I'm for 1 with a dash of 4 -- the current consensus is that it's an illness when it impairs the individual's life, and that may change with societal changes.

I'd also like to remark that psychology and psychiatry have changed a lot from the 50s, when lobotomies and electroshock were standard treatment. And if we go back 50 years more... yeah. And then you go further back, and mental illnesses were all demonic possessions that should be treated by an exorcist. Psychology and psychiatry are some of the areas of medicine that have changed the most in the recent past.

For me it's about rich western societies selling the idea that everyone is supposed to be happy, calm, comfortable and problem-free. And if they are not, then something is individually wrong, and needs to be fixed on the personal level, by interactions with professionals. Then it can be called a disorder or illness. This trend works against any sort of political analysis of social problems.

I thought it was largely known that a lot of 'disorders' come AFTER drug companies invent a solution. Disorders in this book are decided by a committee. The committee members sometimes get sponsorship or funding from drug companies.

Also, there are some 'disorders' that are nothing more than some of the stages normal people go through growing up. Until there's a solution (drugs), there's no use mentioning it as a real problem.

I guess I'm a bit pessimistic on the view, but my first sociology teacher explained it pretty well, at least well enough for me to buy into it.

I hate to rain on anyone's cynical parade, but mental illness is real and much of what we know about the brain and its disorders has been learned since 1980. However, I will concede that the rise of the Drug Giants is a contributing factor to what is considered a "brain disorder" and our consumer driven insistence on eternal happiness as the norm does cast suspicion.

Eh. Today's depression was yesterday's spleen, ennui, Weltschmerz or melancholia (which was produced by an excess of black bile, of course). It's definitely not new.

And as someone who couldn't get out of a years-long depression until after adding SSRIs to therapy, I'm glad that Big Pharma is invested in fixing alterations of brain biochemistry.

There's a six possibility, that psychiatry/psychology has matured to the point where it's no longer an question of whether a person is completely healthy or completely incapacitated to the point of requiring hospitalization. It can see nuances.

I am a classic example of this. Asperger's Syndrome wasn't recognized in the US until recently, and it's still seems to be mostly a boutique self-diagnosis by jerks. But talking to an autism specialist and taking the information to a LCSW has been a godsend. It's been a lot of work, but at least we know that there's something real going on and can get insight from others.

Thirty years ago nobody would have seen this as a real issue. How could they -- aspies are usually extremely high functioning in the academic and professional spheres, and their interpersonal problems were dismissed as being just a sign of genius. It's not like we require hospitalization. Now we have the maturity to see that the interpersonal problems aren't just due to poor socialization and a more medical approach can help. Healthy relationships, who would have thunk it?

BTW, the main thing with AS is that we can't pick up emotions or show our own, there's a disconnect in the part of the brain that handles that. The answer is to learn to read subtle clues (think of that new series "Lie to Me") and to "act". But that feels like it's manipulative until you learn that you really have a form of high-functioning autism and it's no more manipulative than somebody who's nearsighted wearing glasses.

@Chris

I'm an Aspie as well, and I'm afraid my experiences with Psychiatric professionals weren't so very smooth.
I was obsessed with books and dragons when I was younger, to the exclusion of interaction with other children. For a long time, they tried treating me as if I were depressed (my mother has a history of manic depression) and attempted to literally force drugs on me. I refused, and it became a loop of attempts to push medication on me, and then 'punishments' for refusal.
Finally, someone thought to test me for Asperger's, and after my diagnosis they stopped trying the drugs and only forced me through some very uncomfortable group therapy sessions with other kids who had problems like depression, who cut themselves for attention, or who were considered "hyper sexual" for their ages.

Basically, I'd rather they'd never treated me as if I were a problem.
I don't think any of the psychological treatments were of any help to me (rather making me feel as if I was damaged in some way) and what eventually helped socialize me was locating other kids who had the patience to allow me to develop by myself, without immediately judging me. Really, I think the problem with Aspies is how non-Aspies have been taught to view those who don't socialize as effectively as they do. I.e., society in general needs treatment, not us.

This from someone born in 1985, so we're not talking about ancient Psyche practices or societal attitudes.

I think the DSM series is more about how to make sure that people with specific or unique needs can be helped within the system of US healthcare. Insurance companies won't cover a problem that isn't considered a disease, so the APA categorizes characteristics and the best course of treatment to make it easier for policy to be written up at the HMOs and other healthcare providers. Plus, medications cannot be made for symptoms or traits, but disorders or diseases, so we'd be stuck pretending that Prozac is a heart medication or some nonsense. I guess this is mostly Hypothesis 3.

The problem is that not everyone with a condition in the DSM feels like they're diseased or have a disorder, and they're likely right. Asperger's Syndrome is a condition that can make life difficult, but it doesn't mean it should be cured or always even treated, as many people with AS have lead happy, albeit different, lives. What matters is that the diagnosis makes it possible for people with such conditions to be understood by medical professionals, specifically psychologists/psychiatrists, teachers, professors, and employers.

About depression, I think many people write it off as being a side-effect of our expectations of our consumer culture. However, I think it's legitimate (I've had my bouts with it), and people are entitled to be able to enjoy life. It's not western selfishness, as happiness comes from within. I'd call it the emotional equivalent of hemophilia. The fact not everyone can afford psychiatric care is a big concern that I think makes depression seem like a classist disease, but if healthcare were to be nationalized in the United States, that concern would be erased.

Then again, my definition of depression is the inability to feel happy (not the ability to feel happy all or most of the time), feel entirely, motivate oneself, or otherwise fail to function well enough due to mood issues. Some people may feel that they need to be happier than is natural, but a good psychiatrist or therapist will deal with that unrealistic belief, as well. I don't think people should just be in pure bliss all the time, as that would just make joy and happiness pointless. People need to be able to enjoy the good things in life.

I'd say a mix of everything in there, with emphasis to one and two, plus people's acceptance of all of that because they like to feel victimized, with the proper exceptions of people that really do have something.

I vote for "Wow, people really can't stand the idea of difference, can they?"

I have no idea whether each and every disorder listed is a valid one, but I do know that middle class white America's knee-jerk reaction when faced with any of them is "God, what a bunch of sissies."

About a year back, an editorial article appeared in the APA's flagship publication, advocating that 'obesity' be added to the next edition of the DSM. Now, bracketing off the false conflation of weight with dietary habits, the idea that a *body type* in and of itself could be grounds for a psychiatric diagnosis is shocking (though not unknown in psychiatric history). As a fat person, I still find myself emotionally overcome when I think about that piece -- fatphobic hysteria (i.e., the latest moral panic) used as a pretense for potentially forced medication and institutionalization.

I think it's interesting that Chris and L.G. brought up the Asperger's as it was the first thing I thought of when it comes down to how diagnosing mental illness.

Autism was first "discovered" in the 1930's and now there are five separate disorders with related symptoms.

There seems to be an ever branching tree of psychology disorders.

I also think there is an element of the hyper-aware.

My cousin and I were both quiet kids, kept to ourselves, didn't like and found it difficult to interact with others, did not have many emotional reactions and were slow to start talking. (I even had to go through speech therapy.) I'll admit I had a horrible time trying to socialize with others in my own age group and it was a skill I had to learn with time. We were considered a little odd but still far within the realm of normal.

Now my niece, at 18 months, is exhibiting similar symptoms and her doctor has her on "autism watch" as I like to call it. Unfortunately it seems like an attempt to pigeon-hole the poor child. And of course it makes us wonder. If we had been born twenty years later would we have been going through the same are they or aren't they autistic? And how this perception have changed us or perhaps even an official diagnosis?

If someone has to count to fifteen every time they open the fridge, and it is becoming a serious detriment to their life - they can go to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist can use the book to find the name and criteria for the issue, and can use this information to help with treatment. They can research it and find out what has helped other people. Like any science, it is just naming and describing things that already exist. FYI: If you don't think you have a problem, and you aren't dangerous to yourself or society - then technically, you don't have a mental illness, even if it's in the book. Part of having a mental problem is it being a problem.

As we learn more about these "diseases" the categories get more specific. There isn't just one kind of depression that everyone has. So more categories are put in the book.

Once upon a time, women depended on husbands or fathers for everything and for the most part - did what they were told to do without getting a say in it. That was normal. Now, it would be called something like "Dependent Personality Disorder".

medicalization of society, folks...

HeHe hope it helps https://www.instagram.com/mapsnesia/

Undeniably consider that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the net the easiest thing to have in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed even as people think about worries that they just don't understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the entire thing with no need side effect , other people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thank you

Es ist wirklich eine großartige und nützliche Information. Ich bin froh, dass Sie diese nützliche Info mit uns geteilt haben. Bitte halten Sie uns auf diese Weise auf dem Laufenden. Danke fürs Teilen.