The Problem with Armchair Psychology

An "armchair psychiatrist" is a person whom is not trained in, or has no background knowledge of psychiatry, but will still continue to give advice concerning, and often attempt to diagnose, the mental health of others.

Although people do perform these same type of armchair diagnoses of physical conditions, it is more commonly done with mental illnesses.

I believe that armchair psychology is a problem because the armchair psychiatrist is often under the impression that diagnosis of a person's mental state can be simplified down to a list of symptoms. It seems to me, armchair psychiatrists often see mental health diagnoses as capable of being easily sorted into neat categories by using a set of simplistic lists of symptoms.

But, I feel, this particular attitude towards mental illnesses, in many ways, trivialises mental health conditions as those whom are often the givers of this sort of "advice" seem to fail to understand the true complicated nature of mental illnesses.

I think people feel more confident to give uninformed diagnosis' of mental health conditions, as opposed to physical illnesses, due to the non-visibility of mental illnesses, which to a layman can make mental illnesses seem possible of diagnosis by observation simply by use of lists of symptoms.

I believe another large contributing factor towards the simplistic views of  armchair psychology is the regularity of so-called "experts" giving their opinions on the mental health of those in the public eye, or "celebrities", despite the fact that the discussing "expert" would never actually have had any contact with the person under discussion; certainly not in a context where they would be able to provide an informed opinion of that person's mental health!

Because, in reality, if this person really was under the care of the "expert" giving their "informed" diagnosis - or, to term it more accurately, their opinion - of another's mental health, then said expert would be bound to the rules of confidentiality and, therefore, would be unable to provide any public comment of the condition of that person's mental health.

Armchair psychology can be a problem due to the simplistic nature of an armchair diagnosis, particularly as the arrogance (for lack of a better word), often displayed by an armchair psychiatrist in the accuracy of their highly uninformed opinion of complex mental health conditions, not only trivialises mental illnesses; but, also, to a layman, a seemingly simple and easily reached diagnosis can make treatment of a condition also seem simple and easily accessible when, of course, this is often not the case.

I understand that engaging in armchair diagnoses of complicated mental health conditions can be a fun past-time or activity, but armchair psychology can have a damaging effect especially when an armchair psychiatrist begins to condemn another for disregarding their advice concerning their mental health - regardless of the fact that the armchair psychiatrist is, ultimately, wrong in giving their uniformed and/or simplistic "diagnosis" or opinion, of a complex condition.

Armchair psychology simplifies mental illness - and, in many ways, trivialises it - as it instills confidence (or arrogance) in what is generally an opinion born out of ignorance, or out of a lack of understanding and knowledge, of either mental health conditions and/or the person under discussion proceeding an armchair diagnosis.

This, I feel, is the problem with armchair psychology.

My Mental Illness Does Not Define Me!

Often when I tell people I have a mental illness they immediately want to know all of the specifics of my diagnosis. Admittedly this interest in my diagnosis could just be a general curiousity, but it all too often feels as if their interest stems from feeling they need to know the specifics in order to modify their behaviour toward me in some way.

As much as I'm all for advocating educating people about mental illness and mental health issues in order to reduce stigma - asking someone point blank about their diagnosis is not only a bit invasive (some people are willing to talk about their diagnosis, but normally on their own terms!), but also, more often than not, they may not actually know the specifics of their diagnosis. 

But, more to the point, when dealing with an individual, the specifics of their diagnosis is not of any importance, unless they are being placed under your care (in which case one wouldn't be required to specifically ask that person about their diagnosis). If you want to get to know someone, you get to know them - not their mental illness.

A person's personality; morals; intelligence; appearance; class; wealth; social status; friends; hobbies; actions; and so on, are not defined by their mental illness.

In other words; a person cannot be defined by their mental illness.

Sometimes when I tell people I have a mental illness they express surprise; some even go as far to say they do not believe me. I have questioned these people who say they don't believe me as to why they think that; the response, "You seem too normal", never fails to surprise me! 

Unfortunately, stigma towards mental health issues means people hold views that anyone with a mental illness should stick out from a mile away and are distinguishable from "normal folk" as they are busy "acting crazy". 

An ignorant view which is supported by most of the media: as soon as anyone does anything out of the ordinary they're labelled "crazy" or "mad"; even in the cases of murderers, etc. words like "psycho" or "nutter" are used - and then these same adjectives are attributed to those with mental illnesses!

Yes some really horrible people are mentally ill. But so are some of the most honest, decent, beautiful (not in the aesthetic sense) individuals you could ever hope to meet!

Having a mental illness does not define a person. Mental illness does not pertain to whether someone is a good person or not. Knowing a person's diagnosis is not largely useful when getting to know an individual; however, I do believe that educating yourself on mental health is a highly commendable idea. But a person will always be a whole lot more than their mental illness!

Representation of Mental Illness on TV

Representation of mental illness on TV has never been the most sensitive, accurate or sympathetic. But have improvements been made?

Recently a study was published by Shift, the government initiative to tackle stigma and discrimination surrounding mental health issues in England, which found that, despite distinct improvements over recent years, prime time television drama continues to struggle to present an accurate picture of mental illness.

The report found that:

• 63% of references to mental health were flippant, unsympathetic, or showed a low opinion about the sufferer
• 45% of TV programmes shown at peak time with mental illness story-lines portrayed people with mental health problems as posing a threat to others
• 45% of programmes had sympathetic portrayals of mental illness, but these often portrayed the characters as tragic victims.

All too often characters in hit prime-time TV shows deliver flippant lines in reference to mental illness, including things like; "crackpot", "basket case", and "sad little psycho".

Eastender's was praised for it's
portrayal of mental illness
with character Stacey Slater

Admittedly, progress has been made in some television shows. BBC soap Eastenders was praised for its portrayal of bipolar disorder with the character of Stacey Slater. However, even in this case. the same character eventually committed murder.

The depiction of another character with bipolar disorder on Channel 4 drama Shameless was both accurate and sensitive - which it, deservedly, was highly praised for. (Although this programme still showed the same character attacking her partner.)

In both of the above cases, however, it could be argued that violence and mental illness were used together in order to create tragic drama.

Vincent and the Doctor

Of all the recent portrayals of mental illness on television I found Doctor Who's depiction of Vincent van Gogh, the famous painter whom suffered from depression and eventually committed suicide, to have been the most sensitive and sympathetic. Despite the tragic nature of the character's story, the show still presented a positive and uplifting view of mental illness.

Although significant improvements have been made to the representations of mental illness and mental health issues in recent years, there is still a lot of progress to be made.