I understand the article is trying to convey that (some) researchers are rethinking the old approach of thinking of distinct definitions of disease. My point i

I understand the article is trying to convey that (some) researchers are rethinking the old approach of thinking of distinct definitions of disease. My point is that they're still largely making the same mistakes; yes they're blurring the distinctions between "disorders", but they're not going back to first principles, nor giving due consideration to the coherent and compelling work of other eminent figures in their field. > > So, trying to categorise "disorders" into discrete definitions with distinct "causes" in order to restore the mind to some "normal" state cannot possibly work. > Yeah, nobody's trying to do that. Researchers are clearly aware of that. They are still focused on identifying biological causes for disorders, rather than seeing variations in behaviour – even extreme ones – as adaptations that have been selected for by evolution. It's articulated here: > They have a few theories. Perhaps there are several dimensions of mental illness — so, depending on how a person scores on each dimension, they might be more prone to some disorders than to others. An alternative, more radical idea is that there is a single factor that makes people prone to mental illness in general: which disorder they develop is then determined by other factors. Both ideas are being taken seriously, although the concept of multiple dimensions is more widely accepted by researchers. I sigh at that statement, when several prominent figures in the field, all with advanced qualifications in mainstream medicine or psychology, have been offering coherent explanations and effective treatment approaches for years or decades.