Most mental disorders are chemical imbalances, i'm a little baked right now but I don't think my spelling should be too bad.

So who is to say that is abnormal, it occured naturaly and shit. I'm not talking about seeing things, just like ADD. Why aren't they just personality traits?

- ♫.i.b.y.v.n.t.h.♫

Because they cause people to kill their neighbor with a hammer because they thought they were an alien, or do other, possibly less severe things that are still disruptive to society such as walking around and talking fast when they're supposed to be sitting still listening to boring nonsense. Basically, a mental disorder is when you persistently act in a way that confuses and disturbs others. It's abnormal because they don't want people to act that way and take steps to prevent them from acting that way in front of others.

Ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkbIEUVSAX4

The "disorder" is largely defined in terms of symptoms as they result to pain, discomfort, and dysfunctionality.

The "disorder" is largely defined in terms of symptoms as they result to pain, discomfort, and dysfunctionality.

result to pain?

no offense but is English your first language?

I have been doing weird dyslexic shit like that for a while now. My brain tends to mash synonyms together, so that when I speak I end up saying some made up word that is a combination of two words my brain wants to use at the same time. Like I''ll say "That movie was...(and I'll want to say awesome or cool, but it will come out) causome". I seriously think I've scrambled a circuit somewhere so please just disregard.

The above post was intended to read either "result in" or "relate to". See what I mean?

However, appropriately enough, the degree to which such a thing causes me pain and discomfort is the same degree to which it can be considered a disorder.

I have been doing weird dyslexic shit like that for a while now. My brain tends to mash synonyms together, so that when I speak I end up saying some made up word that is a combination of two words my brain wants to use at the same time. Like I''ll say "That movie was...(and I'll want to say awesome or cool, but it will come out) causome". I seriously think I've scrambled a circuit somewhere so please just disregard.

The above post was intended to read either "result in" or "relate to". See what I mean?

haha I was just playing with ya buddy no need to explain yourself to me

or do other, possibly less severe things that are still disruptive to society such as walking around and talking fast when they're supposed to be sitting still listening to boring nonsense.

or shit as mundane as using worlds that do not fit peoples pre-conceived connotations, not having a right 'posture' or 'gait'; not walking in a 'correct' way and having body language that is 'odd' to the majority of the population.

EDIT: and being obsessed over things that other people don't care about and literally thinkign differently.

The "disorder" is largely defined in terms of symptoms as they result to pain, discomfort, and dysfunctionality.

....from the perspective of those doing the measurements

There is a difference between personality and neurology.
I disagree with the concept of a personality "disorder", because personality is developed by sensory experience and has no physical manifestation.

I agree with the idea of one's neurology being disordered however, because the cell function of the victim is impaired (a disorder), whereas the change in personality that results is merely incidental.

So people who have ADHD/ADD, Autism spectrum disorders or a change in personality after brain trauma etc. are disordered.

Whereas people who are narcissistic, histrionic, borderline etc. are not disordered, because they merely have an extreme form of a type of personality and their brain chemistry is not the main factor that has shaped this.

....from the perspective of those doing the measurements

Inevitably to some degree. However the ethics of such things have evolved greatly over the years. Essentially the "disorder" aspect of mental "illness" is defined with reference to the persons inability to live a happy, independent life in their present environment. If you want to make the argument that society itself is arbitrary with regards to its norms and expectations, I would somewhat agree. However, "disorders" are currently defined relative to this context (not in absolute terms). Of note, treatments for most mental illness has taken on a far more social approach than in even recent decades - and of course these treatments are doing wonders for people living with mental health issues simply by lessening some of the pressure society imposes on them.

Keep in mind that individuals not burdened by their conditions are not likely to seek treatment, and hence not be diagnosed in the first place. People that can manage their conditions on their own, or are not discomforted by them are probably more likely to simply be considered eccentric or odd than have some specific classification.

