Blog Post 4- Deviant Minds - PTSD

As we have been delving into and discussing the complex topics of deviant minds, many tough questions and issues have already been raised? Do some mental disorders carry heavier negative connotations than others? Does the ascribed v. achieved argument have any play in how others look at people with mental disorders that occur in the DSM? These are some of the topics I will be discussing through the lens of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as we try and understand exactly what it is, how individuals with PTSD acquire it, and how they are viewed. I have wanted to learn about this disorder for a long time, given that so many of our soldiers are coming back from the Middle East with it. Next, in lieu of the massacre of 17 Afghani civilians murdered in cold blood a couple of weeks ago, I think it is a subject more people are wanting to know more about. I know that many more demographics and groups of people experience PTSD than just soldiers, but for the purpose of this blog, in order to be concise and coherent about PTSD, I am choosing to only focus on soldiers and veterans, especially in light of the skyrocketing rates of PTSD among soldiers in the last decade.
First, what exactly is PTSD? The DSM describes that “PTSD always follows a traumatic event which causes intense fear and/or helplessness in an individual” (DSM allpsych.com). In short, it is an anxiety disorder following a one-time dangerous or disastrous event, or chronic disastrous events such as soldiers in lengthy, grueling wars or individuals subject to sexual abuse for long periods of time. All humans have what is called a fight-or-flight response which generally occurs when a stressful situation is imminent or occurring. In this natural response, your body is preparing you and getting you ready as best it can for what is to come. However, in the case of PTSD, this fight-or-flight response can occur when the individual is no longer in danger, and do so frequently, sometimes endangering themselves or others unnecessarily (National Institute of Mental Health). Furthermore, these realities could also just contribute to what an individual believes to be deviant. Labeling theory goes into depth about how individuals that are labeled are actually more likely to ascribe to and epitomize “their” label more as they hear it or see individuals act differently in response to it (Calhoun, Thio, & Conyers).

Salem-news.com

While I could spend a lot of time talking about different aspects of what individuals with PTSD face, I feel I would be slighting my readers since I am in no way qualified to talk about what people with PTSD have, instead I believe it would be much more beneficial and enrich your understanding if I showed a couple of videos of what people with PTSD experience. This first video is a rap song, done by a soldier, who discusses his struggles and mindset dealing with PTSD. Even if you don’t listen to or like rap, hear what he has to say, and I promise it will benefit your understanding.

As you can see, the man in the video is definitely a troubled individual due to his PTSD. This next video is a compilation of veterans speaking out about PTSD and what they experienced, and how they dealt with it.
The next crucial question to ask though, how are people with PTSD stigmatized? Are they seen as inferior, dangerous, or brave? Do people understand or trust them anymore? What kinds of support do they have for their illness? And finally, are they treated differently due to the ascribed v. achieved argument?
People with PTSD are often stigmatized as being dangerous or overtly mean. This could be because the disorder can make you somewhat of a social hermit, not feeling comfortable around other people, especially in public places where you don’t know many people. Next, as the second video points out, some things individuals with PTSD do can be perceived as dangerous, such as sleeping with a knife or weapon, or carrying a knife or weapon on your person. In these ways I understand people’s hesitance to interact a lot with soldiers and veterans that have PTSD, especially considering many with PTSD never get treated, but instead resort to alcohol in drugs, not comfortable with the reality they perceive sober.

woundedtimes.blogspot.com


Next, I believe the reactions people have to PTSD are mixed. On the one hand you have people that judge them negatively because they are seen as different, and their sometimes paranoid behavior is unusual and perceived as threatening. On the other hand, especially when it comes to views of our soldiers, we revere their sacrifice and the extensive coverage the media has focused on PTSD has helped to inform more people about it, and let them understand that many individuals with it have been to hell and back and deal with chronic nightmares, voices that aren’t there, have suicidal impulses, and feel helpless to the voice in their head. This brings me to the ascribed v. achieved discussion we have been having all semester. Whereas 40 years ago when Vietnam veterans began coming back home, the medical community and general public certainly didn’t know the psychological effects of war like they do now, and therefore they were stigmatized due to people believing they had “achieved” that mental state and attitude as a fault of their own. However, now it is seen much differently by the American public, and many people are more sensitive and try to be understanding when it comes to PTSD, since it is now viewed as an ascribed condition. However, it is incredibly interesting to see that such a subtle difference—do people think you chose it or it was chosen for you—can change how these individuals are seen and treated.


