Then you'll see that such a condition doesn't qualify as mental illness. Alzheimer's, for example, would classify as a disease of the brain, as the brain physically changes. It's a physical disease first and foremost. — Agustino

As I wrote in my first post, diseases like Alzheimer's are still categorized as mental illnesses, even though mental infers mind, when really it should be brain. And I forget if it was in here or some other thread, but the discussion of materialism in the sciences is actually one reason why psychology is held back at times. Even though mental illness derives from physical changes in the brain, it's still important to make the distinction between brain and mind. A lot of people worry over whether their illness will change who they are as a person, and for the worse, so it's important that medications, and counseling, and so on all work together in order to help the person realize that they're still them.

Not all mental illness occurs in old age though — Agustino

I didn't mean to suggest that mental illness is seen only in the old.

Overall, I still think you're failing to acknowledge how well psychiatry can and does help people. But I also realize from the historical standpoint that mental healthcare in Europe has a track record of being abysmally worse than really anywhere else in the world, which is perhaps still true now. Here in the US, I think there's a healthy appreciation for what mental healthcare we do provide. If anything, we need more mental healthcare, which doesn't just means drugs. To treat any illness or disease, you need a lot of different things to come together for progress to be made and for the person to get better. If somebody's simply going to a psychiatrist, or just a psychologist, or just their doctor, or whatever else, then that probably won't be enough.

Two more points...

Shame does not always have to be about other people's expectations. I've often felt shameful for there being something wrong with me, which is inherently irrational, and has to do with my own expectations, so I agree with your analysis, I think. If I had cancer, it'd be retarded for me to feel sorry for myself, as if I did something wrong. Mental illness is just the same.

Also, when I'm talking about mental illness, I mean real mental illness, not circumstantial depression or anything else that's "normal." Mental illness is unintended and unwanted, as Terrapin says, undesired. There's no choice involved with it until you can get help. That's the biggest thing, really.

Also, when I'm talking about mental illness, I mean real mental illness, not circumstantial depression or anything else that's "normal." — Heister Eggcart

Okay, but please understand that for the most part that's not the type of mental illness I'm referring to. I'm not referring to Alzheimer's for example, or other conditions which I consider to be physical rather than mental - as I have defined the terms.

As I wrote in my first post, diseases like Alzheimer's are still categorized as mental illnesses, even though mental infers mind, when really it should be brain — Heister Eggcart

I know, but I said I'm not operating under that definition.

But I also realize from the historical standpoint that mental healthcare in Europe has a track record of being abysmally worse than really anywhere else in the world, which is perhaps still true now. — Heister Eggcart

Maybe, I don't know how things are in the US.

I'm just saying that mental illness is what it's categorized as. I also agree that saying it's mental illness doesn't make complete sense, but you should use the academic and medical terminology.

So what then are the essential elements of worldview and self-conception, according to you, that enable a positive reaction to failure? — Agustino

Ever heard of Stephen Covey? When I worked for AT&T, everybody in management had to take a Covey course. I was taken in by it at first. It's actually very similar to the founding principle of Zen. There's a fly in the ointment. I'll share it with you in PM if you're interested. Bottom line: failure is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to bring you to your knees. That's what makes you stop and learn something. People who don't go through that pain are ego-maniacs. They'll fail over and over because they can't learn.

Given more time than 10 minutes, person X could use that information to alter his sense of self - or perceive why such an alteration would be beneficial to him. — Agustino

OK. Practice without a license if you want. If you aren't an ego-maniac you'll discover the downside to that. :)

Bottom line: failure is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to bring you to your knees. That's what makes you stop and learn something. People who don't go through that pain are ego-maniacs. They'll fail over and over because they can't learn. — Mongrel

Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's Anti-Fragile?

OK. Practice without a license if you want. If you aren't an ego-maniac you'll discover the downside to that. :) — Mongrel

What's that have to do with anything? What am I practicing without a license? I haven't practiced anything.

Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's Anti-Fragile? — Agustino

No. Should I?

No. Should I? — Mongrel

Whether you should or you shouldn't that's up to you to decide. Now answer my other question.

Some people enjoy talking to barking dogs. I don't, Agustino.

Some people enjoy talking to barking dogs. I don't, Agustino. — Mongrel

Right. Well, goodluck with that. Any particular reason why the Great Mongrel falls so low so as to respond to someone's poor misunderstanding by insults? I thought better of you, but it seems I was wrong.

I wasn't trying to insult you. If I said to somebody "Now answer my question." I'd expect them to respond: "Go fuck yourself."

I wasn't trying to insult you. If I said to somebody "Now answer my question." I'd expect them to respond: "Go fuck yourself." — Mongrel

No you weren't "trying" but that's what you actually did as anyone with two eyes can tell you.

As for saying "now answer my question" - it seems only natural, you ask me questions and expect me to answer, I ask you and expect you to answer, and in case you don't I remind you that I'm interested in an answer. There's nothing uncivil in that.

Fight, fight, fight!

I ask you and expect you to answer, — Agustino

"Now answer my question" is not a request in American English. It's a command. It's a sentence a parent would utter to a child.

Street psychology... what power strategy did I just employ?

"Now answer my question" is not a request in American English. It's a command. It's a sentence a parent would utter to a child.

Street psychology... what power strategy did I just employ? — Mongrel

:-! The more intelligent Mongrel, is the one who knows how to hide their intelligence.

