I mention people becoming more relaxed about mental health care in the 2000's and Uzique post a screen cap from Mad Men and starts to prattle on about psychoanalysis in the 50's. Makes sense.
Oh the irony.Macbeth wrote:
I hope you don't get all of your American cultural knowledge from T.V. shows and shitty movies.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's from mad men. a tv show about newly-minted advertising men in the 50's. that's a shot of one of the main character's wife... undergoing psychoanalysis. but okay, tell me more about how a tv series in the 2000's finally made a 50 year old phenomenon culturally 'acceptable'.Macbeth wrote:
I knew the last screenshot was from Feat and Loathing. Where is this one from and what is it supposed to mean?
oh man what a sick burn.
Macbeth why do you constantly highlight your own ignorance?
Last edited by coke (2013-04-23 04:14:44)
mad men is based in the 1950's. i actually got all of my information about psychoanalysis in the US because i wrote an 8,000 word paper on secular modernity and its cultural interpenetrations. a large part of that involved writing a case analysis of the relationship between freud's continental thought and edward bernays, his relation who 'birthed' the field of PR. it was an interesting rhetorical trick to counter-pose the development of viennese-european intellectual culture, and american mass culture, and to study their complex inter-relations. it was a very good case study. i read about 25 books on the period for it.Macbeth wrote:
I mention people becoming more relaxed about mental health care in the 2000's and Uzique post a screen cap from Mad Men and starts to prattle on about psychoanalysis in the 50's. Makes sense.
i also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, recently read foucault's 'madness and civilization', considered to be one of the most erudite and well-executed studies of the history of madness ever under-taken. it is arguably one of the high-pieces of scholarship by one of the 20th centuries greatest cultural critics and scholars.
but yes, please tell me some more about how i get my knowledge from TV shows (i haven't even watched mad men, i'm just aware of its portrayal of psychoanalysis; it's meant to be a super-realistic reconstruction of the period, that's its whole appeal). please tell me more whilst you make blind guesses based off seeing the sopranos and figuring a single character changed the tides of an entire culture. i even said there are plenty of american film genres and character archetypes that rely on mental instability/'troubled'-status for their dramatic tension. almost all film noir films pivot on this anti-hero figure. film noir is a little older than the sopranos.
but please, tell me more. you are clearly a learned scholar. rutgers is treating you very well. you have clearly done the reading and have surpassed my own research on the subject.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-23 04:14:51)
Well you're right, making a blanket statement one way or the other is stupid. I think it comes down to nature vs. nurture, and what your definition of illness is. Is it something to be cured? Or simply lived with? Is it determined physically by chemical imbalances or does it exist outside of the body? Is a mental illness the same as someone who has a deformed body? Is someone who has a deformed body "ill"?Spark wrote:
On what basis does a (hypothetical) chemical imbalance or genetic tweak leading to - say - bipolar syndrome not qualify as an "illness"?Spearhead wrote:
I think mentally ill people are not necessarily ill. They're just neurotically different, like aspies. In ancient times they were probably shamans and religious leaders. Filled with supernatural energy, not necessarily evil or dangerous, just "halfway" between our world and the spirit world. Of course rationalism changed all that.
I'm not an anti-psychiatry acitivist or anything but there is quite a lot of speculation and unknowns still present in the field. I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because there is indeed a lot of science involved in the field, but it is not quite as scientific as say, surgery. I don't think, for example, a veteran who has PTSD is necessarily ill. He's a natural product of his experiences. As fucked up as they may be.
Joan of Arc was a schizo, if memory serves me right.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-04-23 04:17:08)
it's completely ridiculous to state that a veteran with PTSD isn't "mentally ill" because he got his illness from his circumstances. does that mean to be a "bi-polar" or a "depressive" you have to be born with the illness, passed on genetically? that's ridiculous. a huge proportion of mental health issues - especially anxiety and stress-related illnesses - are related to things that happen to a person, not some innate biological pre-determination. people 'develop' schizophrenia. people have breakdowns. a veteran gets PTSD, and he is most certainly ill (or most of them are, anyway, i can't speak for the accuracy of the diagnosis).Spearhead wrote:
Well you're right, making a blanket statement one way or the other is stupid. I think it comes down to nature vs. nurture, and what your definition of illness is. Is it something to be cured? Or simply lived with? Is it determined physically by chemical imbalances or does it exist outside of the body? Is a mental illness the same as someone who has a deformed body? Is someone who has a deformed body "ill"?Spark wrote:
On what basis does a (hypothetical) chemical imbalance or genetic tweak leading to - say - bipolar syndrome not qualify as an "illness"?Spearhead wrote:
I think mentally ill people are not necessarily ill. They're just neurotically different, like aspies. In ancient times they were probably shamans and religious leaders. Filled with supernatural energy, not necessarily evil or dangerous, just "halfway" between our world and the spirit world. Of course rationalism changed all that.
