If I understand you correctly then, what we call "mental illness" is an inability to adapt to one's changing social environment. Depending on the individual, a different sort of social environment might trigger the mental illness. Would you say that if given the necessary social environment, every one of us would suffer mental illness? There is no one who can adapt to every possible social environment? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure. Some people are more adaptable than others. Even concentration camps can be sanely survived by a few, perhaps. On the other hand, no one survives the end of the world. What I am really saying is that the 'illness' is not confined to the person, but is in the relationship, and very often is more to do with the society than the individual.

Perception of body medicine can also be flawed. Pregnant women don't need a cure, but their condition can be life threatening. Same for depression.

Thomas Moore said "cure" and "care" are etymologically related. Bla blah blah.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Says the psychiatrist to the psychologist and vice versa.

One always has to address the placebo effect in this context.

Not at all. An anti-social person is ideally suited to being a night-watchman or a lighthouse keeper, or a mountain shepherd. No reason at all to call such people ill. — unenlightened

You're confusing asocial behavior with anti-social behavior.

Or do you mean by 'antisocial' one who opposes the society they are in, in some way? Such people are agents of change and progress. — unenlightened

What I mean is the definition of antisocial. Here, let me help you:

Definition of antisocial

1
: averse to the society of others : unsociable

2
: hostile or harmful to organized society;

In other words, being asocial just means that you avoid social interaction. Antisocial means that you are antagonistic towards other people - regardless of the culture you find yourself in.

How does an agent of change and progress get others to agree with them and follow them if they are hostile to everyone they interact with?

So if you are 1. averse to the company of others, be a lighthouse keeper, and if you are 2. hostile to society, be a revolutionary.

How does an agent of change and progress get others to agree with them and follow them if they are hostile to everyone they interact with? — Harry Hindu

Smack them briskly about the head until they comply. Or possibly crucify a few of them to encourage the others. Are these mental illnesses?

Are these mental illnesses? — unenlightened

A-sociality and anti-sociality by themselves aren't mental illnesses at least in my book. They may be perceived by the subject as afflictions, in which case the person may need some assistance, and it need not be from somebody in the mental health field. People have many problems which are not mental health problems. Like they may have abysmal social skills -- a potentially significant problem and not necessarily having anything to do with mental health. Lots of people (most people? Is it a feature of humanness?) manage to be pains in the ass without having anything wrong with their mental health.

Would anyone care to elucidate how the placebo effect can mimic the efficacy of drugs tested in clinical trials?

If you read the research papers, there's plenty of evidence that the placebo effect has quite a significant impact on general wellbeing scores (PANSS, MADRS, etc.)

In regards to the topic, I think everyone would agree that having a bipolar or schizophrenic or depressed, on medication for those conditions rather than not.

That would be their purpose, to treat those conditions*.

*I purposely refuse to use the term disorder.

Schizophrenia is a terrible disease.

In regards to the topic, I think everyone would agree that having a bipolar or schizophrenic or depressed, on medication for those conditions rather than not.

That would be their purpose, to treat those conditions*.

*I purposely refuse to use the term disorder. — Question

Can you clarify what you mean, here?

Tell me about it. Medication helps though!

I didn't know you have it. When were you diagnosed?

So, what I mean to say is that the epistemological quantifier of mental illnesses is derived from the results one obtains from the drug treatment for the condition. It's not an exact science; but, if someone complains about being sad all the time, then putting them on SSRI's or other drugs that treat depression is what one has to do to become less depressed. If the drug works, then we have knowledge that either the drug was effective for the condition described or the placebo effect had an equal but not greater effect.

Yes, and it was a while ago when diagnosed. I spend time here to keep my sanity in check.

Other than that it's a condition one has to accept and live with or in the worst case scenario never come to terms with it and... well I think you get the idea. Unmedicated schizophrenics are pretty bad cases and non-compliant schizophrenics are worse...

There's a great movie that gives you a direct experience about how the condition can become manifest. 'God knows where I am' is the movie.

Does it have anything to do with your philosophical views or no?

Thanks for the movie recommendation...Ill keep my eye out for it. I have roku so I can search for it.