Be silent and be thought a fool. Speak a remove all doubt.

Street psychology sounds like a rich man giving change to a homeless veteran on the street.

Yes, I understand why you don't answer the question, don't worry >:O

What question?

Are you an actor? :P

No. I suck at lying.

I suck at lying. — Mongrel

Yes, I can see that right here:

No — Mongrel

Um. OK.

I can feel the erotic tension between you two. Agustino, do you want to offer our room to Mongrel? We have a soft bed and fluffy pillows, c'mon!

I can feel the erotic tension between you two. Agustino, do you want to offer our room to Mongrel? We have a soft bed and fluffy pillows, c'mon! — Heister Eggcart

I would but I'm afraid that we'll find out that Mongrel isn't a woman, but a man >:O She doesn't seem annoyed when called an actOR instead of an actTRESS.

Recently actresses do refer to themselves as actors. For reals, dude.

Oh how unfortunate, they have to be called the same way men are called, where are the feminists? They need to be liberated so that they shall take pride in being called actresses instead of having to be called actors like their male counterparts. Who says they have to be like the men are to be worthy?

Who says they have to be like the men are to be worthy? — Agustino

Nobody as far as I know.

Definition of Mental Illness: Incapacity of non-physical origin (non-genetic, non-inherited, non-aquired from accidents/diseases) which prevents one from successfully navigating and prospering in one's environment — Agustino

I'm not sure anything has a non-physical origin. But assuming arguendo that's possible, does the fact I'm incapable (due to an aversion to unilaterally imposed rules) of successfully navigating and prospering in the environment of this thread mean I suffer from a mental illness?

I would intuit that both mental strength and mental illness have to do with non-conformism of one kind or another. Successful non-conformism we label mental strength - non-successful one, mental illness. What makes for successful non-conformism? What is successful non-conformism? — Agustino

Yes, this is the two-fold problem; once we reject 'normal' as the measure, on the one hand it is hard to find the appropriate diagnostic authority, because the shrinks are normally insane, or insanely normal, and on the other hand, there is the problem - even if one is sane, of knowing that one is and distinguishing between sane and insane non-conformity.

Sometimes it is easy; I spent some weeks looking after a schizophrenic, and there was no question in anyone's mind which was the madman and which the revolutionary. But 'success' is also a problematic criterion. There was this guy I heard of who said strange things and got himself crucified ... with the benefit of hindsight, he seems rather sane and successful, but at the time, success seemed a long way away.

'Distress' is also sometimes proffered as a criterion, and it has the merit of fitting the medical bill of leading to a 'complaint' - the old term for illness. But again the manic, the schizophrenic, the paranoid, are not usually inclined to complain... and it is the madman who does not know he is mad that is most needful, and hardest to identify.

When the church was dominant, the question was whether one's visions were from God or the devil. I don't think things have really changed much.

Bottom line: failure is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to bring you to your knees. That's what makes you stop and learn something. People who don't go through that pain are ego-maniacs. They'll fail over and over because they can't learn. — Mongrel

I disagree that failure is supposed to hurt. Only losers cry about spilt milk (and we've all been losers at some point). And no, not crying isn't being an ego-maniac, although the ego does probably play a role in it. A large ego, by the way, is only a handicap when it runs out of control, but otherwise a large ego can be a huge advantage - like a powerful engine. I don't know if you've ever tried jet skis, but there's generally two versions. One is heavier and thus easier to control. The other is much lighter, can go much faster, but much more difficult to control (and you could injure yourself if you don't know what you're doing). A big ego is like the lighter jet ski - in the hands of a master it's very useful, in the hands of the idiot it's disastrous.

I am a lover of Asian martial arts and related knowledge. I've practiced several forms through out my life and I've always read books like The Art of War, The Book of Five Rings, Hagakure etc . The ego is not your enemy. You have to befriend the ego, whatever and however it is, it's a tool, just like any other that you have available. The only thing is that you must not let it control you and govern you. It must be servant, not master of the house. Sometimes the ego is useful, sometimes it's not - it's up to you to decide when.

Have you ever read Nassim Taleb's Anti-Fragile? — Agustino

I'm asking you because Taleb's metaphor of anti-fragility is what I mean by mental strength. The idea is that there are three types of organisms: fragile, robust, and anti-fragile. Fragile organisms are always hurt by pressure/stress. Robust organisms aren't affected by pressure/stress, they can withstand it without being hurt. Anti-fragile organisms not only aren't affected by pressure/stress, but they thrive under it, they are made better and stronger by it. Taleb's anti-fragile hero, for example, is Seneca. I would think most of us, and Taleb concurs, are in the fragile or robust category. I think the reason why many of us, myself included, have suffered or continue to suffer from mental illness is precisely that - our fragility or our robustness being overcome. But that's simply because we have never worked on ourselves, we have never trained ourselves to be any different. The idea is to move from that category into the anti-fragile category. That, in itself in my mind, offers quite possibly the best protection from mental illness as well as all the other things life can throw at ya. But of course - the corporatists at AT&T and so forth - they never want people to be in the anti-fragile category. They're too difficult to control and manage. Free people, in fact, cannot be managed. Better to tell them it's supposed to hurt - that way they'll be docile. If you teach them to thrive from stress - my God, they'll take the liberty of striving from the stress of opposing you!