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

Read the work of David Smail. See his arguments about how psychological distress is the result of one's position in society, not something that originates internally. See his arguments about how clinical psychologists fail to help clients see the real source of their distress.

His internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom is a great place to start.

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

Psychiatrists prescribe medications. Non-psychiatrists don't.

David Smail, he da man. And he's got my essay on counselling on his website, so a man of taste too.

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. — Harry Hindu

I'm sure by "full time" he meant something along the lines of the standard 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I'm sure by "full time" he meant something along the lines of the standard 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. — Michael

Read what he wrote again:

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. — unenlightened

Most people are already full time workers in that sense and still have time to have sex and raise a family, so no, that isn't what he meant.

I did read what he wrote. I believe what he was saying is that if every person spent their working hours writing, or if every person spent their working hours as a metal worker, then society would fall apart and we wouldn't survive (no farmers to produce food, no doctors to heal the sick, etc.).

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

I'll have my own go at addressing this. What about being male and being female? If all members of the species were male, or if all members of the species were female, then that would mean the demise of the species. Therefore being male and being female are illnesses?

David Smail, he da man. And he's got my essay on counselling on his website, so a man of taste too. — unenlightened

Good for you, un. I heartily agree that Smail was a fine man, and his website is still alive and kicking, but alas he isn't.

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You read my post that you quoted about as wrongly and uncharitably as possible. None of what you say here goes against my position.

The scientific basis of medicine in other departments seems to result in cures, ameliorations, a reduction in suffering. In mental health, the exact opposite seems to happen. — unenlightened

This seems like a bizarre thing to say. Plenty of patients are either cured or have their mental illnesses ameliorated via psychological and psychiatric treatment.

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

I'll have my own go at addressing this. What about being male and being female? If all members of the species were male, or if all members of the species were female, then that would mean the demise of the species. Therefore being male and being female are illnesses? — Michael

This seems like an impossible situation. How would a species even survive to make it to be an all male or all female species? There are species that are neither and can procreate just fine. Let's just say that if you are born different than the species you are part of and what makes you different would be a detriment to the species you are part of if they all had it (meaning that they wouldn't even be considered the same species), then it would be an illness to the survival of THAT species.

This seems like a bizarre thing to say. — Terrapin Station

It is isn't it.

These studies conclude that anxiety and depression are markedly higher than they were in earlier eras. They examine age groups from children to middle-aged adults and span the medical and psychological literature. Many are nationally representative samples. Most employ anonymous questionnaires asking about symptoms, which means the increases cannot be due to over-diagnosis – these are people filling out surveys for research studies, not people seeking treatment. Yet they still report more issues. And it’s not just because they think it’s more acceptable to do so – the MMPI includes two measures of this type of response bias, and it still showed increases in mental health issues among high school and college students after these scales were included in the model.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201510/are-mental-health-issues-the-rise

In an article in The Sun Magazine, Gary Greenberg says that, if I recall correctly, as part of writing The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry he participated in a clinical trial, faked having depression, and in that trial met the diagnostic criteria for depression. You should not be able to fake having a disease, he says.

If I'm not mistaken, science to had similar beginnings - a lot of speculation and very little data. It was only comparatively recent that science got into the business of collecting hard data and rigorous analysis.

So, if psychology appears to fail as a science it's only because it's in the process of collecting data that'll vindicate/void their theories. The problem is made more difficult by the complexity of the subject; the prime difficulty being emotions and thoughts can't be quantified and thus the exactitude of mathematics can't be applied. Therefore, it's not surprising psychology lacks the rigor that is claimed by its cousin, biology.

It's easy to overlook important details when you're in the thick of something and hindsight is always 20/20. So, pay attention to the timeline - the beginnings, the progress, the successes and failures of psychology as a discipline. Even if it's not a science now, in the next few decades it may achieve that status.

