Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's Talk About Mental Illness

lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.

Some have made the argument before on DDO that, if a member clearly has a mental illness or a family history of it, you should disregard everything they have to say. I vehemently disagree with that.

Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

What says DDO?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with
I disagree with this to some degree. I think that a little rough-and-tumble is good for people, and that over-sheltering cripples them to a degree. Yes, one shouldn't go around harshly demeaning others for no good reason, by that doesn't mean that discussion should be so aseptic and impersonal. I see that sort of discourse as alienating and cold more than anything else. It has its place at the debate podium, but people NEED to cut loose and adopt a more permissive, casual attitude some time.

2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

100% YES. I've seen people go from treating someone like a peer with whom they have a good time, shoot the sh!t, yada yada yada to this cringe-worthy infantilization just because they found out that the person has a mental illness. The person didn't change, just the label. What the fvck.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bob13
Posts: 711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 9:13:57 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:
It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.

Some have made the argument before on DDO that, if a member clearly has a mental illness or a family history of it, you should disregard everything they have to say. I vehemently disagree with that.

Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

What says DDO?

I think that you should treat someone differently if they have a mental disorder. Many disorders affect a person's behavior and you should be more tolerant of them because they aren't in as much control of their actions as a normal person. For example, someone with an anger management disorder needs to be treated with a lot more patience than someone without the disorder.
I don't have a signature. :-)
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:14:35 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 8:33:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with
I disagree with this to some degree. I think that a little rough-and-tumble is good for people, and that over-sheltering cripples them to a degree. Yes, one shouldn't go around harshly demeaning others for no good reason, by that doesn't mean that discussion should be so aseptic and impersonal. I see that sort of discourse as alienating and cold more than anything else. It has its place at the debate podium, but people NEED to cut loose and adopt a more permissive, casual attitude some time.

I'm not sure that what you're saying means we shouldn't treat everyone with respect and dignity.

It's interesting that you bring up the "impersonal"-ness of politeness. I've come to realize that Canadians are polite but not very friendly, and Americans are super friendly but not very polite. It is difficult to be personal with people when you are concerned with not being offensive... I've been trying to strike a balance of both but I would err on the side of dignity and respect.

2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

100% YES. I've seen people go from treating someone like a peer with whom they have a good time, shoot the sh!t, yada yada yada to this cringe-worthy infantilization just because they found out that the person has a mental illness. The person didn't change, just the label. What the fvck.

Yikes :(
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:15:45 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:14:35 AM, lamerde wrote:
I've come to realize that Canadians are polite but not very friendly, and Americans are super friendly but not very polite.

I should have prefaced that with this is a gross generalization of course.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 12:20:59 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 9:13:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

I think that you should treat someone differently if they have a mental disorder. Many disorders affect a person's behavior and you should be more tolerant of them because they aren't in as much control of their actions as a normal person. For example, someone with an anger management disorder needs to be treated with a lot more patience than someone without the disorder.

Why can't you treat everyone who displays angry outbursts with patience? We could all use a little more patience with people, I think. I disagree with the notion that you have to know what someone is personally going through to treat them more kindly.

I also disagree that someone with a mental disorder is necessarily less in control of their actions than anyone else (unless you're talking about things like OCD), and even then, it's treatable.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Bob13
Posts: 711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:03:13 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:20:59 AM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/13/2015 9:13:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:

I think that you should treat someone differently if they have a mental disorder. Many disorders affect a person's behavior and you should be more tolerant of them because they aren't in as much control of their actions as a normal person. For example, someone with an anger management disorder needs to be treated with a lot more patience than someone without the disorder.

