A Mental Health Epidemic

[QuickSilver]

I have seen a prominent sign posted outside a well known mental health institution which proudly displays that 1 in 4 people suffer from some kind of psychological ailment.

Could this be true? Are 1 out of 4 North Americans mentally ill? How are these statistics arrived at and who decides on the norm by which these four arbitrary people are judged?

Is this simply a case where the somewhat ridiculed medical branch of phsychology/phsychiatry is attempting to drum up additional grant money in lieu of the attention Cancer, HIV, Diabetese and major neurological diseases are getting.

Is it easier for most people to sympathise with a beloved public figure like Michaels J. Fox in his fight against Parkinsons (or is it MS - forgive me, I don't recall), rather than trying to muster sympathy for the actress who played Superman's girlfriend (what's her name?), found cringing and insane in somebody's back yard a while ago?

Seems people tend to feel far more sympathy for a physically challenged individual who still manages to retain his/her her wits as opposed to a physically healthy person who stands on the corner shouting at the traffic passing by.

But back to my original question. Is it truely possible that one in four dopers are slightly off their rocker?.... and no fair picking on the theists!

[Ptahlis]

Well, as Cecil has rightly pointed out numerous times in past columns, blatantly self-serving statistics should be taken with a pretty huge grain of salt. As such, I would tend to disbelieve said statistic without more information. Who gathered the data? What measures were used in the determination of what constitutes "mentally ill?"

If the sign said "One in Four people are assholes," then I may be more inclined to agree without questioning it

------------------
Cogito ergo sum....I think.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by QuickSilver:
the actress who played Superman's girlfriend (what's her name?), found cringing and insane in somebody's back yard a while ago?

That was Margot Kidder BTW.



------------------
Cogito ergo sum....I think.

[QuickSilver]

Thanks for providing me with my first good laugh of the day....

[oldscratch]

Maybe they are using the rational choice of declaring all fundamental christians mentally ill. I'm sorry I had to pick on the theists. It's too easy.

really though. I think you can classify depression and a host of other minor ailments as a psychological ailment. If they took everyone who has suffered a psychological ailment and used a pretty broad definition, I think they could get away with that number. Of course I'm in SF and 1 out of every 2 people here suffers some kind of mental ailment.

[Sterra]

To be actually insane you have to be a danger to yourself or others. 1 in 4 mental illnesses means those arent mental illnesses

[tracer]

You sure "the actress who played Superman's girlfriend" doesn't refer to Noel Neill (sp?), or Terri Hatcher, or that lady who played Lana Lang in Superman III?

[wevets]

I tend to see human behavior as more or less a continuum, and what we percieve as psychological ailments as regions of behavior not so much categorically different from "normal" behavior as extremes, and sometimes even arbitrarily defined regions. What is a psychological ailment depends a lot more on the ability of the one suffering from it to function in society than on the behavior of that individual taken independently.

Then again, I might just be the one out of four...

------------------
"It seemed like a good idea at the time...


...but then again, so did the atomic bomb." -Charles Sismondo

[QuickSilver]

Are those others insane as well? Could be that we've stumbled on to something if all Lois Lanes are going loopy after playing their roles.... hmmmm....

[tracer]

Does "mental illness" or "psychological ailment" mean out-and-out insanity, or does it also encompass milder conditions, such as neuroses?

I could believe that 1 in 4 people are neurotic.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by QuickSilver:
I have seen a prominent sign posted outside a well known mental health institution which proudly displays that 1 in 4 people suffer from some kind of psychological ailment.

Sorry to monopolize the replies right off the bat, but upon reflection, "psychological impairment" is a pretty broad term. It could mean anything from Paranoid Schizophrenia to mild Dyslexia. If that one in four figure represents anybody with a mild spider phobia to Jeffry Dahmer then it very well might be accurate.

As far as the issue of sympathy goes, I think people do generally feel less sympathetic toward the mentally ill. That may stem from the fact that mental illness is solely about behavior. Otherwise healthy people do really weird or even sociopathic things for no apparent cause. Sure, psychologists may develop pet theories and tag labels to certain symptoms (many of which are evaluated by very subjective means), but it's hardly a very reliable or scientific branch of study. The disparate schools of psychology are so at variance with one another in explaining the most basic concepts of mind and memory that it's small wonder that it's deemed "psychobabble" by so many. While there have been some extraordinary advances in neurochemical treatment of certain disorders/symptoms, I hesitate to put credence in the abilities of the Bob Hartleys of the world.

Another reason that the mentally ill get a bad rap is that so many behaviors have been given the "disease" label. People who eat too much, sex addicts, alcoholics, the depressed, attention deficit disorder. I am not saying that any or all of these are NOT diseases BTW, (that needs a different thread entirely) but lots of people do. When people see someone who tops the scale at 600 pounds crying about their "food dependency", (and often revelling in their "victim status") a natural reaction to many is "Quit eating so much, Butthead!" And when these types of people are given validation by psychologists, the conclusion that the psych types are full of it isn't always far behind.



------------------
Cogito ergo sum....I think.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by tracer:
You sure "the actress who played Superman's girlfriend" doesn't refer to Noel Neill (sp?), or Terri Hatcher, or that lady who played Lana Lang in Superman III?

Well, the one found wandering around confusedly was Margot Kidder. As to the others... time will tell I guess.

------------------
Cogito ergo sum....I think.

[Persephone]

To be actually insane you have to be a danger to yourself or others. 1 in 4 mental illnesses means those arent mental illnesses

Are you referring to the legal definition of insanity here? "Insanity" is a legal term, not usually a medical one.

------------------
Cristi, Slayer of Peeps

I made my husband join a bridge club. He jumps next Tuesday.

(title & sig courtesy of UncleBeer and WallyM7!)

[DoctorJ]

It does depend a lot on how you define "ailment".

If we're talking about a psychological condition, we could probably slap some DSM-IV designation on damn near everyone. I wouldn't call it an "ailment" until it is causing problems for that person.

That said, we do treat a lot more psychiatric conditions these days, but not because there are more of them out there--we've just lowered our standards for treatment thanks to better drugs. It used to be that the only antidepressants were tricyclics and MAOIs, which have some fairly ugly side effects and contraindications, so we didn't treat anyone unless they were fairly depressed. Now that we have the SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil), which don't have quite the adverse effects, we aren't as reluctant to hand them out.

