2 ms·

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

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.
    - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
      I don't think that it's incorrect at all to say that half of us will at some or multiple points in time suffer from some disorder, in fact I find it comforting to recognize that we will all go through this at some point. We all go through rough patches that can make our mental health slip, just like we go through rough patches where our physical health slips. What's important is that we recognize when something is wrong and get the help we need. Just like my first point, it's normal to be older and have high blood pressure, but if that's the case, you should probably be taking medication.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

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.
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    I don't think that it's incorrect at all to say that half of us will at some or multiple points in time suffer from some disorder, in fact I find it comforting to recognize that we will all go through this at some point. We all go through rough patches that can make our mental health slip, just like we go through rough patches where our physical health slips. What's important is that we recognize when something is wrong and get the help we need. Just like my first point, it's normal to be older and have high blood pressure, but if that's the case, you should probably be taking medication.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]