Why can't you treat everyone who displays angry outbursts with patience? We could all use a little more patience with people, I think. I disagree with the notion that you have to know what someone is personally going through to treat them more kindly.
I treat anyone with angry outbursts with patience. People with anger management disorders deserve a little more because they have less control over their outbursts.
I also disagree that someone with a mental disorder is necessarily less in control of their actions than anyone else (unless you're talking about things like OCD), and even then, it's treatable.
Most disorders make people less in control of certain actions, but not all actions. Most mental disorders affect behavior.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:16:11 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
A wise woman once said, "You can't argue with everyone."
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:16:18 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 12:14:35 AM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/13/2015 8:33:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with
I disagree with this to some degree. I think that a little rough-and-tumble is good for people, and that over-sheltering cripples them to a degree. Yes, one shouldn't go around harshly demeaning others for no good reason, by that doesn't mean that discussion should be so aseptic and impersonal. I see that sort of discourse as alienating and cold more than anything else. It has its place at the debate podium, but people NEED to cut loose and adopt a more permissive, casual attitude some time.

I'm not sure that what you're saying means we shouldn't treat everyone with respect and dignity.

Don't you think it's more healthy to be a little bit sharp at times, get something out of one's system, and then work through it than it is to maintain a pristine facade? Treating someone as human means recognizing flaws and strong points. Respect, in my mine, is a reaction to virtue in another person, not a blanket projection. If someone has flaws, I think that it's more helpful to that person, in the long run, to point it out to them. It doesn't help anyone to glaze it over, pretend the flaws don't exist, and treat them with a respect which they don't deserve.

I also don't think that dignity is something that people can be treated with; we probably have different conceptions of the word. To me, dignity is something which one cultivates within oneself. It's recognized, not projected.

It's interesting that you bring up the "impersonal"-ness of politeness. I've come to realize that Canadians are polite but not very friendly, and Americans are super friendly but not very polite. It is difficult to be personal with people when you are concerned with not being offensive... I've been trying to strike a balance of both but I would err on the side of dignity and respect.

Yeah, and sometimes, when it comes to mental disabilities, 'politeness' can be harmful. The biggest example of this can be found in misconceptions about PTSD and 'trigger warnings'. The most crippling part of PTSD is the avoidance of triggers, yet it's being considered 'polite' to enable or even encourage avoidance at any expense.

2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

100% YES. I've seen people go from treating someone like a peer with whom they have a good time, shoot the sh!t, yada yada yada to this cringe-worthy infantilization just because they found out that the person has a mental illness. The person didn't change, just the label. What the fvck.

Yikes :(
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:45:36 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 2:03:13 AM, Bob13 wrote:
I treat anyone with angry outbursts with patience. People with anger management disorders deserve a little more because they have less control over their outbursts.
Most disorders make people less in control of certain actions, but not all actions. Most mental disorders affect behavior.

I'm a determinist so I probably don't think about "control" the same way you do... I believe we are all bound by something (or various things). That's a little beyond the scope of what I wanted to get into here though lol

Anyway, would the above apply to those who are medicated or engaging in some form of therapy? Is it the presence of a disorder itself that would make you treat someone differently, or the level of functioning?

At 12/14/2015 2:16:11 AM, Maikuru wrote:
A wise woman once said, "You can't argue with everyone."

Why you so obsessed with me?? :p Would you say that knowledge of the presence of a mental disorder would deter you from arguing with a person?

At 12/14/2015 2:16:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Don't you think it's more healthy to be a little bit sharp at times, get something out of one's system, and then work through it than it is to maintain a pristine facade? Treating someone as human means recognizing flaws and strong points. Respect, in my mine, is a reaction to virtue in another person, not a blanket projection. If someone has flaws, I think that it's more helpful to that person, in the long run, to point it out to them. It doesn't help anyone to glaze it over, pretend the flaws don't exist, and treat them with a respect which they don't deserve.

Fair. Don't get me wrong - I'm obviously not that nice to everybody, particularly people I dislike. But I still think approaching people with respect initially, especially when you know nothing about them, is important.

I also don't think that dignity is something that people can be treated with; we probably have different conceptions of the word. To me, dignity is something which one cultivates within oneself. It's recognized, not projected.

"Dignity" is a word that is thrown around a lot and not always very well defined, so thank you for pointing that out. I think of treating people with dignity in a similar way to the medical profession - respecting an individual's value as a person. It's hard to cultivate dignity if others don't respect you enough to give it to you.

