"What's normal? What's mental illness?"

Black Swan

Today I was in my favourite javahouse and I had casually observed a person whose behaviour appeared to be quite different from what I would expect to be the norm. One of my colleagues leaned over to whisper in my ear noting the bizarre behaviour of that person, and that I might want to be on my guard. I am certainly not qualified to clinically evaluate someone's condition, and admittedly the behaviour observed, although quite different, may have just been an expression of individual identity, or perhaps a student coping mechanism used to survive the pressures of exam week at university. This incident, if it was an incident, did provoke me to question "What's normal? What's mental illness?"

For decades there have been ongoing controversies of what constitutes normal or healthy as opposed to mental illness from psychological and psychiatric perspectives, as well as with the criteria for defining mental illness contained within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders versions IV and now V. That controversy still rages today, and will probably continue into the future.

Ronald Kessler and Philip Wang (2008) in The Descriptive Epidemiology of Commonly Occurring Mental Disorders in the United States, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 29: 115-129, concluded that approximately 46% of the US population would experience a mental disorder during their lifetimes as defined by DSM-IV criteria. In 2008 the US population was estimated to be 304 million per the US Census Bureau, and 46% would be roughly 140 million. Furthermore, they suggested that roughly 25% of the population, or 76 million meets the DSM-IV criteria in any given year. At first blush, that seems to be an extraordinary number of people that would experience a mental disorder during a given year, or during their lifetimes.

To add to the controversy of what was normal and what was mental illness, Thomas Szasz (1960) in The Myth of Mental Illness, American Psychologist, Vol. 15 (2): 113-118, suggested that most diagnoses of mental illness were myth. From a scientific standpoint mental illness was not literally a "thing" or physical object, and it can only "exist" as a theoretical concept. Further Szasz suggested that highly familiar concepts such as mental illness overtime become popular explanations for behaviour to such a point that people begin to "believe" in them as "objective truths" or "facts," when they are not.

Anecdotally, I believe myself to be different, but hold that such differences between individuals make us interesting rather than boring; i.e., vive la différence! But how would I stand up to a clinical evaluation today? Would my "difference" fall within a normal population distribution, or would some professional clinically define my "difference" to be a form of mental illness according to the DSM IV or V? And what about the person I observed in the javahouse today? He did not hurt himself or anyone else, only exhibited behaviour "different" from others, which, if we truly value "difference" should fit-in with our diverse scheme of things?

Thoughts? Observations? Comments?

Faith

I think a useful guideline is, "Does it cause distress?". That's a big difference between a lot of what we call "mental illness" and "normal behaviour".

Black Swan

Faith wrote: »

I think a useful guideline is, "Does it cause distress?". That's a big difference between a lot of what we call "mental illness" and "normal behaviour".

Interesting point Faith. If someone is truly hurting, certainly they should seek help, and help should be given. Sometimes qualified professional help may be needed, or at other times a good friend's help will do quite nicely.

On the other hand, should there be a concern with too many people being diagnosed and labeled as being mentally ill, when perhaps many are just different? I find the DSM-IV mental illness criteria percentages claimed by Ronald Kessler and Philip Wang (above) as being extraordinary, and frankly incredible. It's almost as if the new normal is abnormal.

David Rosenhan (1973) in On Being Sane in Insane Places, Science, Vol. 179, Issue 4070, pp. 250-258, suggested that there were too many mental illness diagnoses and hospital admissions that were arbitrary and capricious. In one study he sent graduate students to psychiatric hospitals pretending to exhibit mental illness behaviours, and once admitted as patients stopped exhibiting those behaviours. When these graduate students resumed their normal student behaviors, such as note taking of their observations while incarcerated, such behaviours were added to their charts as exhibiting abnormal behaviour for a patient (e.g., a Catch-22 position). When Rosennan disclosed his study to administrators, they immediately released the students, issuing strong complaints regarding Rosennan's methods. Rosennan concluded that "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals," and more troubling were the consequences including "powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labeling" after being diagnosed as mentally ill.

Faith

Your premise is flawed. If someone is getting diagnosed with something, then they have sought help. Psychologists and psychiatrists aren't walking down the street handing out labels. Seeking help implies distress, and most people aren't faking their symptoms as an experiment.