The problem is made more difficult by the complexity of the subject; the prime difficulty being emotions and thoughts can't be quantified and thus the exactitude of mathematics can't be applied. — TheMadFool

The data has been around for a long time - as long as we've been around to collect it. The prime difficulty is that our psychology is radically altered by our psychological theories. If this happened in biology, it would be as though as soon as we discover that rabbits breed like rabbits, the all turn celibate.

So above, for example linked to some evidence that suggests to me the hypothesis that the scientific study of the psyche changes the psyche in particular ways; that it leads to objectification of the self and of others, and this tends to produce isolation, dissociation, anxiety, and depression.

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. — Bitter Crank

What's your views on things like personality disorders and how they might affect social interactions in particular? Personality disorders, more so than anxiety disorders or depression, are manifested in the poor social interactions that manifest from those who may have these disorders. Thus, what looks like just someone who has abysmal social skills might have an underlying personality disorder. Of course, it may be that someone just has abysmal social skills. I guess when does one look deeper and when does one say that it is just a feature of this person but no underlying issue?

he prime difficulty is that our psychology is radically altered by our psychological theories. If this happened in biology, it would be as though as soon as we discover that rabbits breed like rabbits, the all turn celibate. — unenlightened

I see, the problem is a fundamental one - like trying to observe animal behavior crudely, unaware that the observer alters the behavior of the animals e.g. they may be taken as prey or predator. I wonder how animal researchers solve this issue? Can't we apply that to humans? Perhaps not, given our intelligence and impressionable nature, this problem multiplies manifold.

I'm sure this issue is a known problem to psychologists. Don't they have a solution? I'm asking because it invalidates all their work.

From another angle, psychology reveals harmful behavior e.g. biases, prejudices, fallacious thinking, etc. Knowledge of such aspects of the psyche and behavior modifications arising therefrom, seem to me, a positive thing. The study itself may become outmoded the moment it becomes public knowledge BUT its effects have been therapeutic. Don't we owe it to the diligent psychologist for continuing to work despite the flaw you mentioned?

From such a perspective, psychology is a highly dynamic field, requiring constant research and data collection because its data has such a short shelf-life. So, in my humble opinion, we can solve this problem in psychology by keeping pace with the data as it changes.

I'm sure this issue is a known problem to psychologists. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure it's known at all. I fear it may be a bee confined entirely to my own bonnet.

From another angle, psychology reveals harmful behavior e.g. biases, prejudices, fallacious thinking, etc. Knowledge of such aspects of the psyche and behavior modifications arising therefrom, seem to me, a positive thing. The study itself may become outmoded the moment it becomes public knowledge BUT its effects have been therapeutic. — TheMadFool

I don't think it is a positive thing at all. If you treat people as complex objects - objectively - then you learn how to manipulate them. So marketing and personnel management are where psychologists find a use.

But the real question is what such treatment teaches people, not just the subjects/objects of experiments, but the victims of the everyday work of psychologists in marketing etc - that they are malfunctioning computers. It's not just that the theory becomes outmoded, but that it negatively impacts the way people relate to each other, and the way they see themselves.

What's your views on things like personality disorders and how they might affect social interactions in particular? — schopenhauer1

Clearly, a personality disorder can affect social interactions. This is always true because personality (good bad or indifferent) is that with which we interact in the world.

... what looks like just someone who has abysmal social skills might have an underlying personality disorder. Of course, it may be that someone just has abysmal social skills. I guess when does one look deeper and when does one say that it is just a feature of this person but no underlying issue? — schopenhauer1

Oh, I don't know. It depends. I knew a guy, Eric, who was a paranoid schizophrenic. When he was feeling well, he was smart, charming, perceptive, and a pleasure to be with. BUT, when he was not feeling well (when he experienced intense fear and delusions) it was instantly obvious--even to a casual observer--that this fellow was not doing well on any level.

I don't have as much knowledge about personality disorder as I would like, and I don't have well developed theories about it.

We develop our personalities over time, along with all our other personal resources. Some disorders seem to be built in -- like schizophrenia -- while others -- like PTSD -- are a response to experience. Eric had developed a very pleasant personality and a brilliant mind as a young man. He was well educated and well read. I don't know when his symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia emerged -- I didn't know him as a young man.

