Agree. Even if the behavior was induced by drugs, it's a textbook description of a manic episode. If her psychiatrist had an accurate description of her behavior and praised it (as the article asserts) he was off his rocker.
> If her psychiatrist had an accurate description of her behavior and praised it (as the article asserts) he was off his rocker.
I find people put too much faith in psychs. I'm thankful for the help they have managed to provide people, but it's still the most abstract, nebulous, and least scientific field of medicine. I'm not trying to completely discredit the field by any means, but merely trying to be realistic about it.
From personal experience, it seems like one presents with arbitrary symptoms, and is then given a arbitrary label that cannot be successfully mapped to any underlying biological or physiological cause. Afterwards, one basically proceeds to brute-force n >= 1 medications until something works.
It gets more complicated when one researches the various medications and the underlying mechanisms of how they treat various conditions and their efficacy.
I have ADHD. Data suggests that stimulants are highly effective for ADHD. By why do stimulants work? Good question! To put things in very simple terms, it's hypothesized stimulants work due the effects on the dopaminergic system, but the honest truth is that no one actually knows why stimulants work for ADHD. A similar pattern can be applied to other mental conditions and their respective treatments too.