In addition, many people find comfort in labels. People may feel "different", "weird" or "insane" until they speak to a mental health professional who says "Actually, your symptoms are in line with X. It affects approximately Y percentage of the population. Here's what we can do about it."

Finally, my personal guess would be that the reason for mental health diagnoses increasing is a combination of factors: fundamental changes to our lifestyles that go against how we're designed; increasingly longevity; and increased understanding of mental illness. Historically, people with mental illness got no help. They may have died on the streets or been shut up in a 'facility', or they may have just struggled through life. It was less likely that they'd have children, so the genetic component would have been limited. The infant and youth mortality rate used to be far, far higher than it is now so that may have contributed to a lower rate of expression of mental illness. And finally, I don't think we can argue that spending 40 hours a week in an artificially-lit cubicle is good for us in any way! We're not designed to be cooped up indoors, looking at screens and sitting down. It's no surprise that depression rates are soaring! Again, this last paragraph is entirely my own musing and has no evidence base to support it.

stefanovich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_and_Civilization

Foucault has a really interesting book on this subject.

...modern man no longer communicates with the madman [...] There is no common language: or rather, it no longer exists; the constitution of madness as mental illness, at the end of the eighteenth century, bears witness to a rupture in a dialogue, gives the separation as already enacted, and expels from the memory all those imperfect words, of no fixed syntax, spoken falteringly, in which the exchange between madness and reason was carried out. The language of psychiatry, which is a monologue by reason about madness, could only have come into existence in such a silence.

— Foucault, Preface to the 1961 edition[6]

JuliusCaesar

There's a lot of evidence for social factors in mental health/distress. That's why there's the so-called "bio-psycho-social model".

here for the social factors. (There are LOADS of papers, I'm just giving this as an example.)

Environmental factors - overlaps with social: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/186/1/4

Impact of the natural environment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204431/ and http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/upload/CHE_DEA_NaturalEnvironments.pdf

physical exercise outdoors vs gym: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204130607.htm


But to return to the original question, I suppose there is a normal curve distribution of what you might call normal/conventional and eccentricity. We seem to have little tolerance for any deviation from the norm these days and try to regard it as a mental health issue.

I would regard distress caused and interference in normal functioning as a reason for help-seeking. I don't always regard it as "illness".

Coffeeandtea

Distress and functioning would seem to be good criteria for perhaps distinguishing between eccentricity or difference and then illness. However what about the schizophrenic whose distressed that he hears voices because of how he will looked upon/treated by others in society if they know he s hearing voices. ..and his ability to find work/accommodation is restricted because no one wants to hire/live with someone who hears voices. ...so his distress and poor functioning are in this instance a reflection of societies intolerance or fear rather the unusal experiences he has....people in wheelchairs often have difficulties in daily life because of the inaccessibility of the built environment. ..society in effect excludes them or hinders them from equal participation in society....so too with mental differences. ..society refuses to accept difference and fears it....and actively excludes certain people

Speedwell

Coffee and tea, one reason that people are afraid to seek therapy is that being "crazy" is seen as some sort of moral failing rather than one of the following, just off the top of my head:

• The body's and mind's protective response to past trauma
• Bad brain chemistry
• Various chronic physical illnesses
• Inflammation in general
• Genetic diseases
• External issues such as coping with a death in the family, financial problems, work troubles, overwhelm

I'm an American and I have been in therapy. I told my Irish mother-in-law that I had had an excellent therapist or two in America, and she asked me in bewilderment, "Well what's wrong with ye?"

Mother, what was wrong with me was that work stress was driving me bananas, I was separated from my husband (your son) for months while we applied for a green card, I had body dysmorphic disorder and undiagnosed Asperger's, I had never learned the usual coping mechanisms that most neurotypical people learn in well-functioning families (partly because of my autism, partly because of my father's, and partly because my family wasn't all that well-functioning emotionally anyway), and I didn't have any close friends within an hour's drive or more. In essence I had to hire a "professional friend". The therapy was successful; I got rid of the body dysmorphic disorder, had someone agree that parts of my life were crappy but that I was doing OK under the circumstances, and learned what I needed to learn to stop beating up on myself and to turn down the panic mode in my head. And hugs... I got some ordinary non-sexual human contact, which is important even for people with autism.

