3 ms·

There is a really deep question of when does abnormal become a problem, a sickness, or a disability. For example, homosexuality is rare and decreases the chanc

There is a really deep question of when does abnormal become a problem, a sickness, or a disability. For example, homosexuality is rare and decreases the chance of having direct descendants. But would that qualify as an illness or a sickness? In some parts of the world being homosexual can result in a significantly reduced qualify of life, but is that a problem with the person or with society? Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable (at least in Western cultures) attractions. How does things change? Now, say we count out humans for a second (so messy legal/moral concepts like consent are less involved), and apply the thinking to different species of animals. When does abnormal behavior become illness? Look at honey bees... most of the colony doesn't reproduce and takes roles that limit any ability to directly pass on their genes, but that is how the species works. The difference between normal and abnormal, well and sick, mentally healthy and mentally ill are problems with not just autism, but with abnormal psychology in general.

tehwalrus 11y ago
> For example, homosexuality is rare...decreases the chance of having direct descendants The gene for male homosexuality is actually propagated via over-fertility in females with the gene (i.e. gay guys' sisters have more children to compensate). So, reduced direct descendants yes, but reduced passing on of genes no. > Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable...How does things change? That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes. I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death. That applies to most old-school illnesses, but not to homosexuality, or autism, or some other disabilities like being short a leg. Specifically on being able to reproduce, I wouldn't say that a mule was disabled, even though it has an odd number of chromosomes and is therefore sterile. Same with the bees; although hive-based species are always going to seem weird to mammals like us. Other disabilities, like arthritis, do meet the illness threshold because they do cause chronic pain. With this definition, those with disabilities may ask for additional equipment, support, or perhaps even elective interventions like TMS, but only those with illnesses need medical interventions (whether to mitigate or cure).
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes. Note that I also said we can avoid this by only looking at other animals where notions of consent don't apply. Ideally psychology should realize that consent is a human abstraction. >I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death. Look at honey bees again. How much longer could individual drones live if they didn't sacrifice themselves for the colony. But wouldn't selfishness be a big problem for the colony as a whole? We cannot optimize on either the individual nor the colony to determine what is a mental illness. Also, consider issues of causing pain to others. Every animal that eats meat causes pain to the victim it consumes. But that is clearly normal behavior. And I'm sure we can find other examples of things that cause pain to self or others which we would find normal.

tehwalrus 11y ago

> For example, homosexuality is rare...decreases the chance of having direct descendants The gene for male homosexuality is actually propagated via over-fertility in females with the gene (i.e. gay guys' sisters have more children to compensate). So, reduced direct descendants yes, but reduced passing on of genes no. > Now switch homosexuality for some far less socially acceptable...How does things change? That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes. I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death. That applies to most old-school illnesses, but not to homosexuality, or autism, or some other disabilities like being short a leg. Specifically on being able to reproduce, I wouldn't say that a mule was disabled, even though it has an odd number of chromosomes and is therefore sterile. Same with the bees; although hive-based species are always going to seem weird to mammals like us. Other disabilities, like arthritis, do meet the illness threshold because they do cause chronic pain. With this definition, those with disabilities may ask for additional equipment, support, or perhaps even elective interventions like TMS, but only those with illnesses need medical interventions (whether to mitigate or cure).

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>That involves moving out of the realm of consenting individuals. That is what changes. Note that I also said we can avoid this by only looking at other animals where notions of consent don't apply. Ideally psychology should realize that consent is a human abstraction. >I agree that there is a point at which abnormality becomes illness - my (draft) definition is drawn when the abnormality causes pain (especially chronic pain), or early death. Look at honey bees again. How much longer could individual drones live if they didn't sacrifice themselves for the colony. But wouldn't selfishness be a big problem for the colony as a whole? We cannot optimize on either the individual nor the colony to determine what is a mental illness. Also, consider issues of causing pain to others. Every animal that eats meat causes pain to the victim it consumes. But that is clearly normal behavior. And I'm sure we can find other examples of things that cause pain to self or others which we would find normal.