While it is not as stigmatized as it was, since we now know what it is, there are still many barriers that PTSD victims face when integrating back into society and trying to live a “normal” American life. For example, individuals with PTSD find it much harder to get employment and keep a job, due to the stresses and mental battles they must fight daily. Until recently there really was not a great method for addressing and treating the disorder. As we learned from the Frowner story that Professor Williams linked to in the Blog 4 assignment, how individuals and family members choose to deal with abnormal behavior and disorders can have a large impact on how they can overcome them (RadioLab).

Word Count 1173 (Including Everything)

Works Cited:

Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
"Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." What Is Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD? National Institute on Mental Health. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/what-is- post-traumatic-stress-disorder-or-ptsd.shtml
"Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Anxiety Disorders at ALLPSYCH Online." Psychology Classroom at AllPsych Online. AllPsych Online. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://allpsych.com/disorders/anxiety/ptsd.html
Warner, Gregory. "The Frowners - Radiolab." RadioLab. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/29/the-frowners/

Generation Rx Film Review

1.) The main thesis of the film was that big pharmaceutical corporations, who boast billions of dollars in profits each year, have been lying to the public and making backroom deals with doctors by paying M.D.'s commissions when prescribing anxiety, depression, and ADHD medication. In turn, the public is left ill-informed of the unsafe nature of the drug, since big pharmaceutical has been covering up and botching studies, claiming the drugs they pedal are safe, when in reality they simply are not.
2.) The arguments in the film that supports this thesis are frequent and consistently brought up in the film. One of the more prolific arguments brought up is when the F.D.A. held a conference to discuss the negative psychological and physical side effects of the drug Prozac. During this press conference, hundreds of people offered their testimony of the tragedies their loved ones and themselves had experienced with the drug. This conference resulted in no change; the FDA said that there was no sound basis or science to conclude there was anything wrong in Prozac that left a user more prone to severe side affects that could harm them or someone else. Next, the film discussed the sheer increase in ADHD medication in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's and 70's. According to the film, our nation consumes more than 400% of Ritalin than all other nations--combined. This startling statistic really lays into the fraud and deception that has gone on for so long unrecognized by the general public, and really supports and speaks to the thesis and overall purpose of the film.
3.) The thesis of the film relates very well to the course because in this class we are being asked to question our preconceived notions. One preconceived notion that we all have or want to have is that our doctors know what is best for our health, and will give sound advice in the calmest and direst of circumstances. However, as the film demonstrates, these doctors are financially incentivized to prescribe these drugs to patients, since they will in many cases receive kick-backs from the drug companies. Next, it relates to this course because the medical and pharmaceutical industry have found a way to label yet another group of people deviant. Since kids can no longer be kids and need to behave like mature, mellow adults, the ones who can't sit in a desk for 6 hours nonstop are said to have a chemical inbalance in their brain, that can be fixed by a 3 times a day prescription or Ritalin or Aderol.
4.) The point I found most convincing was the fact that of the M.D. doctors on the committee board for the FDA, 56% of them have financial links and incentives to the drug companies. The implications for that much conflict of interest has been huge, and we can see it currently in our youth nation that is being fed minor doses of cocaine, speed, and meth. Next, out of the 13 well known school shootings that had occurred by the time this film was released, 8 of them were taking anti-depressants like Prozac. Coincidence? Doubtful, when you consider that well under 10% of the nation takes it.
5.) The point I found least convincing in the film was the doctor's testimony at the conference on ADHD in which a reported asked "What symptoms does a child with ADHD typically exhibit." To that, before the doctor almost ate his own tongue, he murmured that the biggest problem was that individuals exhibit it differently, but that it was a serious problem....after not being able to concisely or even cohesively formulate a recognizably sensible sentence to answer in response...where did he go to school? Probably Harvard.
6.) The point that really stands out to me in the film was financial relationship between the doctors and big pharmaceutical. However, I was disappointed the film didn't go into depth on the issue of the schools being pressured. Therefore I would like to research the links between big pharmaceutical, the FDA and other governmental agencies, doctors, and the schools, to make more sense of how and why the money flows where it was--specifically with the schools though. The way I see it, the Big Pharmaceuticals create and research the drugs, go through the FDA where the conflicts of interest are obscenely evident, and get released for prescription to the doctors, where they receive a kickback. However, the film didn't mention anything about the schools in this equation, I would argue and research that it should. Take this for example, the federal government with No Child Left Behind mandated that schools reach certain learning goals and test requirements each year in order to get funding. So teachers have increased pressure from principals and vice principals, and they have pressure from the school districts, who have pressure from the states, who finally have pressure from the federal government. So what do you think the odds are that a teacher who has let's say 3 students out of a class of 30 that are disruptive and hyper and are therefore hard to control, decides to "medicate" them (apparently they are doctors now) in order to teach the rest of the children without disruption--in order to try and get the learning done to get those test scores up so the school can once again receive federal funding? I love the film, and think they did a great job, but I would love to see that scenario looked into and played out. Because it seems that it would be pretty obvious to me that teachers sending home letters to students "diagnosing" them of ADHD is a little of base and track within the lines of their profession, expertise, and business.