Moderately. I began reading Schopenhauer and becoming interested in Utilitarianism before I developed any symptoms. Stoicism also was studied intensively before anything started to make less sense than normal. Wittgenstein came later in my life when philosophy was becoming less clear and concise. I tend to lean on Cynicism though, due to negative symptoms, which are more devastating than the all too well known positive symptom aspect of the condition. I wonder sometimes if I didn't have this condition, would I be more of a Stoic.

My symptoms aren't hallucinations of any sort (thank God), rather excessive paranoia about my surroundings. I tend to think I'm hyper-vigilant, but that's not the same as paranoia which I experience daily.

So, what I mean to say is that the epistemological quantifier of mental illnesses is derived from the results one obtains from the drug treatment for the condition. It's not an exact science; but, if someone complains about being sad all the time, then putting them on SSRI's or other drugs that treat depression is what one has to do to become less depressed. If the drug works, then we have knowledge that either the drug was effective for the condition described or the placebo effect had an equal but not greater effect. — Question

Well, it's not always that simple. For some a drug to rebalance the brain is all one needs. For others, like me, it's just one factor that goes into keeping me upright. I don't think the ones prescribing drugs think that if the drugs don't "work" that its entirely the drug's fault.

That's just how psychiatry works. You keep on trying different drugs due to the incredibly complex nature of how the etymology of depression works. Today, we tend to have established antidepressants that have been proven ad hoc by time since their approval.

There are a couple of ways one can go about finding out which neurons to target, hormones to monitor, BDNF levels to raise, NMDA receptor antagonists to treat major cases, etc.

All of the above few known methods for treating depression resulted from trial and error, along with examining the brains of post-mortem victims of major depression (typically suicide victims). Otherwise, most progress is from the doctor-patient relationship and clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies.

Okay, true, in the specific context of psychiatry. Felt like we were getting off base, though, and discussing how to treat mental illness overall O:)

So if you are 1. averse to the company of others, be a lighthouse keeper, and if you are 2. hostile to society, be a revolutionary.

How does an agent of change and progress get others to agree with them and follow them if they are hostile to everyone they interact with? — Harry Hindu


Smack them briskly about the head until they comply. Or possibly crucify a few of them to encourage the others. Are these mental illnesses? — unenlightened

You still don't seem to understand the very terms you are using. Being a lighthouse keeper still requires you to be sociable to the captains and sailors out off the coast. An anti-social lightkeeper would turn the light out just to see a ship full of people crash on the rocks. You keep referring to an asocial lighthouse keeper.

If one is 2., hostile to society, and would then be a revolutionary, then they would only be a revolutionary against any social order. This all goes back to my first post about how the majority of humans behave, and that being the norm for humans - being social, just as we define the normal behavior of all living things based on the commonality of the behavior among the species. Being antisocial is simply abnormal and we usually define abnormalities as an illness or something to fix in someone.

If someone possesses a trait that, if all members of the species possessed would mean the demise of the species - like being hostile to other members, then that would be sufficient to call that trait an illness.

If someone possesses a trait that, if all members of the species possessed would mean the demise of the species - like being hostile to other members, then that would be sufficient to call that trait an illness. — Harry Hindu

That is completely ridiculous. If everyone was a full time writer, or a woman, or for that matter, a metal worker, the species would die out. But these are not illnesses.

If all the bees were queens, the species would die out, and if all the bees were workers, the species would die out, and if all the bees were drones, the species would die out. Therefore all bees are ill.

You seem to just like to be contrarian for the sake of it. :(

You're hovering near a stoic viewpoint. Note that you don't actually have to provide anything logically satisfying.

Just point to the way people use the words and drop the mike.

True it now becomes impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the concepts on the table... but look at your interlocutor objectively. Was there ever any chance of an intelligent discussion? If not then you have lost nothing.

I looked into the topic for a while and came to the conclusion that while we do need mental health professionals, it is worrying that a field of study as important as this one, must resort to voting on which diagnoses to add or remove from the DSM.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187534467/bad-diagnosis-for-new-psychiatry-bible

I read about half scanned the rest. Do you think objectivity in science and elsewhere is based on consensus, the ability of others with similar levels of experience to come to similar conclusions based on similar circumstances, facts, experiences. If not what do you think makes something objective.

