article on hysteria

[Wayne]

Wayne, I disagree.

Hi Justin,

Thanks for your reply. I get frustrated reading any kind of material where I continually want to scream at the author, "please get to the point!" Once I get a sense they're never going to get to the point, I just give up, and surmise what I can from what I read, which often isn't very much.

So I readily defer to your take on this. I'm quite sure you read more of it and more carefully than I did. Seems a shame some people don't have better things to do with their time and energy than to denigrate people they don't know with information they don't understand.

As a general rule, sloppy writers, researchers and thinkers shouldn't write articles or books...

Got to agree with you 100% on that one! I might take it a step further and mention that politicians who are sloppy writers, researchers and thinkers shouldn't run for political office either. But as Angela might say:

Ah, but they do. They do...

Wayne

 

[justinreilly]

As a general rule, sloppy writers, researchers and thinkers shouldn't write articles or books...

Right! Sloppy research, thinking and writing don't get her off the hook! : )

 

[justinreilly]

It's interesting that Charcot claimed not to have seen pathology on autopsy of 'hysterics'. Medical knowledge was very much in its infancy even in Charcot's time (not that it's anywhere near mature' now), for one thing. I'm not even sure epilepsy/narcolepsy or other brain disorders showed much on autopsy then. So I'm hoping her book can shed light on some of Charcot's (flawed) 'reasoning' from the historical sources: as Simon Overton has characterised it "Charcot's bad idea". But I'm willing to bet money she's approached this looking through the prism of uncritical acceptance of psychogenic explanations which are based on medical ignorance.

But I think she's also wrong in believing Charcot was claiming hysteria as 'somatogenic' (or organic). From what I've seen Charcot was working to a belief in 'hysteria' being psychogenic (that was the message Freud took home with him from the Salpetriere, certainly!)

At best, Charcot seems to have exhibited confusion in his psychogenic explanations. That's a common phenomenon as we know!

I'm trying to access a copy. I think it's going to be an interesting read - if only to see how Hustvedt treats the historical sources from her own (flawed) position. If I had the resources, one thing I would do is access those sources myself (I'm very interested in how doctors historically 'hytericised' women's illness (i.e. misdiagnosed). There's often an absurd acceptance of the notion of hysteria in this sort of literature - one which needs to be rectified.

And don't even get me started on Freud as a wholly unreliable narrator in his 'case study' of 'Dora'!

good points!

But I think she's also wrong in believing Charcot was claiming hysteria as 'somatogenic' (or organic). From what I've seen Charcot was working to a belief in 'hysteria' being psychogenic (that was the message Freud took home with him from the Salpetriere, certainly!)

That's interesting!

Did I coin a new word in 'somatogenic'? ME brain fog has often made me a linguistic pioneer!

 

[WillowJ]

Hi Willow

I would like some details on where I can read this article.

I edited my post to include the following info:

Please one or two people make some comments on the npr article by Jessica Loudis about the biological findings, genetic findings, and supportive treatments that do exist. (do a quick search; if I link the page, it will make it more important to the search engines) Or is it a better strategy to respond to the article here? Not make traffic there?

Odd that a woman would be so enthusiastic about hysteria as a form of expression for the psyche, rather than realizing the historic and modern oppression and misogyny which drives these theories. There's another Trudi Chalder! :headache:

I had, at that time, missed that it was from a book by a different woman, Asti Hustvedt; the book is called Medical Muses: Hysteria in Nineteenth-Century Paris.

And Valentijn conveniently provided the link and answered my question:

The article is at http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136581522/medical-musing-on-politics-poetry-and-hysteria . It's at NPR, so I doubt we'll have much impact by not posting the link or avoiding comments on the article. Better to try to educate the idiot author and anyone reading it

 

[WillowJ]

Good work, Tammie.

Anyway, I mention the other diagnoses she brings up because if we review what she wrote and only bring up CFS, it sort of seems to say that she may be right about the other issues, and even if it doesn't, it also sort of appears to allow her to further stigmatize illnesses that are (like CFS) already very stigmatized and misunderstood, and also very real and extremely hard to live with.

Good point here. I know an eating disorders expert, whom I can ask to comment on the npr article and the book.

 

[WillowJ]

thanks for the DSM and sloppy thinking discussions, too, everyone

 

[Francelle]

I had, at that time, missed that it was from a book by a different woman, Asti Hustvedt; the book is called Medical Muses: Hysteria in Nineteenth-Century Paris.QUOTE]

It strikes me that the unfortunate people (mainly women) who were tarnished with 'hysteria' back in 19th C Paris, never got to know that many now view them in the light of possibly having a very legitimate medical condition. Hopefully we won't have to wait that long until our condition is exonerated....or else ....... shivers, the thought doesn't bear thinking about!

 

[Snow Leopard]

I think as another general rule, anyone writing a book even vaguely related to medicine should have to pass a test demonstrating they understand basic concepts, not least of which, specificity and sensitivity.

 

[WillowJ]

no kidding.

also use of pubmed, and basic critique of studies: that correlation is not equal to causation, use of appropriate controls, samples and randomization, extrapolation, methods of study design, logical fallacies, and so forth

 

[Tammie]

Good work, Tammie.



Good point here. I know an eating disorders expert, whom I can ask to comment on the npr article and the book.

cool, thanks

 

[Tammie]

on the amazon site for this book, there are now 6 reviews and all only give one star and make some good points : )

I hope that people continue to comment on how ridiculous this book is and how hurtful and completely wrong

 

[alex3619]

I think as another general rule, anyone writing a book even vaguely related to medicine should have to pass a test demonstrating they understand basic concepts, not least of which, specificity and sensitivity.

Ahh, sensi- what? Speky what?

Most docs know this stuff, its part of their medical training. However most most doctors receive no formal training in logic or reasoning, nor do most scientists. Some do, particular those with classical training before they get their main degree, and more learn on their own, but too many seem to presume that having a medical degree or whatever means they are rational.