# Mental Illness



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I know that this seems like a totally random question to ask here on TC, but I'm taking advantage of you anyway. The good thing about TC is that it has a concentrated diversity of intelligent people from across the spectrum of beliefs and ideas, so it's a good place to get a quick insight into the different ways that people think about things. 

------------------------------

Today, I came across an intriguing statistic. Although I don't know the origin of it, it was that something like 20-33.33%* of Americans suffer from a mental disorder.

My question: if such a high percentage of people are diagnosed with a mental disorder, aren't they actually too common to be considered _disorders_?

My own personal background is of depression and social anxiety as well as having a partner with Asperger's. A large part of my thinking on this issue was actually cultivated by talking to him about the movement for Asperger's to be regarded as a "diffability" - not a traditional disability in that it is not necessarily a hindrance or something to be 'cured', but rather just a very specific kind of personality 'difference' that can create obstacles for the individual.

So, when he gets depressed about the difficulties he experiences - various problems with 'mind blindness', stress, or social interaction - I have come to think that he should not lament his Asperger's for making him function differently to others, but instead be positively _angry_ that his problems are caused by people who do not cater for his needs.

After all, it seems reasonable to me that all kinds of personality traits lie on a normal distribution, or a bell-curve. And, naturally, the world is therefore dominated by those in the middle. So I think the reason that so many people suffer, whether from introversion or anything else, is not because they think or behave in an _intrinsically_ disordered way, but because they are forced to live in a society where their level of introversion is not the norm, and so their needs are not taken into sufficient consideration (in other words, if the distribution was shifted and most people in the world had Asperger's, it would no longer be a disorder).

In short, I think we would do ourselves a great favour by being more tolerant of diversity - by becoming more aware of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, ASDs and the rest, in order to include them as part of the 'normal' crowd, thus reducing the amount we would consider as actual disorders. _True_ mental disorders will still exist, but I would have thought they should be closer to the outlying 5-10% of the distribution rather than 20-33.33%.

* See GoneBaroque's wisdom below.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

It has been said that 1 of 3 people suffer from some form of mental illness. With that in mind if two of your frends are normal, perhaps you should be concerned.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

GoneBaroque said:


> It has been said that 1 of 3 people suffer from some form of mental illness. With that in mind if two of your frends are normal, perhaps you should be concerned.


I that case I shall amend "20-30%" to "20-33.33%". Thanks for your sizeable contribution.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I believe that I'm free of mental disorders. Maybe that's a sintome of a mental disorder?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Did I say intelligent people? Clearly I meant jesters.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

People used to know better than to ask a barber whether you need a haircut. The fact that pschologists can't find something wrong with 2/3 of us surprises me. 

Other than that, I don't have any insight into this issue.


----------



## deeslexia (Nov 23, 2011)

Having BOTH a mild but disruptive , Autistic Glitch , and severe He/She/Me ? dee'ficulties , and seemingly finding people who are otherwise drawn to me , I often wonder who are the ones with problems .... my experience is that most psychatwits don't have a clue .
dee


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...
> So, when he gets depressed about the difficulties he experiences - various problems with 'mind blindness', stress, or social interaction - I have come to think that he should not lament his Asperger's for making him function differently to others, but instead be positively _angry_ that his problems are caused by people who do not *cater for his needs*.
> 
> ...


This is the crux of the issue, the part I highlighted. Psychological disorders are just like physical disorders, they need to be dealt with, not just shoved under the carpet.

It's being dealt with more now here in Australia, it's a huge issue here. Our suicide rates for youth and younger people (eg. below about 25) are the highest in the world, and they are the worst in rural and regional Australia. There is a similar problem with middle aged men, suicide here among them has been rising. & now, the original Australians, the Aboriginal people, the suicide rate of young men, esp. in remote communities, is rising as well. Same with homosexual people in rural & regional areas. So there are particular vulnerable groups here.

