> What remained the same: healthy people still can't relate very well to people with a mental disorder. I'm not sure if there exists a such crisp boundary. Lif

> What remained the same: healthy people still can't relate very well to people with a mental disorder. I'm not sure if there exists a such crisp boundary. Lifetime prevalence of mental illness in the US is about 50%. In any given year 25% of the adult US population will have a mental illness. [1] > That's probably why cancer research gets a multiple in funding of what research into mental disorders gets. Cancers amounts for 15% of disability claims while mental illness does 10%, that might be one driving factor. (Not saying it is justified). The other one is, unlike cancer, most mental illnesses are explained with a bio-psycho-social model, which is incredibly hard to design comprehensive interventions for, or to get enduring results with one-shot interventions. We know quite a good deal about how adverse childhood experiences, economic hardships, familial structures etc affect mental health. The problem is there is only so much space for intervention there that doesn't hinge on societal restructuring. Which is why the agency we exercise in response is limited to pharmacotherapy and talk therapy, at least those insurance would pay for. [1] https://psychcentral.com/blog/cdc-statistics-mental-illness-in-the-us/ https://psychcentral.com/blog/cdc-statistics-mental-illness-...