Dr. J

------------------
"Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!" -Dr. Nick Riviera

[David B]

Asmodean said:

To be actually insane you have to be a danger to yourself or others. 1 in 4 mental illnesses means those arent mental illnesses

And you got this definition where? Your background in psychology is what?

The OP specifically said "some kind of psychological ailment," not "insane." There are so many "psychological ailments" listed that I'm surprised it's only one in four!

[Dr.Watson]

"Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other?"

-- Herman Melville, Billy Budd, 1924


Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Dr. Watson
"Sorry, the obligatory obscure quotation for this post has been used. Please check back later."

[Jois]

"It does depend a lot on how you define "ailment". DoctorJ

Getting a divorce, separating from a live-in lover, the death of a parent, poor grades, loss of a job, quitting a job - all of those have the potential for becoming "ailments."

Some people just drink their way through these life altering events, some see a doc.

------------------
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley

[Beakeroni]

Here is something to think about. Who do you know that has told you, "Hey, guess what? I'm taking a psychotropic!"

Mental illness carries an unfortunate stigma. Would you tell?

Anybody on Prozac? Lithium?

Depression and Manic-depression are very, very common.

Hell. I don't doubt the statistic, at all. Gimme my St. John's Wort, and a double espresso, I've got work to do.

[Emustrangler]

According to the DSM IV any sort of maladaptive substance dependence or addiction is a form of mental illness. Consider this combined with other common forms of mental illness (depression, ADD, etc.) and the 1/4 figure seems fairly belivable. Especially if you count everyone who's unwillingly addicted to nicotine.
---------------------------------------------

i'm not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.

[tracer]

I'm addicted to pepperoni pizza with extra cheese. Does that count? Can I have some Prozac now?

[matt_mcl]

Psychiatry is more like law than medicine, as far as I'm concerned. If you are in the DSM, you're sick, not the other way around, and you can be prescribed drugs or locked up. It's rather frightening.

[DaphyDuck]

Originally posted by Dr.Watson:
"Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins

Sorry, I couldn't resist coming back on this one.

Answer: noone - you can't draw on rainbows!

------------------
"incognuity" should be a word!

[Gumby]

I am not surprised at the figure, it is just that many people with any kind of mental illness have trouble with coming forward with it - probably because people like Asmodean think that to have a mental illness you are insane. Of course it is all in the definition, conditions like manic depression and clinical depression are mental illnesses and do not make a person 'insane'. People who don't really understand these issues like to label, it happens.
Let me be the first to come forward and say that I do take medication for clinical depression , no one who knows me knows or would believe this because firstly it is a very personal thing and secondly as a society we don't have a great understanding or sympathy with such illnesses, it is no less distressing or debilitating at times than a physical illness, it is just less widely acknowleged.

Anyway, I don't think there is an epidemic, but I do believe that there are a lot of people who suffer from some kind of mental illness, call it a product of society, everyone has their own ways with dealing with life. Just because you can't see it doesnt mean it isn't happening.

That's just my 2 cents

------------------
"Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is like expecting a bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian." Dennis Wholey

[matt_mcl]

I've never liked the idea of mental illness because it permits the definition of "illness" and "dysfunction" by appeal to the present condition of the society. If you fit into the society, you're not sick; if you don't, you're not well. That's not medicine, that's conformism and political repression. Something's a disease if it causes pain. And I don't mean the pain of being rejected because you're different.

[Gumby]

Just a reply to matt_mcl. Apart from being terribly condescending "and I don't mean the pain of being rejected for being different", I just think you are not very well informed.
According to you something like Alzheimers, another progressive brain illnesses is not valid as it's main effects are not pain but memory loss, inability to think and understand. Mental illnessess are also a biochemical imbalance in the brain combined with other risk factors. I will only comment on what I know most about Clinical Depression. People experience depression in their lives, but "one type of depression -clinical or major depression-is unique. This depression has a defined set of signs and symptoms" But of course according to matt, these symptons mean nothing. You seem to have the view that anyone with a mental illness is not a functioning part of society and is a sad excuse for a human being. In my own experience function as a very able person to the outside world, have a good job, good grades in my studies, medication helps with all of this. I do not have any such pain of rejection which you so snidely put it. I have experienced pain, sometimes the illness is debilitating, and just because it does not manifest itself in a physical form, does not mean that it is any less important. How dare you decide that what you can't see is not important.
I suggest you read some literature about mental illnesses and stop relying on old prejudices for your opinions.

[meara]

IMO, one of the biggest problems is that we don't teach children that depression is a normal part of life. Instead, you're either well which means "quit yer whining", or you're mentally ill which means "go see a doc and maybe gets some meds".

As with physical medicine, I think we should have a subtle blending between what's normal (i.e. can be self-treated) and what requires medical attention. For example, children could be taught that when they're feeling sad, they should talk to parents and friends, get some exercise, etc. And, like any other illness, if they're doing what they can but it's not going away, they should seek professional advice.

Why kid ourselves? We're all going to feel majorly down (and maybe even suicidal) at some point in our lives. Depression is like the chickenpox. Some vulnerable people may need a lot of help getting through it, but that doesn't make it abnormal or mean that you should ignore it in the rest of the population.

[Sentinel]

The 1 in 4 statistic is probably very correct.

Just because one has a mental illness does not mean that one is dysfunctional or a raving lunatic, though it probably does affect how one faces life situations.

Most people see any form of mental illness as something to be afraid of, a stigma that they do not want and just the hint of having such an illness brings up the past images of all of those horror stories concerning maniacs slavering and howling as they rip out entrails and careen along the abysmal halls of sadistic institutions.

Today, especially, it beings up the images of dirty, filth soaked empty eyed street people picking through garbage, talking to unseen beings, attacking passerby's for no reason and pushing shopping carts full of trash.

Not so. Mental illness has been with us for ages. Look at Douglas MacAuthure, he had a major ego problem that affected his judgment and eventually led to his being dismissed from the military. Patton, had a problem with accepting the potential for human weakness and an over blown ego which eventually got him in much political trouble.

Lets examine corporate raiders, whose major purpose in life is to go in and destroy the lives of thousands of people for money. Major ego problem there, displaced value system, lack of empathy or compassion.

How about the men almost everyone knows, likable, hard working, who seem to attract women like a magnet and have absolutely no problem with repeatedly cheating on those they say they love, but who become enraged when they get cheated on?