This is the underbelly of what is Australia, this is the dark side, the reality can be far from _Home and Away _and soapies like that aired all over the world. & governments from both sides of the house have been doing things about it recently, esp. in the last decade.

I have been touched by these issues, but so have most other Australians (although not everybody talks about it here). Thankfully, the old ostrich head in the sand attitude is being put in the trash can. Politicians are now talking about it and doing things about it, which is good. The solution is not only medical, eg. the mental health industry, but also on community level, eg. with community centres for the young and "tool shed" where the older guys can get together, have a cuppa, and make eg. toys for charity. There are many solutions, we just have to think laterally, outside the box.

& BTW, I don't like to use the term mental illness, I think a "newer" term which I've come across is psychological disorder, which is less a loaded term, imo...


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

If you don't know any nutcases in your friendscircle, it's you.


But for real, I think that statistic has more to do with shifting criterea for assigning the label of mental disorder then an actual increase in the number of people suffering.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> But for real, I think that statistic has more to do with shifting criterea for assigning the label of mental disorder then an actual increase in the number of people suffering.


Yes, I certainly don't think that it's anything to do with an increase. I don't think those particular numbers have been used to support that idea, but I know that that kind of faulty analysis is a particular problem with the Vaccines vs. Autism debate where people claim that rates of autism have increased when, actually, diagnostics have just allowed for a greater spectrum of people to be diagnosed.

I think it is certainly good that a wider spectrum of some disorders (like autism) have been recognised so that the vulnerable can get help, but if we're approaching 1 in 3 people being diagnosed, I think our definitions must be becoming too loose - how can these diagnoses really mean anything if so many people have the disorder?

EDIT: I suppose it depends on the breakdown. If that "1 in 3 have a mental disorder" includes, say, 50 disorders, then I suppose it's more reasonable - but if, as I suspect is the case, the bulk of those diagnosed are diagnosed with depression or something similar, then I think we're treating a symptom of a deeper societal flaw.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^The concept of diagnosis is always changing and being updated. It's obvious what I'm saying, this is of course what you're interested in discussing, one of the issues. There is a continuous debate here, with many children diagnosed with ADHD and ODD and the like, that do they have a "real" illness or condition, or is it simply problems in the home, "bad" upbringing, even things like what they're eating or chemicals being injested from our polluted city environments today that didn't exist 100 hundred or more years ago. It is a complex issue which is indeed keeping researchers busy, and maybe we won't find an answer, or a solid one, there are many individual cases, etc...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I have a controversial stance on this, and I'm just going to come out and say it. I disapprove of mental illness.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I have a controversial stance on this, and I'm just going to come out and say it. I disapprove of mental illness.


meaning you dislike people with "it", or disliking the term itself?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I have a controversial stance on this, and I'm just going to come out and say it. I disapprove of mental illness.


I don't get what you're saying? Are you joking?

If you disapprove of mental illness, do you also, for example, disapprove of physical illness (eg. broken arms, skin cancers, hearing or visual impairments, etc.)???...


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

On this big a scale and type of disorder, diagnosis isn't necessarily a medical issue, but a social one: "What do we deem to be within the norm of society"


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> If you disapprove of mental illness, do you also, for example, disapprove of physical illness (eg. broken arms, skin cancers, hearing or visual impairments, etc.)???...


Yes, I also disapprove of those things, in that I would not like them to happen to me because they seem very scary.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Rasa said:


> On this big a scale and type of disorder, diagnosis isn't necessarily a medical issue, but a social one: "What do we deem to be within the norm of society"


So if everyone suddenly became schizophrenic, wouldn't it be a medical issue once you have hoards of people with auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

If one can maintain a façade of normalcy through the madness, is one truly mad?


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

I thought madness was attempting the same thing over again and expecting different results.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> So if everyone suddenly became schizophrenic, wouldn't it be a medical issue once you have hoards of people with auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions?