I'm not an anti-psychiatry acitivist or anything but there is quite a lot of speculation and unknowns still present in the field. I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because there is indeed a lot of science involved in the field, but it is not quite as scientific as say, surgery. I don't think, for example, a veteran who has PTSD is necessarily ill. He's a natural product of his experiences. As fucked up as they may be.
Joan of Arc was a schizo, if memory serves me right.
it's also pretty ironic that you'll say that modern medicine isn't very reliable when it comes to mental illness (which is kind of wrong, but okay), but then you'll state "joan of arc was schizophrenic". like there's really a more factual basis for that claim than modern medical diagnoses of actual living persons
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
mad men is based in the 1950's. i actually got all of my information about psychoanalysis in the US because i wrote an 8,000 word paper on secular modernity and its cultural interpenetrations. a large part of that involved writing a case analysis of the relationship between freud's continental thought and edward bernays, his relation who 'birthed' the field of PR. it was an interesting rhetorical trick to counter-pose the development of viennese-european intellectual culture, and american mass culture, and to study their complex inter-relations. it was a very good case study. i read about 25 books on the period for it.Macbeth wrote:
I mention people becoming more relaxed about mental health care in the 2000's and Uzique post a screen cap from Mad Men and starts to prattle on about psychoanalysis in the 50's. Makes sense.
i also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, recently read foucault's 'madness and civilization', considered to be one of the most erudite and well-executed studies of the history of madness ever under-taken. it is arguably one of the high-pieces of scholarship by one of the 20th centuries greatest cultural critics and scholars.
but yes, please tell me some more about how i get my knowledge from TV shows (i haven't even watched mad men, i'm just aware of its portrayal of psychoanalysis; it's meant to be a super-realistic reconstruction of the period, that's its whole appeal). please tell me more whilst you make blind guesses based off seeing the sopranos and figuring a single character changed the tides of an entire culture. i even said there are plenty of american film genres and character archetypes that rely on mental instability/'troubled'-status for their dramatic tension. almost all film noir films pivot on this anti-hero figure. film noir is a little older than the sopranos.
but please, tell me more. you are clearly a learned scholar. rutgers is treating you very well. you have clearly done the reading and have surpassed my own research on the subject.
Okay I highlighted my point from the start since you have trouble seeing it. Now if you want to go on about the history of psychoanalysis some more go right ahead but that isn't what I am even discussing.Macbeth wrote:
I hope you don't get all of your American cultural knowledge from T.V. shows and shitty movies. All I'm saying is that there was a large mostly male segment of society that viewed mental health treatment as unmanly and weak. The Sopranos had a role in breaking down that stereotype/barrier by having a very aggressive and strong male lead character seeking treatment. I figure the most of U.S. culture you get is from Mad Men and Johnny Depp movies but before that we had many years of very negative depictions of people getting treatment. Now things are much different.
You going on about what academic said what is boring as shit. I hope you know everyone just starts skimming your post when you start name dropping philosophers and academics. No cares about that shit. And bringing up my school isn't even an insult. No one cares about what college anyone goes to anymore.
lol name-dropping foucault the most cited and most pop-culture friendly thinker in the 20th century. and the rutgers scholar glosses over it. hahahaha. namedropping foucault is about on a level with name-dropping noam chomsky, or michael moore. get a grip dude. and i'm not insulting your school. i'm insulting the sheer laziness and apathy you bring to posting in a 'debate' forum yourself, which brings into sharp relief and contrast the fact you go to college, i.e. has read nothing, has no real substantive knowledge, but wants to make little pokes at the subject, anyway.
