6 ms·

It's interesting because there are two diametrically opposed ways to interpret what you said One is - everybody thinks they have disorders, so just ignore that

It's interesting because there are two diametrically opposed ways to interpret what you said One is - everybody thinks they have disorders, so just ignore that feeling it'll mess with you. The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more

Retric 1y ago
Disorders are labels for things which significantly negatively impact people’s lives. Thinking of them in terms of a spectrum generally means stretching a label past the point of meaning.
- cheschire 1y ago
  So it’s a 1 or a 0? The kid is either full autistic or just a socially maladjusted asshole? No room for a middle ground with you then?
  - Yossarrian22 1y ago
    It’s a 1 if it goes above 0.6
    - Spivak 1y ago
      You just invented 0,1 again but gave a weird label to the 1.
  - Retric 1y ago
    That’t not it, what many disorders are describing isn’t just the obvious symptoms. ICE engines heat up because they burn fuel, but if it’s overheating in normal operation that’s from something else breaking down. Not that people are so simple, but that transition point to disorder often represents a meaningful transition.
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      Much like addiction, a key facet of a "diagnosed" disorder tends to be whether or not it (negatively) affects your life. As the guy said, if you think you hear voices but they tell you to go to sleep on time and do a good job at work, you probably don't need treatment.
      - freehorse 1y ago
        > a key facet of a "diagnosed" disorder tends to be whether or not it (negatively) affects your life. Which also brings us to an important point that is totally missed in the article and most of the discussion imo: maybe one of the (many) things that have changed is that lives are more negatively affected by stuff nowadays (or more reported to be so). We live in increasingly complex societies, we have to socialise with more and more people and navigate more demanding and fluid social dynamics. Traits that can be advantageous in a certain context can be disadvantageous in another (and affect one's life negatively).
    - Mtinie 1y ago
      An engine is an assembly of parts. When an engine breaks down it does so because it broke down. An engine does not exist without its cylinders, fuel system, gaskets, lubricants, etc. I believe your analogy is flawed. Can you restate your first statement in any other way?
      - Retric 1y ago
        Someone who is clinically depressed isn’t just sad, they are unable to return to normal. Things that help normal people feel better simply fail, it’s a meaningfully different situation. Similarly treatments for depression like electroconvulsive therapy shouldn’t be applied to normal people. OCD, clinical addiction, etc are all more involved than just feeling the desire to do something. The lack of control is the issue not just the momentary impulse. Intrusive thoughts are fine, acting on them isn’t.
        Mtinie 1y ago
- zug_zug 1y ago
  Well, if you're approaching this as a hard-scientist that's not the case (for psychology). Because "disorder" may be on a spectrum, because "negative" and "impact" may be on a spectrum. Conditions like depression follow a bell-curve, there's no clear line between depressed and not, and we can draw a line in the sand, but statistically there's no justification for where that line falls. One way to try to draw a line is "the point at which a certain intervention is no longer effective." For example studies find CBT therapy reduces depression scores for depressed people ~.8 standard deviations (for a while). But why not try CBT therapy on happy people? Maybe it's even more effective on people who are already happy. Well the reason why not is likely just because of the clumsy nature of healthcare -- interventions are thought of as "treatments" for "conditions", even though that lens doesn't always make sense.
  - Retric 1y ago
    > there's no clear line between depressed and not There’s a meaningful line in the sand for treatments with major side effects. CBT therapy may be “fine” for normal people, but the most effective treatment for depression is ECT which has major side effects. Including a ~1 in 50k chance of death. Saying something is a bell curve distribution is an approximation, it doesn’t mean there’s actually a continuous function out to infinity and negative infinity.
    - pseudalopex 1y ago
      When to resort to ECT is a subjective decision of doctor and patient. It is clear it should come after other treatments failed. But there is no clear line.
      - Retric 1y ago
        Everything is subjective at the margins, but that’s ignoring the clear cut examples where it’s not going to be considered.
        pseudalopex 1y ago
gg82 1y ago
The other idea is that people who go into the field are screwed up themselves... and are trying to work out how to treat/understand themselves.
orn688 1y ago
In my experience the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's helpful to neither completely ignore nor ruminate over one's traits, but just _be aware_ of them. It's been very helpful for me to pay attention to and think about how my own personality compares to others'. For example, I tend to be a people-pleaser, but I used to think that everyone was just as people-pleasing as me, which only reinforced the people-pleasing because I didn't feel right putting my own needs first when everyone else was already sacrificing their own needs (or so I assumed). At the same time, medicalizing these things paints them as "abnormal" disorders that need to be "cured", overlooking any of the positives these traits bring. When it comes to my people-pleasing, I like it about myself that I care about others. As long as I recognize that it sometimes comes at my own expense, I can begin to make more conscious decisions about when to allow the people-pleasing to flow versus when to try to subdue it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
rf15 1y ago
there's a third: everyone wants to feel special and also takes any excuse to not have to work on their flawed habits
- zug_zug 1y ago
  There's an odd presumption there... It sounds like you're presuming those who put a label on themselves don't want to change themselves at all; one could also imagine that those who put a label on themselves want to change themselves most of all
  - zakki 1y ago
    >>>who put a label on themselves don't want to change themselves at all<<< Maybe that wasn't the intention but label does shape perception.
  - rf15 1y ago
    Those who see and believe that there's a label to parts of them can easily believe that they're "helpless", and "that's just the way I am"
    - pseudalopex 1y ago
      Those who do not see or do not believe a label can easily believe that's just the way they are. Those who see and believe a label can easily use it to identify what they can do to help themselves.
      - DisruptiveDave 1y ago
        the ol' "name and tame"
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > "helpless", and "that's just the way I am" These don't mean the same thing. You can be the thing you are and not be helpless. For example, if you have ADHD that's just a part of who you are. That doesn't mean you can't take medication or form processes to help yourself and mitigate the effects of ADHD. Also, in my experience, people who choose to never label themselves are not better off. They typically do have some sort of condition, sometimes multiple, and they actively choose to do nothing about it because they're in extreme denial. I see this with parents all the time. "My kids doesn't have ADHD! Stop trying to label him!". Okay great, but little Timmy is about to flunk out at fucking third grade. Let's do something about it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jaredklewis 1y ago
> The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more What if the first part of this is true (we all have a smattering of disorders), but thinking about them more just makes things worse?
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  There is even an argument that putting a label on something will allow them to think less about it. They can put it away in a box rather than continually beating themselves up over it.
esperent 1y ago
> everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more I think this is subtly incorrect. I would phrase it this way: > everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do... And they think that makes them different and therefore deserving of special treatment. We all live on continuums of mental health, and reflecting on that is important. But it's unrelated to what's happening here, there's not much reflection, just self labelling and demanding special treatment based on these labels. Someone strongly on the autism spectrum absolutely needs special treatment, some just a little, some a lot. But somebody who watches a TikTok about autism and recognizes, or thinks they recognize, similar behaviors in themselves, does not need it (except in the few cases where it is actually undiagnosed autism, of course, but that's a very small minority).

