[struggling931]

It just occurred to me the other day—how come you never hear anything about the connection between "biochemical imbalances" (I put that phrase in quotes because I've never heard of anyone defining the appropriate "balance" of chemicals in the brain) and PDs? (You don't really hear that much about PDs that much anymore anyway, at least compared to stuff like ADHD and bipolar disorder—maybe because these diagnoses are seen as more physiological and thus more supportive of the biomedical paradigm.)

So why is that? Is it because it would be even harder to make the case for a connection between biochemical "imbalances" and something like schizoid personality disorder versus Axis I diagnoses?

[RiverX]

Hi,
Actually 'you' do hear about it, depending on what news your following. In the last decade or so this guy Alan Schore has been researching away and found that the relationship between the primary care giver and the small child affects how the brain develops, which in turn I think effects the neuro chemicals.
The thing is though, pds have an emotional cause rather than a biochemical cause, so they are availabe for healing in relationship, as it is in relationship that they originate.

I'd be interested to know about your interest. Why does this subject draw you?

riverx

[bluenarciss]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
RiverX said:
In the last decade or so this guy Alan Schore has been researching away and found that the relationship between the primary care giver and the small child affects how the brain develops, which in turn I think effects the neuro chemicals.
The thing is though, pds have an emotional cause rather than a biochemical cause, so they are availabe for healing in relationship, as it is in relationship that they originate.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Hello,

according to actual news and research releases there is maybe even more to be considered besides structural brain development (learning in the widest sense) and direct influences on neuro chemicals, and last but not least social/psychological environmental causes (past and present causes).

A new aspect is how eventually environmental and educational processes change the genetic onset that underlies brain chemistry by activating or deactivating certain gene sequences that influence the availability of neuro chemicals:

Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada - How environment affects genes in brains

I think there still is no satisfying explanation why pharmacological and psychological treatment still does not succeed in scales of more than 90 percent of cases, as it should (in my opinion).

Obviously these treatments still do not cover all the causes and processes that are at work, I guess. But there is hope that future research will come up with new basic approaches in treatment, I think.

Wishing well,
bluna

[RiverX]

Bluna, THAT is so interesting, I'll read your link when I get time.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I think there still is no satisfying explanation why pharmacological and psychological treatment still does not succeed in scales of more than 90 percent of cases, as it should (in my opinion).
Obviously these treatments still do not cover all the causes and processes that are at work, I guess. But there is hope that future research will come up with new basic approaches in treatment, I think.


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Are you saying treatment doesnt succeed in more than 90% of cases, meaning 90% do succeed, which would be very high actually, or are you saying 90% dont succeed?

I'd be interested to know what kind of treatment you had, do you know the backgound of your T.? as in any particular theoretical background?

I have had contact with Ts in the US who specailise in PDs. Have you studied your own disorder? what did you read, or did you do work for your recovery with mainly therapy?
I'm interested in this recovery.

river

[struggling931]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
RiverX said:
Hi,
Actually 'you' do hear about it, depending on what news your following. In the last decade or so this guy Alan Schore has been researching away and found that the relationship between the primary care giver and the small child affects how the brain develops, which in turn I think effects the neuro chemicals.
The thing is though, pds have an emotional cause rather than a biochemical cause, so they are availabe for healing in relationship, as it is in relationship that they originate.

I'd be interested to know about your interest. Why does this subject draw you?

riverx

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Ok I should have said something like "It doesn't seem like *I* hear too much about connections between PDs and biochemical 'imbalances'" if that's what "you're" getting at.

I'm interested in it because I personally don't believe too much in the biochemical imbalance hypothesis regarding the etiology of mental disorders (which these days means ADHD, depression, and bipolar, IMO), although they *may* play a role in their perpetuation—so it seems curious that I hear even less about about neurotransmitters and PDs.

I'm interested in PDs because I sometimes feel that some of the behavior I'm confronted with in my personal life is related to them, whereas general media coverage *in my experience* tends to be evermore focused on Axis I diagnoses, in large part because I think they lend themselves to biomedical explanations more readily.

So it's a mix of skepticism about biomedical psychiatry, media bias, and life-experience.

[bluenarciss]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
RiverX said:
Bluna, THAT is so interesting, I'll read your link when I get time.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I think there still is no satisfying explanation why pharmacological and psychological treatment still does not succeed in scales of more than 90 percent of cases, as it should (in my opinion).

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Are you saying treatment doesnt succeed in more than 90% of cases, meaning 90% do succeed, which would be very high actually, or are you saying 90% dont succeed?

I'd be interested to know what kind of treatment you had, do you know the backgound of your T.? as in any particular theoretical background?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Hi river,

actually I intended to say that successful treatments are clearly below 90 percent of treatments. I don't have the latest figures on that, but as far as I remember what I have read in a book titled "which kind of therapy?" , this regards practically every kind of psychotherapy. I would be very interested in up to date statistics and evaluations, especially concerning successes in the treatment of PDs and especially in the percentage of successful remissions.

About me: I have been diagnosed narcisstic PD, combined with depression, general anxiety PD and slight obsessive-compulsive tendencies. I have gone through 2 ambulant CBTs and 2 stationary treatments in psychotherapeutic clinics. I still have not found Ts who are specialized in PDs. Here in Germany such Ts are very hard to find.

I had email-contact with one who wrote very helpful books about PDs, but he works in a clinic that only takes patients with addiction problems. He could not recommend me a T within a range of 500 kilometers from my place!

So I depend on bibliotherapy and internet resources.

Since I have been retired early, I do not have the money to travel often or far, and my health insurance would not pay for travel expenses.

Kind greetings,
bluna