okay, on that note, let's run with your sopranos theory. substantiate that claim. justify it. make it more than just a wild guess and stab in the dark. how do you deal with the long history of film noir archetypes? the troubled byronic anti-hero? the essentially hollywood figure of the man who is troubled but wants to do good - perhaps even extending into the history of real-life celebrity, i.e. the man behind the mask? you think it took until the 2000's for people to recognize and normalize people who are troubled? for a male role model to emerge who was 'wild' and 'mad' but still a role model? what about marlon brando? or any other of the hollywood screen giants, previous to that era? and, again, you're trying to dismiss psychoanalysis as if it's an entirely different cultural history. of course it isn't. psychoanalysis was forwarded, developed, and originally used as the first call for mental health issues. psychoanalysis was what existed before anti-depressants were even developed, you idiot. psychoanalysis was to the mental illness of 1950's america what 'cognitive behavioural therapy' and '250mg prozac' are today. just the techniques have moved on considerably. back then, it was all they had... unless you fancied some convulsive shock therapy, or being lobotomized, or being given something like lithium, which had next to no medicinal purposes other than to zombify you.
so come on. give us a reason not to skim over yours. actually make a point that is backed up by something, other than your whim. so far you've tried to dismiss my arguments as being "based on a tv show", but when i show they evidently are backed up with quite a lot of scholarly research and genuine interest, you then dismiss that as "name-dropping" and "no one cares". i'm intrigued how you intend to give substance to your own arguments, then. feel free to step up... now. otherwise leave d&st. thus far you are a sad excuse for a poster.
okay, on that note, let's run with your sopranos theory. substantiate that claim. justify it. make it more than just a wild guess and stab in the dark. how do you deal with the long history of film noir archetypes? the troubled byronic anti-hero? the essentially hollywood figure of the man who is troubled but wants to do good - perhaps even extending into the history of real-life celebrity, i.e. the man behind the mask? you think it took until the 2000's for people to recognize and normalize people who are troubled? for a male role model to emerge who was 'wild' and 'mad' but still a role model? what about marlon brando? or any other of the hollywood screen giants, previous to that era? and, again, you're trying to dismiss psychoanalysis as if it's an entirely different cultural history. of course it isn't. psychoanalysis was forwarded, developed, and originally used as the first call for mental health issues. psychoanalysis was what existed before anti-depressants were even developed, you idiot. psychoanalysis was to the mental illness of 1950's america what 'cognitive behavioural therapy' and '250mg prozac' are today. just the techniques have moved on considerably. back then, it was all they had... unless you fancied some convulsive shock therapy, or being lobotomized, or being given something like lithium, which had next to no medicinal purposes other than to zombify you.
so come on. give us a reason not to skim over yours. actually make a point that is backed up by something, other than your whim. so far you've tried to dismiss my arguments as being "based on a tv show", but when i show they evidently are backed up with quite a lot of scholarly research and genuine interest, you then dismiss that as "name-dropping" and "no one cares". i'm intrigued how you intend to give substance to your own arguments, then. feel free to step up... now. otherwise leave d&st. thus far you are a sad excuse for a poster.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-23 04:34:42)
Actually yes, depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar as well as schizophrenia have been shown to be influenced by genetics. And not in an insignificant way.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's completely ridiculous to state that a veteran with PTSD isn't "mentally ill" because he got his illness from his circumstances. does that mean to be a "bi-polar" or a "depressive" you have to be born with the illness, passed on genetically? that's ridiculous. a huge proportion of mental health issues - especially anxiety and stress-related illnesses - are related to things that happen to a person, not some innate biological pre-determination. people 'develop' schizophrenia. people have breakdowns. a veteran gets PTSD, and he is most certainly ill (or most of them are, anyway, i can't speak for the accuracy of the diagnosis).Spearhead wrote:
Well you're right, making a blanket statement one way or the other is stupid. I think it comes down to nature vs. nurture, and what your definition of illness is. Is it something to be cured? Or simply lived with? Is it determined physically by chemical imbalances or does it exist outside of the body? Is a mental illness the same as someone who has a deformed body? Is someone who has a deformed body "ill"?Spark wrote:
On what basis does a (hypothetical) chemical imbalance or genetic tweak leading to - say - bipolar syndrome not qualify as an "illness"?
I'm not an anti-psychiatry acitivist or anything but there is quite a lot of speculation and unknowns still present in the field. I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because there is indeed a lot of science involved in the field, but it is not quite as scientific as say, surgery. I don't think, for example, a veteran who has PTSD is necessarily ill. He's a natural product of his experiences. As fucked up as they may be.