There is the woman, pretty, attractive, popular, who careens through relationships because she lies all of the time.

The chronic complainer at work. No matter what one does for him or her, he or she has to complain constantly about almost everything.

The shy person, who blends into the background and can be lonely in a crowd.

Most alcoholics and most chronic drug abusers. (Alcoholism is linked to genetics, BUT, 85% have various forms of emotional/mental illness.)

Animal abusers. Ever known the redneck who owns savage dogs and treats them badly, likes to kick or kill cats or gets annoyed rather than concerned when one of his dogs die?

The school bully. Most bullies are not just acting 'normally' aggressive.

The man or woman who always seems to put tremendous effort into something, yet almost always fails for various reasons, time and time again. Then the person we've all known who seems to actually set themselves up to fail or be fired. (You've got to have known one of those guys who gets fired frequently and blames everyone else for it, but not himself.)

Mental/emotional illness does not always mean that the person is completely dysfunctional. Nor does it always mean things like schizophrenia, mental retardation, psychosis or overtly bazaar behavior. We've all known that neighbor who bitches at everyone about everything going on in the area and gets outraged to the point of fury if you step one inch onto their property.

See all of those popular romance books out? Ever know a girl whose main reading was nothing but them? She was always reading a romance novel? That's an emotional illness indicating that she is not being fulfilled emotionally either because her standards are too high or too unrealistic. (Reading romance novels is fine, but when it becomes nothing but such novels, that is a good indicator of a problem. Hear that guys? Are your women building book shelves of nothing but romance books?)

So, mental/emotional illness comes in many forms and is a lot more common than people think. It's just that unless it makes the person dysfunctional, treatment is not necessary.

------------------
CAREFUL! We don't want to learn from this!(Calvin and Hobbs)

[Persephone]

A few years ago, my husband started acting a little weird. He said he "didn't feel good," but then I noticed that he "didn't feel good" all the time. He didn't talk much about it, and I put it down to stress (we'd just had our first child, and it was a major adjustment). Then I noticed that it seemed to be more and more of a struggle for him to want to get out & play his guitar. He's a musician, that's what he does. His guitar is as much a part of his body as his arms. I knew then that there was a real problem.

I gently suggested to him that maybe there was something more wrong than just stress, and perhaps he'd be interested in talking to a counselor, through the EAP program I have at work. He started to cry. He didn't want to admit that there was a problem, but he knew that he just couldn't avoid the issue any more. I hooked him up with a counselor. The counselor believed that he might be helped by some sort of anti-depressant, so she referred him to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist agreed with the counselor, and they started a combination of "talking therapy" and Prozac.

Within about 2 weeks, I noticed a change. He seemed calmer, and much more capable of dealing with the stress of just living. He started to get enjoyment from his guitar again. He eventually got back to his old self, got off the meds & the counseling, and things are going well now.

The psychiatrist told my husband that he was clinically depressed. Looking at my husband's family history, it appears to run in his family, although my husband is the only one that's actually done something to try & fix the situation. While my husband is not on any meds now, the psychiatrist told him not to be surprised if it strikes him again.

Clinical depression can strike anyone, really, and depression is classified as a "mental illness." But "mental illness" has this stigma still attatched to it. Once the stigma is lost, that one-in-four figure will look like exactly what it is: realistic.

------------------
Cristi, Slayer of Peeps

I made my husband join a bridge club. He jumps next Tuesday.

(title & sig courtesy of UncleBeer and WallyM7!)

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Sentinel:
Mental illness has been with us for ages. Look at Douglas MacAuthure, he had a major ego problem that affected his judgment and eventually led to his being dismissed from the military. Patton, had a problem with accepting the potential for human weakness and an over blown ego which eventually got him in much political trouble.

Lets examine corporate raiders, whose major purpose in life is to go in and destroy the lives of thousands of people for money. Major ego problem there, displaced value system, lack of empathy or compassion.

How about the men almost everyone knows, likable, hard working, who seem to attract women like a magnet and have absolutely no problem with repeatedly cheating on those they say they love, but who become enraged when they get cheated on?

There is the woman, pretty, attractive, popular, who careens through relationships because she lies all of the time.

The chronic complainer at work. No matter what one does for him or her, he or she has to complain constantly about almost everything.

The shy person, who blends into the background and can be lonely in a crowd.

The man or woman who always seems to put tremendous effort into something, yet almost always fails for various reasons, time and time again. Then the person we've all known who seems to actually set themselves up to fail or be fired. (You've got to have known one of those guys who gets fired frequently and blames everyone else for it, but not himself.)


See all of those popular romance books out? Ever know a girl whose main reading was nothing but them? She was always reading a romance novel? That's an emotional illness indicating that she is not being fulfilled emotionally either because her standards are too high or too unrealistic. (Reading romance novels is fine, but when it becomes nothing but such novels, that is a good indicator of a problem. Hear that guys? Are your women building book shelves of nothing but romance books?)
[/b]

These are all examples of why psychology is looked at by many with such disdain. On the one hand, you have people with real, clinical mental illnesses that deserve help and respect. On the other hand there is a certain segment of society that tries to make every single character flaw into a "disease" or "condition". There will always be people trying to wiggle out of accepting responsibility for their choices, and the tactic of trying to do so under the guise of pop psych diagnoses cheapens the sufferings of those who are truly suffering from mental illness.

But then again, what do I know? I read science fiction almost exclusively, so obviously that means I am emotionally disconnected with reality. If the above examples are any indication of what constitutes mental illness we might as well pack up and go home. We're ALL ill.

------------------
Cogito ergo sum....I think.

[Emustrangler]

This makes me wonder if things like depression, or excessive egotisim, or cruelty to animals or any of the other things mentioned by Sentinal are not illnesses but instead just natural emotions and personality traits, then is it still all right to use medications to treat them. If Prozac makes somebody happier and more able to function, then why not take it even if what they're suffering from is just due to stress and circumstance, not a real illness.

[matt_mcl]

Excuse me, Gumby, I was diagnosed with autism, my best friend was diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, another friend with paranoid schizophrenia, and my ex-boyfriend with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and I've spent a fair amount of time thinking and reading, thinking about, and discussing this issue, so I think I know whereof I speak at least as much as the other laypeople on this board.

According to you something like Alzheimers, another progressive brain illnesses is not valid as it's main effects are not pain but memory loss, inability to think and understand.

Yes. Do you know how painful that is?

