Just about everyone displays some symptoms of clinical mental disorders at some time or other. For instance, is someone who has trouble socialising just a nerd or actually autistic? Is someone with low self esteem clinically depressed? Is someone with violent mood swings actually bipolar? Is someone who washes their hands a lot just over fastidious or suffering OCD?
Where does 'normal' end and 'disorder' begin? There are standard definitions for disorders (DSM). They are defined by a group of symptoms - generally if someone has a high proportion of them for an extended period they are considered to have a disorder.
However, no one knows what actually causes these 'disorder' symptoms (unlike most systemic diseases). Are they really disorders or just the extremes of the bell curve of normal human behaviour?
This brings me to my real question - what is normal human behaviour? Is it rational behaviour? Is it 'average' behaviour over a population? Or is it what is left over when you subtract all disorders?
Good question.
I was going to say that anyone that can fully function in society is 'normal', but sociopaths function in society. As do many others who suffer from mental illness. By fully function, I mean hold down a job and have stable and reciprocal relationships. Yet I know people who do neither yet would not call them 'abnormal'.
So, I have no answer. But would be interested in the opinions of others better educated in mental health and sociology.
"We all like going to sleep. One day we will go to sleep without having to set the alarm." Drut. RIP.
Ok, I have no authority or reference for this but, for what it's worth this is how I understand the process. Because I have such a strong belief that the brain, and therefore the mind, is physical I expect for it to be vulnerable to both short and long term illness, that definately colours the way I view mental health and mental health diagnosis.
The DSM is a diagnostic tool, imperfect, constantly developed, and complex but it mostly offers a reference to disorders that have achieved consensus as having both reliability and validity. However it was never intended as a tool to be used on the public at random, only where a person presents as having a problem which prevents them (or those around them) living a full life does the DSM offer its usefulness.
In other words to apply it to the general public, regardless of whether there exists a presenting problem is a misuse in the first instance and therefore cannot truly represent its usefulness in diagnosis where there is a presenting problem.
I'm 37 yrs old and in the whole of my life I've never received a single 'physical' diagnostic test, barring xray. The few times I've been to my doctor symptoms have been discussed and the doctor has reached a plausible conclusion, a virus, gastric flu, etc etc. If those same parametres (by which the doc diagnoses my headache + itchy foot and runny eyes) was applied to the whole healthy population then I would guess that by chance it would produce false positives. No-one expects that level of rigor except in mental health, nor does the lack of physical testing bring so much doubt as it does in mental health yet it appears to me far more physical diagnosis takes place just as verbally as takes place through physical testing. I once had a fully qualified social worker suggest to me that diagnosing Alzheimers (sp?? - me no sleep!) was impossible until after death because the only 'physical' test that could PROVE the diagnosis needed a dead brain! Had he been trying to tell me there's always some doubt fair enough BUT his belief was that NO diagnosis was possible and that's different.
I once read an excellent article by Steven Novella on the subject of mental health diagnosis, unfortunately I've never been able to find it since.
I don't know if 'normal' is the correct parameter to define, or to label people with in this context.
Psychological treatment deals with issues of people's personality or mental function that is causing difficulty, pain or danger to the individual or those around them. I would likely suggest that dealing with the symptoms and causes of these pains and difficulties is all that the medical profession can tangibly define as it's purpose.
Furthermore, people (and society in general) likes to think of other people and things in general as being able to be labelled as normal or abnormal, without ever delving into a definition of the term. I think this is more like the version of 'normal' you are probably striving for.
Societal norms are, I think, unwritten and unspoken agreements as to what is "average" within any chosen society. Think of how British society looks in wonder at Japanese culture, for example, to see how what we think of as abnormal behaviour is accepted as standard practice elsewhere in the world. The same will obviously be reversed from their culture to ours.
This is something that Ben Goldacre touched on in his talk on Monday night (and also in his book) : what he terms "the medicalisation of everyday life". Drug companies can create new markets for their existing products by inventing new diseases for them to treat, for example "social anxiety disorder" (otherwise known as shyness) as a new use for SSRIs.Originally Posted by Mulder
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
... and often achieve great distinction.
Which demonstrates that a determined individual can prevail in spite of disability.
The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.
To be honest this has been descussed for decades by social constructivists like Kurt Danziger and people like Focoult - so its nothing new really.
But its good to see people keeping this process in the public eye.
Why is cheese?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks