When Doctors Thought ‘Wanderlust’ Was a Psychological Condition

Post by 50656E6973 » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #11

izzydata wrote: post #2

Aren't most mental disorders just behaviors that differ from the norm and make it difficult for those people to function in everyday society? Some cultures wouldn't recognize some things as a disorder if it wasn't difficult for those people. My point being that I don't understand where you draw the line. If someone had such a need to wander the world that it meant that they couldn't live properly in modern society th…

> My point being that I don't understand where you draw the line. The line is drawn once it becomes dangerous for people around the person, or the person itself, or when the person is suffering from that condition (and not just "society misunderstanding him"). For instance, I have been the focus/target of a schizophrenic person whose condition was abruptly worsening at the time. He became a danger to me and my signif…

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #8

whatshisface wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some cultures wouldn't recognize some things as a disorder if it wasn't difficult for those people. There are a few mental disorders like that, but it's important to bear in mind that most of them (major depression, mid to low functioning autism, anxiety, schizophrenia, and so on) lead to objectively reduced functioning independent of society and a lot of suffering in whoever has them. It's not something to be roma…

There is also the converse - what is accepted as "normal" or even praised as a virtue is harmful and destructive. To give real examples smoking was normal, as was pedestray and ironically the Roman gladiatoral combat which is considered peak decadence was intended to combat decadence! Normal is a pretty shitty heuristic for being good.

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

50656E6973 wrote: post #21

johnchristopher wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point being that I don't understand where you draw the line. The line is drawn once it becomes dangerous for people around the person, or the person itself, or when the person is suffering from that condition (and not just "society misunderstanding him"). For instance, I have been the focus/target of a schizophrenic person whose condition was abruptly worsening at the time. He became a danger to me and my signif…

Nothing you described was indicative of that person having a "mental illness" so much as exhibiting anti-social behavior.

Post by SirLuxuryYacht » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

50656E6973 wrote: post #18

admax88q wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Normal is a pretty shitty heuristic for being good. A few counter examples doesn't mean that the heuristic is bad. Heuristics will always have counter examples, that's why they're heuristics, not rules.

How many counter examples do you need before determining if a heuristic is bad, in your opinion?

Post by balfirevic » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #16

Nasrudith wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the converse - what is accepted as "normal" or even praised as a virtue is harmful and destructive. To give real examples smoking was normal, as was pedestray and ironically the Roman gladiatoral combat which is considered peak decadence was intended to combat decadence! Normal is a pretty shitty heuristic for being good.

I don't see how Roman gladiatorial combat is so different from modern sports. The only major difference is the fact that nearly all gladiators were slaves, but otherwise I see no difference between gladiators and UFC fighting tournaments (or for that matter, American football). I just don't see the peak decadence point.