That is completely ridiculous. If everyone was a full time writer, or a woman, or for that matter, a metal worker, the species would die out. But these are not illnesses.

If all the bees were queens, the species would die out, and if all the bees were workers, the species would die out, and if all the bees were drones, the species would die out. Therefore all bees are ill. — unenlightened

Uhh... yeah. If everyone was a "full-time" writer or metal-worker - meaning that is all they did, 24-7, and never possessed an inclination to eat or procreate, then I would say that they are ill, sure. Do you know anyone like this? I doubt it. So you examples are preposterous.

If everyone was suddenly being born a female and there were no males being born, yes the species would die out and would probably be the result of some disease, or damage to our DNA.

The same goes for all bees being drones, or queens, etc. Something would be wrong and Natural selection would filter out the problem. It is a fundamental feature of life to procreate and if that doesn't happen, then one would argue that life isn't happening.

You seem to just like to be contrarian for the sake of it. — unenlightened

You seem to just like to be obtuse for the sake of it.

You're hovering near a stoic viewpoint. Note that you don't actually have to provide anything logically satisfying.

Just point to the way people use the words and drop the mike.

True it now becomes impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the concepts on the table... but look at your interlocutor objectively. Was there ever any chance of an intelligent discussion? If not then you have lost nothing. — Mongrel

Shouldn't the way people use words be logical? Aren't I pointing to the illogical ways people are using words? From my perspective, it is those people that are using words improperly, or conflating words like "asocial" and "antisocial", that aren't participating intelligently in this discussion.

I'll side-step your question and suggest you look into just why homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

I wish the history of the mental health (MH) profession was such that MH professionals came forward and said something like, "after objectively looking at homosexuality (using circumstances, experience, facts, etc) from a mental health perspective we can confidently assure humankind that homosexuality is within the realm of normal human behavior."

Again... not saying we need to get rid of the field of study. It just doesn't appear that the field of study is capable of much objectivity. I suppose we could just assume it's a relatively new field of study, and/or that it's more difficult than other fields of study, and cut them some slack.

It seems to be that the way psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose mental illness is through conversation with the patient. The patient tells them what bothers them, what they feel, their thoughts, etc. So, if you have lost enjoyment in life, and experience constant sadness, you are diagnosed with depression (based on the things that you said to the mental health professional.) The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. The latter seems to have more epistemological validity than the former. What are your thoughts on this? And given this problem, can psychology really be called a science? — rickyk95

I think psychology and psychiatry are both very much sciences, although I agree that they are less reliable than, say, physics and chemistry.

I think, though, that we are at a very early stage of our conceptual understanding of what mental illness is.

Just as there are particular traits involved in a disease like cancer, there are particular traits involved in a disease like depression. In cancer, the main trait involved is the uncontrolled and harmful division of cells or something like that (I'm the worst scientist or doctor).

In major depressive disorder, say, the dominant traits are something like low mood / sad affect and pervasive negative thinking. There are ancillary symptoms too, but that seems to be to be the essence of depression based on my own readings and my own direct experience of the illness.

As time goes by,I think the science will become much more reliable.

Psychiatrists exist, but I am not at all sure that psychiatry does in any significantly different way to psychology though!

It doesn't take a psychiatrist or a rocket scientist to tell me or anyone else that a lot of people out there are seriously mentally screwed up... — Heister Eggcart

Every individual "out there" has, at all times, some condition/state that is not considered normal. But if we see a person walking with a limp, struggling to hear a sound, violently coughing, etc. we don't say that he/she is in any way "screwed up". We have compassion for him/her.

We recognize that some part of him/her is not functioning normally and we show compassion.

We must not really believe that mental illnesses are abnormalities, because a lot of people refer to them with words like "screwed up". Those words imply that, rather than suffering from symptoms of something that has gone wrong, a person is inherently defective, flawed, etc.

And "screwed up" is not a fact that can be confirmed by science. It is an attitude--an uncharitable attitude that sees people as less than human rather than as humans experiencing a variation of what all humans experience: suffering. If psychology is science, "screwed up" has no place in a discussion of psychology.