5 ms·

Sometime in the early 2000's we passed a point where more than 50% of the population had an AXIS 2 or higher chemical disorder[1]. It was around this point that

Sometime in the early 2000's we passed a point where more than 50% of the population had an AXIS 2 or higher chemical disorder[1]. It was around this point that I became skeptical of the DSM. If the majority of people are crazy, it's likely that our definition of "crazy" needs work. That said, the situation isn't as dire as some folks with a vested interest would have you believe... If you're reading this and you're someone who needs to hear it: Keep taking your medicine! They'll work the kinks out eventually, and even if there is a conspiracy, it isn't against you personally. [1] I meant personality disorder. Leaving the mistake to avoid making the thread confusing.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
What is an Axis II chemical disorder? I'm fairly certain that Axis II was personality disorders and intellectual disabilities in the DSM IV. 70% of people 60 years of age and older have high blood pressure[1], 50% of men regardless of age. Does this mean that our definition of high blood pressure needs work? I'm not arguing that the DSM is perfect, but it's possible for something to be bad and also common. But I appreciate the "Keep taking your meds" sentiment as well, it has bigger problem overall, but it can still help people. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db511.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db511.htm
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  >I'm fairly certain that Axis II was personality disorders and intellectual disabilities in the DSM IV. You are 100% correct, I thought personality disorders and typed chemical disorders for some reason. I'll leave the mistake so the thread makes sense. > Does this mean that our definition of high blood pressure need work? I think there's a difference between a disorder that is defined mechanistically and a disease that is only defined relatively. For example, if you're missing an arm, or at huge risk of stroke that's fairly obvious. However, if you are less happy than average, and more than 50% are also less happy then average... something is wrong with the math. *EDIT* To make matters worse I should have said Axis 1 instead of 2. This is what I get for trying to remember a 20+ year old reference without citing it. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/208678 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    Ok, so we're on the same page as to what we're referring to, but, to be clear, that 50% claim is incorrect[1], it's much lower than that. Who is claiming that more than 50% of people are "less happy than average"? That's not a disorder. I'm fairly certain that the DSM doesn't make a claim like that, does the APA? It feels straw-manish. I know that it's hard to diagnose these more intangible issues, but they are still very important regardless. If more than 50% of people in a society were unhappy, isn't it possible that the society is making them that way and it's not something wrong with the scale? [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3105841/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3105841/
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      I tried to correct myself above, and included the source this time. The actual statistic I was misremembering says that 50.8% of people will meet the requirements for an Axis 1 or higher diagnoses before the age of 75. You're right that it's important to be accurate. Mea Culpa. To the actual point of my wildly incorrect claim: If most people are judged to be mentally ill at some point in their life, and most of the diagnoses can only be made relative to some baseline that's deemed to be "normal", isn't that just a different way of saying that it's "normal" to be mentally ill?
      - tomjakubowski 1y ago
        Most mental health diagnoses are transient. If half of people at some point experience diagnosable mental illness in their lives, that doesn't seem all that outlandish to me. Most of us will, at some point, have some kind of non-psychiatric illness, too.
        mapontosevenths 1y ago
        You, and SketchySeaBeast, both make a good point. I can't reply to Sketchy anymore (throttled maybe?), but I appreciate you both taking the time to have this conversation today. You've made me think a bit harder about something I've believed for 20+ years, and I think I agree now.
lazide 1y ago
[flagged]
- dang 1y ago
  Please keep nationalistic flamebait off this site. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we want to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lazide 1y ago
    Huh? And what is nationalistic flame bait about it? Speaking as someone living it. There is a reason why depression, anxiety, and a host of other issues have escalated for decades, and nationalism has nothing to do with it.
    - dang 1y ago
      Nationalistic flamebait is when someone makes a pejorative generalization about a country, usually in the context of a comment which has little information, but only denunciatory rhetoric. Your GP comment clearly fits that description, as I read it. This is not a borderline call! What happens when people post like that is that others, who have the opposite sympathies, get provoked and feel entitled to respond in kind. Of course, what they feel is "responding in kind" is usually much worse, and thus we end up in a downward spiral. None of this is what HN is for. We want curious conversation here, and that doesn't consist of putting down entire countries, nor of grand generalizations (especially negative ones). Curiosity is much more inclined to look at some interesting or surprising specific about a situation. That's also what the site guidelines ask people to avoid generic tangents (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=generic%20discussion%20by%3Adang%20-flamewars%20-flamewar&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
      - lazide 1y ago
        As someone who has been here many, many years - this is truly mystifying to me. And not just me, apparently. And also notably, no one responded that way to that comment. But sure, it’s your show.
nemomarx 1y ago
It helps to think of these as clusters of symptoms or personality traits anyone might have, which occasionally interfere on your life enough to need treatment. A lot of mental illnesses aren't like a class of person but something that's happening to a person for a while
goopypoop 1y ago
> If the majority of people are crazy, it's likely that our definition of "crazy" needs work. you'd have to be crazy to not believe in demons
jpfromlondon 1y ago
a personality disorder does not imply crazy as it is generally apathological, merely a malformed person.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago

What is an Axis II chemical disorder? I'm fairly certain that Axis II was personality disorders and intellectual disabilities in the DSM IV. 70% of people 60 years of age and older have high blood pressure[1], 50% of men regardless of age. Does this mean that our definition of high blood pressure needs work? I'm not arguing that the DSM is perfect, but it's possible for something to be bad and also common. But I appreciate the "Keep taking your meds" sentiment as well, it has bigger problem overall, but it can still help people. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db511.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db511.htm

mapontosevenths 1y ago
>I'm fairly certain that Axis II was personality disorders and intellectual disabilities in the DSM IV. You are 100% correct, I thought personality disorders and typed chemical disorders for some reason. I'll leave the mistake so the thread makes sense. > Does this mean that our definition of high blood pressure need work? I think there's a difference between a disorder that is defined mechanistically and a disease that is only defined relatively. For example, if you're missing an arm, or at huge risk of stroke that's fairly obvious. However, if you are less happy than average, and more than 50% are also less happy then average... something is wrong with the math. *EDIT* To make matters worse I should have said Axis 1 instead of 2. This is what I get for trying to remember a 20+ year old reference without citing it. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/208678 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  Ok, so we're on the same page as to what we're referring to, but, to be clear, that 50% claim is incorrect[1], it's much lower than that. Who is claiming that more than 50% of people are "less happy than average"? That's not a disorder. I'm fairly certain that the DSM doesn't make a claim like that, does the APA? It feels straw-manish. I know that it's hard to diagnose these more intangible issues, but they are still very important regardless. If more than 50% of people in a society were unhappy, isn't it possible that the society is making them that way and it's not something wrong with the scale? [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3105841/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3105841/
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    I tried to correct myself above, and included the source this time. The actual statistic I was misremembering says that 50.8% of people will meet the requirements for an Axis 1 or higher diagnoses before the age of 75. You're right that it's important to be accurate. Mea Culpa. To the actual point of my wildly incorrect claim: If most people are judged to be mentally ill at some point in their life, and most of the diagnoses can only be made relative to some baseline that's deemed to be "normal", isn't that just a different way of saying that it's "normal" to be mentally ill?
    - tomjakubowski 1y ago
      Most mental health diagnoses are transient. If half of people at some point experience diagnosable mental illness in their lives, that doesn't seem all that outlandish to me. Most of us will, at some point, have some kind of non-psychiatric illness, too.
      - mapontosevenths 1y ago
        You, and SketchySeaBeast, both make a good point. I can't reply to Sketchy anymore (throttled maybe?), but I appreciate you both taking the time to have this conversation today. You've made me think a bit harder about something I've believed for 20+ years, and I think I agree now.

lazide 1y ago

[flagged]

dang 1y ago
Please keep nationalistic flamebait off this site. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we want to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lazide 1y ago
  Huh? And what is nationalistic flame bait about it? Speaking as someone living it. There is a reason why depression, anxiety, and a host of other issues have escalated for decades, and nationalism has nothing to do with it.
  - dang 1y ago
    Nationalistic flamebait is when someone makes a pejorative generalization about a country, usually in the context of a comment which has little information, but only denunciatory rhetoric. Your GP comment clearly fits that description, as I read it. This is not a borderline call! What happens when people post like that is that others, who have the opposite sympathies, get provoked and feel entitled to respond in kind. Of course, what they feel is "responding in kind" is usually much worse, and thus we end up in a downward spiral. None of this is what HN is for. We want curious conversation here, and that doesn't consist of putting down entire countries, nor of grand generalizations (especially negative ones). Curiosity is much more inclined to look at some interesting or surprising specific about a situation. That's also what the site guidelines ask people to avoid generic tangents (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=generic%20discussion%20by%3Adang%20-flamewars%20-flamewar&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
    - lazide 1y ago
      As someone who has been here many, many years - this is truly mystifying to me. And not just me, apparently. And also notably, no one responded that way to that comment. But sure, it’s your show.

nemomarx 1y ago

It helps to think of these as clusters of symptoms or personality traits anyone might have, which occasionally interfere on your life enough to need treatment. A lot of mental illnesses aren't like a class of person but something that's happening to a person for a while

goopypoop 1y ago

> If the majority of people are crazy, it's likely that our definition of "crazy" needs work. you'd have to be crazy to not believe in demons

jpfromlondon 1y ago

a personality disorder does not imply crazy as it is generally apathological, merely a malformed person.