I wasn't quite sure where to put this discussion but here seemed the most, if not perfectly, appropriate forum. Does anyone know of any studies, or has any observations, on the manifestation of mental illness in the online classroom? How does one recognize and deal with manifestations of mental illness in the online classroom? I'm particularly interested in issues related to behaviors such as passive-aggressiveness, paranoia, panic and just plain old inappropriate social behaviors. I have searched the Web and medical databases for something on this sort of thing and came up with nothing. There is plenty of stuff on how the internet impacts people socially but not much on how mental illnesses are manifested in online behavior.
Hi Nicol,
Please try this link
http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/psycyber.html
For more information pl contact me.
Nagarajan
Hi there,
First, pardon me for not remembering your first name.. I don't hang out here enough..
Regarding the manifestation of psychiatric disorders in the online environment, it will very much depend on the disorder... some one with bi-polar will present differently to someone with BPD and then the former will present differently depending on the phase that they are in.
With passive-aggressiveness, I'm not sure that that would be designated as a psychiatric disorder, it tends to be more sociopathological, the same can probably be said for inappropriate social behaviours. Some people are rude for no good reason.
Is it possible to share a vignette here, without jeopardising the individuals privacy? That would make it easier to comment.. best..janet
First, pardon me for not remembering your first name.. I don't hang out here enough..
Regarding the manifestation of psychiatric disorders in the online environment, it will very much depend on the disorder... some one with bi-polar will present differently to someone with BPD and then the former will present differently depending on the phase that they are in.
With passive-aggressiveness, I'm not sure that that would be designated as a psychiatric disorder, it tends to be more sociopathological, the same can probably be said for inappropriate social behaviours. Some people are rude for no good reason.
Is it possible to share a vignette here, without jeopardising the individuals privacy? That would make it easier to comment.. best..janet
Here's some details, but not too many details. I have always assumed that trolling behavior was a choice. Trolls troll because it is something that they choose to do for fun. They may make a remark or argue a point simply to get a rise out of others because they enjoy seeing the reaction. They may not really mean the remark or hold the opinion they argue. I figured anyone of us could troll every once in a while, but we could stop behaving like a troll any time we wanted when being a troll would interfere with a goal we wanted to achieve.
That assumption was turned upside down in my mind when a troll enrolled in one of my courses. I knew already that this person had engaged in trolling behaviors, but i assumed that anyone who would shell out a few hundred dollars for a course would do so because they wanted to learn what was taught in that course and welcomed the individual. I do believe this person has a sincere and demonstrated interest in the subject matter of the course, but did not act like it in one regard. The individual engaged in a passive-aggressive resistance to fulfilling one of the most basic requirements of the course that by ignoring it, only served to reduce the individual's ability to learn what was taught in the course. It was a classic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. That's why I started to wonder whether trolling behavior was something that individuals who exhibit it cannot control, in other words, a manifestation of some sort of psychiatric illness.
Other students I have encountered seem to panic when they don't understand something-and express this in a way that is tinged with anxiety and irrationality that sets them apart in some way I can't really explain from the average student who might not understand the same thing but would express their confusion in a different manner.
That assumption was turned upside down in my mind when a troll enrolled in one of my courses. I knew already that this person had engaged in trolling behaviors, but i assumed that anyone who would shell out a few hundred dollars for a course would do so because they wanted to learn what was taught in that course and welcomed the individual. I do believe this person has a sincere and demonstrated interest in the subject matter of the course, but did not act like it in one regard. The individual engaged in a passive-aggressive resistance to fulfilling one of the most basic requirements of the course that by ignoring it, only served to reduce the individual's ability to learn what was taught in the course. It was a classic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. That's why I started to wonder whether trolling behavior was something that individuals who exhibit it cannot control, in other words, a manifestation of some sort of psychiatric illness.
Other students I have encountered seem to panic when they don't understand something-and express this in a way that is tinged with anxiety and irrationality that sets them apart in some way I can't really explain from the average student who might not understand the same thing but would express their confusion in a different manner.
Hi Nicole,
thanks for the additional details...
Passive-aggressive behaviours is not confined to people with psychiatric disorders, it is widely distributed in the generaly population. The same can be said of having a "lack of personal insight" and the inability to foresee what the impact of behaviours will be on others.
I think that those of us who occasionally "troll" to be mischeivous or to have a stir, think that others are driven by the same motives. However, it can simply be that some people simply don't notice the correlation between what they have written and the effect that it has on other contributors. On the other hand, being "bloody-minded" is also widely spread in the general community, this maybe the driving motive. Self-defeating behaviours, which is some of what you describe, are also common.
As a first step, I would suggest keeping a record of:
The second has to be irrefutable, because if you discuss this with the student, there may be an inclination to see the cause/effect differently. Then, if you feel up to it (it can be difficult) have a quiet, calm discussion with them about the problem as you see it. This is one of those occasions when "three part 'I' statements" are imperative.
I'll leave it there and think on it over the next day or so. I expect, after reflection, I'll be able to make a more helpful contribution..best...janet
thanks for the additional details...
Passive-aggressive behaviours is not confined to people with psychiatric disorders, it is widely distributed in the generaly population. The same can be said of having a "lack of personal insight" and the inability to foresee what the impact of behaviours will be on others.
I think that those of us who occasionally "troll" to be mischeivous or to have a stir, think that others are driven by the same motives. However, it can simply be that some people simply don't notice the correlation between what they have written and the effect that it has on other contributors. On the other hand, being "bloody-minded" is also widely spread in the general community, this maybe the driving motive. Self-defeating behaviours, which is some of what you describe, are also common.
As a first step, I would suggest keeping a record of:
- what has been written
- what consequences are wholly and solely attributable to these remarks
The second has to be irrefutable, because if you discuss this with the student, there may be an inclination to see the cause/effect differently. Then, if you feel up to it (it can be difficult) have a quiet, calm discussion with them about the problem as you see it. This is one of those occasions when "three part 'I' statements" are imperative.
I'll leave it there and think on it over the next day or so. I expect, after reflection, I'll be able to make a more helpful contribution..best...janet
Thanks Janet for your thoughts.
I've got another "personality type" that perplexes me. This is what I would call an obsessive personality. This is a kind of person whose interests are limited to a single very narrow topic, let's say for purposes of this discussion, it's nuclear physics. Now, it's one thing for this individual to participate in nuclear physics discussions, and a little bit obsessive for them to continually start discussions about nuclear physics putting out their own theories and slightly intimating that everyone else has used evidence indiscriminately in the past (even though they themselves are guilty of that), even though they get little response from other forum members. But they really go overboard with their obsession when a person posts a message asking for a good recipe for roast beef, or an 8 year old child asks where they can find photos of their favorite tv star, and they respond to the message with a long post about nuclear physics.
What I am really curious is how do these people interact with others in real life? Are these manifestations of social disorders that are well recognized in real life situations but just haven't really been studied on the internet?
I've got another "personality type" that perplexes me. This is what I would call an obsessive personality. This is a kind of person whose interests are limited to a single very narrow topic, let's say for purposes of this discussion, it's nuclear physics. Now, it's one thing for this individual to participate in nuclear physics discussions, and a little bit obsessive for them to continually start discussions about nuclear physics putting out their own theories and slightly intimating that everyone else has used evidence indiscriminately in the past (even though they themselves are guilty of that), even though they get little response from other forum members. But they really go overboard with their obsession when a person posts a message asking for a good recipe for roast beef, or an 8 year old child asks where they can find photos of their favorite tv star, and they respond to the message with a long post about nuclear physics.
What I am really curious is how do these people interact with others in real life? Are these manifestations of social disorders that are well recognized in real life situations but just haven't really been studied on the internet?
Hi Nicole,
I think "odd" would be a fair description...
I wonder if part of what we are seeing is the capacity to look back and reflect on what is "said" because there is a permanent record? With face-to-face discourse (I almost wrote 'normal', but there is no normal anymore), to some degree, the nitty gritty washes over us. Plus, we're not privvy to every conversations that individuals have. We, therefore retain an impression, rather than a verbatim record. Online we have every single thought, so we may start to see a pattern. Once we have the pattern, we categorise... that's a trait of being human, we can't help that, it's part of our survival mechanisms.
Part of that categorisation or classification is an attribution of some kind of psychiatric disorder. However, the key to this being psychiatric is that it is in some way pathological. From this follows that the individual who demonstrates the behaviour experiencing some suffering.
In this case, I wonder if the character with the fixation for nuclear physics, suffers in anyway? In other words, does this impair their quality of life?
