Universidad de Cádiz
Discussion
Started 5 July 2020
Ambivalence: Where to draw the line between the pathological and the non pathological
When it comes to Ambivalence, it can be a symptom of mental illness but it is also something we experience in our everyday life ( I certainly do, and my wife hates it) . Where would you draw the line between normal ambivalence and pathological ambivalence? Also what is the role of attitudes (if any) towards the object? I wrote an article about attitudes a while ago. The article can be found here:
The word is free..
Most recent answer
Given my Area of knowledge and my Specialties, I will focus on Psychopathology (although the above can be generalized to Health in general): In this way, the question would be Normal Behavior vs. Abnormal / Pathological Behavior
Thus, the Pathological generates one or more of the following indicators:
• Personal suffering (Physical and / or Psychic) and Interpersonal • Lack of adaptation to the environment
• Irrationality and incomprehensibility • Upset the observer due to empathy and / or vicarious feelings • Violation of ideal and moral codes
BUT:
• There is no single element that defines it. • There is no SINGLE element that is sufficient • It is defined by the combination of several criteria • Nothing is abnormal or pathological out of context (as it is A SOCIAL COSTRUCT. For example, Obesity or the "Chinese foot" were not considered abnormal or pathological and, furthermore, they were DESIRABLE) • We move on a continuum
IMPERA, THEREFORE, THE PUREST RELATIVISM: The historical evolution has generated different classifications; for this reason we have various International Classifications of Diseases, according to WHO, and we are on the 11th
Notwithstanding what has been said, we must discard various criteria that have prevailed and prevail no matter how widespread they are; thus we have:
THE MORAL STANDARD (the immoral is deviant and pathological. FALSE); For this reason, "sin" cannot be confused with the Pathological, nor can "the criminal"
THE NORMAL VS. ABNORMAL: this is only a statistical criterion, being NORMAL THE MOST FREQUENT (therefore, although caries in adults, statistically speaking, are NORMAL, this does not make them healthy or desirable
The CRITERIA or FORENSIC CRITERION: what is prohibited or penalized is NOT so because it is pathological and abnormal, nor does it become it
The MASS MEDIA CRITERIA: The social criteria disclosed by the media do not make anything "per se" Healthy or Pathological ... it is only "fashionable" or not.
THE STATISTICAL CRITERION: "Normal" is only the most frequent
THEREFORE, DESPITE THE RELATIVISM ALLOCATED, CLINICAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA SHOULD PREVAIL; banishing, even at a semantic level, derogatory, prejudicial and / or stigmatizing terms: They are Disorders and / or HEALTH PROBLEMS and not PERVERSIONS, DEVIATIONS or ABERRATIONS
SO, then, something is pathological when the subject has lost his ability to choose (freedom: a subject is not "free" not to be diabetic, hypertensive or psychotic) and is forced to adopt a behavior, metabolic pattern, antihomeostatic dyscrasia, repetitive and / or stereotyped attitude. There is usually suffering and pain (physical and / or psychological). There is usually suffering for their environment and, in the end, AT THE BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL LEVEL All this without forgetting the MYTHS AND STEREOTYPES IN RESPECT. These MYTHS (obviously in the wrong way) are used to emit value judgments about the NORMAL and ABNORMAL
2 Recommendations
Popular replies (1)
Lahore University of Biological and Applied Sciences
Dear Sir, Henrik G.S. Arvidsson Before anyone reaches a point where He/She has absurd thoughts of killing their spouses is the time when He/She should draw a line between normal or pathological ambivalence.
3 Recommendations
All replies (12)
Private Practice
Dear Henrik G.S. Arvidsson,
The question you ask is quite difficult to answer because it spans from philosophy to empirical science.
Although this paper adressess the issue regarding depression, it may shed some light on you question:
All the best.
2 Recommendations
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh
Although ambivalence is a broader concept and in my opinion it is quiet normal to feel that way in daily life. Ambivalence is about having a binary concept or concept of duality and acts as in initial step towards change. Trans theoretical model of change can be used for bringing change in behavior. In some cases ambivalent feelings can cause psychological discomfort and can lead to cognitive dissociation, procrastination etc.
I hope this will help.....
2 Recommendations
Mount Aloysius College
Ambivalence is normatively considered "the two faces of intimacy". It is considered normative. If in a long-term relationship these emotions convert to disgust and contempt, the relationship is destroyed. See the attached articles.
Rich
2 Recommendations
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research
Ambivalence is a kind of protective suit our mind wears to avoid getting down into emotional pitfalls. "Ambivalence can serve as a means of self-protection"- Christian Wheeler. In fact, judgement accuracy can be increased by emotional ambivalence [Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2013;49(3):360-7].
The line of demarcation is when ambivalence becomes a hindrance like baggage, which cannot be done away with. When our ability to move forward is affected, then possibly ambivalence has gone into the pathological mode. "Chronic ambivalence results in a rigid cycling pattern where we find ourselves constantly moving from one side of the decision fence to the other. When this happens, ambivalence becomes an emotional and psychological barrier to achieving genuine happiness" -Paula Durlofsky
2 Recommendations
University of Basrah
Dear Dr Henrick G.S. Arvidsson.