Retric 1y ago

Disorders are labels for things which significantly negatively impact people’s lives. Thinking of them in terms of a spectrum generally means stretching a label past the point of meaning.

cheschire 1y ago
So it’s a 1 or a 0? The kid is either full autistic or just a socially maladjusted asshole? No room for a middle ground with you then?
- Yossarrian22 1y ago
  It’s a 1 if it goes above 0.6
  - Spivak 1y ago
    You just invented 0,1 again but gave a weird label to the 1.
- Retric 1y ago
  That’t not it, what many disorders are describing isn’t just the obvious symptoms. ICE engines heat up because they burn fuel, but if it’s overheating in normal operation that’s from something else breaking down. Not that people are so simple, but that transition point to disorder often represents a meaningful transition.
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    Much like addiction, a key facet of a "diagnosed" disorder tends to be whether or not it (negatively) affects your life. As the guy said, if you think you hear voices but they tell you to go to sleep on time and do a good job at work, you probably don't need treatment.
    - freehorse 1y ago
      > a key facet of a "diagnosed" disorder tends to be whether or not it (negatively) affects your life. Which also brings us to an important point that is totally missed in the article and most of the discussion imo: maybe one of the (many) things that have changed is that lives are more negatively affected by stuff nowadays (or more reported to be so). We live in increasingly complex societies, we have to socialise with more and more people and navigate more demanding and fluid social dynamics. Traits that can be advantageous in a certain context can be disadvantageous in another (and affect one's life negatively).
  - Mtinie 1y ago
    An engine is an assembly of parts. When an engine breaks down it does so because it broke down. An engine does not exist without its cylinders, fuel system, gaskets, lubricants, etc. I believe your analogy is flawed. Can you restate your first statement in any other way?
    - Retric 1y ago
      Someone who is clinically depressed isn’t just sad, they are unable to return to normal. Things that help normal people feel better simply fail, it’s a meaningfully different situation. Similarly treatments for depression like electroconvulsive therapy shouldn’t be applied to normal people. OCD, clinical addiction, etc are all more involved than just feeling the desire to do something. The lack of control is the issue not just the momentary impulse. Intrusive thoughts are fine, acting on them isn’t.
      - Mtinie 1y ago
zug_zug 1y ago
Well, if you're approaching this as a hard-scientist that's not the case (for psychology). Because "disorder" may be on a spectrum, because "negative" and "impact" may be on a spectrum. Conditions like depression follow a bell-curve, there's no clear line between depressed and not, and we can draw a line in the sand, but statistically there's no justification for where that line falls. One way to try to draw a line is "the point at which a certain intervention is no longer effective." For example studies find CBT therapy reduces depression scores for depressed people ~.8 standard deviations (for a while). But why not try CBT therapy on happy people? Maybe it's even more effective on people who are already happy. Well the reason why not is likely just because of the clumsy nature of healthcare -- interventions are thought of as "treatments" for "conditions", even though that lens doesn't always make sense.
- Retric 1y ago
  > there's no clear line between depressed and not There’s a meaningful line in the sand for treatments with major side effects. CBT therapy may be “fine” for normal people, but the most effective treatment for depression is ECT which has major side effects. Including a ~1 in 50k chance of death. Saying something is a bell curve distribution is an approximation, it doesn’t mean there’s actually a continuous function out to infinity and negative infinity.
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    When to resort to ECT is a subjective decision of doctor and patient. It is clear it should come after other treatments failed. But there is no clear line.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Everything is subjective at the margins, but that’s ignoring the clear cut examples where it’s not going to be considered.
      - pseudalopex 1y ago