Some people develop odd, eccentric, weird behaviors and affects from childhood on up. "Why?" is hard to say. I don't know. Determining when "oddness" or "weirdness" is diagnostically significant requires more knowledge than I have.

So above, for example linked to some evidence that suggests to me the hypothesis that the scientific study of the psyche changes the psyche in particular ways; that it leads to objectification of the self and of others, and this tends to produce isolation, dissociation, anxiety, and depression. — unenlightened

<people are effectively told> that they are malfunctioning computers. It's not just that the theory becomes outmoded, but that it negatively impacts the way people relate to each other, and the way they see themselves. — unenlightened

Does anybody get depressed or anxious about believing that" their mind is a computer", in some sense? It is a slightly "odd" feeling, I will admit. But so does the existential question "why is there something?" generate an odd feeling in me. I think the two feelings are similar existential ones. Is there a history of certain existential discourse ,per se, actually causing "isolation, dissociation, anxiety and depression"? (and not it just reflecting an already established mood or pathology). I say probably not.

Determining when "oddness" or "weirdness" is diagnostically significant requires more knowledge than I have. — Bitter Crank

There might be triggers as follows - somewhat arbitrary ones, epistemologically speaking, but perhaps sensible.
1) Constant unhappiness
2) Threatening others

Does anybody get depressed or anxious about believing that" their mind is a computer", in some sense? — Jake Tarragon

It's a shorthand, don't take it literally. But what I am saying is that the methodological turn of scientific psychology is a turn to treat humans as objects rather than as persons. Thus it tends to dehumanise, and that leads to increasing mental illness. Nobody gets depressed by one sentence, but the dominant psychological theory at any period is a powerful cultural influence on individuals. The advertising industry is a powerful and inescapable influence designed by psychologists to manipulate through raising anxiety.

But the advertising industry has the public as targets, whereas clinical psychology has them as cared for patients. Persons in fact, who can be treated alongside acceptance of whatever psychological theory holds sway. Perhaps there may be a slight and indirect negative effect on inter-personalization behavior because theory informs treatment - but as long as the theory is working positively overall then it doesn't matter.
And you seem to be saying, (I think) that any theory, in principle is not worth having. Because I can't see how any theory does not tend to objectify.

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 believe it is a science, with the caveat that it is a very young an underdeveloped science. Psychiatric science has a long way to go, although I believe it's made incredible progress since the time of say Freud.

It's hard to define something like mental illness without first defining "illness" itself. The definitions I found of illness were pretty circular, but here is OED's definition of disease:

"A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury."

So, in essence, an illness or disease is a disorder that affects the functioning of a human being (or etc) that produces specific symptoms.

So psychiatry would be the science that studies diseases that affect the functioning of a human being's mentality.

Health and illness are normative concepts, right? Health essentially states that a well-functioning body ought to behave in certain ways, and a well-functioning mind ought to behave in certain ways.

In the case of the mind, the mental should generally produce states of relative (though not constant) happiness, enthusiasm for life, positive thinking, and the like.

When the mind spirals down into the opposite states for a pro-longed period of time, I believe an illness is present. Psychiatry is the science that sets about to restore mental unhealth to health.

I believe there are tried-and-true methodologies and treatments that have scienced-back efficacy. The research supports the notion that treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), certain medications like Paxil or Prozac, as well as alternative treatments such as mindfulness and self-compassion, can go a long way in restoring mental health.

I know this from personal experience, as I have recovered from a long bout of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder using a combination of such treatments.

Psychiatry is far from an exact science, but I do believe it is a proto-science in its earliest stages, and one that can be quite helpful in finding solutions to mental un-wellness.

To give a further analogy, Newtonian physics was a science in its early stages that was vastly progressed by Einsteinian physics. That doesn't mean Newtonianism was not a science, but merely that it was an early stage of a more exact science today.