I realise that others may experience this as a problem, and the fact that the individual doesn't perceive it as a problem, doesn't preclude it from being pathological and thus, perhaps a psychiatric disorder. However, annoying traits in others, don't immediately make the identified behaviour a psychiatric disorder.
I think that it is important to note that a range of experiences have been classified as psychiatric illnesses in the past, which we now reel in horror at. One example is homosexuality. This was shocking in that doctors tried to cure people of this "disease". This means that, to some degree, what is regarded as a pyschiatric disorder is a social construct that we can expect to shift as social mores shift.
Now, I know that I haven't answered your question. I'm not sure that there is a definitive answer. Many of the symptoms that are attributed to psychiatric illness are just a little further along the continuum than what is considered "normal", whatever that is.
If we take the perspective of the patient, who has been classified as having some type of psychiatric illness, how helpful is it to them that they are labelled. Do they become more "ill" because they now have a label? Does labelling people lead to them acting more odd? In other words, who benefits from the process? The labels are just shorthand to help doctors exchange information, in the same way measles conveys a range of symptoms. My view is, that when we as lay people use the same labels, we are probably not as well informed as those who developed these and thus may do more harm than good. What do you think?..best..janet
I think "odd" would be a fair description...
I wonder if part of what we are seeing is the capacity to look back and reflect on what is "said" because there is a permanent record? With face-to-face discourse (I almost wrote 'normal', but there is no normal anymore), to some degree, the nitty gritty washes over us. Plus, we're not privvy to every conversations that individuals have. We, therefore retain an impression, rather than a verbatim record. Online we have every single thought, so we may start to see a pattern. Once we have the pattern, we categorise... that's a trait of being human, we can't help that, it's part of our survival mechanisms.
Part of that categorisation or classification is an attribution of some kind of psychiatric disorder. However, the key to this being psychiatric is that it is in some way pathological. From this follows that the individual who demonstrates the behaviour experiencing some suffering.
In this case, I wonder if the character with the fixation for nuclear physics, suffers in anyway? In other words, does this impair their quality of life?
I realise that others may experience this as a problem, and the fact that the individual doesn't perceive it as a problem, doesn't preclude it from being pathological and thus, perhaps a psychiatric disorder. However, annoying traits in others, don't immediately make the identified behaviour a psychiatric disorder.
I think that it is important to note that a range of experiences have been classified as psychiatric illnesses in the past, which we now reel in horror at. One example is homosexuality. This was shocking in that doctors tried to cure people of this "disease". This means that, to some degree, what is regarded as a pyschiatric disorder is a social construct that we can expect to shift as social mores shift.
Now, I know that I haven't answered your question. I'm not sure that there is a definitive answer. Many of the symptoms that are attributed to psychiatric illness are just a little further along the continuum than what is considered "normal", whatever that is.
If we take the perspective of the patient, who has been classified as having some type of psychiatric illness, how helpful is it to them that they are labelled. Do they become more "ill" because they now have a label? Does labelling people lead to them acting more odd? In other words, who benefits from the process? The labels are just shorthand to help doctors exchange information, in the same way measles conveys a range of symptoms. My view is, that when we as lay people use the same labels, we are probably not as well informed as those who developed these and thus may do more harm than good. What do you think?..best..janet
I think that it is important to note that a range of experiences have been classified as psychiatric illnesses in the past, which we now reel in horror at. One example is homosexuality. This was shocking in that doctors tried to cure people of this "disease". This means that, to some degree, what is regarded as a pyschiatric disorder is a social construct that we can expect to shift as social mores shift.
This is going to be a bit off topic...but I don't think the issue you raise is so much one of whether something is an illness as much as does it have a physiologic basis? I don't think anyone has proven whether homosexuality is a psychological choice or effect of social factors or is the result of some sort of function of brain chemistry one way or another. It may have become more socially acceptable in some places but that still doesn't say whether it has a social or physiological basis.
I believe a lot of our behavior may be due to some extent to brain chemistry more than we recognize, but whether one believes a certain brain chemistry is deviant or normal is what might not be agreed upon and whether it should be changed by the use of drugs. Some effects of abnormal brain chemistry could be considered positive. There was something in the news the other day about this woman with an amazing memory and they have been studying her brain to see why.