You seem to have the view that anyone with a mental illness is not a functioning part of society and is a sad excuse for a human being.

I'd be interested to know where you pick this up. No, it's my opinion that the term 'mentally ill' is misapplied to a large number of people who but for the intervention and conformism of society would be, or, despite the same, are, functioning members of society. Therefore, the term should be applied not to those who are only different, but to those whose difference is, objectively speaking, a disease.

It is my opinion that my so-called 'autism', for example, is a difference (systemic, psychological - it doesn't matter to me) in the way I function. I am perfectly capable of functioning as a sentient human being in this fashion; it is just that my method of functioning is outside the norms of society. Specifically, I keep my friends restricted to people I actually like, not acquaintances I get along with; I preferred as a child to read than play with others; I prefer to use a computer than to play sports; and my intelligence is and was tested to be above "normal" for my age. These differences so alarmed my parents, so conflicted with their stereotypical notions of what a human being is and does and what a child is and does, that they took me to a psychiatrist who confirmed their stereotype with the aegis of medical science and with the label Asperger's syndrome autist. In other words, my difference, which was painful to nobody including myself except for the extent to which the prejudices of others gave me grief, was medicalized and I was made to feel defective.

Psychiatry is based on the dogma that there is one normal way for humans to be and that those who are not that way are therefore ill. This dogma is supported by no proof and therefore it should be considered a religion or a philosophy, not a science. Not that there's anything wrong with religion or philosophy, except that in a civilized society we understand that it's not nice to go around locking people up and injecting them with drugs on those bases.

Even though I feel you gave my posting short shrift, I will accept the possibility that I was insufficiently clear. Therefore, in accordance with what I've written, I cordially invite you to retract your remarks as to what you supposed my position to be and join me on this side of the debate.

[matt_mcl]

Actually, the more I reread both my and your posts, the more I become convinced that you didn't read mine.

I said:

If you fit into the society, you're not sick; if you don't, you're not well. That's not medicine, that's conformism and political repression.

You said I said:

You seem to have the view that anyone with a mental illness is not a functioning part of society and is a sad excuse for a human being.

I invite you even to show me how you got that mistaken belief from what I wrote.

[Gaudere]

matt_mcl: Something's a disease if it causes pain. And I don't mean the pain of being rejected because you're different.
Gumby: According to you something like Alzheimers, another progressive brain illnesses is not valid as it's main effects are not pain but memory loss, inability to think and understand.
matt_mcl: Yes. Do you know how painful that is?

If you say that anything that causes pain is a disease, and you include mental pain, then depression is indeed a disease, in your opinion. However, someone's whose brain chemistry made them happily ride escalators 24 hours a day would not have a disease. Is this a correct statement of your position?

Psychiatry is based on the dogma that there is one normal way for humans to be and that those who are not that way are therefore ill.

I beg to differ. You are perfectly aware that a wide range of behaviors are seen as normal, and not "ill". Shyness, garrulousness, dislike of large crowds, fear of heights, etc, are all accepted as "normal" as long as they are not taken to overpowering extremes. There is not "one normal way" but there is a point in which a person is so abnormal that their functioning is impaired. You may have a point that "mentally ill" is misapplied in many circumstances, but sweeping and inaccurate claims about psychiatry in general do not help your argument.

------------------
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can't see Her.

[matt_mcl]

By the way, you misunderstand my position on pain. A disease is something that causes pain, but a pain is not necessarily the sign of a disease, which is as true for grief as it is for a papercut.

There is not "one normal way" but there is a point in which a person is so abnormal that their functioning is impaired.

Ok, you have me there. Maybe I should have said "one normal road which permits several possible ways to go down it, but step one foot off of it and here we come with the drugs." This is an accurate statement of my perceptions as someone who stepped off the road and was branded an autist. Thank goddess my parents responded with nothing stronger than therapy.

[Gaudere]

A disease is something that causes pain, but a pain is not necessarily the sign of a disease, which is as true for grief as it is for a papercut.

I didn't misunderstand, but I did state it poorly. I did not think you believed a papercut was a disease. However, I would still like to know if you would consider our round-the-clock escalator rider to be suffering from a disease. And if not, what would you call it? Simply "not normal", but not anything we should try to treat as an illness?

FWIW, I am sorry about your misdiagnosis and the stress it must have put you through. However, in my experience, psychiatrists are not so quick to take anyone not "normal" and drug them. I was withdrawn as a child; my niece is very shy as well; her brother is quite hyper. Yet no one ever suggested psychiatry for any of us, and we even have a psychiatrist in our immediate family (the father of my niece and nephew, BTW), who certainly would have been called in if simply being not quite normal always meant you needed drugs to "fix" you.

[jab1]

Originally posted by QuickSilver:
Is it easier for most people to sympathise with a beloved public figure like Michael J. Fox in his fight against Parkinsons (or is it MS - forgive me, I don't recall),

It is Parkinson's. Janet Reno also suffers from it.

rather than trying to muster sympathy for the actress who played Superman's girlfriend (what's her name?), found cringing and insane in somebody's back yard a while ago?

Margot Kidder's past problems are described at IMDB.com.

CAVEAT: I did notice a small error in that story, though:

[Kidder was found] hiding underneath a family's porch which was located near the studio where "Superman" was filmed.

None of the movies that featured Kidder were filmed in L. A. They were filmed in Britain, New York City and Canada. Perhaps the writer is referring to the TV show?

------------------
><DARWIN>
___L___L__

He's back!

[Sentinel]

Can the mental masturbating stop long enough for reality to set in?

[quote]These are all examples of why psychology is looked at by many with such disdain. On the one hand, you have people with real, clinical mental illnesses that deserve help and respect. On the other hand there is a certain segment of society that tries to make every single character flaw into a "disease" or "condition." There will always be people trying to wiggle out of accepting responsibility for their choices, and the tactic of trying to do so under the guise of pop psych diagnoses cheapens the sufferings of those who are truly suffering from mental illness.

But then again, what do I know? I read science fiction almost exclusively, so obviously that means I am emotionally disconnected with reality. If the above examples are any indication of what constitutes mental illness we might as well pack up and go home. We're ALL ill.[/unquote]

Define character flaw?
When does a character flaw reach the level of mental illness?
FACT: Virtually every known serial killer has a history of being cruel towards animals as a child. FACT: Over 80% of the people imprisoned for deliberate murder who have histories of violence towards others also have a history of being cruel towards animals.