But I didn't tell her all that; I just said, "Mum, it's not like that. I had some stress and I wasn't coping properly, and I went to talk to someone who was trained to help people like that, and she gave me some good advice and taught me some helpful ways to deal with things." And that is how you approach therapy. I am a better person because I dealt with those things.

You (the generic "you") don't ask the doctor to hide from your family the fact that you have insulin-dependent diabetes, need a hearing aid or an operation, or have a broken leg, the flu, or an extra bit of chromosome. You just plain shouldn't be ashamed of doing whatever it takes to make yourself a happy and functional and resilient person. Life is too short to walk around with a broken leg, and life is too short to sit around with a broken brain.

Coffeeandtea

It's hard to read to tone here...but it seems like your angry with me....or am i picking it up totally wrong.....in any case i think we are probably on same page in our views...but even still im a bit confused ...and also I'm not even sure how your reponse is relevant to what I posted in this forum....I'm glad you have found helpful ways to help yourself...and of course you should proud of your self and not ashamed. ....but there are other reasons other than shame to not want involve ones family in ones issues....boundary issues. ..issues of autonomy. ..and families and inter relationships differ wildly....so what's right for one person vis a vis disclosing may not be right for another....

Speedwell

Coffeeandtea wrote: »

It's hard to read to tone here...but it seems like your angry with me....and also I'm not even sure how your reponse is relevant to what I posted in this forum....I'm glad you have found helpful ways to help yourself...and of course you should proud of your self and not ashamed. ....but there are other reasons other than shame to not want involve ones family in ones issues....boundary issues. ..issues of autonomy. ..and families and inter relationships differ wildly....so what's right for one person vis a vis disclosing may not be right for another....

It must be hard to read tone if you believed my supportive post of agreement that talked about a superlatively relevant issue (how moralistic attitudes prevent people from getting help for issues that involve mental functioning, exacerbating the problem and causing needless suffering), and clearly said the "you" was generic, was anger directed specifically at you as an individual.

If it makes you feel better, I'm angry with you now. But because I have learned healthy coping mechanisms, rather than have a go at you on the forum, I'm going back to bed. I suggest you do the same, and in the morning, get some help in the form of an English-language style guide (look up "ellipsis").

Coffeeandtea

Lol...I reread your post and tried editing my response as I realised I was might be picking it up wrong.....if you see up above I did edit it....apologies.....I think it was just because you addressed it to me and put a lot of *you* in the last paragraph.....also I'm a bit sleep deprived. ....anyway sorry for offending you....I think you are great for how you have taken care of yourself.....and yes I too wished we lived in a society that could accept both difference and distress as normal human experiences......it makes me think that if the statistics are right and nearly 50% of us will experience some sort dI stress at some point....is everyone just afraid they will be found out.....maybe it's time we tell them that emperor has no clothes!!!....again sorry for taking you up the wrong way...I do that sometimes...take peoples words and actions and interpret them in weird ways......my response was a bit offensive I sup pose on hindsight....given how honest and open you were in your post...which I greatly admire BTW. ....I really hope I didn't offend you too much and that you slept well and are happy to revive this reply

Labarbapostiza

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

We seem to have little tolerance for any deviation from the norm these days and try to regard it as a mental health issue.

In the history of mental health services, people who were different in some sense, or deemed to be different, found themselves locked up in mental health facilities. It's much less of a trend than it was.

Do you have any idea why "normal" people are so hostile to those they deem not to be "normal"?

mariaalice

As soon as an individual become conscious of having something 'wrong' with themselves it changes how they view themselves and they may look for treatment. The internet make this easy, so must be shaping how individuals view themselves.

For example in the past/pre internet if an individual has say mild social anxiety disorder( that wasn't causing them a lot of stress or it was a mild amount of stress ) they might have viewed themselves as shy or they might have avoided social situations or they might have though nothing about themselves those around them might have though of them a bit shy or maybe a bit odd and there would have been more tolerance of oddness. Now everything has to be diagnosed even the mildest end of disorders this consciousnesses has changed how the individual views themselves which in turn changes the mild disorder they have.

The internet has both freed and enslaved individuals.