It can be both, it depends on the individual case. Both social and medical problem, I mean. Eg. for some people who are susceptible, things like pot can spark off schizophrenia and other psychological disorders. But for other people, they consume these things, and it doesn't happen to them. The aim of the larger society is to educate people to know what they are doing, what are the risks of these things, what the warning signs are, etc. For both people developing these disorders and their family and friends. Dealing with this has many aspects, it's multi-faceted. There isn't only the old medical way, with focus on dilineating the disorders and diagnosing it, putting people into a box etc. That's part of the solution, but these things are also being dealt with with the human side and the big picture, what's going on in society, or various at-risk groups in society, etc...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> I thought madness was attempting the same thing over again and expecting different results.


No, attempting the same thing over again and expecting different results is madness.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Insanity begins with the denial of it.

Catch-22


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Ok I admit, I'm insane, does that mean im sane now?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> What about: If you attempt the same thing over again, and want different results? Surely that cant be madness?


Just as long as you don't expect different results.

Corollary: The economy is mad.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Maybe you folks could start a new forum group called "Inane Spin-Offs of Other Threads" where you could hijack someone else's discussion in private and furnish it with your bland one-liners.

Seriously folks, if you don't want to answer my question properly, get out of my thread and make your own damn space. It's funny to you, but it's SPAM to me and I'm going to call it out every time. No more Mr. Nice Pig.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> If one can maintain a façade of normalcy through the madness, is one truly mad?


You kinda nailed what I was feeling, KC...there have been so many times when I have thought to myself that I, perhaps, have some of these 'things'...I did study the human mind and the many illnesses that can trouble it for over six years; and truly have the entire time out of actual 'higher learning' so my observations go on almost three decades...so many of my thoughts and ways have made me question this yet I am beyond perfectly able to adapt in any situation and relate to any person even though fundamentally, there are true aspects of my personality that go completely against this. I like to consider what I feel as what I truly am and the natural part of my psyche and how I actually go about life and deal with those in it,...that, I consider to be controlled chaos.

Other than that I'm crazy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I'm skeptical of kids these days being diagnosed with all sorts of "disorders". It seems every second or third parent that I happen to come across or know of has a child with autisim to some degree, or attention deficit disorder, or some other disorder that seem to point to a deficit of some sort inconceivably linked to the child's upbringing and environment.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Maybe you folks could start a new forum group called "Inane Spin-Offs of Other Threads" where you could hijack someone else's discussion in private and furnish it with your bland one-liners.
> 
> Seriously folks, if you don't want to answer my question properly, get out of my thread and make your own damn space. It's funny to you, but it's SPAM to me and I'm going to call it out every time. No more Mr. Nice Pig.


Maybe you Polednice could start a new forum group called "Complaining About Inane Spin-Offs of Other Threads" where you could complain about someone who hijacked someone else's discussion in private and criticize it with your bland lectures.

Seriously man, if you don't want to respect our first ammendment properly, get out of our forum and make your own authoritarian space. It's satisfactory to you, but it's dogma to me and I'm going to call it out every time. No more Mr. Nice Troll.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> No, attempting the same thing over again and expecting different results is madness.


Oh, and I thought that was the definition of a fool.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm sorry 

In all seriousness though, is there any correlation to these diagnoses of mental disorders and the rising dependency on technology? You'll see more people on their phone now a day then you will see people NOT on their phone. And as most here probably know, these people are not using their phone to phone someone - most likely cruising the internet, listening to music, or playing games. We are more antisocial than we were before, and now that this has become the norm, antisocial is a very normal thing now. So, what happens 20 years from now when the norm will be phone/mp3/game on you at all times? Maybe talking to people will be considered "not normal" and then we will all be the crazy ones while the future thinks they are normal.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

From  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration report 2010:
Recent data from SAMHSA indicate that 45.1 million adults (19.9 percent) in the United States had mental illness in the past year. Of those, nearly 20 percent of adults (8.9 million) also had a substance use disorder.

