I’ve struggled to find something meaningful to say about the incident when the captain of a jetBlue flight suffered from what appeared to be a “nervous breakdown,” resulting in his eventual restraint and later, criminal charges. I think criminal charges are wholly unwarranted and an example of the double-standard and prejudice we hold against people with possible mental health issues. It shows a shocking lack of judgment on the part of the U.S. prosecutors who charged Captain Clayton Osbon. (After all, would they have charged him if he had suffered a stroke instead, which led to similar behavior? I think not.)

But outside of this prejudice shown by people who don’t treat a brain attack like a heart attack, there’s very little more to say about this unfortunate incident. No lives were lost.

And, in fact, no lives have ever been lost due to a U.S. pilot’s mental health issues, according to the Washington Post article.

According to news reports earlier today, the Kony 2012 director Jason Russell, 33, was “hospitalized last week in San Diego after witnesses saw him running through streets in his underwear, screaming incoherently and banging his fists on the pavement.” His wife now says he’s been diagnosed with brief reactive psychosis, which is technically called “brief psychotic disorder.”

Brief psychotic disorder could be most simply thought of as a form of short-term schizophrenia, since many of the symptoms of the disorders are exactly the same. The primary difference is that in a brief psychotic disorder, the psychosis is less than 30 days.

Let’s delve more into brief reactive psychosis and talk about how one “gets it” (don’t worry, it’s not catching).

A Dangerous Method, the new David Cronenberg movie — based upon the 2002 Christopher Hampton stage play entitled, The Talking Cure, (which in turn was based on the 1993 non-fiction book by John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method) — is not only about the relationships you see on the screen between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein, but a breathtaking metaphor for Freud’s depiction of the mind.

A successful effort on a multitude of layers, the movie offers us a rollercoaster ride in a car filled with a motley group of historical characters in psychology and psychoanalysis. The movie depicts the life of Jung and Freud’s relationship from the time they first met in 1907 until their professional relationship collapses in 1913 — a short 6 years. I saw a screening of the movie earlier this month.

But it would be wrong to characterize this as a story only about Jung and Freud’s relationship. Instead, it’s a larger-than-life tale about the first days of psychoanalysis and Jung’s career, set against the backdrop of pre-war Europe, artfully relayed on many different levels.

Multiple personality disorder — now known in modern psychological lingo as dissociative identity disorder (DID) in the DSM-IV — is a fairly uncommon mental health concern. But it remains an intriguing one because of its nature: The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states. Each of these identities or personality states has its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self, and take alternating control of the person’s behavior.

Sybil is one of the most popularly known individuals who had multiple personality disorder, largely because of a book published in the 1970s that detailed her experience and that of her psychiatrist in trying to help treat her.

Now Debbie Nathan, writing in her new book, Sybil Exposed, suggests that the core diagnosis for Sybil — of multiple personality disorder — was made up by the patient to keep in the good graces of her psychiatrist.

Betty Ford, the former First Lady of the United States died Friday at the age of 93. Dr. William Van Ornum gives this succinct summary of her life in a tribute on the website of the American Mental Health Foundation (AMHF):

Mrs. Ford was born in Chicago, grew up in modest circumstances, became a dancer, and married Mr. Ford shortly after he returned from the Navy in World War II. She thought she was signing up for a life with a mid-western lawyer; instead he chose politics and she was thrust into the role of a political wife, all the while raising 4 children and trying to keep her own interests as well.

Political life became difficult for her and she felt an emptiness inside from which she sought solace in alcohol and prescription pills. She was open about her addiction at a time when others weren’t. This courageous outlook gave others the encouragement either to seek help themselves or to be open about it with their families and communities.

A few weekends ago, I was intrigued to see this story in the New York Post: “The ultimate star perk is forbidding eye contact.” According to the Smoking Gun, singer Katy Perry’s contract covering her driver provides that the driver isn’t supposed to “stair” (sic) at her in the rear-view mirror.