Pegase

I think this all depends on the collective consciousness, a 100 years ago how people act today would be considered abnormal and how people acted 100 years ago is considered abnormal today.
The idea that someone is not normal depends on your own view of the world, it is typical here in Ireland, especially rural areas that if someone is doing something outside of the norm they are considered mentally challenged. If it does not resonate with the norm then it is not right.
This is a typical scenario in western cultures and is, in my opinion, complete BS. We are all expressions of the “whatever you want to call it” and to limit and judge a person for expressing themselves is cruel and unjust.
If someone wises to express themselves and be who they are without hurting anyone then it should be allowed. Some countries have evolved to this this mentality such as Norway, Sweden and Holland and these are places I visit regularly, just to get away from the judgemental eyes of the general Irish psyche.
Lately, however, I have been getting past this and am expressing myself by doing what others may see as mentally challenged, such as meditating in the middle of a park, dancing with my music on, swimming in the cold sea, drinking coffee alone, eating organic, and not worrying what people think. In fact I am beginning to take pride in what I do. I worked hard on myself and learned to know who I really am and not be afraid to be myself and not worry about being judged and I never judge another, after all, when it all boils down, ye judge yourself.
On the other side am a great father and for income a top software developer for 25 years and own my own successful company having never been further than third year at school, failing at all exams due to been bullied and victimised all my life and abused by teachers and priests alike.
The system in the west is flawed, there are names for every possible behaviour, label them and put them into a box for life. Many people are drugged to the limit in mental institutions simply because they found out their truth and wanted to enjoy their one existence on this planet. Most people are brainwashed by believing in what society tells them by means of advertising, education and media.
People have become so identified by thought that there is no way to explain it to them, it’s like telling a fish it lives in water… “Water? What water?” People have forgotten their true source, some even believe we are not animals or nature at all!
So what is normal?
Depends on how you wish to live life, but I suggest to live and let love and steer clear of those who judge others for simply doing something you wouldn’t normally do yet or have done in the past and just leave them alone.
Take care.

Valmont

For better or worse, Thomas Szasz saw right through to the heart of 'mental health'. Quite simply, he pointed out that medicine only became scientific and empirical when it started to treat disease as the objectively identifiable lesion of bodily tissues. It is relatively easy to identify a diseased liver, lung, heart or haemorrhoid as they have very definite functions in our body; an identifiable diversion from normal functioning that has a negative impact on the body is the gold standard of disease.

But what about a person? What is the function of a person? Is it to be 100% happy? Productive? Tax-paying? Caring? The answer to these questions is sought in discourse on morality, religion, and philosophy. If we hold to the idea that medicine is a legitimate scientific field then 'mental health' can only ever be a metaphor.

My team is regularly referred children who are assumed to have a 'sickness' or 'disorder' because they don't want to go to school - 'school-refusers' they're called. Here the argument is that something about them is impacting their functioning; in this case the assumption being that it is normal and mentally healthy for children to go to school everyday. I don't necessarily disagree with this idea but surely you can see that it is one hell of an assumption to make about healthiness.

Black Swan, I would heartily recommend Szasz's book and another called Madness Explained by Richard Bentall which might be apt given your coffee house experience.

Valmont

Faith wrote: »

Your premise is flawed. If someone is getting diagnosed with something, then they have sought help. Psychologists and psychiatrists aren't walking down the street handing out labels. Seeking help implies distress, and most people aren't faking their symptoms as an experiment.

The 2000 people involuntarily committed to psychiatric units last year would probably disagree with this. The real figure is undoubtedly higher as many people 'volunteer' to go to a psychiatric hospital only to avoid being formally committed.

Faith wrote: »

In addition, many people find comfort in labels. People may feel "different", "weird" or "insane" until they speak to a mental health professional who says "Actually, your symptoms are in line with X. It affects approximately Y percentage of the population. Here's what we can do about it."

There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that many people are harmed by the labels given them. At the most basic level a psychiatric diagnosis is damaging to one's sense of agency. It works both ways, unfortunately.

Faith wrote:

And finally, I don't think we can argue that spending 40 hours a week in an artificially-lit cubicle is good for us in any way! We're not designed to be cooped up indoors, looking at screens and sitting down. It's no surprise that depression rates are soaring! Again, this last paragraph is entirely my own musing and has no evidence base to support it.