The 170-page report, Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH): Mental Health Findings, indicates that 11 million adults (4.8 percent) had serious mental illness (SMI)-a diagnosable mental disorder that substantially interfered with or limited one or more major life activities-in the past year.
***

So hopefully not as high as 1/3, but 20% is still a significant percentage.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Seriously man, if you don't want to respect our first ammendment properly, get out of our forum and make your own authoritarian space. It's satisfactory to you, but it's dogma to me and I'm going to call it out every time. No more Mr. Nice Troll.


The first amendment doesn't exist in this private forum - you have to abide by the terms and conditions and I'm sure if I could be bothered to read them that I could easily find something in there about idiotic spam. I'm not being dogmatic and I'm not being authoritarian, I'm just asking people to have some ****ing manners. If someone asks a question, the bulk of responses to it shouldn't be an onslaught of moronic one-liners.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> The first amendment doesn't exist in this private forum - you have to abide by the terms and conditions and I'm sure if I could be bothered to read them that I could easily find something in there about idiotic spam. I'm not being dogmatic and I'm not being authoritarian, I'm just asking people to have some ****ing manners. If someone asks a question, the bulk of responses to it shouldn't be an onslaught of moronic one-liners.


Only the moderators have the power to violate our first ammendment. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to order us around.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Here, would you consider this a case for insanity:

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do...For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing."

If this is a case of deformity, then yes, it is a kind of insanity, and thus, _all _people have insanity to some level because this infects _all _people.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

What's going on here? Really, now...let's just take a step back, please.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Only the moderators have the power to violate our first ammendment. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to order us around.


Both of you, stop arguing! Arguing about thread derailment isn't going to put the thread back on track.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Here, would you consider this a case for insanity:
> 
> "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do...For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing."
> 
> If this is a case of deformity, then yes, it is a kind of insanity, and thus, _all _people have insanity to some level because this infects _all _people.


I smell an obscure reference that I may not have heard of before . . .


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Only the moderators have the power to violate our first ammendment. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to order us around.


It's not a violation of your first amendment because your first amendment doesn't exist here. And I don't see why you're even assuming that the forum would operate under the constitution of the U.S. - it has no international ties, so why not North Korea? Maybe because of your patriotic egocentrism.

Again, I'm not ordering anyone around - I sought to ask the people of this forum a question, and what I got in return was pure **** gravy. It's not being bossy to ask people to be civil and considerate. Go and **** around 4chan if this is how you like to post.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> It's not a violation of your first amendment because your first amendment doesn't exist here. And I don't see why you're even assuming that the forum would operate under the constitution of the U.S. - it has no international ties, so why not North Korea? Maybe because of your patriotic egocentrism.
> 
> Again, I'm not ordering anyone around - I sought to ask the people of this forum a question, and what I got in return was pure **** gravy. It's not being bossy to ask people to be civil and considerate. Go and **** around 4chan if this is how you like to post.


My first ammendment exists relative to you. Your first ammendment exists relative to me. Our first ammendments don't exist only relative to moderators. I think that should be clear enough.

And I'm not being patriotic or egocentric. Essentially, it doesn't matter whether you call it the first ammendment or not because I believe every democratic and developed country has free speech somewhere in its constitution. So you may call it whatever you want. But it's still free speech. In any case, you _are_ being authoritarian with us. Unfortunately, you try to conceal your attitude by acting as if you're the one being victimized here.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> My first ammendment exists relative to you. Your first ammendment exists relative to me. Our first ammendments don't exist only relative to moderators. I think that should be clear enough.
> 
> And I'm not being patriotic or egocentric. Essentially, it doesn't matter whether you call it the first ammendment or not because I believe every democratic and developed country has free speech somewhere in its constitution. So you may call it whatever you want. But it's still free speech. In any case, you _are_ being authoritarian with us. Unfortunately, you try to conceal your attitude by acting as if you're the one being victimized here.


