4 ms·

The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. Or regarding the specific quote, i

by mzl 11y ago

The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. Or regarding the specific quote, in the context of going to a normal school, "severely gifted" might be the right word for describing these children. If these children are given something meaningful to do in school instead, then the moniker would not be apt.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
da1 11y ago
> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else doesn't like the symptoms negatively affects the patient and therefore he is ill. Circular reasoning like this is common practice.
- mzl 11y ago
  > Even if this were true (which it isn't) Maybe I was being too general, but the diagnosis criteria I remember from when I've looked at such (including ADHD, Autism spectra disorders, and Depression) have included such qualifiers, IIRC. Checking ASD, the following is one of the criteria: The deficits result in functional limitations in effective communication, social participation, social relationships, academic achievement, or occupational performance, individually or in combination. While the word "negatively affected" is not specifically used, I would at least argue that the above is morally the same. Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts, but arguing whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".
  - da1 11y ago
    > Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts But there is no fudging. Someone not liking something about you that you are totally OK about does negatively impact you if that person is say your spouse. There is no fudging. This is the usual modus operandi.
  - lutusp 11y ago
    > whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way". But that happens to be true and easily verified. If you're bright, you're assured of the Asperger's diagnosis unless you insist on avoiding the company of psychologists, increasingly difficult in modern times. If you're gay, it was the same thing -- until the public demanded that psychologists stop handing out mental illness diagnoses to gay people. The history of psychology is punctuated with examples in which obviously appropriate behavior was falsely labeled as evidence of disease, including the infamous example of "drapetomania" -- slaves who ran away from their masters were obviously mentally broken and in need of professional help to reunite them with their owners. Psychologists don't wait for people to appear and ask for help -- they issue press releases announcing the discovery of yet another imaginary ailment from which many are claimed to be suffering in silence. Example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201207/electronic-screen-syndrome-unrecognized-disorder https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201207/el...
lutusp 11y ago
> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. This is a false claim. The only requirement is that a psychologist deem you mentally ill. For example, in the eyes of psychology, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Jefferson all are/were mentally ill -- that is, until the imagined malady they were supposed to be suffering from was abandoned because of public outrage. In the same way and with the same effects, homosexuality was a lucrative mental illness until the public forced psychology to accept that it is not an illness and abandon it. These are two among dozens of examples in which psychology invents illnesses, then offers bogus cures, all for a fee. > Or regarding the specific quote, in the context of going to a normal school, "severely gifted" might be the right word for describing these children. That's absurd. It stigmatizes a gift, an example of nature's occasional generosity. To an adult, the absurdity of this kind of writing and thinking is obvious. But to gifted children, most too inexperienced to understand psychology's real role in society, it constitutes yet another burden in their formative years -- years spent in therapy listening to an intellectually handicapped person exhorting them to try to be more "normal." > If these children are given something meaningful to do in school instead, then the moniker would not be apt. I agree with your point, but it's never apt -- it stigmatizes the gifted without recompense. You seem to be missing the point that (a) public schools are notorious for failing the gifted, and (b) this kind of talk only shifts the burden onto the children and away from where it belongs -- on our broken educational system, and on psychology.

by mzl 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

da1 11y ago

> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else doesn't like the symptoms negatively affects the patient and therefore he is ill. Circular reasoning like this is common practice.

mzl 11y ago
> Even if this were true (which it isn't) Maybe I was being too general, but the diagnosis criteria I remember from when I've looked at such (including ADHD, Autism spectra disorders, and Depression) have included such qualifiers, IIRC. Checking ASD, the following is one of the criteria: The deficits result in functional limitations in effective communication, social participation, social relationships, academic achievement, or occupational performance, individually or in combination. While the word "negatively affected" is not specifically used, I would at least argue that the above is morally the same. Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts, but arguing whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".
- da1 11y ago
  > Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts But there is no fudging. Someone not liking something about you that you are totally OK about does negatively impact you if that person is say your spouse. There is no fudging. This is the usual modus operandi.
- lutusp 11y ago
  > whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way". But that happens to be true and easily verified. If you're bright, you're assured of the Asperger's diagnosis unless you insist on avoiding the company of psychologists, increasingly difficult in modern times. If you're gay, it was the same thing -- until the public demanded that psychologists stop handing out mental illness diagnoses to gay people. The history of psychology is punctuated with examples in which obviously appropriate behavior was falsely labeled as evidence of disease, including the infamous example of "drapetomania" -- slaves who ran away from their masters were obviously mentally broken and in need of professional help to reunite them with their owners. Psychologists don't wait for people to appear and ask for help -- they issue press releases announcing the discovery of yet another imaginary ailment from which many are claimed to be suffering in silence. Example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201207/electronic-screen-syndrome-unrecognized-disorder https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201207/el...

lutusp 11y ago

> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. This is a false claim. The only requirement is that a psychologist deem you mentally ill. For example, in the eyes of psychology, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Jefferson all are/were mentally ill -- that is, until the imagined malady they were supposed to be suffering from was abandoned because of public outrage. In the same way and with the same effects, homosexuality was a lucrative mental illness until the public forced psychology to accept that it is not an illness and abandon it. These are two among dozens of examples in which psychology invents illnesses, then offers bogus cures, all for a fee. > Or regarding the specific quote, in the context of going to a normal school, "severely gifted" might be the right word for describing these children. That's absurd. It stigmatizes a gift, an example of nature's occasional generosity. To an adult, the absurdity of this kind of writing and thinking is obvious. But to gifted children, most too inexperienced to understand psychology's real role in society, it constitutes yet another burden in their formative years -- years spent in therapy listening to an intellectually handicapped person exhorting them to try to be more "normal." > If these children are given something meaningful to do in school instead, then the moniker would not be apt. I agree with your point, but it's never apt -- it stigmatizes the gifted without recompense. You seem to be missing the point that (a) public schools are notorious for failing the gifted, and (b) this kind of talk only shifts the burden onto the children and away from where it belongs -- on our broken educational system, and on psychology.