Joan of Arc was a schizo, if memory serves me right.
it's also pretty ironic that you'll say that modern medicine isn't very reliable when it comes to mental illness (which is kind of wrong, but okay), but then you'll state "joan of arc was schizophrenic". like there's really a more factual basis for that claim than modern medical diagnoses of actual living persons
PTSD is a condition brought about by environmental stimuli. I think its useful to differentiate between the two. Again, nature vs. nurture.
Influenced is a very different thing from "caused". And how do we know that there aren't certain genetic markers which predispose someone to develop PTSD? Because one Google link tells me otherwise instantly. This argument you're marking that PTSD isn't a valid illness because it's "caused by environmental factors" is bizarre - I mean, sure, but so is the flu.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The point was about psychoanalysis becoming acceptable to american men in recent times, where previously it hadn't been.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
okay, on that note, let's run with your sopranos theory. substantiate that claim. justify it. make it more than just a wild guess and stab in the dark. how do you deal with the long history of film noir archetypes? the troubled byronic anti-hero? the essentially hollywood figure of the man who is troubled but wants to do good - perhaps even extending into the history of real-life celebrity, i.e. the man behind the mask? you think it took until the 2000's for people to recognize and normalize people who are troubled? for a male role model to emerge who was 'wild' and 'mad' but still a role model? what about marlon brando? or any other of the hollywood screen giants, previous to that era? and, again, you're trying to dismiss psychoanalysis as if it's an entirely different cultural history. of course it isn't. psychoanalysis was forwarded, developed, and originally used as the first call for mental health issues. psychoanalysis was what existed before anti-depressants were even developed, you idiot. psychoanalysis was to the mental illness of 1950's america what 'cognitive behavioural therapy' and '250mg prozac' are today. just the techniques have moved on considerably. back then, it was all they had... unless you fancied some convulsive shock therapy, or being lobotomized, or being given something like lithium, which had next to no medicinal purposes other than to zombify you.
You seem to have missed that bit.
Fuck Israel
i know some issues can be inherited from parents. but it's not an exclusive 'one or the other'. it shows a really poor understanding of mental health if you think it's only 'valid' to have a biological/genetic predisposition for illness. and, in fact, most of the time it is just that: a genetic predisposition. not a determinism. most of the times someone will have an inherited or family history of depression/schizophrenia, and it will be triggered exactly be an "environmental stimuli". you don't hear of many children being born schizophrenic, or manic depressive. really the first few years of every person's life are instrumental in deciding their personality and behavioural traits. mental illness is not a 'one size fits all' arena. someone who has a mid-life crisis and develops serious depression is just as 'ill' as someone whose fore-fathers had a history of melancholy, which was passed down onto him.Spearhead wrote:
Actually yes, depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar as well as schizophrenia have been shown to be influenced by genetics. And not in an insignificant way.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it's completely ridiculous to state that a veteran with PTSD isn't "mentally ill" because he got his illness from his circumstances. does that mean to be a "bi-polar" or a "depressive" you have to be born with the illness, passed on genetically? that's ridiculous. a huge proportion of mental health issues - especially anxiety and stress-related illnesses - are related to things that happen to a person, not some innate biological pre-determination. people 'develop' schizophrenia. people have breakdowns. a veteran gets PTSD, and he is most certainly ill (or most of them are, anyway, i can't speak for the accuracy of the diagnosis).Spearhead wrote:
Well you're right, making a blanket statement one way or the other is stupid. I think it comes down to nature vs. nurture, and what your definition of illness is. Is it something to be cured? Or simply lived with? Is it determined physically by chemical imbalances or does it exist outside of the body? Is a mental illness the same as someone who has a deformed body? Is someone who has a deformed body "ill"?
I'm not an anti-psychiatry acitivist or anything but there is quite a lot of speculation and unknowns still present in the field. I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because there is indeed a lot of science involved in the field, but it is not quite as scientific as say, surgery. I don't think, for example, a veteran who has PTSD is necessarily ill. He's a natural product of his experiences. As fucked up as they may be.
