Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#41

Post by cutoffyrdck »

triumphblr wrote: post #22
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #9

Frances's concerns definitely aren't wrong on the whole, but I feel like he's not seeing the forest for the trees. This ultimately isn't just a question of whether this or that DSM revision is helpful. The patterns of the mental health establishment of the 21st century are oddly reminiscent of where physics and chemistry stood ca. the mid-19th century. Legitimate advances are being made, but most of the tools are sti…

Frances I think was worried about his legacy disappearing with DSM-5, because there was a big push to change things in a major way compared to DSM-IV. Ultimately I don't think that really happened; DSM-5 was a change but not the radical change I think the chairs and primary committees wanted it to be. Frances' flooding of media outlets around that time was sort of strange in certain ways. He seemed to correctly ident…

[flagged]

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#42

Post by swores »

cutoffyrdck wrote: post #41
triumphblr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frances I think was worried about his legacy disappearing with DSM-5, because there was a big push to change things in a major way compared to DSM-IV. Ultimately I don't think that really happened; DSM-5 was a change but not the radical change I think the chairs and primary committees wanted it to be. Frances' flooding of media outlets around that time was sort of strange in certain ways. He seemed to correctly ident…

[flagged]

The anti-trans arguments are the same as the anti-gay arguments from 40 years ago. High suicide numbers in a group of people constantly harassed in the media and in real life doesn't prove that their healthcare caused it. It's just sad bigotry.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#43

Post by transkillskids »

swores wrote: post #42
cutoffyrdck wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The anti-trans arguments are the same as the anti-gay arguments from 40 years ago. High suicide numbers in a group of people constantly harassed in the media and in real life doesn't prove that their healthcare caused it. It's just sad bigotry.

[flagged]

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#44

Post by matrix87 »

p_j_w wrote: post #20
deanresin wrote: post #6

This conundrum reminds me of a thought experiment. You have people use a mental illness as a defense in courts of law. But could you not plausibly define anyone who commits major crimes to be mental ill? Mental illness could also be defined by a person's ability to function in their community and social constructs. But a healthy species, evolutionary speaking, requires these outliers. These deviations from the "norm"…

> Mental illness could also be defined by a person's ability to function in their community and social constructs. Are you suggesting rebelliousness and non-conformity should be considered mental illnesses, defects to be cured?

it already is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#46

Post by swores »

transkillskids wrote: post #43
swores wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-trans arguments are the same as the anti-gay arguments from 40 years ago. High suicide numbers in a group of people constantly harassed in the media and in real life doesn't prove that their healthcare caused it. It's just sad bigotry.

[flagged]

I'm not looking to have an argument about this bigotry, just needed to leave the actual common sense statement so yours didn't stand alone. Maybe consider that if other people are flagging you it's because your views are objectionable rather than because you're one of the few people to know the truth about a subject you have no actual experience of. Speak to some trans people to educate yourself.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#47

Post by matrix87 »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #9

Frances's concerns definitely aren't wrong on the whole, but I feel like he's not seeing the forest for the trees. This ultimately isn't just a question of whether this or that DSM revision is helpful. The patterns of the mental health establishment of the 21st century are oddly reminiscent of where physics and chemistry stood ca. the mid-19th century. Legitimate advances are being made, but most of the tools are sti…

> Legitimate advances are being made

Like what? Realizing that lobotomies aren't a legitimate treatment?

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#50

Post by p_j_w »

deanresin wrote: post #25
p_j_w wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mental illness could also be defined by a person's ability to function in their community and social constructs. Are you suggesting rebelliousness and non-conformity should be considered mental illnesses, defects to be cured?

You cherry picked one sentence and stripped away the entire context and meaning of my post.

Because I take issue with that sentence.
Post reply on HN