Personal observation: Anyone being deliberately cruel towards animals after a certain age will display aggressive tendencies towards others, a marked lack of compassion, tend to be a spouse beater and will more than likely have been a bully in school. Such people show a higher than normal tendency to be divorced multiple times and to accumulate a record of arrests for assault ranging from simple to felonious.

There are few 'pop' diagnosis being made by professionals these days because of the ability to sue the psychiatrist. Humans, mostly, tend to accumulate in 'herds', being basically social animals. Humans often have the herd instinct when it comes to believing things -- look at the popularity of the often lying National Inquirer and the frequent distortion of news reports. There will always be a certain amount of friction among the members of the human herd, but there are those who will stand out as basically abnormal.

There are levels of abnormality. There are the leaders, the movers, the shakers, the educators, the artists, dreamers, schemers and protectors. On the opposite end of the spectrum, ignoring everything else in-between, there are those who just do not fit in, those who withdraw from society, those who seem to fight it. (See my previous examples.)

As I stated unless a mental illness becomes a problem and affects a persons life style, it probably does not need treatment. The neighborhood bitch probably was raised by sullen, nasty parents who might not have beaten her but treated her with little affection and consideration. (This was QUITE common in the 1800s, especially among European immigrants where FATHER was king, lord and master and his say was law. It grew even more complicated if the family was of a very strict religious belief.)

Such a person, growing up, would find themselves emotionally damaged, but to them, it would seem normal. They would also see most others in a suspicious light, comparing them with their own feelings and personal experiences. (Humans have a tendency to often think that all others think like they do.) Until the 40s, sexual problems were quite common among women because they had been taught that sex was a duty and not a pleasure. All forms of sexual hang-ups blossomed then, which, in the early 1900s, allowed it to be acceptable for the husband to make use of a house of prostitutes to take his pleasure because the wife often did not want to be bothered.

The 60s plus Masters and Johnson helped change that. Essentially a 'traditional' belief turned into a moral practice which began to clash with normal biological and psychological sexual urges and created quite stunning psyco-sexual hang-ups which affected entire lives.

Alzheimer's is NOT a simple mental disorder. It is an organic brain syndrome because the actual problem is physical. Basic senility, due to hardening of the arteries, is not a simple mental disorder because it is due to organic conditions. Any mental problem caused by a physical injury to the brain is a whole different ball game, folks.

That sweet, hot little number you met in the bar last night and screwed your brains out, but in the morning was more reserved, if not hostile and obviously not your type after all could be suffering form more than just a hangover. She could be suffering from a schizoid personality or even a form of schizophrenia and even a form of depression.

What about that guy at work who is always kinda quiet, doesn't join in the usual sports chatter, is reserved around girls and you consider boring or a wimp but who gets the job done and often comes up with good ideas? He could be suffering from an insecurity complex because he did not fight in school and learned to keep quiet or get his ass beat. He could be smarter than all of you, but his insecurities will prevent him from succeeding at more than a base level.

Ever been with someone out partying and having a good time and suddenly that person is weeping, crying, wailing about how they are no good or talking gibberish, maybe even talking about suicide? There's a very good possibility that they have suppressed unresolved conflicts and might be suffering from a disorder.

Ever meet a clean freak? Everything HAS to be clean? He or she will seem to be constantly cleaning things nearly all of the time? Washes his or her hands a lot? You might have an obsessive compulsive there.

I got news for you, bub, there is a real thin line between acceptable irregular behavior and psychiatric disorders. If you deny the 1 in 4 too hard, then you have probably some form of suppressed fear of being termed crazy. Read all of the science fiction you want, there's nothing wrong with that. However, check out the later Heinlein books, like the Cat Who Walked Through Walls or Time Enough For Love and observe the open encouragement of incest by the author. Plus, notice in most of his books how all of the female characters who are primary ones are always buxom, super smart, glib, caring, and very, very sexual.

If you want to check out some insecurities, a sense of warped self-image, projected hostilities and a desire to be Godlike, read the last few books of Ron L. Hubbard science fiction writer and creator of Dianatic's and the goofy religion to go along with it.

Then examine the list of movie stars who believe in his crap and notice how all have had image and ego problems through their career.

Shall I go on? Many, many a psychiatrist and psychologist will see people who come to them believing that they have problems and after an evaluation, discover that what they have is minor and requires little if any therapy. Many are discharged after only one session!

What dirty little secrets are you hiding deep within you that you've told no one that affect your judgment today? What rotten thing happened to you as a kid that affects how you look at some stuff today? What are you afraid of? Closed rooms? Crowds? Dark, deep water? Elevators? Flying? People who wear wing tips? People in lab coats? The smell of a doctors office? The sight of your own blood? Grim guys in business suits in positions of power in your company? That little lizard on the window sill?

Now, why, or do you even know why?

All forms of emotional illness. There is a difference between the emotionally and the mentally ill.



------------------
CAREFUL! We don't want to learn from this!(Calvin and Hobbs)

[Gumby]

To matt_mcl. I apologise for what was apparently a misinterpretation about your post, perhaps I am a little too sensitive about the issue, but I am not sure that you expressed yourself clearly enough for me NOT to take it the wrong way.
In all events I should not have attacked you.

[CatInHat]

[quote]Many, many a psychiatrist and psychologist will see people who come to them believing that they have problems and after an evaluation, discover that what they have is minor and requires little if any therapy. Many are discharged after only one session![/unquote]

Um ... many, many of their health insurance companies won't pay for mental health treatment. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sentinel, because I think that you are correct for many cases, but the fact of the matter is that it's very hard to get health insurers to pay for any kind of long-term (more than a dozen or so sessions) treatment.

[matt_mcl]

FWIW, I am sorry about your misdiagnosis and the stress it must have put you through. However, in my experience, psychiatrists are not so quick to take anyone not "normal" and drug them.

This is the thing, Gaudere. It probably wasn't a misdiagnosis. Whatever could be said for Dr. Corcoran, she probably wasn't a liar. By the standards of psychiatry I probably am autistic. My argument is that that category is set up not to specify a disorder, but a deviancy - something which is socially, not systemically, out of order. And social categories ought to have no pretentions to the scientific mantle.

I don't care if it is caused by brain-chemical imbalance. Lots of things may be caused by brain-chemical imbalances. They ought only to be diseases if they are destructive. And the only destruction or dysfunction my 'autism' ever caused me was that which was inflicted on me due to social prejudice and psychiatric normativism.

[AHunter3]

matt mcl:

This is the thing, Gaudere. It probably wasn't a misdiagnosis. Whatever could be said for Dr. Corcoran, she probably wasn't a liar. By the standards of psychiatry I probably am autistic. My argument is that that category is set up not to specify a disorder, but a deviancy - something which is socially, not systemically, out of order. And social categories ought to have no pretentions to the scientific mantle.

I don't care if it is caused by brain-chemical imbalance. Lots of things may be caused by brain-chemical imbalances. They ought only to be diseases if they are destructive. And the only destruction or dysfunction my 'autism' ever caused me was that which was inflicted on me due to social prejudice and psychiatric normativism. __________________

Amen. I was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic in one institution and bipolar in another, and I wasn't terribly different from the folks held in other rooms in the halls of either bin. It is convenient for believers in the efficacy of the mental health system to say that I was "misdiagnosed", as if the application of these labels to most others had a different meaning, and the treatment to which they were/are subjected were more appropriate.

I suggest people rethink "mental illness" as "mental condition". First, a condition is not necessarily bad, and everyone's mind can be said to in a condition of some sort. Second, it implies a more fluid and ever-changing...uh, condition. The condition that my mind was in in spring of 1980 is a condition that anyone's mind could be in under the right circumstances. Like "unhappy" or "stressed out", such conditions become descriptive adjectives, not diagnostic nouns. This is more appropriate because of the failure of the psychiatric profession to develop tight diagnostic definitions and testing mechanisms that result in high inter-rater reliability rates, [as evidenced by my pair of non-matching diagnoses applied to me in different wards by doctors unaware of each other's findings]-- they are just descriptions of externally observed behaviors as it is!

As to the role of chemistry (balanced or unbalanced), I'm sure it correlates often enough to such conditions. I suspect if I tied you down and inserted pins into your foot, your brain would take on chemical differences similar to those of other people whose feet have been stuck full of pins, but the chemical "imbalances" in your brain are not the reason for your agonies or theirs. Of course, ongoing or congenital differences in blood or brain chemistry, neural tissue structure, or chromosomal composition may cause some people to be more predisposed to lapsing into a certain condition than others are. I have a neighbor who is much more inclined to be a cranky fellow than most folks are, and for all I know it is built into him in some such way. If such people wish to take pills to modulate themselves, I have no objection.

[matt_mcl]

BTW, to Gumby: your gracious apology is accepted. Thank you.

[Ptahlis]

Define character flaw?
When does a character flaw reach the level of mental illness?.....

There are levels of abnormality. There are the leaders, the movers, the shakers, the educators, the artists, dreamers, schemers and protectors. On the opposite end of the spectrum, ignoring everything else in-between, there are those who just do not fit in, those who withdraw from society, those who seem to fight it. (See my previous examples.)....


All forms of emotional illness. There is a difference between the emotionally and the mentally ill.

Define character flaw? I think you did that quite well with the long list you provided. My quibbling was with the definition of mental illness being so broad as to include everybody who has anything that sets them apart from the fictional perfectly adjusted person. You want to include examples like those people in your first list then I must argue that that definition includes everyone.

If a person reads nothing but romance novels it indicates mental disturbance? That's why I wrote the comment about reading SF (and I have read those books BTW, and the juvenile male sexual fantasy world did not escape me.)

My argument is simply that you must have a better definition of dysfunction than one that includes the entire human race or the definition is useless.

[Gaudere]

This is the thing, Gaudere. It probably wasn't a misdiagnosis. Whatever could be said for Dr. Corcoran, she probably wasn't a liar. By the standards of psychiatry I probably am autistic. My argument is that that category is set up not to specify a disorder, but a deviancy - something which is socially, not systemically, out of order. And social categories ought to have no pretentions to the scientific mantle.

I think extreme autism is definitely a disorder, not a deviancy. Severe autistics *are* helped by specialized instruction and therapy that can help them function vastly better in this world. If you truly have autism, but a mild form that does not harm you, I do not see the problem with identifying it *and* also acknowledging that it is not severe enough to require treatment. Mental disorders are not a yes/no proposition; the chronic conspiracy theorist is a far cry from the person who wears tinfoil hats so that the government won't take over his brain and doesn't ever wash his clothes because they're trying to kill him by putting poisons in his washer, but they *are* milder and greater versions of the same problem. If I have trouble reading and am diagnosed with mild dyslexia, this would be a good thing to know; it would mean I don't have to feel stupid for taking longer to read things, yet you don't need the same treatment for mild dyslexia (if any at all) that you do for severe versions. I think that identifying the milder version of mental disorders can be useful, and the problem is more with a lack of acknowledgment that mental disorders come on a sliding scale and the milder versions are a far cry from the severe ones than it is with identifying the disorders per se.

As far as I am concerned, if someone's "not-normalness" does not cause significant problems with their functioning, you should let well enough alone. But I really don't think you can claim that autistics are simply deviants from a social category and should not be treated as if they have an illness.

[SouthernXYL]

matt, I appreciate your posts.

I knew a child who had severe autism. His mother and father, his sisters, and every other human being might as well have been fence posts. Despite intense therapy, he never developed language because in the world he inhabited there was no one to talk to. Eventually, although his parents fought it as long as they could, he was institutionalized. It made no difference to him at all.

It confuses me to see terms like "autism" used to define such a broad spectrum of conditions. You and this child are probably as different as two humans could be.

People who truly are mentally ill are ill-served in the broadening of definitions, I think. There are probably street people who live that way because they just honestly want to, and as long as they break no laws they should be left alone. That doesn't mean that there are not others who suffer from exposure and hunger and neglect because they are incapable of helping themselves, and it's not right for there to be no legal way for the rest of us to help them.

[matt_mcl]

Let's clarify - as the last poster observed, there are autists and there are autists. What people traditionally think of as autism - a child who is completely disconnected and cannot communicate - is called Kanner's syndrome autism or low-functioning autism. I was diagnosed as Asperger's-syndrome autistic, which is meant to be a disorder in the 'social gaze'.

Gaudere, there's a difference between what I went through and what a person with a mild reading disability goes through. I would argue that the child who's doing poorly in school through no fault of his/her own falls under my rubric 'pain'. As for me? Hah! I made up my mind back in Chelsea, when I go --- wait, sorry, wrong musical.

I thought I was just eccentric, and I wished other people could have looked at me like that. I did not need to have my being different labeled as a disease; having my pleasure in reading and distaste for social contact labeled a malignancy when it wasn't. Whether or not it required treatment is, thank Goddess, not the issue. How do you think I felt when my parents came to me at age 16 and told me that they had always thought my personality was a disease? It made me feel like they had never given thanks for the child that they had; they regarded my personality as just a cross for me or them to bear.

It made me feel like shit.

And you know what? I've probably had more hours of therapy to deal with the effects of being diagnosed with a mental illness than to deal with the 'illness' itself.

What does that tell you?

[Gaudere]

. I would argue that the child who's doing poorly in school through no fault of his/her own falls under my rubric 'pain'.

I don't mean to be hounding you, but I brought up quite a while ago the example of a person who is perfectly happy riding escalators 24 hours a day and doing nothing else. I asked if you would consider this a "disease", since your definition of disease said that in order to be classed as a "disease" it had to cause pain. I am not trying to crucify you for a simple insufficient definition, but I think your definition of "disease" is flawed and does not accurately reflect what we should properly consider a disease. Please either amend your defintion, or state that someone who does nothing but ride an escalator 24 hours a day in not diseased in your estimation.

I thought I was just eccentric, and I wished other people could have looked at me like that. I did not need to have my being different labeled as a disease; having my pleasure in reading and distaste for social contact labeled a malignancy when it wasn't.

I think that if you are able to function normally, "disease" is a bit strong of a term. Perhaps we should call it a "psychological ailment", like in the OP, but even that has pejorative implications. But what is wrong with being identified as having a variant of autism, if you are not regarded as being hideously flawed? If you discount the pain of being labeled "different", and you did previously ("Something's a disease if it causes pain. And I don't mean the pain of being rejected because you're different."), why can you not discount the pain of being labeled autistic? It depends on the situation, but I would think people would be more sympathetic and understanding towards a person who acts a bit odd because of a minor mental disorder than someone who's just considered "weird".

I've probably had more hours of therapy to deal with the effects of being diagnosed with a mental illness than to deal with the 'illness' itself. What does that tell you?

It seems to me that the problem was *not* that you were identified as being Asperger's-syndrome autistic, but that your parents and others thought that that made you somehow horribly flawed. Personally, I don't care what minor mental disorder you may/may not have; you seem to be well adjusted and the knowledge that you may have an apparently very mild version of autism is simply an interesting quirk. Now, if your parents had treated it that way--something to be aware of, so that they could perhaps use established techniques to help you if it ever did cause you problems, but something that you appear to be able to function perfectly well with--would the diagnosis have caused you such unhappiness? If so, isn't the problem not in the diagnosis, but in other people's attitude towards it?

I can appreciate that you would have preferred to simply be labeled "eccentric", but it seems to me that Asperger's syndrome autism is a sort of mental disorder much along the lines of ADD. Now, I don't think it would always a good thing to simply call Asperger's-syndrome autism "eccentric" any more than I would think ADD should be simply labeled "inattentive". The point of diagnosing these things is so that you can help the child, and understand that they may simply have trouble with social interaction or trouble with paying attention, and they're *not* simply "rude" or "bad" or "weirdo".

FWIW, and for any lurkers, I did look up the symptoms of Asperger's-syndrome autism so I would have half a clue what I was talking about. http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html

[matt_mcl]

I don't mean to be hounding you, but I brought up quite a while ago the example of a person who is perfectly happy riding escalators 24 hours a day and doing nothing else.

It depends what you mean by this example. Is he riding escalators as his only source of amusement? No problem. I know people who stare at coins as their only source of amusement. Is he riding escalators so compulsively that he doesn't eat or sleep for extended periods of time? Then he's injuring himself and is moving into the realms of compulsion.

If you discount the pain of being labeled "different", and you did previously ("Something's a disease if it causes pain. And I don't mean the pain of being rejected because you're different."), why can you not discount the pain of being labeled autistic?

You are not understanding. I don't discount the pain of being labeled as autistic as pain; heaven knows, I went through enough of it. I discount it as the sign of a disease because it is circular.

"He's got a disease! Look, that hurts him. He's in pain. He must really have a disease."

Or better yet:

"He's autistic! Look, that hurts him. He's beginning to mistrust the people who're treating him differently. He's becoming shy and withdrawn. I knew it - he's autistic!"

It depends on the situation, but I would think people would be more sympathetic and understanding towards a person who acts a bit odd because of a minor mental disorder than someone who's just considered "weird".

I wish we didn't feel the need to treat people who act benignly weird differently at all, and calling me mentally ill doesn't help that cause.

It seems to me that the problem was *not* that you were identified as being Asperger's-syndrome autistic, but that your parents and others thought that that made you somehow horribly flawed.

OK, which of the following statements from Dr. Corcoran would have made my parents treat me better?

1) what she said (paraphrased): "Matt has a mild mental condition called Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism. The eccentricities you complained of are simply a result of this condition. It shouldn't impair him too much, but he will need some extra help in making friends and relating to people normally. I suggest you monitor his social life and make sure he meets and socializes with people and engages in a wider variety of activities."

2) what she might have said if the label she gave me didn't exist: "Matt simply doesn't relate to people in the same way you or I do. It's not a disease and it's nothing to worry about, it's just a different way of being. I suggest you let Matt choose a form of social life that suits him; don't try to force him to behave socially in a normal way. If he wants to be more social, let him decide that on his own. He'll ask for help if he wants it. The most important thing is that you trust him that he's doing what's right for him socially."

Now, if your parents had treated it that way--something to be aware of, so that they could perhaps use established techniques to help you if it ever did cause you problems, but something that you appear to be able to function perfectly well with--would the diagnosis have caused you such unhappiness? If so, isn't the problem not in the diagnosis, but in other people's attitude towards it?

The problem is that the diagnosis seemed to lead ineluctibly to the change in relating, at least among my parents, who until they told me were the only ones who knew about it. And they did use established techniques to help me whether or not it caused me problems.

This is the crux. I was perfectly happy not being normal and my problems didn't start until they tried to help me be normal, because they assumed that my abnormality must be making me suffer. And Goddess knows that I tried to tell them in a hundred different ways, your blundering attempts to manage my social life and make it normal are causing me pain!

But - Matt's mentally ill. We have to treat his illness.

I didn't want to be labeled "rude" or "bad" or "weirdo", to quote you. But I didn't want to trade those for the label "diseased", either. Wouldn't things have been better if Dr. Corcoran had just said, "different"?

[Gaudere]

It depends what you mean by this example. Is he riding escalators as his only source of amusement? No problem. I know people who stare at coins as their only source of amusement. Is he riding escalators so compulsively that he doesn't eat or sleep for extended periods of time? Then he's injuring himself and is moving into the realms of compulsion.

Well, he is perfectly happy doing so, and doesn't care that he doesn't get enough food or sleep. You, looking from the outside, say he is injuring himself despite the fact that he is happy. Similarly, your parents believed you were injuring yourself by restricting your social contact, even though you were perfectly happy. Someone with ADD may be happy in school, but the parents and teachers think he is injuring himself because he can't pay attention. I just want to point out that the fact that a person is happy and content the way they are does not mean we can never classify them as "mentally ill". Once a "quirk" starts to significantly interfere with a person's functioning in society, we do indeed see it as an issue, even if that person is happy the way they are. I (and you) would not have said that your avoidence of social contact was significantly interfering with your functioning, but unfortunately this is a subjective judgment and your parents thought differently.

You are not understanding. I don't discount the pain of being labeled as autistic as pain; heaven knows, I went through enough of it. I discount it as the sign of a disease because it is circular.

I think your definition of "pain" as being required for a disease is faulty. You allow a lack of taking care of physical needs, like food and sleep, to be considered "injury", but I think I could make a good case that "social interaction" is a physical need as well. Also, I doubt that you would argue that someone who is so severely ADD that they cannot pay attention at all in school, yet is perfectly happy to be so, is not suffering from a mental illness, yet this person would be in no pain and would not be lacking in any physical needs.

I wish we didn't feel the need to treat people who act benignly weird differently at all, and calling me mentally ill doesn't help that cause.

We treat people differently when they act differently, and "mentally ill" at least tries to get across that it's not their fault. I agree that there should be more acceptance of those who differ from the ideal, but ignoring the various psychological ailments doesn't seem to be the way to go about this.

OK, which of the following statements from Dr. Corcoran would have made my parents treat me better?

1) what she said (paraphrased): "Matt has a mild mental condition called Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism. The eccentricities you complained of are simply a result of this condition. It shouldn't impair him too much, but he will need some extra help in making friends and relating to people normally. I suggest you monitor his social life and make sure he meets and socializes with people and engages in a wider variety of activities."

2) what she might have said if the label she gave me didn't exist: "Matt simply doesn't relate to people in the same way you or I do. It's not a disease and it's nothing to worry about, it's just a different way of being. I suggest you let Matt choose a form of social life that suits him; don't try to force him to behave socially in a normal way. If he wants to be more social, let him decide that on his own. He'll ask for help if he wants it. The most important thing is that you trust him that he's doing what's right for him socially."

You seem to think that is it weren't for your diagnosis, everything would have been better. Just ask the shy daughter of a homecoming queen, or the bookish son of a star quarterback, or the jock son of a brilliant scientist to see that that's not true; parents regularly push their kids to be something they're not and make them miserable because of it. Hell, I can't guarantee that if a son of mine hated reading that I wouldn't try to shove books down his throat at first, I just hope that I'd be aware enough to realize that if I'm making the kid unhappy I should just let him be who he is. It's not the label of autism that made your parents concerned about you; they were concerned in the first place and thought you needed help. The fact that you were autistic and don't relate to people in the same way they do could have made them more sympathetic. I wouldn't expect a dyslexic to be a speedreader and I wouldn't expect you to be a social butterfly.

The problem is that the diagnosis seemed to lead ineluctibly to the change in relating, at least among my parents, who until they told me were the only ones who knew about it. And they did use established techniques to help me whether or not it caused me problems.

The problem seems to be that there is little understanding and sympathy towards certain sorts of mental illness. There's no pejorative sense attached to dyslexia, or ADD, but other forms of mental disorders are often perceived as making that person "broken" and they *must* be fixed. If it is not causing you problems, and you are happy the way you are, I see no need to "fix" anything. But you seem to be accepting the fact that it is inevitable that being labeled autistic means you are "broken", and you think not being called autistic at all would solve this. If someone is ADD, does it benefit them to ignore the fact that this is a well-established syndrome that can benefit from treatment if it becomes a problem? Should we allow the fact that some people assign negative implications to certain forms of mental illness prevent us from identifying them as such? It seems to me that you're buying into the belief that being autistic means that you need to be fixed, and rather than educate people that there is a version of autism that is very mild and very rarely causes problems and simply means that your perceive the world in a different way, you want to avoid the issue and just call yourself "eccentric".

I agree with you that we should be more accepting of "not-normalness". But I also think we need to be more accepting of mental illnesses, and understand that they come in a wide range, and that if they aren't significantly impairing that person's functioning and that person is happy as they are, nothing needs to be "fixed". A person with ADD may *never* be able to sit through an entire opera, and a person with Asperger's syndrome autism may *never* be the most popular kid in school, and that's OK.

I didn't want to be labeled "rude" or "bad" or "weirdo", to quote you. But I didn't want to trade those for the label "diseased", either.

Well, even people who *have* a disease don't really want to be called diseased. I've never heard of a person with leukiemia saying "I'm diseased". Personally, I think "diseased" is a weird word for mental illness anyhow. We need a better one. I don't even like "mental illness" when you're referring to someone who is functioning fine, so I'll generally try to use the exact name of the syndrome if at all possible.

Wouldn't things have been better if Dr. Corcoran had just said, "different"?

Should we just call people with ADD or dyslexia "different"? It *is* often genuinely helpful to be able to categorize something, and use information gathered from research to help the person if it becomes a problem. I think mild autism should be treated like mild dyslexia or mild ADD; something that it might be good to be aware of to understand what could otherwise be interpreted as rudeness or coldness or stupidity, and so that if it ever *does* become a problem you know what to do.

[tracer]

matt_mcl wrote:

I did not need to have my being different labeled as a disease; having my pleasure in reading and distaste for social contact labeled a malignancy when it wasn't.

Pleasure in reading and distaste for social contact? That sounds like plain old-fashioned "geekdom" or "nerdiness" to me.

Does this mean being a Star Trek fan is a mental illness now?