Too interesting discussion on a conflicting subject in Clinical Psychology. Ambivalence may represent controversial feelings or attitudes towards people or various issues like behavior, food, objects, etc. It occurs when it is difficult to have a clear line of demarcation between positive and negative attitudes and feelings, a state referred to as mixed attitudes or feelings , where there is a lack of certainty.
1 Recommendation
Lahore University of Biological and Applied Sciences
Dear Sir, Henrik G.S. Arvidsson Before anyone reaches a point where He/She has absurd thoughts of killing their spouses is the time when He/She should draw a line between normal or pathological ambivalence.
3 Recommendations
University of Baghdad
Ambivalence is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards some object. Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having an attitude towards someone or something that contains both positively and negatively valenced components. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness.
1 Recommendation
University of London
Ambivalence remains a state no matter how we consider it: a state towards something else (object) that engages the ambivalence. It is not a state that independently evolves and thereby while evident in some cases of mental illness is not causal in that illness but the object of some other cause.
Everything is connected to mental illness, and usually little goes beyond a superficial connection. A love/hate relationship inspired by someone cared for involves other motivations-a desire for independence of the subject or fear of commitment. Such ambivalence might not be activated by another object.
Thats life, not mental illness.
2 Recommendations
Universidad de Cádiz
Given my Area of knowledge and my Specialties, I will focus on Psychopathology (although the above can be generalized to Health in general): In this way, the question would be Normal Behavior vs. Abnormal / Pathological Behavior
Thus, the Pathological generates one or more of the following indicators:
• Personal suffering (Physical and / or Psychic) and Interpersonal • Lack of adaptation to the environment
• Irrationality and incomprehensibility • Upset the observer due to empathy and / or vicarious feelings • Violation of ideal and moral codes
BUT:
• There is no single element that defines it. • There is no SINGLE element that is sufficient • It is defined by the combination of several criteria • Nothing is abnormal or pathological out of context (as it is A SOCIAL COSTRUCT. For example, Obesity or the "Chinese foot" were not considered abnormal or pathological and, furthermore, they were DESIRABLE) • We move on a continuum
IMPERA, THEREFORE, THE PUREST RELATIVISM: The historical evolution has generated different classifications; for this reason we have various International Classifications of Diseases, according to WHO, and we are on the 11th
Notwithstanding what has been said, we must discard various criteria that have prevailed and prevail no matter how widespread they are; thus we have:
THE MORAL STANDARD (the immoral is deviant and pathological. FALSE); For this reason, "sin" cannot be confused with the Pathological, nor can "the criminal"
THE NORMAL VS. ABNORMAL: this is only a statistical criterion, being NORMAL THE MOST FREQUENT (therefore, although caries in adults, statistically speaking, are NORMAL, this does not make them healthy or desirable
The CRITERIA or FORENSIC CRITERION: what is prohibited or penalized is NOT so because it is pathological and abnormal, nor does it become it
The MASS MEDIA CRITERIA: The social criteria disclosed by the media do not make anything "per se" Healthy or Pathological ... it is only "fashionable" or not.
THE STATISTICAL CRITERION: "Normal" is only the most frequent
THEREFORE, DESPITE THE RELATIVISM ALLOCATED, CLINICAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA SHOULD PREVAIL; banishing, even at a semantic level, derogatory, prejudicial and / or stigmatizing terms: They are Disorders and / or HEALTH PROBLEMS and not PERVERSIONS, DEVIATIONS or ABERRATIONS
SO, then, something is pathological when the subject has lost his ability to choose (freedom: a subject is not "free" not to be diabetic, hypertensive or psychotic) and is forced to adopt a behavior, metabolic pattern, antihomeostatic dyscrasia, repetitive and / or stereotyped attitude. There is usually suffering and pain (physical and / or psychological). There is usually suffering for their environment and, in the end, AT THE BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL LEVEL All this without forgetting the MYTHS AND STEREOTYPES IN RESPECT. These MYTHS (obviously in the wrong way) are used to emit value judgments about the NORMAL and ABNORMAL
2 Recommendations
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
Intencją autorów tego tekstu, pisanego z perspektywy „socjologii socjologii” i „sociology of medicine” (a więc „medycyny w socjologii”), jest próba wprowadzenia do polskiej debaty wewnątrzsocjologicznej „perspektywy krytycznej”, a więc wątków obecnych „od zawsze” np. w klasycznej socjologii amerykańskiej i zachodnioeuropejskiej wersji socjologii me...
In this paper I propose to try to answer the questions: (a) why teach the sociology of medicine to sociology students ?, and (b) how to do it and what are the problems ? This paper is an extension and development of one which I submitted to a conference in Warsaw not too long ago (Stacey, 1973.) It reflects knowledge gained in those years from expe...