I However the ethics of such things have evolved greatly over the years.

not really. They pull the same stuff even today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c5_3wqZ3Lk&eurl=http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=223

if you want text:
http://amanda.autistics.org/intangible.html




Control.
Infantilization.
Constant monitoring.
Fear of staff because of what they could do, and inmates because of the staff.
Smells.
Screams.
Begging for basic items, and for "privileges" that those outside see as rights.
Looking forward to tiny things to relieve monotony that's impossible to relieve.
Everything you do, say, and think being put in psychiatric terms ("No, no, no, I'm not anxious for my meds, I just know that being late on that one gives me migraines, and I don't know anyone in the world who likes migraines.")
Separation from everything and everyone familiar.
Not being allowed my own staff, advocate and cognitive interpreter (whom I have a right to under the Americans with Disabilities Act as surely as a sign language interpreter), watching her have to fight to get in outside of visiting hours.
Having people control when, where, whether, and how I can speak to familiar people and advocates.
Discouragement of bonding among inmates or between inmates and staff.
Catch-22 on displays of emotion -- every emotional display has a corresponding psychiatric label, but a lack of emotional display is considered a sign of depression.
Being told what you're "really" thinking and feeling, as opposed to what you are thinking and feeling.
Having your motivations constantly questioned and scrutinized.
Backwards language: 'Getting with the program' is a 'good step toward independence', but making your own decisions is 'non-compliant', 'manipulative', or 'attention-seeking'.
In this case, some of staff's inability to grasp that I was genuinely abused in previous settings and I didn't just think I was (I told the near-death horror stories when asked; I knew they wouldn't understand the subtleties), and that it was mainly staff, not inmates, who perpetrated it.
Assumptions on the part of staff that if abuse was perpetuated against me in the psych system, then it was my fault, and asking questions about what I had done to cause it.
Condescending chatter from staff who think they're being nice but who'll become suddenly grouchy if you show any sign of not liking it.
Trying hard never to be noticed, ever.
Knowledge that whether I stay or go free is contingent upon other people's desires and other arbitrary factors, and that false reports can easily be written and justified.
Knowledge that my housekeys and wallet are in a locker in the nurse's station.
Fear of thinking one's own thoughts or feeling one's own feelings, and constant questioning of whether they're real or delusional.
Fear of speaking out, feeling -- and sometimes being scolded -- like an ungrateful child if you do.
Being patronizingly told of the seriousness of your actions or thoughts, as if you're unaware of this fact.
Knowledge -- from previous experience -- that if I stay too long, I will have to either kill all desire for freedom; or go berserk, violent, and self-destructive and risk dying or being kept even longer.
Knowledge that most of the world still condones this, either overtly by calling it 'treatment' and 'necessary', or by never having to think about it.
Control.
Control.
Control.



Essentially the "disorder" aspect of mental "illness" is defined with reference to the persons inability to live a happy, independent life in their present environment.The fact that homosexuality and pedophilia were at one time listed as mental disorders says otherwise.

The same applies with many Autistic people as well...

However, "disorders" are currently defined relative to this context (not in absolute terms). Of note, treatments for most mental illness has taken on a far more social approach than in even recent decades - and of course these treatments are doing wonders for people living with mental health issues simply by lessening some of the pressure society imposes on them. lol say that to those who are tortured in the Judge Rotenburg Center with their bullshit Aversive therapies..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9-xXfgQiTU
http://boingboing.net/2007/08/30/torture-school-subje.html


Keep in mind that individuals not burdened by their conditions are not likely to seek treatment, and hence not be diagnosed in the first place. People that can manage their conditions on their own, or are not discomforted by them are probably more likely to simply be considered eccentric or odd than have some specific classification.that is correct, I remember that said to certain extents

I work in the mental health field. I assure you psychosocial models of rehabilitation are a MAJOR consideration in modern theory and practice. You can certainly find examples to contradict this. Its not a perfect set up, nor have more progressive models necessarily been implicated in areas where funding is inadequate. The studies you mention do not "speak" for the practice of psychiatry in general - It is a very broad field, with many traditions. However, if you are actually there, doing the work, and have studied the history of psychiatry you would be a fool to not credit the profession with an evolution in ethics. Again, I am not trying to say that the mental health field in general has a great history, but there are sectors, like the one I work in, that hold ethics for all people, regardless of psychiatric condition, in the highest regard. Not all people that work to improve the conditions of the mentally ill are sinister scientists. These are not the men in the white coats. You should give credit where its due. I assure you are being myopic on the subject.