Yeah, and sometimes, when it comes to mental disabilities, 'politeness' can be harmful. The biggest example of this can be found in misconceptions about PTSD and 'trigger warnings'. The most crippling part of PTSD is the avoidance of triggers, yet it's being considered 'polite' to enable or even encourage avoidance at any expense.

But who gives anyone the right to force someone else to experience a trigger? If I have an extreme phobia of dirt and my therapist suggests I touch it to desensitize myself to the anxiety I feel when I do, does that mean others (particularly strangers) should be able to throw dirt at me?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:04:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:45:36 AM, lamerde wrote:

At 12/14/2015 2:16:11 AM, Maikuru wrote:
A wise woman once said, "You can't argue with everyone."

Why you so obsessed with me?? :p Would you say that knowledge of the presence of a mental disorder would deter you from arguing with a person?

As you know, not much can get me to argue with someone in the first place - it is generally unproductive. I am even less apt to argue if I believe the other person, for whatever reason, is disinclined to listen, engage civilly, or have the intention or capacity to alter their views. Under certain circumstances, I can imagine that reason being related to a mental disorder.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:15:03 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:45:36 AM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/14/2015 2:03:13 AM, Bob13 wrote:
I treat anyone with angry outbursts with patience. People with anger management disorders deserve a little more because they have less control over their outbursts.
Most disorders make people less in control of certain actions, but not all actions. Most mental disorders affect behavior.

I'm a determinist so I probably don't think about "control" the same way you do... I believe we are all bound by something (or various things). That's a little beyond the scope of what I wanted to get into here though lol

Anyway, would the above apply to those who are medicated or engaging in some form of therapy? Is it the presence of a disorder itself that would make you treat someone differently, or the level of functioning?

At 12/14/2015 2:16:11 AM, Maikuru wrote:
A wise woman once said, "You can't argue with everyone."

Why you so obsessed with me?? :p Would you say that knowledge of the presence of a mental disorder would deter you from arguing with a person?

At 12/14/2015 2:16:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Don't you think it's more healthy to be a little bit sharp at times, get something out of one's system, and then work through it than it is to maintain a pristine facade? Treating someone as human means recognizing flaws and strong points. Respect, in my mine, is a reaction to virtue in another person, not a blanket projection. If someone has flaws, I think that it's more helpful to that person, in the long run, to point it out to them. It doesn't help anyone to glaze it over, pretend the flaws don't exist, and treat them with a respect which they don't deserve.

Fair. Don't get me wrong - I'm obviously not that nice to everybody, particularly people I dislike. But I still think approaching people with respect initially, especially when you know nothing about them, is important.

I think we're just disagreeing about terminology; I would class all of this under basic etiquette. Semantics aside, we basically agree on how to treat people.

I also don't think that dignity is something that people can be treated with; we probably have different conceptions of the word. To me, dignity is something which one cultivates within oneself. It's recognized, not projected.

"Dignity" is a word that is thrown around a lot and not always very well defined, so thank you for pointing that out. I think of treating people with dignity in a similar way to the medical profession - respecting an individual's value as a person. It's hard to cultivate dignity if others don't respect you enough to give it to you.

Okay, yeah, no real disagreement here then.

Yeah, and sometimes, when it comes to mental disabilities, 'politeness' can be harmful. The biggest example of this can be found in misconceptions about PTSD and 'trigger warnings'. The most crippling part of PTSD is the avoidance of triggers, yet it's being considered 'polite' to enable or even encourage avoidance at any expense.

But who gives anyone the right to force someone else to experience a trigger? If I have an extreme phobia of dirt and my therapist suggests I touch it to desensitize myself to the anxiety I feel when I do, does that mean others (particularly strangers) should be able to throw dirt at me?

Well, throwing anything at anyone is technically assault, and frowned upon otherwise, so no. I think that the 'being forced upon' wording is a bit iffy; usually, triggers aren't a matter of force or choice. Triggers are a part of life, which is why desensitization is so important, and why avoidance is such pathological behavior. So, for example, if someone is triggered by discussions on rape, a therapist shouldn't be able to force them to watch debates on the topic, but they shouldn't expect the entire world to hush up when they walk into a room and rape might be a tangentially related subject. It's a shifting of the 'pathologicality' away from avoidance.