The piece notes that there have been many similar rumors over the years — that people were prohibited from making eye contact with Luke Perry, Tori Spelling, Sylvester Stallone, and others.

When I read this story, I had a huge rush of intellectual pleasure. Because I think I’ve figured this out! Darshan.

Assay: Recently, I posted a quotation from Virginia Woolf for my weekly quotation. I often quote from Woolf, because she’s one of my very favorite writers.

And, as has happened before, I got a few comments from readers saying, in effect, “Why are you quoting Virginia Woolf about happiness? She committed suicide — what can she know about happiness?”

This response always surprises me, for a few reasons. First, Woolf aside, there’s a big difference between writers’ works and what they personally experience and how they behave in their own lives. Tolstoy, for example. I love Tolstoy’s fiction, and find it elevating and very illuminating on the subject of happiness, but I can’t bear to read about the actual Leo Tolstoy, who was a dreadful person.

There will be no rapture on Saturday, May 21st.

And I can’t wait to see how Harold Camping reacts on Sunday when he’s still alive, on …

Psychology has spilled over into pop culture in many ways throughout the years.

For instance, in 1911, one psychologist saved Coca-Cola by conducting rigorous studies into caffeine’s effects on cognition and sensory and motor abilities.

In 1929, another inspired his nephew’s successful public relations campaigns, which linked smoking cigarettes with female empowerment, if you can believe it.

Since 1895, other psychologists were directly involved in advertising, using surveys and other new ploys to get us to buy their products. (You didn’t need toothpaste to clean your teeth; you needed it to make you sexier.)

One psychologist even changed the comic book world and influenced an entire movement (that would be the feminist movement).

In the early 1940s, Harvard psychologist William Moulton Marston (May 9, 1893 – May 2, 1947) created Wonder Woman.

Dear readers, I owe you all an apology. I was wrong in my post about Catherine Zeta Jones’s diagnosis of bipolar II to compare bipolar II to Diet Coke. It was flip, inappropriate, and a lame attempt at humor. I hereby admit that I was wrong. So there is no need to further bash me.

I was wrong because it suggests that bipolar II is not as serious, not as painful, not as debilitating as bipolar I. But, as a person diagnosed with bipolar II myself, I certainly know that isn’t the case. I realize that the depressive cycle for someone with bipolar II can actually be more severe than the depressive cycles of folks with bipolar I. And sometimes the depression can be psychotic.

I was there myself, although I’m not sure if it was the illness that made me psychotic or the drug cocktail of about 20 pills that my psychiatrist at the time, who was in bed with big Pharma, prescribed for me.

And I’m very aware that a person with bipolar II can cycle much more rapidly than someone with bipolar I, which makes bipolar II more dangerous in some regards, and definitely more difficult to diagnose.

In one of the myriad interviews he gave over the last week, Charlie Sheen said clearly that he hates AA.

A lot of people have trouble with Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is full of people and people can be messy and flawed.

The human train wreck formally known as Charlie Sheen is a common sight in the AA meeting halls. The only difference between Mr. Sheen and other self-absorbed, delusional, frantic addicts is the size of the audience to which they rant. These people do not last long in AA. They mock the Fellowship and the 12 Steps (PDF) as too religious or simplistic. AA is beneath them.

Here are a few possible reasons why Charlie Sheen might hate AA so much.

On Wednesday, Howard Stern and his cohorts on his popular morning radio show discussed the results of their psychological testing (or “psych testing” as they kept referring to it on the show).

The results made for some great radio. But it also highlighted some of the pros and cons of psychological testing. And perhaps inadvertently raised the question — should scientific or medical tools be used for entertainment purposes?

The test they took — the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III) — is not meant to be taken by ordinary people who have no obvious psychological concerns. It was developed with a focus on personality and psychopathology — to help a psychologist better identify the areas of personality that are contributing to a person’s maladaptive behavior.