And when I say recent decades, I mean during the 90s and present decade. The 70's and 80's were terrible for patients who were over medicated and over hospitalized. But its those people themselves, when they were "released" due to funding cuts that started the grassroots movements that lead towards the development of psychosocial rehab models that are widely used today. You should try reading about those.

A start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_rehabilitation

Also, homosexuality and Paedofilia are no longer considered illnesses. Specifically because the rules of classification have changed along the specific line I am referring to.

A good read on the subject - really all anyone should be commenting on about what constitutes a disorder.

In 1994, DSM-IV was published, listing 297 disorders in 886 pages. The task force was chaired by Allen Frances. A steering committee of 27 people was introduced, including four psychologists. The steering committee created 13 work groups of 5–16 members. Each work group had approximately 20 advisers. The work groups conducted a three step process. First, each group conducted an extensive literature review of their diagnoses. Then they requested data from researchers, conducting analyses to determine which criteria required change, with instructions to be conservative. Finally, they conducted multicenter field trials relating diagnoses to clinical practice.[10][11] A major change from previous versions was the inclusion of a clinical significance criterion to almost half of all the categories, which required that symptoms cause “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers

The studies you mention do not "speak" for the practice of psychiatry in general - It is a very broad field, with many traditions. However, if you are actually there, doing the work, and have studied the history of psychiatry you would be a fool to not credit the profession with an evolution in ethics.

I do admit that it has improved-the past experimentation on people and what it did to those vicitms...

EDIT: and not all people are that way; I knew of a psychologist I want to counseling with my mom with due to her shit-she mentioned she helped to reform the Cook County Juvenile system in the past as the pig...err 'police' beat the people there, tortured them, etc. Also how I got my diagnosis..

Cops can be bad people no doubt - especially when it comes to the disadvantaged I've taken a few beatings myself when I was younger. You're right to emphasize it - just try not to let assholes like that speak for authority in general. Most are just people trying to do their best. The field, for the most part, doesn't pay that great. Most people really are in it because they want to improve the lives of others.

or shit as mundane as using worlds that do not fit peoples pre-conceived connotations, not having a right 'posture' or 'gait'; not walking in a 'correct' way and having body language that is 'odd' to the majority of the population.

EDIT: and being obsessed over things that other people don't care about and literally thinkign differently.

dagnabitt pretty much refuted this. Still, it is sort of an instinct to ostracize and show aggression towards people whose appearance or actions is significantly different from the average. Could be bullshit but I heard somewhere that aversion to fat people comes from the physical traits of obesity traditionally being a sign of disease. Diseases (and, especially, parasites) can cause behavioral abnormalities too, so, though its good if it's overcome through new conventions, xenophobia is something you have to expect from people.

I didn't intend to fully refute what he said. Classification and prejudice do have a long history together and alot of this is based in the expectation to live up to somewhat arbitrary norms (IMO). I just wanted to point out that the discipline is evolving ethically.

Again the best possible resource specific to this topic (classification) is that link on the history of the DSM. The treatments SWF and I have been discussing is really a secondary topic.

Incidentally, there are many excellent books on the history of psychiatry that are an excellent read. Far more interesting than one might assume.

The only thing that seperates the crazy from the sane is population...


The "sane" people could easily be the insane, all we have for comparison are social norms, which mean nothing.

The official definition is mostly based on the norm. Another consideration is whether or not the person is under psychological stress or impaired functioning.

So...it's somewhat arbitrary, but there are definite things that can be wrong with someone's brain.

but there are definite things that can be wrong with someone's brain.

Wrong being different from normal...

And the only thing which validates normal from abnormal is population.

Wrong being different from normal...

And the only thing which validates normal from abnormal is population.

No, I mean "wrong" in the sense that someone's brain is damaged. There definitely are some "fluffy" disorders out there, but don't take that to mean that all disorders are.

For instance, it wouldn't matter if the majority of people had schizophrenia. That wouldn't change the fact that something was wrong with their brains. Paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, clinical depression, etc. do not correspond to a healthy, properly functioning human brain.

No, I mean "wrong" in the sense that someone's brain is damaged. There definitely are some "fluffy" disorders out there, but don't take that to mean that all disorders are.