I'm reminded always of one study on a terrible earthquake in Turkey, in which a sizable portion of the population was traumatized, and were 'triggered' by the things around them when the quake hit: being in an apartment, the trappings of comfortable life, etc. They were afraid to leave the refugee camp and move back into standard housing because they would be surrounded by triggers every day. But, of those who stayed in the camp, and those who returned to standard housing, the latter group showed astronomically better improvement.

Part of this, I think, is a peculiarly Western, first world view on life in general and anxiety in particular. Having attained a level of relative comfort, there is a drive to eradicate things like anxiety and shame from life because they are unpleasant. But though these things are uncomfortable, they aren't bad, just a part of the human condition. They're part of growing and acclimating to the world around us, and we do ourselves a disservice when we stigmatize anything which feels bad. Medicine is, unfortunately, often bitter.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:15:33 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:
It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.

Some have made the argument before on DDO that, if a member clearly has a mental illness or a family history of it, you should disregard everything they have to say. I vehemently disagree with that.

Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2) you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.

What says DDO?

I appreciate you creating this thread. We've had similar discussions before and, as usual, you've broached a potentially taboo and intimidating topic with the appropriate seriousness and nuance.

I agree that we shouldn't disregard everything a user says because they have a family history of mental illness. That kind of overgeneralization only serves to stigmatize individuals and exclude valid viewpoints and arguments.

I also agree that we should not necessarily treat all individuals with a mental illness with excessive or unusual compassion. As you later stated, we should treat all individuals with respect and dignity until they've proven themselves unable or unwilling to return your gesture. It's what happens at that point which seems to be our area of disagreement, in general (not just pertaining to mental illness, I believe). I am more inclined to disengage from unproductive conversations or negative users in general, though I admit I have chosen to do this with certain individuals before for reasons related to - what appeared to me to be - mental disorders.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 2:30:01 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?

Yes, as does which mental illness is being discussed. Even the lovely and talented lamerde would concede that individuals with certain diagnoses are, given nothing else, likely more difficult to interact with than others.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:31:47 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Sorry for the late reply - I had a paper due today.

At 12/14/2015 5:15:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think we're just disagreeing about terminology; I would class all of this under basic etiquette. Semantics aside, we basically agree on how to treat people.

True.

Well, throwing anything at anyone is technically assault, and frowned upon otherwise, so no. I think that the 'being forced upon' wording is a bit iffy; usually, triggers aren't a matter of force or choice. Triggers are a part of life, which is why desensitization is so important, and why avoidance is such pathological behavior. So, for example, if someone is triggered by discussions on rape, a therapist shouldn't be able to force them to watch debates on the topic, but they shouldn't expect the entire world to hush up when they walk into a room and rape might be a tangentially related subject. It's a shifting of the 'pathologicality' away from avoidance.

I'm reminded always of one study on a terrible earthquake in Turkey, in which a sizable portion of the population was traumatized, and were 'triggered' by the things around them when the quake hit: being in an apartment, the trappings of comfortable life, etc. They were afraid to leave the refugee camp and move back into standard housing because they would be surrounded by triggers every day. But, of those who stayed in the camp, and those who returned to standard housing, the latter group showed astronomically better improvement.

Part of this, I think, is a peculiarly Western, first world view on life in general and anxiety in particular. Having attained a level of relative comfort, there is a drive to eradicate things like anxiety and shame from life because they are unpleasant. But though these things are uncomfortable, they aren't bad, just a part of the human condition. They're part of growing and acclimating to the world around us, and we do ourselves a disservice when we stigmatize anything which feels bad. Medicine is, unfortunately, often bitter.

