Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

religion and mental illness

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:05:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

What would be the difference between a "mental disorder" and a neurological condition like Alzheimer's?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness." - Pascal.
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
NO> Thousands of years ago the bible said Israel will come back to its land> And it was on 1948 It happened. Is that a mental ILL?
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Cults and Atheist ignore this > Its in your Face! they say show me there is a God> The State of Israel I say> then the snake moves on!
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I said before and all satans minions would be happy >just destroy the state of Israel!. Cant be DONE!
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:35:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:05:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
What would be the difference between a "mental disorder" and a neurological condition like Alzheimer's?

I think that Alzheimer's is diagnosed from observing brain tissue, which can only be done by autopsy. So, when a person is alive, there can only be a "probable" diagnosis from observing behavior.

In the DSM-V, there's only "neurocognitive disorder" due to Alzheimer's disease. That means that someone in the early stages of the disease, with no symptoms would not be seen to have a mental disorder. That would only come later if/when they develop signs of memory loss and confusion etc.

Mental disorder is exactly what the definition says. There's a concept of normal functioning, and a mental disorder is functioning that is outside the boundary of normal for whatever reason. Interesting, this idea of "clinically significant" disturbance, which implies (I think) that only a clinician gets to pick if the disturbance is signficant.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:39:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:35:15 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:05:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
What would be the difference between a "mental disorder" and a neurological condition like Alzheimer's?

I think that Alzheimer's is diagnosed from observing brain tissue, which can only be done by autopsy. So, when a person is alive, there can only be a "probable" diagnosis from observing behavior.

In the DSM-V, there's only "neurocognitive disorder" due to Alzheimer's disease. That means that someone in the early stages of the disease, with no symptoms would not be seen to have a mental disorder. That would only come later if/when they develop signs of memory loss and confusion etc.

Mental disorder is exactly what the definition says. There's a concept of normal functioning, and a mental disorder is functioning that is outside the boundary of normal for whatever reason. Interesting, this idea of "clinically significant" disturbance, which implies (I think) that only a clinician gets to pick if the disturbance is signficant.

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that it's more or less impossible to diagnose neurological conditions as such without dissecting the brain, and that such neurological conditions are diagnosed through observation of mental disorders, yes?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:12:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness." - Pascal.

Yeah, it's interesting because on one hand, it's like, it's all ridiculous, but on the other hand if we agree that society holds information that we can access, then that information has to have labels attached.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:40:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

This is a fascinating subject to me. I do not believe that religion equals mental disorder. At some point in everyone's lives they reach a level of mental stress that results in behavior that could be defined as dysfunctional or socially off balance. With that being said there are people who have a genetic predisposition to mental disorders. If stress is present long enough the brain will rewire and the results are sometimes socially unacceptable (social norms being what they are).

I think that the link between the obsessive behavior of the mentally ill and religion is misunderstood. Religion serves a purpose for many people and the number of mentally ill who are religious is not because religion causes mental illness. On the contrary, religion attracts people who are otherwise unable to regulate themselves socially. Religion provides safety and hope for those who are seeking comfort.

In short the mentally tormented find hope, acceptance, and comfort in religious philosophy.

My conclusion is that all religious people are not mentally ill but that it simply serves a purpose for those who are and who desire what religion does for them emotionally.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gar >why cant Islam destroy the State of Israel/ there is 10,000 to one in 1948 and I think there is 12,00o to one now> sorry they are killing themselves off in Iraq, Syria rand evey where else in the mid east. Enjoyt
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:44:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:39:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:35:15 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:05:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
What would be the difference between a "mental disorder" and a neurological condition like Alzheimer's?

I think that Alzheimer's is diagnosed from observing brain tissue, which can only be done by autopsy. So, when a person is alive, there can only be a "probable" diagnosis from observing behavior.

In the DSM-V, there's only "neurocognitive disorder" due to Alzheimer's disease. That means that someone in the early stages of the disease, with no symptoms would not be seen to have a mental disorder. That would only come later if/when they develop signs of memory loss and confusion etc.