Once again all, thanks for reading my blog. I hope I made you think.

Brett Hoyt

Film Review - Tough Guise

1.) The main thesis of the film "Tough Guise" was that men have been encouraged by society to be overtly masculine, and use a "Guise" in order to be considered a legitimate man in society. In doing so, its consequences are vast and far reaching: the film discusses the prevalence of acts of violence such as school shootings and gang violence that maybe wouldn't have happened or been as likely if we weren't so focused on being society's version of a "real man"

2.) The main arguments in support of the thesis were the G.I. Joe action figures over the past 4 decades. It was absolutely comical to see how massive the current G.I. Joe toys are compared to the 60's. Next, the film did a great job by showing scenes from movies in which the characters are telling another character that to be a real man they need to ....

3.) The thesis of the film relates strongly to this course because in this class one of the most important things to do is to evaluate and reconsider our preconceived notions about deviance... And this film correctly states that a man being perceived as a "fag", "pussy", or "bitch" is certainly deviant, and then it discusses why those terms are used--in turn making a gay person, female genitalia, or female dog (woman in this context) deviant.

4.) The argument I found most convincing was when they were pointing out countless examples of how the media portrays a "real man." The example of the original Batman compared to the current Batman was night and day. The film also touched on gang violence and masculinity which definitely have strong correlates.

5.)I don't believe there really was a point they brought up that was not relevant to their arguments in the film. However, I was disappointed that they omitted to discuss the advances in workouts and other muscle enhancing stimulants and technology. The fact is that consumers have a better vehicle to getting larger, muscular bodies. That is why the fitness industry is so prosperous and large. If they would have discussed this point they could have also discussed how society makes men without muscles a problem, which can be "cured" by buying a Bowflex, P90X, MuscleMilk, Gatorade, Steiroids, etc. Next, I would have enjoyed the film pointing out how many home runs there are in baseball now compared to 50 years ago.

6.)The point that still stands out to me in this movie were the G.I. Joe figures. I would love to see how much muscle a G.I. Joe would have if he were a real person, and look at how disproportionate his body is, and then proceed to laugh at consumers for buying into that laughstock. I would study the point by measuring and scaling the size to a 6 foot tall male.