  2. Benefits if any of having a disorder (Robin Williams is bipolar, most artists, musicians, celebrities, famous people have a disorder) How being “abnormal” can be a good thing
  3. Reality of the disorder…the real bad parts of mental disorder, how abnormal can be a bad thing (we must not deny this just because we are talking about recovery) things like this author being a total scatterbrain and working on this “recovery psychology” idea for more than five years and not finishing it
  4. Role recovery, symptomatic recovery and functional recovery Patricia Schifflers model of recovery
  5. The Frisk-Kubler-Ross model of Recovery: Denial, Depression, Anger, Acceptance, Bargaining according to Larry Frisk Kubler-Ross on death and dying or grieving…all mentally ill persons are grieving
  6. What is mental illness again? The trauma theory of mental illness or the stress-vulnerability coping model (compares all disorders to a form of PTSD)
  7. To be scientifically valid author must be objective or agnostic and not write as a believer in the “recovery” concept but write about it as a possibility to be researched
  8. Empowerment versus Entitlement (opposite concepts in the real world, not Phoenix or Maricopa County)
  9. When a person is truly in “recovery” it is drastic difference not a baby step, it is like eating out of trash in a ghetto to dining at the most expensive restaurant in the richest part of town

OUTLINE OF THINGS SADLY MISTAKEN FOR RECOVERY WHICH ARE NOT RECOVERY (particularly in Maricopa County)

  1. Not having free will (brainwashed)
  2. Not being an individual (mommy and daddy in control, or RIAZ in control)
  3. Not being independent (see above)
  4. Entitlement instead of empowerment
  5. Being a “recipient” instead of a consumer
  6. Not having rights
  7. Not having freedom
  8. Not functioning like a person
  9. Not having a role other than client or patient
  10. Symptoms are in control of a person instead of person in control of symptoms
  11. Not having an idea of one’s own identifiable “norms” (as mentioned above mentally ill people can identify what is normal faster than “normal” people can)
  12. Problem focus not solution focus
  13. Not being responsible for one’s own actions (Mental Health Justice Court)
  14. Not wanting to be in recovery or not wanting recovery (being a recipient)
  15. Obsessing and focusing on Nouns “People, Places and Things” (Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book Bill Wilson 1933) instead of focusing on Verbs (or actions)
  16. Reactive instead of Proactive life
  17. Unconsciously committing self euthanasia by being a medication seeker
  18. Trans-institutionalization or Para-institutionalization (Laura Slater 2004) or Clinicality (This author 2007) anything that resembles living just for the mental health system like rat in a cage
  19. Progress as defined as a nominal billing code or clinical documentation instead of progress defined as an X and Y axis and showing measurable improvement
  20. A bunch of loosely defined rhetoric that contradicts itself (recovery is not destination, it is a process…but what is the process? Sounds like pseudoscience to me, supports+strengths=success…”Success and “destination” are synonyms not antonyms…any retarded third grader in Special Education such as this author can tell you that!

recovery psychologist 06:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recovery_psychology/Lesson3&oldid=1873157"