Anyway, my nuclear physicist seems to not have understood why replying to a child's post with a totally irrelevant post about nuclear physics was inappropriate when it was pointed out to him. He seems to think that it is about shielding children from certain discussions when the real issue is simply about hijacking conversations.
This is going to be a bit off topic...but I don't think the issue you raise is so much one of whether something is an illness as much as does it have a physiologic basis? I don't think anyone has proven whether homosexuality is a psychological choice or effect of social factors or is the result of some sort of function of brain chemistry one way or another. It may have become more socially acceptable in some places but that still doesn't say whether it has a social or physiological basis.
I believe a lot of our behavior may be due to some extent to brain chemistry more than we recognize, but whether one believes a certain brain chemistry is deviant or normal is what might not be agreed upon and whether it should be changed by the use of drugs. Some effects of abnormal brain chemistry could be considered positive. There was something in the news the other day about this woman with an amazing memory and they have been studying her brain to see why.
Anyway, my nuclear physicist seems to not have understood why replying to a child's post with a totally irrelevant post about nuclear physics was inappropriate when it was pointed out to him. He seems to think that it is about shielding children from certain discussions when the real issue is simply about hijacking conversations.
Hello again,
this is a quickie... it's bedtime here in Australia
I think the whole "physiological debate" is a bit of a red herring. I know that this is often referred to, but the reality is that every emotion that we feel and every physical sensation that we experience, produces a chemical reaction in the brain, or alternatively, the brain, having been bathed in certain chemical, in some circumstances, triggered by pheromones, produces some changes in our bodies physiology.
Everything that our brain does is the consequence of chemical changes. Now what is balance and what is imbalance, is determined by the medicine of the day, and I may add, by whether some drug company has invented some new medication, that if it were attached to a known disease, they could make good money out of.
An example is menopause. Now, I'm not for one minute saying the some women do not suffer extraordinarily from menopause, because they do. But, only 20 percent have a really bad time, the other 80% have very few symptoms, or symptoms that are manageable. Yet, the way the media reports this entirely natural phenomenon and the way that advertising exploits people's fears, is such, that you'd think every peri menopausal woman was in desperate straits and needing medication.
As an aside, for those peri menopausal women reading this, forget hot flushes, think power surges and take back your power..best..janet
this is a quickie... it's bedtime here in Australia
I think the whole "physiological debate" is a bit of a red herring. I know that this is often referred to, but the reality is that every emotion that we feel and every physical sensation that we experience, produces a chemical reaction in the brain, or alternatively, the brain, having been bathed in certain chemical, in some circumstances, triggered by pheromones, produces some changes in our bodies physiology.
Everything that our brain does is the consequence of chemical changes. Now what is balance and what is imbalance, is determined by the medicine of the day, and I may add, by whether some drug company has invented some new medication, that if it were attached to a known disease, they could make good money out of.
An example is menopause. Now, I'm not for one minute saying the some women do not suffer extraordinarily from menopause, because they do. But, only 20 percent have a really bad time, the other 80% have very few symptoms, or symptoms that are manageable. Yet, the way the media reports this entirely natural phenomenon and the way that advertising exploits people's fears, is such, that you'd think every peri menopausal woman was in desperate straits and needing medication.
As an aside, for those peri menopausal women reading this, forget hot flushes, think power surges and take back your power
Hi Nicole,
this isn't exactly about mental illness, but, when I read it, I thought it might be useful... best..janet
Mitigating Conflict in Online Student Teams
this isn't exactly about mental illness, but, when I read it, I thought it might be useful... best..janet
Mitigating Conflict in Online Student Teams
Janet-Thanks for the link. There was an interesting article in our local newspaper about the internet as an increasing medium of narcissism among the younger generation. I thought it was interesting and searched for more on the topic and came across this interesting article:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-1-2003-42410.asp
While fortunately this isn't an issue on my own site it certainly explains behavior I have seen elsewhere on the Web quite well.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-1-2003-42410.asp
While fortunately this isn't an issue on my own site it certainly explains behavior I have seen elsewhere on the Web quite well.
Hi Janet,
Thanks for the link to Richard Dool's article. Lots of food for thought in it. Just one thing, I am truly amazed that that professor should get phone calls from his students late at night, when he's at home. From a French perspective I see this as a totally unacceptable breach of privacy. Getting e-mails is quite different, because I can read them at my own chosen time, and choose to answer them (or not) when I want.