For instance, it wouldn't matter if the majority of people had schizophrenia. That wouldn't change the fact that something was wrong with their brains. Paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, clinical depression, etc. do not correspond to a healthy, properly functioning human brain.

I know what you mean and agree with it. However, I'm referring to a more abstract/philosophical concept.

For instance what is to say all those things are unhealthy problems other than the fact that the majority of the people don't have them?

How do we know that what they have isn't actually sanity and we have insanity?

I'm just saying the whole thing is relative. We don't have some model pre-conception of a healthy brain, only ours to compare to others.

The Pragmatic response is yours, but in terms of truth is has no logical basis.

I was diagnosed with ADD when I was in grade 3 but my mom wouldn't allow ritalin and I'm glad about that. I sort of get what you're getting at with things like tourettes, scitzoid etc being not so much a disorder as a condition but they're not unique to the individual only the way that person deals with it sometimes.

It just makes things easier really.

Still, it is sort of an instinct to ostracize and show aggression towards people whose appearance or actions is significantly different from the average.

Yes, but they should not then include 'tolerance' and 'freedom' as one of their pillars of their societies as the US, for example does-then be just as biased and fucked up to people (see various "Gender Benders")


xenophobia is something you have to expect from people.Then they shouldn't be hypocrites (as the society in general tends to be) and say 'they're tolerant' then place those BS limits in place..

This. Even if you consider that humans can be put in genetically distinct categories, the reality is that any person can be "trained" to be a certain way. Any black person can be a scholar, any white person can be a street thug, any Asian can be unintelligent, etc.

no they can't. You cannot force a person to be who they are not-especially if it's cultural things that conflict with their neurology

For instance, it wouldn't matter if the majority of people had schizophrenia. That wouldn't change the fact that something was wrong with their brains. Paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, clinical depression, etc. do not correspond to a healthy, properly functioning human brain.

lulz. A lot of 'normal' people do the same thing but they can get by with a 'properly functioning human brain

EDIT: And thank you, dagnabbit..

I know what you mean and agree with it. However, I'm referring to a more abstract/philosophical concept.

For instance what is to say all those things are unhealthy problems other than the fact that the majority of the people don't have them?

How do we know that what they have isn't actually sanity and we have insanity?

I'm just saying the whole thing is relative. We don't have some model pre-conception of a healthy brain, only ours to compare to others.

The Pragmatic response is yours, but in terms of truth is has no logical basis.

No.

Concepts such as "good" and "bad" are completely subjective. The notion of "health", the proper functioning of an organ, is not subjective in the least. Your use of "no logical basis" doesn't make any sense, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean subjective.

Also, re: Norms. Arbitrary does not imply meaningless. These norms are strong reinforcers of behavior, and have much meaning for people. They are just not ultimately justifiable in an epistemic or metaphysical sense - much like anything else. It just means their meaning is incomplete, partial, or not wholly accessible - which is not the same as meaningless.

No.

Concepts such as "good" and "bad" are completely subjective. The notion of "health", the proper functioning of an organ, is not subjective in the least. Your use of "no logical basis" doesn't make any sense, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean subjective.

Mental disorders aren't "unhealthy" in and of themselves. Paranoid delusions, schizophrenia and other mental abnormalities don't destroy the body themselves, it's the human reaction to those disorders and the inability to cope with them which can cause a decline in health...And alot of the times that isn't even the case and people with such disorders live out a long and healthy live (i.e. John Nash)

You would never say cause of death: Schizophrenia

Foucault explains how this notion of "madness" (mental illness) was invented during the age of reason to explain an altered perception of the world. If you think about it mental illness is simply just a brain that deviates from normal activity. The fact that people operate completely differently makes them incapable of functioning in "normal society" and we label them "crazy"...