gg82 1y ago

The other idea is that people who go into the field are screwed up themselves... and are trying to work out how to treat/understand themselves.

orn688 1y ago

In my experience the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's helpful to neither completely ignore nor ruminate over one's traits, but just _be aware_ of them. It's been very helpful for me to pay attention to and think about how my own personality compares to others'. For example, I tend to be a people-pleaser, but I used to think that everyone was just as people-pleasing as me, which only reinforced the people-pleasing because I didn't feel right putting my own needs first when everyone else was already sacrificing their own needs (or so I assumed). At the same time, medicalizing these things paints them as "abnormal" disorders that need to be "cured", overlooking any of the positives these traits bring. When it comes to my people-pleasing, I like it about myself that I care about others. As long as I recognize that it sometimes comes at my own expense, I can begin to make more conscious decisions about when to allow the people-pleasing to flow versus when to try to subdue it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

rf15 1y ago

there's a third: everyone wants to feel special and also takes any excuse to not have to work on their flawed habits

zug_zug 1y ago
There's an odd presumption there... It sounds like you're presuming those who put a label on themselves don't want to change themselves at all; one could also imagine that those who put a label on themselves want to change themselves most of all
- zakki 1y ago
  >>>who put a label on themselves don't want to change themselves at all<<< Maybe that wasn't the intention but label does shape perception.
- rf15 1y ago
  Those who see and believe that there's a label to parts of them can easily believe that they're "helpless", and "that's just the way I am"
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    Those who do not see or do not believe a label can easily believe that's just the way they are. Those who see and believe a label can easily use it to identify what they can do to help themselves.
    - DisruptiveDave 1y ago
      the ol' "name and tame"
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > "helpless", and "that's just the way I am" These don't mean the same thing. You can be the thing you are and not be helpless. For example, if you have ADHD that's just a part of who you are. That doesn't mean you can't take medication or form processes to help yourself and mitigate the effects of ADHD. Also, in my experience, people who choose to never label themselves are not better off. They typically do have some sort of condition, sometimes multiple, and they actively choose to do nothing about it because they're in extreme denial. I see this with parents all the time. "My kids doesn't have ADHD! Stop trying to label him!". Okay great, but little Timmy is about to flunk out at fucking third grade. Let's do something about it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jaredklewis 1y ago

> The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more What if the first part of this is true (we all have a smattering of disorders), but thinking about them more just makes things worse?

tonyedgecombe 1y ago
There is even an argument that putting a label on something will allow them to think less about it. They can put it away in a box rather than continually beating themselves up over it.

esperent 1y ago

> everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more I think this is subtly incorrect. I would phrase it this way: > everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do... And they think that makes them different and therefore deserving of special treatment. We all live on continuums of mental health, and reflecting on that is important. But it's unrelated to what's happening here, there's not much reflection, just self labelling and demanding special treatment based on these labels. Someone strongly on the autism spectrum absolutely needs special treatment, some just a little, some a lot. But somebody who watches a TikTok about autism and recognizes, or thinks they recognize, similar behaviors in themselves, does not need it (except in the few cases where it is actually undiagnosed autism, of course, but that's a very small minority).