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

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#81

Post by gunchly »

swores wrote: post #80
gunchly wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> People have been fired from their jobs, harassed by trans activists You could say the exact same thing about people being fired for racism or homophobia and being "harassed" (I wouldn't use that word for fighting bigotry, personally) for being racist or homophobic. Is that evidence that racism should be allowed everywhere? > The reason was that heterosexual males (who called themselves women) had attended previous…

This isn't about some women "looking manly" as you put it, it's about some males ignoring a lack of consent and imposing themselves on female-only spaces. Regarding the lesbian speed dating incidents, here's what the organiser had to say about what happened:

"One transwoman pushed himself against a lesbian in the toilets, and another, clad in purple lycra, was sporting a visible erection."

(https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/men-dont-belong-at-lesbi...)

It should be obvious why she needed to explicitly point out that her events are female-only after that sort of behaviour from the heterosexual males who were intruding. And why these incidents, and the reaction she got from furious trans activists after standing up for the sexual orientation of herself and other lesbian women, has driven her to open a private members club for lesbian women where they can rightfully exclude any and all males.

She's fighting homophobia, yet is accused of being a bigot for doing so.

Do see what I mean by this, and similar such incidents, being examples of a clash of rights?

> > People have been fired from their jobs, harassed by trans activists

> You could say the exact same thing about people being fired for racism or homophobia and being "harassed" (I wouldn't use that word for fighting bigotry, personally) for being racist or homophobic. Is that evidence that racism should be allowed everywhere?

That comparison doesn't make sense. Is it racist to state, for instance, that Rachel Dolezal isn't black?

If people don't believe that men become women by announcing that they are women, then why would they call such a man 'she' and 'her'? Makes no sense does it.

Your argument is like claiming it's Islamophobic and bigoted to state that Mohammed wasn't any sort of prophet and that the Quran is not actually a divine revelation. If you don't believe it then you shouldn't have to act like you do believe it.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#82

Post by Lord-Jobo »

crtified wrote: post #18

Is there any condition with as broad a definition as autism? It can cover anywhere from a non-verbal 9 year old with an IQ of 70, to a popular attractive valedictorian genius with incredible masking skills. A slow developing 3 year old labelled early and for life, or a perennial loner 80+ year old finally discovering that their traits are shared with many others.

I don't think there are any as broad as "autism" in general, but "ADHD" in general is close. That's why both have been divided up in recent years for the sake of precision.

Seriously 5/10 people in my friends group have ADHD (some with autism too) and we all have such wildly different symptoms and struggles with it that it took quite some time for us to recognize our shared syndrome lol

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#83

Post by Lord-Jobo »

bitwize wrote: post #28
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" alone is not a defense. The defense is insanity , which term in law means that your mental condition was such that you had no way of knowing what you did was wrong. If you're schizophrenic, say, and you kill someone, but you are compos mentis enough to understand that you killed a person and that is wrong, you don't get to plead insanity. If, on the other hand, you were under the delusion that you we…

I think a lot of people have a hysterically warped perspective on the insanity defense because of American legal/police media.

People don't understand how near impossible it is to deploy successfully in trial, in the US.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#84

Post by throw4847285 »

gverrilla wrote: post #54
matrix87 wrote: post #53

It's kind of strange that psychology has this dual role of both giving advice to the sane and managing the insane. The same division was a thing in psychoanalysis too with neurotics vs psychotics Why does it do both? Why do people use it as a go-to source for life advice? People will go to a psychologist for marriage troubles, and they'll also go to a psychologist for psychosis. Seems like a weird place to go to marr…

It is exactly the role religions used to play - more so in the past, yes, but still pretty much in scene today still, although perhaps weaker - so this answer your question: > Why does it do both? Demand. For what? For adaptation to the current metagame. While writing this reply, I remembered a few passages from a great thinker, that I think may contribute and expand the conversation, for those interested: "Art, ethi…

Am I supposed to find this dime store Nietszche profound?

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#85

Post by throw4847285 »

I find the debate about the utility of the diagnostic model to be so polarizing as to be useless. You can't totally reject some of these diagnoses, regardless of how porous the boundaries, without depriving a lot of people of the care they need. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that the current diagnostic categories are working especially well for the people who aren't bullseyes.

I stumbled on this paper when I was thinking about my own diagnoses of bipolar disorder and ADHD that explores why the comorbidity is so high, and ends up with a fascinating meta-analysis of how we think about diagnostic categories. I have no idea if this paper is respected, or has been totally debunked, because I don't have any context on the field. I did find it very helpful for myself, personally.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3028268/

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#86

Post by faeriechangling »

throw4847285 wrote: post #85

I find the debate about the utility of the diagnostic model to be so polarizing as to be useless. You can't totally reject some of these diagnoses, regardless of how porous the boundaries, without depriving a lot of people of the care they need. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that the current diagnostic categories are working especially well for the people who aren't bullseyes. I stumbled on this paper when I…

>You can't totally reject some of these diagnoses, regardless of how porous the boundaries, without depriving a lot of people of the care they need.