Mental disorder is exactly what the definition says. There's a concept of normal functioning, and a mental disorder is functioning that is outside the boundary of normal for whatever reason. Interesting, this idea of "clinically significant" disturbance, which implies (I think) that only a clinician gets to pick if the disturbance is signficant.

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that it's more or less impossible to diagnose neurological conditions as such without dissecting the brain, and that such neurological conditions are diagnosed through observation of mental disorders, yes?

Yes, for altheimers, I think so. In general, though, observations wouldn't be only of mental disorders. Any behavior could be useful for diagnosis in theory, and also tests such as genetic testing for likelihood etc.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:50:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:40:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

This is a fascinating subject to me. I do not believe that religion equals mental disorder. At some point in everyone's lives they reach a level of mental stress that results in behavior that could be defined as dysfunctional or socially off balance. With that being said there are people who have a genetic predisposition to mental disorders. If stress is present long enough the brain will rewire and the results are sometimes socially unacceptable (social norms being what they are).

I think that the link between the obsessive behavior of the mentally ill and religion is misunderstood. Religion serves a purpose for many people and the number of mentally ill who are religious is not because religion causes mental illness. On the contrary, religion attracts people who are otherwise unable to regulate themselves socially. Religion provides safety and hope for those who are seeking comfort.

In short the mentally tormented find hope, acceptance, and comfort in religious philosophy.

My conclusion is that all religious people are not mentally ill but that it simply serves a purpose for those who are and who desire what religion does for them emotionally.

I agree! I wouldn't like to see religious people characterized as mentally ill. It's just that the question got me thinking about how we do characterize mental illness and separate it from normal functioning. There's something really disturbing to me about the assumptions behind it, and this idea of making religion a mental disorder is potentially consistent with the definitions, I think, and an illustration of how those definitions could be problematic.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:56:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:46:37 PM, Rant wrote:
You just don't crawl out of your hole for a blow!

That was completely uncalled for and down right crude, Fine example you are of the Christ, you say that represent. Unbelievable........
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:56:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:50:37 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:40:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

This is a fascinating subject to me. I do not believe that religion equals mental disorder. At some point in everyone's lives they reach a level of mental stress that results in behavior that could be defined as dysfunctional or socially off balance. With that being said there are people who have a genetic predisposition to mental disorders. If stress is present long enough the brain will rewire and the results are sometimes socially unacceptable (social norms being what they are).

I think that the link between the obsessive behavior of the mentally ill and religion is misunderstood. Religion serves a purpose for many people and the number of mentally ill who are religious is not because religion causes mental illness. On the contrary, religion attracts people who are otherwise unable to regulate themselves socially. Religion provides safety and hope for those who are seeking comfort.

In short the mentally tormented find hope, acceptance, and comfort in religious philosophy.

My conclusion is that all religious people are not mentally ill but that it simply serves a purpose for those who are and who desire what religion does for them emotionally.

I agree! I wouldn't like to see religious people characterized as mentally ill. It's just that the question got me thinking about how we do characterize mental illness and separate it from normal functioning. There's something really disturbing to me about the assumptions behind it, and this idea of making religion a mental disorder is potentially consistent with the definitions, I think, and an illustration of how those definitions could be problematic.

Agreed. Under that definition we could all be labeled bat mad crazy for something. Definitely problematic.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 8:57:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

After reading this again, I think it's less contradictory than it is tautological and redundant. It says that a dysfunction is "A", that socially deviant behavior is "B", and that B =/= A unless B = A. Well of course.

The reason why you think it's contradictory is because you forgot to include the [UNLESS] part of the definition. Once you include it, it's consistent (although I think you're right that it seems forced/arbitrary and not particularly informative).

B =/= A : Socially deviant behavior ... are not mental disorders
B = A : [UNLESS] the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction (same as mental disorder)

---

At 1/11/2015 8:44:12 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:39:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that it's more or less impossible to diagnose neurological conditions as such without dissecting the brain, and that such neurological conditions are diagnosed through observation of mental disorders, yes?