Joan of Arc was a schizo, if memory serves me right.
it's also pretty ironic that you'll say that modern medicine isn't very reliable when it comes to mental illness (which is kind of wrong, but okay), but then you'll state "joan of arc was schizophrenic". like there's really a more factual basis for that claim than modern medical diagnoses of actual living persons
PTSD is a condition brought about by environmental stimuli. I think its useful to differentiate between the two. Again, nature vs. nurture.
your posts are fairly silly. it's not useful to differentiate at all. modern mental health practice doesn't try at all to ascertain 'causes'; it is concerned very little with "why" a person is depressed. that's because a few decades of psychoanalysis and 'talking therapy' have ended up not leading to very much positive outcome (except for the very rich, who can afford to keep a personal psych on retainer for thrice-weekly talk sessions). the vast majority of psychiatric care is simply concerned with getting the individual's well enough to be "functional" and "able". to basically lead as close to a normal life as possible. hence the preponderance of anti-everything pills, to be taken daily. there is NO use in determining whether an illness is given by your grandmother or developed because you lost your job. all that the mental health system tries to do is get you back on your feet. it's a massive waste of time and money to find out the "how" and "why". and, again, that is largely left to people's private decisions, if they have the time/money and inclination to talk at a psychoanalyst or counselor for a while.
well now you're wrong because macbeth isn't talking about psychoanalysis at all. he's talking about medication. that is not psychoanalysis. psychoanalysis is a very specific technique and manner of treatment that aims at different outcomes than medicating someone. the sopranos portrays someone who is dealing with medication and practical treatment. so your sniping is fairly inane.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point was about psychoanalysis becoming acceptable to american men in recent times, where previously it hadn't been.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
okay, on that note, let's run with your sopranos theory. substantiate that claim. justify it. make it more than just a wild guess and stab in the dark. how do you deal with the long history of film noir archetypes? the troubled byronic anti-hero? the essentially hollywood figure of the man who is troubled but wants to do good - perhaps even extending into the history of real-life celebrity, i.e. the man behind the mask? you think it took until the 2000's for people to recognize and normalize people who are troubled? for a male role model to emerge who was 'wild' and 'mad' but still a role model? what about marlon brando? or any other of the hollywood screen giants, previous to that era? and, again, you're trying to dismiss psychoanalysis as if it's an entirely different cultural history. of course it isn't. psychoanalysis was forwarded, developed, and originally used as the first call for mental health issues. psychoanalysis was what existed before anti-depressants were even developed, you idiot. psychoanalysis was to the mental illness of 1950's america what 'cognitive behavioural therapy' and '250mg prozac' are today. just the techniques have moved on considerably. back then, it was all they had... unless you fancied some convulsive shock therapy, or being lobotomized, or being given something like lithium, which had next to no medicinal purposes other than to zombify you.
You seem to have missed that bit.
and my point was that the american media/popular imagination has had a much longer love affair with 'troubled masculine heroes' than a 2000's drama. the figure litters the history of hollywood cinema, both on and off screen. perhaps you missed that bit. nice try though. cute. or even away from the televisual culture - how about elvis? how about johnny cash? how about every rock-n-roll lead with the popularized 'inner demons'? but yes, the sopranos was so groundbreaking in its positive portrayal of someone dealing with mental health issues.
there is also plenty of documentary evidence about men dealing with emasculation because of mental illness... in the 1950's. mostly war veterans and then later burn-outs from vietnam. it doesn't really seem like something that has only been properly addressed in 1999.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-23 05:05:46)
Seems simple.Macbeth wrote:
I mention people becoming more relaxed about mental health care in the 2000's
Fuck Israel
simple, yes, exactly. panglossian. no factual basis. no substantiation. a whim based on a popular tv show. okay. "debate and serious talk". but then my posts citing actual studies and concrete cultural fact are "boring". it's cute when you side with people just because they have an obverse opinion to my own. would you like the pics of my penis to be shot in landscape or portrait?
people have been becoming "more relaxed about mental health care" on a steadily progressive basis since the 1300's. that statement in-itself could be said for literally ANY decade, especially any decade of the 20th century. like i said, choosing the sopranos as a 'watershed' moment seems a fairly arbitrary place "to pin the tail on the donkey".
people have been becoming "more relaxed about mental health care" on a steadily progressive basis since the 1300's. that statement in-itself could be said for literally ANY decade, especially any decade of the 20th century. like i said, choosing the sopranos as a 'watershed' moment seems a fairly arbitrary place "to pin the tail on the donkey".