Which is precisely why the DSM is a political document, designed for clinical utility, and not a scientific one.

I will mention that several of the barriers to create we create to care are artificial. One of the most common fears I've heard from those with ADHD is that without their diagnosis being taken seriously they will lose access to their medication. Yet that's only an issue because we won't give people drugs, even if they find them helpful, unless prescribing physicians believes they are disordered. Consequently, there are ADHD communities who ban people diagnosed with ADHD for having too positive of a self-outlook.

The entire system is deeply twisted. We've made acceptance of an intrinsically derogatory pseudoscientific nosology a gatekeeper, and put reflexively categorising patients as disordered at the centre of our care model.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#87

Post by faeriechangling »

naasking wrote: post #35
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. No, I think mental illness should be defined relative to a person's capacity to change behaviour volitionally or in response to feedback signals, like a scolding or rehab or imprisonment. People who are mentally ill do not respond to feedback signals like this, they have little volition over their behavi…

So is being gay, transgender, an outspoken women, or left-handed mental illness since such people do not, by all appearance and objective measures, have the capacity to change their behaviours volitionally without for instance chemically castrating gay men or lobotomising women?

There's two big things wrong with this definition. First is that it makes non-compliance a pathology and assumes society is right and the patient is wrong. Second is that pays zero heed to ethics and what is actually good for the supposedly mentally ill person, it just labels them mentally ill if they don't do what people want without thinking of if that's best for them.

Of course, that's not THAT different from how mental disorders are defined in practice.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#88

Post by rustcleaner »

worthless-trash wrote: post #59
rustcleaner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But could you not plausibly define anyone who commits major crimes to be mental ill? Yes, and it makes punishment in the manners we do it [US] frankly unconsciable for being torturous. What else do you call forcing a man to sit in a concrete and iron box for ten years involuntarily, if he would willingly expatriate instead? Imprisonment should become optional with expatriation. It is assinine that we take away passp…

This will be interpreted as. "Come to the US, commit crimes until you get caught, then leave instead of jail time". This is not a deterrant.

Does deterrance actually work? Show me someone in the US who doesn't know about jails. Also a secure border was assumed but not stated. This presumes social groups want to be exclusive and are choosey of membership.

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#89

Post by squigz »

deanresin wrote: post #13
triumphblr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, psychology is a dying profession. A mental illness is described as a set of symptoms manifested from physical biological systems we don't fully understand yet. But once understood, psychology becomes obsolete. That's a fundamentally reductionist perspective and assumes everything is biological in its etiology? For example, you could say we don't need a justice system once we have the biology worked out, or ar…

If you understand the systems that manifest a mental illness then you can treat it more directly with medicine, you can test for the mental illness directly with physical sampling. We've already seen this shift from psychology to medicine with the invention of anti-depressants. Less people are seeking counsel from psychologists and instead just getting a prescription from their doctor. While the systems and even anti…

Do you have a source to back up your claim that "less people are seeking counsel from psychologists and instead just getting a prescription from their doctor"?

Re: The Battle to Define Mental Illness (2010)

#90

Post by naasking »

faeriechangling wrote: post #87
naasking wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mental illness could also be defined by a person's ability to function in their community and social constructs. No, I think mental illness should be defined relative to a person's capacity to change behaviour volitionally or in response to feedback signals, like a scolding or rehab or imprisonment. People who are mentally ill do not respond to feedback signals like this, they have little volition over their behavi…

So is being gay, transgender, an outspoken women, or left-handed mental illness since such people do not, by all appearance and objective measures, have the capacity to change their behaviours volitionally without for instance chemically castrating gay men or lobotomising women? There's two big things wrong with this definition. First is that it makes non-compliance a pathology and assumes society is right and the pa…

> First is that it makes non-compliance a pathology and assumes society is right and the patient is wrong.

My post said absolutely nothing about society or non-compliance, it spoke only about whether the patient can respond volitionally. Gay people absolutely can choose not have gay sex, it's just wrong to expect that. Outspoken women absolutely can choose to be silent, it's just wrong to expect that. Left handed people absolutely can choose to write with their non-dominant hand, it's just wrong to expect that. There is clear volitional control here.

I made this very clear with the example of Tourettes vs. someone who just likes to swear. The person with Tourettes cannot simply choose to not have verbal tics and then enact that choice, but the person who just likes swearing absolutely can. It's just a physical impossibility to regulate behaviour based on feedback or internal motivations.

> Second is that pays zero heed to ethics and what is actually good for the supposedly mentally ill person, it just labels them mentally ill if they don't do what people want without thinking of if that's best for them.

I have no idea what you mean. There's nothing unethical about pointing out that the mentally ill have a distinct behaviour in that they do not respond to specific kinds of feedback. It is in fact the starting point for ethical treatment of mental illness.

Post reply on HN