Yes, for altheimers, I think so. In general, though, observations wouldn't be only of mental disorders. Any behavior could be useful for diagnosis in theory, and also tests such as genetic testing for likelihood etc.

cool. In that case, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if some religions today are classified by some people as mental disorders. Take Scientology for example...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:57:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

After reading this again, I think it's less contradictory than it is tautological and redundant. It says that a dysfunction is "A", that socially deviant behavior is "B", and that B =/= A unless B = A. Well of course.

The reason why you think it's contradictory is because you forgot to include the [UNLESS] part of the definition. Once you include it, it's consistent (although I think you're right that it seems forced/arbitrary and not particularly informative).

B =/= A : Socially deviant behavior ... are not mental disorders
B = A : [UNLESS] the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction (same as mental disorder)


You're right. Contradictory is maybe the wrong word. Deceptive maybe, this idea that mental illness is not socially defined (not socially deviant behavior) when it is (contained in the ideas of dysfunction, disturbance, and clinical significance).

But, at the same time, the phrase "dysfunction in the individual" is a bit contradictory because someone external to the individual has to determine that dysfunction exists in the individual. A person could do that for themselves, potentially, but even then the idea of dysfunction implies comparison to a better state of function, or normal functioning, which implies social comparison. So dysfunction doesn't exist in the individual, but rather in the system of judgment.
---

At 1/11/2015 8:44:12 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:39:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that it's more or less impossible to diagnose neurological conditions as such without dissecting the brain, and that such neurological conditions are diagnosed through observation of mental disorders, yes?

Yes, for altheimers, I think so. In general, though, observations wouldn't be only of mental disorders. Any behavior could be useful for diagnosis in theory, and also tests such as genetic testing for likelihood etc.

cool. In that case, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if some religions today are classified by some people as mental disorders. Take Scientology for example...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:18:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

I would not say religion is a mental disorder. I would say it is a set of cognitive distortions many people use to justify their values.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:21:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:10:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:57:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

After reading this again, I think it's less contradictory than it is tautological and redundant. It says that a dysfunction is "A", that socially deviant behavior is "B", and that B =/= A unless B = A. Well of course.

The reason why you think it's contradictory is because you forgot to include the [UNLESS] part of the definition. Once you include it, it's consistent (although I think you're right that it seems forced/arbitrary and not particularly informative).

B =/= A : Socially deviant behavior ... are not mental disorders
B = A : [UNLESS] the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction (same as mental disorder)


You're right. Contradictory is maybe the wrong word. Deceptive maybe, this idea that mental illness is not socially defined (not socially deviant behavior) when it is (contained in the ideas of dysfunction, disturbance, and clinical significance).

Well, mental illness is of course socially defined...every word in a language is socially defined. If you mean that "mental illness does not necessarily fall within the parameters of social behavior" yeah, that was why I asked about neurological conditions...I thought they were differentiating between something like alzheimers and clinical depression.

But, at the same time, the phrase "dysfunction in the individual" is a bit contradictory because someone external to the individual has to determine that dysfunction exists in the individual. A person could do that for themselves, potentially, but even then the idea of dysfunction implies comparison to a better state of function, or normal functioning, which implies social comparison. So dysfunction doesn't exist in the individual, but rather in the system of judgment.

The underlined simply does not follow from the rest of your paragraph. I also do not understand why you think there is a contradiction here.

Dysfunction can exist in the individual if it is defined as existing in him/her. Dysfunction also exists in the system of judgment as well, and when that system of judgment discovers an individual that matches what it has defined as a dysfunction, you get a match, and thus a diagnosis.

Similarly, someone may have a certain number combination on their bingo card, and those numbers may also be present in the bingo cage. When the numbers drawn match the numbers on the card, you get a match and bingo!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:26:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:21:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:10:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 8:57:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

After reading this again, I think it's less contradictory than it is tautological and redundant. It says that a dysfunction is "A", that socially deviant behavior is "B", and that B =/= A unless B = A. Well of course.