This is all fair, but at the same time, no individual knows the readiness of another person, or where they are in terms of head space, and I don't think it's up to anyone else to determine how someone else should deal with something. Like... would you argue it's okay to make a rape joke to a person who was just violently raped today? What about yesterday? Or a "your mom" joke to someone's mom who just died today, yesterday, etc. I would err on the side of caution because you just don't know people's lives. I think to ignore other people's wishes is forcing your own beliefs about how they should deal with problems on them. I hope that makes sense... my brain is tired.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:32:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 9:31:47 PM, lamerde wrote:

This is all fair, but at the same time, no individual knows the readiness of another person, or where they are in terms of head space, and I don't think it's up to anyone else to determine how someone else should deal with something. Like... would you argue it's okay to make a rape joke to a person who was just violently raped today? What about yesterday? Or a "your mom" joke to someone whose mom who just died today, yesterday, etc. I would err on the side of caution because you just don't know people's lives. I think to ignore other people's wishes is forcing your own beliefs about how they should deal with problems on them. I hope that makes sense... my brain is tired.

Struggle.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:36:33 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:15:33 AM, Maikuru wrote:

I appreciate you creating this thread. We've had similar discussions before and, as usual, you've broached a potentially taboo and intimidating topic with the appropriate seriousness and nuance.

Thank you. I appreciate that I can have meaningful discussions about topics I am passionate about, and that you approach them with thoughtfulness and level-headedness.

(I did good?)

I agree that we shouldn't disregard everything a user says because they have a family history of mental illness. That kind of overgeneralization only serves to stigmatize individuals and exclude valid viewpoints and arguments.

I also agree that we should not necessarily treat all individuals with a mental illness with excessive or unusual compassion. As you later stated, we should treat all individuals with respect and dignity until they've proven themselves unable or unwilling to return your gesture. It's what happens at that point which seems to be our area of disagreement, in general (not just pertaining to mental illness, I believe). I am more inclined to disengage from unproductive conversations or negative users in general, though I admit I have chosen to do this with certain individuals before for reasons related to - what appeared to me to be - mental disorders.

Why should having a mental disorder be a factor, if unproductive conversations can occur with people who don't have them, and not occur with people who do?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:39:33 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?

I'm more focused on the behaviours, rather than the diagnosis or presence of a diagnosis.

At 12/15/2015 2:30:01 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?

Yes, as does which mental illness is being discussed. Even the lovely and talented lamerde would concede that individuals with certain diagnoses are, given nothing else, likely more difficult to interact with than others.

As I told you before, the only disorder I would immediately disengage with is schizotypal personality disorder because it would be like trying to speak to someone who doesn't speak or understand any language. It's physically not possible - they are operating on a different logical blueprint.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:46:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 9:36:33 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:15:33 AM, Maikuru wrote:

I appreciate you creating this thread. We've had similar discussions before and, as usual, you've broached a potentially taboo and intimidating topic with the appropriate seriousness and nuance.

Thank you. I appreciate that I can have meaningful discussions about topics I am passionate about, and that you approach them with thoughtfulness and level-headedness.

(I did good?)

Ya done good.

I agree that we shouldn't disregard everything a user says because they have a family history of mental illness. That kind of overgeneralization only serves to stigmatize individuals and exclude valid viewpoints and arguments.

I also agree that we should not necessarily treat all individuals with a mental illness with excessive or unusual compassion. As you later stated, we should treat all individuals with respect and dignity until they've proven themselves unable or unwilling to return your gesture. It's what happens at that point which seems to be our area of disagreement, in general (not just pertaining to mental illness, I believe). I am more inclined to disengage from unproductive conversations or negative users in general, though I admit I have chosen to do this with certain individuals before for reasons related to - what appeared to me to be - mental disorders.

Why should having a mental disorder be a factor, if unproductive conversations can occur with people who don't have them, and not occur with people who do?

Mental disorders are relevant insofar as they represent a system of beliefs and behaviors that can be reasonably predicted. It's one thing to engage with an individual whose present actions or attitudes preclude a productive discussion. It's another to engage with someone who (presently) lacks the capacity for a productive discussion. In some instances, mental disorders are representative of the latter mindset. Depending on the disorder, reliably so.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:59:01 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 9:39:33 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?

I'm more focused on the behaviours, rather than the diagnosis or presence of a diagnosis.