I see your point here, but what have we evolved to do, exactly? Can we settle this definitively or should we admit that what is 'good' for anyone is always going to be heavily linked to the prevailing culture? Homosexuality was once an official DSM diagnosis; it was removed not because of some biological medical discovery of its true nature: it was removed because our culture shifted to become more accepting and tolerant.

mariaalice

I can never understand how those who take the position that mental illness is socially constructed don't seem to understand that their position i.e that mental illness is socially constructed is a social construct itself one with political roots.

The biopsychosocial model appeaser to be the most comprehensive explanation of metal health.

Labarbapostiza

Valmont wrote: »

I see your point here, but what have we evolved to do, exactly? Can we settle this definitively or should we admit that what is 'good' for anyone is always going to be heavily linked to the prevailing culture? Homosexuality was once an official DSM diagnosis; it was removed not because of some biological medical discovery of its true nature: it was removed because our culture shifted to become more accepting and tolerant.

There's a little more to it. When people like Thomas Szasz began speaking out, people were being involuntarily committed to mental health facilities who wouldn't be considered mentally ill by any acceptable standard today. In Ireland the parish priest could literally have you locked up. In the US it's only very recently that states are outlawing the use of 'conversion therapy' on minors. In the states where it isn't outlawed, parents can have their children, who they deem to be homosexual, committed for treatment. Where mental health professionals will attempt to "fix" them.

I don't think "normal" people have changed, in becoming more accepting and tolerant. I think it's just become harder for them to do what they want to do.

Labarbapostiza

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

But to return to the original question, I suppose there is a normal curve distribution of what you might call normal/conventional and eccentricity. We seem to have little tolerance for any deviation from the norm these days and try to regard it as a mental health issue.

The Normal, or Gaussian, distribution, only applies to random phenomena, like the result of coin flips, how many heads or tails in a row. It's can't really be applied to mental health...Especially, "normality". Because 50% of the distribution would be ever increasingly less than "normal", with the other 50% ever increasingly more than "normal". With no one being completely "normal".

I would regard distress caused and interference in normal functioning as a reason for help-seeking. I don't always regard it as "illness".

I'm distressed at this thread....I'm literally shaking in rage, and trying not to be nasty. I feel ill.

What is "normal"?..........

Is the answer so rancid and shameful, a "normal" person who's perfectly sure what it is, wouldn't like to say.

JuliusCaesar

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The Normal, or Gaussian, distribution, only applies to random phenomena, like the result of coin flips, how many heads or tails in a row. It's can't really be applied to mental health...Especially, "normality". Because 50% of the distribution would be ever increasingly less than "normal", with the other 50% ever increasingly more than "normal". With no one being completely "normal".

So tallness or IQ are just randomly distributed?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I'm distressed at this thread....I'm literally shaking in rage, and trying not to be nasty. I feel ill.

What is "normal"?..........

Is the answer so rancid and shameful, a "normal" person who's perfectly sure what it is, wouldn't like to say.

I have no idea why you are so distressed and angry. Perhaps you would clarify? Thanks. It is not my intention to cause anyone to become upset.

Jimmy Bottlehead

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I have no idea why you are so distressed and angry. Perhaps you would clarify? Thanks. It is not my intention to cause anyone to become upset.

Plus, it is an important issue for psychology and how it applies to and works with society. I do feel the range of what is normal is widening, but the outcome may be that in time, nobody is considered 'normal' owing to their uniqueness as a person. Whether that's good or bad is currently beyond my scope of thought!

dar100

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Plus, it is an important issue for psychology and how it applies to and works with society. I do feel the range of what is normal is widening, but the outcome may be that in time, nobody is considered 'normal' owing to their uniqueness as a person. Whether that's good or bad is currently beyond my scope of thought!

I would strongly argue that "normal" is becoming much, much more restricted

JuliusCaesar

Please say more! I thought normal is widening due to the increasing acceptance of sexualities - cisgender, transgender, pan sexual etc.

dar100

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Please say more! I thought normal is widening due to the increasing acceptance of sexualities - cisgender, transgender, pan sexual etc.

Thankfully a more accepting attitude is more prevalent in modern society, however, and maybe I'm a bit cynical with this, but I fear acceptance in some cases does not mean the person is viewed as "normal". I think a lot of the historical cultural attitudes are still lurking under the surface. How many generations does it realistically take to change such ridgetlly held Beliefs ?

Let's consider the amount of diagnostics etc, how many people are said to be on one spectrum or another? Are these individuals viewed as "normal"?