The reason why you think it's contradictory is because you forgot to include the [UNLESS] part of the definition. Once you include it, it's consistent (although I think you're right that it seems forced/arbitrary and not particularly informative).

B =/= A : Socially deviant behavior ... are not mental disorders
B = A : [UNLESS] the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction (same as mental disorder)


You're right. Contradictory is maybe the wrong word. Deceptive maybe, this idea that mental illness is not socially defined (not socially deviant behavior) when it is (contained in the ideas of dysfunction, disturbance, and clinical significance).

Well, mental illness is of course socially defined...every word in a language is socially defined. If you mean that "mental illness does not necessarily fall within the parameters of social behavior" yeah, that was why I asked about neurological conditions...I thought they were differentiating between something like alzheimers and clinical depression.

So the question is, what is a "socially deviant behavior" when it is not a "dysfunction"? It's apparently not a mental illness, and it's also apparently not a neurological condition. So I suppose it's just socially acceptable deviant behavior, whereas "dysfunctional behavior" is not socially acceptable? In that case, Scientology is most definitely a mental disorder in the US, given what most people think of Tom Cruise and how most people don't approve of his various Scientology-linked antics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:21:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

But, at the same time, the phrase "dysfunction in the individual" is a bit contradictory because someone external to the individual has to determine that dysfunction exists in the individual. A person could do that for themselves, potentially, but even then the idea of dysfunction implies comparison to a better state of function, or normal functioning, which implies social comparison. So dysfunction doesn't exist in the individual, but rather in the system of judgment.

The underlined simply does not follow from the rest of your paragraph. I also do not understand why you think there is a contradiction here.

Dysfunction can exist in the individual if it is defined as existing in him/her. Dysfunction also exists in the system of judgment as well, and when that system of judgment discovers an individual that matches what it has defined as a dysfunction, you get a match, and thus a diagnosis.

Similarly, someone may have a certain number combination on their bingo card, and those numbers may also be present in the bingo cage. When the numbers drawn match the numbers on the card, you get a match and bingo!

Yes. I suppose so.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:38:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:37:58 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:21:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

But, at the same time, the phrase "dysfunction in the individual" is a bit contradictory because someone external to the individual has to determine that dysfunction exists in the individual. A person could do that for themselves, potentially, but even then the idea of dysfunction implies comparison to a better state of function, or normal functioning, which implies social comparison. So dysfunction doesn't exist in the individual, but rather in the system of judgment.

The underlined simply does not follow from the rest of your paragraph. I also do not understand why you think there is a contradiction here.

Dysfunction can exist in the individual if it is defined as existing in him/her. Dysfunction also exists in the system of judgment as well, and when that system of judgment discovers an individual that matches what it has defined as a dysfunction, you get a match, and thus a diagnosis.

Similarly, someone may have a certain number combination on their bingo card, and those numbers may also be present in the bingo cage. When the numbers drawn match the numbers on the card, you get a match and bingo!

Yes. I suppose so.

You don't sound convinced.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:26:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So the question is, what is a "socially deviant behavior" when it is not a "dysfunction"? It's apparently not a mental illness, and it's also apparently not a neurological condition. So I suppose it's just socially acceptable deviant behavior, whereas "dysfunctional behavior" is not socially acceptable? In that case, Scientology is most definitely a mental disorder in the US, given what most people think of Tom Cruise and how most people don't approve of his various Scientology-linked antics.

It's socially deviant behavior that is socially accepted. Lol. :)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:40:53 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:26:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So the question is, what is a "socially deviant behavior" when it is not a "dysfunction"? It's apparently not a mental illness, and it's also apparently not a neurological condition. So I suppose it's just socially acceptable deviant behavior, whereas "dysfunctional behavior" is not socially acceptable? In that case, Scientology is most definitely a mental disorder in the US, given what most people think of Tom Cruise and how most people don't approve of his various Scientology-linked antics.