At 12/15/2015 2:30:01 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/15/2015 2:25:18 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Doesn't the degree or severity of the mental illness come into play here, too?

Yes, as does which mental illness is being discussed. Even the lovely and talented lamerde would concede that individuals with certain diagnoses are, given nothing else, likely more difficult to interact with than others.

As I told you before, the only disorder I would immediately disengage with is schizotypal personality disorder because it would be like trying to speak to someone who doesn't speak or understand any language. It's physically not possible - they are operating on a different logical blueprint.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with immediately disengaging with anyone; some attempt should be made. That said, it's all a matter of intensity and frequency. On paper, an individual with schizotypal personality disorder may be the most difficult with which to engage, but there are a number of disorders with a set of symptoms that can easily disrupt reasonable discussion, if severe enough, outside of schizotypal. You would agree that the label of the disorder shouldn't be our only consideration on whether or not we interact with someone?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 11:41:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 9:46:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

Mental disorders are relevant insofar as they represent a system of beliefs and behaviors that can be reasonably predicted. It's one thing to engage with an individual whose present actions or attitudes preclude a productive discussion. It's another to engage with someone who (presently) lacks the capacity for a productive discussion. In some instances, mental disorders are representative of the latter mindset. Depending on the disorder, reliably so.

Still, those factors can be present without a mental disorder and not present with a mental disorder.

To me, this line of reasoning could be used to dismiss people on any basis besides mental disorders (class, race, gender, etc.). I hesitate to assign a causal relationship to the disorder and behaviour, and if the problem is the behaviour, I fail to see how the disorder should be a factor (except in cases where the disordered behaviour is explicitly linked to neurobiology).

For example, someone with narcissistic personality disorder may be a pain to talk to and they may be incapable of proper reasoning, but so are a lot of people. A decision to stop talking to someone with NPD should have little to do with their diagnosis, and more to do with that individual's toxic behaviour.

At 12/15/2015 9:59:01 PM, Maikuru wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with immediately disengaging with anyone; some attempt should be made. That said, it's all a matter of intensity and frequency. On paper, an individual with schizotypal personality disorder may be the most difficult with which to engage, but there are a number of disorders with a set of symptoms that can easily disrupt reasonable discussion, if severe enough, outside of schizotypal. You would agree that the label of the disorder shouldn't be our only consideration on whether or not we interact with someone?

Well, there's also the difference between ego-synotic and ego-dystonic disorders, and disorders that are episodic. So like... I probably wouldn't want to engage with someone in the middle of an episode. But in the case of personality disorders, which we all have to some degree, that's just who a person is.

I guess we agree to a greater extent than I thought, but I would make the distinction between Axis I and Axis II. What about you? For Axis II, with the exception of schizotypal personality disorder where there's a neurobiological incapability of normal reasoning, the disorder shouldn't really be a consideration. At best, the disorders provide a nice shortcut (e.g., someone "acting borderline" may need to be engaged with differently) but I still think that's about the behaviour and not the disorder per se.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:16:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 11:41:56 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 12/15/2015 9:46:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

Mental disorders are relevant insofar as they represent a system of beliefs and behaviors that can be reasonably predicted. It's one thing to engage with an individual whose present actions or attitudes preclude a productive discussion. It's another to engage with someone who (presently) lacks the capacity for a productive discussion. In some instances, mental disorders are representative of the latter mindset. Depending on the disorder, reliably so.

Still, those factors can be present without a mental disorder and not present with a mental disorder.

To me, this line of reasoning could be used to dismiss people on any basis besides mental disorders (class, race, gender, etc.). I hesitate to assign a causal relationship to the disorder and behaviour, and if the problem is the behaviour, I fail to see how the disorder should be a factor (except in cases where the disordered behaviour is explicitly linked to neurobiology).

For example, someone with narcissistic personality disorder may be a pain to talk to and they may be incapable of proper reasoning, but so are a lot of people. A decision to stop talking to someone with NPD should have little to do with their diagnosis, and more to do with that individual's toxic behaviour.

As eloquent and thoughtful as ever. It remains my true pleasure to participate in this dialogue with a true expert and revolutionary in her field.