Oi, genius. OP asks you to stick on topic. Stop citing the first amendment when you can't even spell amendment.

Back OT: I'm just going to shove it forward that the shift in diagnostics probably has something to do with pharma lobbying.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> Back OT: I'm just going to shove it forward that the shift in diagnostics probably has something to do with pharma lobbying.


I hadn't thought of that - in other words, trying to get more people paying for anti-depressants?


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Rasa said:


> Oi, genius. OP asks you to stick on topic. Stop citing the first amendment when you can't even spell amendment.


Whether or not I can spell amendment has no bearing on my argument.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Hmmm, I was pretty sure that this was the spot where most people free of mental illness simply walk away in shame and dishonor.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I hadn't thought of that - in other words, trying to get more people paying for anti-depressants?


Well, if the pharma-lobby gets medical institutions to think up diagnoses for more behavioral patterns, they can develop more drugs for them.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Dodecaplex said:
> 
> 
> > Only the moderators have the power to violate our first ammendment. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to order us around.
> ...


If anything, the forum operates under the laws of Denmark, as that's where the server is located, and that's where Frederick Magle is located.

On topic: I agree with the OP that, as a "disorder" becomes more prevalent, it should no longer be classified as a disorder, but simply a difference in personality.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> If anything, the forum operates under the laws of Denmark, as that's where the server is located, and that's where Frederick Magle is located.


And free speech is ensured by Denmark's Constitution. I don't see any problems here.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> And free speech is ensured by Denmark's Constitution. I don't see any problems here.


The guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. Get over it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> Well, if the pharma-lobby gets medical institutions to think up diagnoses for more behavioral patterns, they can develop more drugs for them.


I think this also brings up a point about a more widespread use of certain drugs. I remember reading an article a while ago (I can't remember it's conclusion) about what if anti-depressants were at a point where, whatever our baseline happiness was, it could just make us all even happier. Would we, as a society, be willing to modify our emotional state on a fundamental basis like that?

Of course, if the answer is no (for whatever reasons), then the flip-side is why do we bother to treat some instances of depression at the moment? There is a good argument for saying that many people with depression simply have a baseline happiness lower than typical, and this would be the case regardless of what happens to them in life. Should we hand out drugs for that? Of course, we still have to be careful because people who end up with chronic depression due to some kind of abuse need more focused care!


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> The guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want.


I believe it does. But whatever.

Please proceed with your careful analyses of mentally ill people. I'm sure everyone in this forum is a certified psychiatrist.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> I believe it does. But whatever.
> 
> Please proceed with your careful analyses of mentally ill people. I'm sure everyone in this forum is a certified psychiatrist.


If everyone can be a **** comedian, I think we're entitled to have a go at psychiatry.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Can we all stop flaming? Lets just accept the fact that things got out of hand with a few posts, and move on. Theres no need for insults by anyone. I'm not accusing anyone here either.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*Temporary setbacks in advance of future gains*

We have an anti-trolling policy at Talk Classical, and it WILL be enforced.

Here, I'll quote myself:


Chi_townPhilly said:


> [W]e have our virtual "conversation parlor," the rules are posted over the entrance of our "virtual door." We ask, prior to registering, "do you undertand and agree to abide by..." before the process is completed. People who successfully register here say "yes." This is NOT a place for no-holds-barred free speech. A cursory perusal of the Rules bears this out.


 Willful attempts to hijack threads fall into the 'inflammatory' category and are thus a version of "trolling." If you have not checked in on our *Guidelines & Terms of Service* in a while, now might be a good time to do so. Our newest section of the Guidelines pertains to trolling. Persistent trolling WILL result in penalties up to and including being banned from the forum. Also of importance- when one finds posts that violate policy, report them to Staff (either via the "report post" function, or through Private Message to a Staffer). Avoid the temptation to "take matters into your own hands."

Any further questions concerning procedure can be addressed to any Staffer, _in private_.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread-topic.


----------