It's socially deviant behavior that is socially accepted. Lol. :)

=)

You know, you can make a lot of really weird suppositions from this argument...

For example, Jews and Judaism would be an example of "socially deviant acceptable behavior"...after all, no one really thinks of Judaism as a cult religion even though it's most definitely deviant from Christianity. Now, Mormonism on the other hand, especially when Romney was running in 2008 and during the Salt Lake Olympics, a lot of people simply didn't know much about it and automatically assumed it was a cult. I mean, based upon that definition you provided, anyone who thought Mormonism was cultish probably thought its adherents were suffering from a mental illness.

You could also make some rather disturbing assertions about race relations here...for example, inner city ghetto talk is generally not socially acceptable and is deviant compared to the rest of America, and is primarily spoken by African Americans...so do these people suffer from mental illness? No...because even though they technically fit the above definition, if they were diagnosed with such, they'd have to be treated, which is expensive. So what is more disturbing? That inner city blacks can be categorized as being mentally ill, or that they aren't classified as such to prevent funding allocations to the inner city?

Really interesting stuff, IMHO...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:57:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, is cigarette smoking "deviant behavior"? Is divorce deviant? Society gets to decide what is or is not? By what standard? Popular vote? Should gambling be legal? Should consumption of alcohol be legal? Should extramarital sex be illegal? If so, can society afford the prisons required? What if society decided your haircut is "non conforming"

If what I do, or how I live my life doesn't interfere with your right to live your life and I am not taking advantage of anyone by cause of ability to make informed consent, (including age of reason), on what basis do you presume to dictate to me?

I don't like presumptuous a$$es. I particularly don't like hypocritical pompus a$$es.

This is not directed to you personally. It is just a statement of MY personal beliefs. As far as I am consented, anyone is entitled to their personal beliefs. You are just not entitled to impose your beliefs on others unless you can show harm.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 8:40:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/11/2015 7:45:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Someone was saying that religion might be classified as a mental illness one day, I can't remember who though. It's interesting, because I think mental illness is entirely defined by social consensus, and so there's no reason why any religion, or sexual habit, or any behavior at all shouldn't be defined that way.

Here's the definition of mental illness in the DSM V:

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual"s cognition, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental function. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to some common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.

I've put the most interesting sentence in bold at the end^. It does specifically mention religion as NOT being a mental illness, but the reasons are unconvincing, because of this idea of dysfunction in the individual. It seems to me as quite arbitrary whether something is defined as a "dysfunction" or a "disturbance" and whether or not it is ascribed to the "individual" or to the conflict between the individual and society. To even include that in the definition implies the idea of an impartial observer who can decide those things.

Interesting deviation from the previous edition. In the DSM-IV it said, "A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom." my emphasis. See how, in the current edition, that part about experience is taken right out. Now it's just "usually associated".

So society defines what is a "dysfunction" and what is normal, and yet mental illness is not socially deviant behavior, according to the definition. This definition is inherently contradictory. Anyone disagree?

This is a fascinating subject to me. I do not believe that religion equals mental disorder. At some point in everyone's lives they reach a level of mental stress that results in behavior that could be defined as dysfunctional or socially off balance. With that being said there are people who have a genetic predisposition to mental disorders. If stress is present long enough the brain will rewire and the results are sometimes socially unacceptable (social norms being what they are).

I think that the link between the obsessive behavior of the mentally ill and religion is misunderstood. Religion serves a purpose for many people and the number of mentally ill who are religious is not because religion causes mental illness. On the contrary, religion attracts people who are otherwise unable to regulate themselves socially. Religion provides safety and hope for those who are seeking comfort.

In short the mentally tormented find hope, acceptance, and comfort in religious philosophy.

My conclusion is that all religious people are not mentally ill but that it simply serves a purpose for those who are and who desire what religion does for them emotionally.

Like why psychologist have the highest incident of neurotic disorders.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Plus Neurotic can be a tool for success in today's modern environment.
http://www.businessinsider.com...