Not to skip ahead, but I concur that our positions are very similar. At this point, we are discussing differences in degrees. For example, I agree that disengaging with someone - on this site or outside - could occur regardless of whether or not they have a diagnosable disorder, and that the same reasoning might apply in both instances. I largely agree that the focus should be on the behaviors, as well.

However, what could unique in the case of the mental disorder sufferer is the element of predictability. If you conceptualize a disorder as a "shortcut" in terms of an individual's thought and action patterns, a past interaction could be a sufficient reason to disengage from future interactions (at least in the same context and without intervention, on their part).

For the sake of discussion, I'll continue the example of a narcissistic personality disorder sufferer. Depending on the severity of the issue, their past failures to engage in civil, reasonable, or logical discourse may be uniquely indicative of future failures to do so. Surely this may also be the case for non-sufferers, but mental disorder categories are so comprehensive because one of their functions is to help anticipate actions and attitudes.

At 12/15/2015 9:59:01 PM, Maikuru wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with immediately disengaging with anyone; some attempt should be made. That said, it's all a matter of intensity and frequency. On paper, an individual with schizotypal personality disorder may be the most difficult with which to engage, but there are a number of disorders with a set of symptoms that can easily disrupt reasonable discussion, if severe enough, outside of schizotypal. You would agree that the label of the disorder shouldn't be our only consideration on whether or not we interact with someone?

Well, there's also the difference between ego-synotic and ego-dystonic disorders, and disorders that are episodic. So like... I probably wouldn't want to engage with someone in the middle of an episode. But in the case of personality disorders, which we all have to some degree, that's just who a person is.

I guess we agree to a greater extent than I thought, but I would make the distinction between Axis I and Axis II. What about you? For Axis II, with the exception of schizotypal personality disorder where there's a neurobiological incapability of normal reasoning, the disorder shouldn't really be a consideration. At best, the disorders provide a nice shortcut (e.g., someone "acting borderline" may need to be engaged with differently) but I still think that's about the behaviour and not the disorder per se.

I would make a similar distinction between Axis I and Axis II disorders, but there's an additional element that should be considered here that relates to how individuals may reasonably be expected to respond to conflict. For example, you likely wouldn't argue with someone with depression the way you would with someone without that diagnosis. As I stated above, we can anticipate patterns of behaviors. An individual without a disorder might respond to a perceived slight with a shrug or a rolling of the eyes. An individual with a disorder is more likely to have an extreme response (e.g., obsess over the slight, discuss it ad nauseam, become highly confrontational or paranoid). This sort of response should be taken into consideration beforehand.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 1:04:52 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
@Maikuru - I'm kind of mad of you for making me have to think deeply about things. I have to work so I can't spare the brain capacity to fully respond right now.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 1:16:16 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/16/2015 1:04:52 AM, lamerde wrote:
@Maikuru - I'm kind of mad of you for making me have to think deeply about things. I have to work so I can't spare the brain capacity to fully respond right now.

You should be thanking me for saving you time in dealing with certain people. What do you think we should do with all our free time?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 7:55:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 1:04:52 AM, lamerde wrote:

So...do you believe me now? lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:35:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:36:21 PM, lamerde wrote:

Shameful plug, indeed..... lol

It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.
I take issue with this, as I find a number of mental disorders are of questionable legitimacy.

Some have made the argument before on DDO that, if a member clearly has a mental illness or a family history of it, you should disregard everything they have to say. I vehemently disagree with that.

On balance, I, too, disagree with that, but it depends.
If I suffer from depression, then saying someone was spiteful to me is suspect.
If I have an anger problem, saying someone deserved my rant and/or fist is questionable in its objectivity.
If I have no grasp of reality, most of what I say is likely gibberish.

Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

It depends, of course.
If I know you have an illness, and my comments are likely to trigger said illness, the civil thing to do is not engage, or tread lightly. In fact, this is good advice regardless of mental illness.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2)
Disagree.
I do try to be civil, but, whatever someone is going through is irrelevant to their actions in the here and now in relation to me, where I am forced to deal with them.
After all, they are not being respectful or offering dignity.

you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.
This is hard, but I agree, again, to a point.
Mental illness is not an excuse for poor behavior. It explains it.
I am not going to say, "oh, you're an alcoholic, then I forgive you for consistently calling me at 3AM and yelling at me over the phone, Dad". It explains why you did it, but, by no means, should I not let it affect my future interactions of you.

Although, as I said, I do treat people differently based on what they can "handle". If they don't like politics, then I don't talk politics. My wife, for example, cannot stand animal abuse/cruelty to the point it is aggravating. I do not mention anything that deals with animals to here, ever.
My work here is, finally, done.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:43:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 5:35:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

It depends, of course.
If I know you have an illness, and my comments are likely to trigger said illness, the civil thing to do is not engage, or tread lightly. In fact, this is good advice regardless of mental illness.

Agreed.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2)
Disagree.
I do try to be civil, but, whatever someone is going through is irrelevant to their actions in the here and now in relation to me, where I am forced to deal with them.
After all, they are not being respectful or offering dignity.

I agree and disagree. We should be mindful of the situations of others, such that their situations influence their responses. You do have to deal with them in the present, but the present isn't necessarily indicative of their personality.

you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.
This is hard, but I agree, again, to a point.
Mental illness is not an excuse for poor behavior. It explains it.
I am not going to say, "oh, you're an alcoholic, then I forgive you for consistently calling me at 3AM and yelling at me over the phone, Dad". It explains why you did it, but, by no means, should I not let it affect my future interactions of you.

Although, as I said, I do treat people differently based on what they can "handle". If they don't like politics, then I don't talk politics. My wife, for example, cannot stand animal abuse/cruelty to the point it is aggravating. I do not mention anything that deals with animals to here, ever.

I am of a similar mindset. Mental illness does not excuse behavior, but it can reliably predict it, to an extent. As such, if I suspect someone has a mental illness and I am not interested in exposing myself to their patterns of behavior, I won't engage with them.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 5:50:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/27/2015 5:43:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/27/2015 5:35:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Others are of the mindset that if you believe someone to have a mental illness, you should treat them with compassion and not engage in inflammatory dialogue with them.

It depends, of course.
If I know you have an illness, and my comments are likely to trigger said illness, the civil thing to do is not engage, or tread lightly. In fact, this is good advice regardless of mental illness.

Agreed.

I am of the mindset that 1) you should treat everyone with respect and dignity because you never know what someone could be dealing with and 2)
Disagree.
I do try to be civil, but, whatever someone is going through is irrelevant to their actions in the here and now in relation to me, where I am forced to deal with them.
After all, they are not being respectful or offering dignity.

I agree and disagree. We should be mindful of the situations of others, such that their situations influence their responses. You do have to deal with them in the present, but the present isn't necessarily indicative of their personality.

How is the present not indicative of their personality (assuming drugs are not causing side effects)? Their personality, anyone's personality, is due to those aspects that make us up, both the good and the bad, the emotional and mental.

And, I am referring to after a pattern has been established. Even a "normal" person can have a bad day, after all. But, if I am paranoid, that is very much part of my personality.

you should not suddenly treat someone differently just because you suspect they have a mental illness.
This is hard, but I agree, again, to a point.
Mental illness is not an excuse for poor behavior. It explains it.
I am not going to say, "oh, you're an alcoholic, then I forgive you for consistently calling me at 3AM and yelling at me over the phone, Dad". It explains why you did it, but, by no means, should I not let it affect my future interactions of you.

Although, as I said, I do treat people differently based on what they can "handle". If they don't like politics, then I don't talk politics. My wife, for example, cannot stand animal abuse/cruelty to the point it is aggravating. I do not mention anything that deals with animals to here, ever.

I am of a similar mindset. Mental illness does not excuse behavior, but it can reliably predict it, to an extent. As such, if I suspect someone has a mental illness and I am not interested in exposing myself to their patterns of behavior, I won't engage with them.

Exactly.
So, in a way, mental illness warrants differential treatment.
My work here is, finally, done.