Mental disorders aren't "unhealthy" in and of themselves. Paranoid delusions, schizophrenia and other mental abnormalities don't destroy the body themselves, it's the human reaction to those disorders and the inability to cope with them which can cause a decline in health...And alot of the times that isn't even the case and people with such disorders live out a long and healthy live (i.e. John Nash)

You would never say cause of death: Schizophrenia

Foucault explains how this notion of "madness" (mental illness) was invented during the age of reason to explain an altered perception of the world. If you think about it mental illness is simply just a brain that deviates from normal activity. The fact that people operate completely differently makes them incapable of functioning in "normal society" and we label them "crazy"...

http://www.schizophrenia.com/disease.htm

Schizophrenia (and most other mental illnesses) are manifested by physical DAMAGE in the brain. Are patients different from the social norm? Definitely. And they are also physically damaged.

/thread

Schizophrenia (and most other mental illnesses) are manifested by physical DAMAGE in the brain.

Or different.

Are patients different from the social norm? Definitely. And they are also physically damaged.
Or it's a natural deviation from the "norm" of human brains ('neurotypical') not a 'diease', 'scourge' or 'inferior way of thinking'

http://www.schizophrenia.com/disease.htm

Schizophrenia (and most other mental illnesses) are manifested by physical DAMAGE in the brain. Are patients different from the social norm? Definitely. And they are also physically damaged.

/thread

*opens thread*

You're thinking too concrete.

What is the only thing that makes a deformity "wrong/bad" compared to a "healthy/good" leg?

Nothing other than the fact that MOST people are born without deformities and those deformities make life harder. Thats it.

I'm just trying to point out the subjectivity of the concepts of good and bad. Relativity.

I mean honestly you could argue that our current "healthy" brains are actually unhealthy, since they lack the ability to sustain themselves longer than they can (i.e. eventual succumbing to death).

In terms of reality and action I would take you're opinion . If I learned I had a mental disorder I would try to fix it. But when trying to answer the OPs question we must apply all knowledge and the fact is it's rather subjective.

*opens thread*

You're thinking too concrete.

What is the only thing that makes a deformity "wrong/bad" compared to a "healthy/good" leg?

Nothing other than the fact that MOST people are born without deformities and those deformities make life harder. Thats it.

I'm just trying to point out the subjectivity of the concepts of good and bad. Relativity.

I mean honestly you could argue that our current "healthy" brains are actually unhealthy, since they lack the ability to sustain themselves longer than they can (i.e. eventual succumbing to death).

In terms of reality and action I would take you're opinion . If I learned I had a mental disorder I would try to fix it. But when trying to answer the OPs question we must apply all knowledge and the fact is it's rather subjective.

Healthy and unhealthy aren't synonymous with good and bad. If something functions properly and isn't damaged, then it's healthy; that's what healthy means. Damage and something functioning as it should are objective, regardless of personal perspective. Terms like "good health" and "bad health" would be open to some subjective faggotry, but the concepts of healthy and unhealthy are not.

/thread

I'm out.

Healthy and unhealthy aren't synonymous with good and bad. If something functions properly and isn't damaged, then it's healthy; that's what healthy means. Damage and something functioning as it should are objective, regardless of personal perspective.
/thread

I'm out.

Think Epistemology. Not Pragmatism.

How can you prove to me that our brains aren't damaged and their brains aren't how they're supposed to be? You can't. It's simply the fact that most people have the allegedly "healthy" minds compared to the one's with allegedly "damaged" ones.

The only way you can prove a car is damaged is by looking at cars that aren't damaged. If every car in the world was damaged you would just think thats how it's supposed to be. Granted, when you come across a car that was functioning properly you would say it's BETTER but you would still think it's damaged (even though it's not).

The only way you could ever be certain something is without flaw is if it's perfect. We have flawed brains, they die!

So when you come across a "damaged brain" (i.e. different) you say it's "illness" not because of TRUTH but because it's worse. Perhaps a problem we deem as illness is in fact how we're supposed to think and everything that "normal people" think is crazy and perception is just fucked up so we think it's correct.

After all, insane people always think they're sane. Whats to say we're not insane? Nothing. Population size.



Read Michel Foucault's take on mental illness.

^That's better.

But...no cigar. Aside from our ability to use common sense to deduce when something isn't working as it was intended, the fact of the matter is that the results of many mental illness and brain damage would result in death in a natural setting. So, I'll humor you and say that perhaps with no reference point, you couldn't tell if a brain was damaged, but the end result (ie. death) would still be the same.