JuliusCaesar

You may well be right, I fear :-(

oneilla

Fascinating thread/topic and one which ought to be discussed. It can be kinda difficult to find a forum to question what is meant by mental health, illness and normal.

I'm familiar with Szasz, Foucault, R.D Laing, the Rosenhan experiments - he was challenged to repeat the experiment and the psychiatrists claimed to have identified the researchers/fakes; Rosenhan got one over them again as he never sent anyone into the psychiatric hospitals! (Szasz later got involved with Scientology unfortunately...). Historically it was from psychology that a good amount of criticism originated of psychiatry and of the practise of locking up undesirables or "abnormal" people such as those in the coffee shop mentioned in the OP.


As outlined by Volmont, most medical science investigates and performs tests yet for example wrt depression psychiatry has yet to improve upon - or even in the first instance prove- the serotonin hypothesis.
Irving Kirsch has argued previously that antidepressants may be no more effective than sugar pills . It was in the 1970s when there was a bright light shone on psychiatry and tough questions were asked. Psychiatry's response was to double down on the biomedical model. It's decades later yet we're still at the same point.

Maybe it's tunnel vision to focus solely on psychiatry but when there are involuntary admissions, coercion - psychiatrists telling patients "you can either be admitted voluntarily or involuntarily" - court orders granted to give a 16yr old ECT, then questions ought be asked.

What is mental illness? Well, I'd ask what is mental health and how is it measured or otherwise tested. PEople will often go see a GP for a check-up, physical exam, blood tests etc. yet how do you determine a mind is healthy? If we're serious then we should probably go back to the beginning and ask 'what is a mind?' while we're at it and then what does medical science have to offer.

oneilla

Faith wrote: »

Your premise is flawed. If someone is getting diagnosed with something, then they have sought help. Psychologists and psychiatrists aren't walking down the street handing out labels. Seeking help implies distress, and most people aren't faking their symptoms as an experiment.

On this point, psychiatrists may not be prowling the streets handing out labels but if mental illness is a physical or "real" material illness like a fractured tibia or a cancerous tumour (as I've often seen claimed) then it exists whether or not a person "seeks help". Problem is, outside of serious brain injury, no physical basis has been found for a healthy/unhealthy mind.

As mentioned in the OP, there are in fact people handing out labels [just not psychologists or psychiatrists] - in coffee shops, on the street, in relationships, families, workplaces etc etc

Labarbapostiza

oneilla wrote: »

On this point, psychiatrists may not be prowling the streets handing out labels but if mental illness is a physical or "real" material illness like a fractured tibia or a cancerous tumour (as I've often seen claimed) then it exists whether or not a person "seeks help". Problem is, outside of serious brain injury, no physical basis has been found for a healthy/unhealthy mind.

Okay...No

An x-ray is relatively straightforward technology, an encephalogram is not. X-rays have been around for a long time. So for a long time you could x-ray a body and see a broken bone. But if you x-ray'd a schizophrenics brain it would appear to be no different than a non-schizoid brain. And this absence of evidence, was taken by many to mean evidence of absence, and not maybe the use of an inadequate and inappropriate tool for the job.

Urine tests can tell you a lot about the kidney, but they can't see broken bones. It would be absurd to tell a patient that their urine shows them to be perfectly health, and the terrible pain they feel in their arm is just something in their imagination, that they imagine their arm to be broken. But this kind of absurdity is rampant when it comes to mental health.

Encephalography is still a developing field. Getting computer technology to the point where you can actually see the physiology of psychiatric conditions is only just about happening now. And as of the moment there isn't enough data to determine the "statistical" brain (that is not enough to model what would be the functioning of a "normal" brain..).

As mentioned in the OP, there are in fact people handing out labels [just not psychologists or psychiatrists] - in coffee shops, on the street, in relationships, families, workplaces etc etc

What's going on here is something technically referred to as Theory of Mind.

Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

To give an example. Dogs have Theory of Mind. You meet a dog for the first time. They look at you and approach you in a friendly and curious manner. The dog has a Theory of your mind. In their theory of what your mind is thinking, they do not automatically assume you have the intent to harm them, and they do not automatically assume they completely know your mind; but they are curious and not threatened by the fact your mind is different from theirs. They may assume you're more likely to be a potential friend than a potential enemy.