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-23 05:33:30)
Mad Men takes place in the '60s, not '50s. The idea that Tony Soprano is responsible for more men attending therapy is pretty laughable, unless you're only referring to the wannabe tough guys who think they're in the mafia because they're Italian.
i stand corrected. as i said, i have not watched it, and i don't get my knowledge from tv programs. however the 50's/60's are a good historical juncture to talk about the popularity of psychotheraphy and specifically psychoanalysis.
Never watched the sopranos, but that 'plot' seems very much like Analyze This.
so the israeli intelligence services are reporting that assad has been using sarin gas in the syrian conflict. they state they have intel that "you can't tell from pictures alone", or something to that effect. i really wonder what the israeli motive is here in trying to encourage western states to intervene in syria. i've heard the figure of 20,000 ground troops bandied around. going into syria would be a disaster.
Maybe they just want more US dollars sent their way to provide stability to the region.
israel wants instability in syria and a new regime. syria is iran's #1 gateway to the arab world and border's israel. as long as syria is too busy fighting a civil war and tearing apart it's own nation it won't have time to focus on israel. assad won't fall at this rate and israel probably knows that. a devastated and ruined syria sided with iran is better than a healthy one.
the west can't touch this directly. NATO is broke and no country(not even the US) will go to war in the middle east, again. any security council resolutions will be blocked by russia and china. they're hoping the US and europe, mainly the UK and France who have been held back by the EU, will use this as pre-text to start fully weaponizing the FSA/alqaeda.
the west can't touch this directly. NATO is broke and no country(not even the US) will go to war in the middle east, again. any security council resolutions will be blocked by russia and china. they're hoping the US and europe, mainly the UK and France who have been held back by the EU, will use this as pre-text to start fully weaponizing the FSA/alqaeda.
Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2013-04-23 18:35:57)
turns out the elvis impersonator the feds thought tried to poision obama and a senator last week is innocent.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/ … 06435.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/ … 06435.html
$1.4 million each after their lawyer gets his 1/3rd. Not too bad.US women shot by LAPD in Dorner manhunt get $4m payout
Police at the scene of an accidental police shooting of two women during a manhunt in Los Angeles, California 7 February 2013 Police misidentified the women's vehicle during the manhunt for ex-officer Christopher Dorner
The city of Los Angeles will pay $4.2m (£2.8m) to two women shot by police as they searched for an ex-policeman on a murder spree.
Margie Carranza and her mother Emma Hernandez were delivering newspapers early on 7 February when officers fired about 100 bullets into their car.
Ms Hernandez was shot in the back and Ms Carranza sustained minor injuries.
Christopher Dorner is believed to have killed three people in California before dying in a shootout with police.
The ex-Navy reservist died in a gunfight at a mountain cabin near the Big Bear Lake ski resort, after a massive manhunt across southern California.
'Assuming responsibility'
Los Angeles police were looking for Dorner when they misidentified the vehicle the women were driving and opened fire.
A lawyer representing Los Angeles said a "fair and swift" settlement had been reached, which was a "win-win" for both parties.
"In reaching the settlement we hope that Margie and Emma will be able to move on with their lives," lawyer Carmen Trutanich said, adding, "The city will be spared literally millions of dollars in litigation fees."
The two women will split the settlement, taking $2.1m each.
Glen Jonas, the lawyer representing the women, said his clients would accept the payment after the end of the current fiscal year on 30 June, to help ease the city's financial troubles.
He added the police and other city leaders were consulted throughout the negotiation process.
"The LAPD, the chief, were consulted at every step of the way," Mr Jonas said. "We weren't going to have an agreement unless the city leaders - all of them - thought that it was a fair agreement for everyone involved."
Dorner's killing spree began on 3 February when he shot dead the daughter of a former police captain who represented him at a police disciplinary board, and her fiance.
Police say he then shot and killed a Riverside policeman in an ambush on 7 February.
In an online manifesto, Dorner, who was black, suggested that racism was still rife in the LAPD.
It was an unwelcome allegation for a department that overhauled itself after the notorious police beating in 1991 of a black man, Rodney King.
During the manhunt police guarded about 50 families, many of which were connected to former Los Angeles Police Department colleagues against whom Dorner had vowed revenge for allegedly ruining his career.
A win win scenario.
LOL
LOL