Should people think more critically about how society defines "dysfunction" as it relates to the mind

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Everyone has problems.

    Your average person has a whole host of mental imperfections. Nobody's perfect. The annoying thing is that we just notice more when someone has a lot of their problems in different areas of life than most other people. I think the term disability shouldn't be applied until a person is lower than the average on each and every mental scale, not just a few.

  • People should take into account the relativity of labels used in these cases

    The idea that one way of thinking is a disease and another way of thinking is the right way to think is socially prescribed. Just because scientists who only have expertise to understand how the parts work together knod their heads in agreement with society doesn't mean they have proven the "negative valence" factor of a given condition.

    Autism comes with drawbacks but also positive things and it would be better to learn how to properly educate someone who is autistic rather than change who they are on such a fundamental level by directly changing the brain.

    Same with psychopaths. I used to think psychopaths were automatically bad. But then I heard about James Fallon. Google him. He's a psychiatrist who found that his brain and genetics are the same as a psychopath's even though he doesn't exhibit any symptoms but does have some personality quirks such as being less likely to pay attention to people's problems.

    Most mental conditions related to how the brain works involve evidence that only proves at most a strong correlation. Yet the media, particularly commenters always sensationalize the message and talk about it as if the relationship was completely equivalent. Even if everything about ourselves comes down to brain chemistry it is very rare for some identified concept whether it's labeled as a "disorder" or not to have a 100% equivalent relationship rather than just a strong (and sometimes it's not even that strong) correlation.

    There are things that are completely equivalent like Huntington's Disease and I don't see any reason why not to cure that.

    But it's likely that in many cases labeled "disorder" if we distanced ourselves from our value judgments and looked at it we'd see a lot of things where every way of being including normal has its advantages and disadvantages.

    We should not be curing that. We should learn better ways of educating neurodiverse people, but we should not be curing them. Not even psychopaths. Psychopaths just are less responsive to fear. So educate them on more positive grounds. Stress the "good" that one will get for being "good" and I don't mean material things. I mean explaining how society works on progressively more intellectual levels. Good is ultimately logical. I'm not a psychopath, I've been scared out of my mind at times. But I can see how good is logical for positive reasons and not just fear and so can see how psychopaths can turn out OK. It's good for us to have some people who are very fearful and some people who are more willing to take risks, even people who stand out a little because of it.

    Neurologically 'normal' people could be at risk of being eliminated by "curing" if some other way of thinking was the norm. Humanity has always had people with divergent neurologies. That is how it should be.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.