But not all dogs are alike.

There can be another dog you approach. And they can have a different Theory of your Mind. In their theory, you are a potential threat. They assume the worst. Though with no concrete evidence or provocation, they theorise that you have the intent to harm them, so they bark and bite.

I've been bitten by a lot of dogs.

I've stayed away from responding on this thread, because it was very difficult to control my anger and not let rip.

I've been bitten by dogs in the work place. I've been interviewed for jobs by dogs.

I've been bitten so many times by dogs, it's changed how I feel about dogs in general. And by far the worst dogs are the ones who rigidly believe the pathology is in the people they bite, and they are in fact "normal" dogs.

dar100

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay...No

An x-ray is relatively straightforward technology, an encephalogram is not. X-rays have been around for a long time. So for a long time you could x-ray a body and see a broken bone. But if you x-ray'd a schizophrenics brain it would appear to be no different than a non-schizoid brain. And this absence of evidence, was taken by many to mean evidence of absence, and not maybe the use of an inadequate and inappropriate tool for the job.

Urine tests can tell you a lot about the kidney, but they can't see broken bones. It would be absurd to tell a patient that their urine shows them to be perfectly health, and the terrible pain they feel in their arm is just something in their imagination, that they imagine their arm to be broken. But this kind of absurdity is rampant when it comes to mental health.

Encephalography is still a developing field. Getting computer technology to the point where you can actually see the physiology of psychiatric conditions is only just about happening now. And as of the moment there isn't enough data to determine the "statistical" brain (that is not enough to model what would be the functioning of a "normal" brain..).



What's going on here is something technically referred to as Theory of Mind.

Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

To give an example. Dogs have Theory of Mind. You meet a dog for the first time. They look at you and approach you in a friendly and curious manner. The dog has a Theory of your mind. In their theory of what your mind is thinking, they do not automatically assume you have the intent to harm them, and they do not automatically assume they completely know your mind; but they are curious and not threatened by the fact your mind is different from theirs. They may assume you're more likely to be a potential friend than a potential enemy.

But not all dogs are alike.

There can be another dog you approach. And they can have a different Theory of your Mind. In their theory, you are a potential threat. They assume the worst. Though with no concrete evidence or provocation, they theorise that you have the intent to harm them, so they bark and bite.

I've been bitten by a lot of dogs.

I've stayed away from responding on this thread, because it was very difficult to control my anger and not let rip.

I've been bitten by dogs in the work place. I've been interviewed for jobs by dogs.

I've been bitten so many times by dogs, it's changed how I feel about dogs in general. And by far the worst dogs are the ones who rigidly believe the pathology is in the people they bite, and they are in fact "normal" dogs.

Brilliant

dar100

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosalindadams/how-a-6-year-old-got-locked-on-a-psych-ward?utm_term=.uuWx3M81v#.jxOeVkX75

Not sure of the reliability of this, but if accurate it's very worrying indeed

JuliusCaesar

EVERY mood is accompanied by physiological changes. We wouldn't have moods otherwise. The changes are often chemically very small and extremely complex. There is nothing simple about neuroscience, despite the popularisation of "neuro-answers" to give pseudo-scientific weight to complete balderdash. Neuroskeptic has a great blog and twitter account which shows the crap that's being promulgated.

It's almost as ridiculous as "Quantum Healing"

Combining her love for science together with her deep understanding of natural healing methods, she has created and practices her own form of work called the Quantum Healing Method. It embraces the principles of Quantum Physics together with the practice of healing arts for a powerful combination with a heart based approach.

Newtonian physics that traditional medical models are based upon. According to its principles, the body’s health depends on information fields at the energetic or quantum level. These information fields are the creative forces behind the physical manifestations of being. At the quantum level, we are all made up of light and information whose form follows consciousness. Therefore, by simply shifting our consciousness, we allow for changes to occur at the level of light and information that result in instantaneous shifts in physical reality.

Seriously???

And psychology training is drawing back from the diagnostic-based categorisation of mental distress, back to formulation-based individualised conceptualisations of what is happening people suffering from mental distress, in order to come up with better treatments. See Kinderman and others.

One day, I hope, we'll stop pathologising people and see them as individuals who are trying to cope in the best way they can - but for some people, that 'coping' is actually backfiring on them.