[RD] Mental "disorders" a misnomer

[Narz]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...gGnS7B_LcqklHqPlq_MWc_HZTtdT5SiU#709d702015a6

What if mental disorders like anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder aren’t mental disorders at all? In a compelling new paper, biological anthropologists call on the scientific community to rethink mental illness. With a thorough review of the evidence, they show good reasons to think of depression or PTSD as responses to adversity rather than chemical imbalances. And ADHD could be a way of functioning that evolved in an ancestral environment, but doesn’t match the way we live today.
Adaptive responses to adversity
Mental disorders are routinely treated by medication under the medical model. So why are the anthropologists who wrote this study claiming that these disorders might not be medical at all? They point to a few key points. First, that medical science has never been able to prove that anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are inherited conditions.
Second, the study authors note that despite widespread and increasing use of antidepressants, rates of anxiety and depression do not seem to be improving. From 1990-2010 the global prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders held at 4.4% and 4%. At the same time, evidence has continued to show that antidepressants perform no better than placebo.
Third, worldwide rates of these disorders remain stable at 1 in 14 people. Yet “in conflict‐affected countries, an estimated one in five people suffers from depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and other disorders,” they write.
Taken together, the authors posit that anxiety, depression and PTSD may be adaptive responses to adversity. “Defense systems are adaptations that reliably activate in fitness‐threatening situations in order to minimize fitness loss,” they write. It’s not hard to see how that could be true for anxiety; worry helps us avoid danger. But how can that be true for depression? They argue that the “psychic pain” of depression helps us “focus attention on adverse events... so as to mitigate the current adversity and avoid future such adversities.”

It's kinda obvious it's a con, I realized this at 7-years old when they called me disordered, gave me meth & the teacher literally gave my mom a slip with a "yes" or a "no" every day at school based on my behavior (whether it pleased or disrupted the teacher).

Labeling and medicating people is mostly about behavior management not mental "health". Labeling people as "disordered" is designed to create social shame, trying to understand your feelings as adaptive is not profitable to the mental-health industrial complex.

 

[innonimatu]

Given that the whole "economy" seems designed to disordering people's lives, atomize society and play them against each other, it's no wonder that there is a mental disorders industry to profit from it...

 

[amadeus]

... “in conflict‐affected countries, an estimated one in five people suffers from depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and other disorders,” ... the authors posit that anxiety, depression and PTSD may be adaptive responses to adversity.
​

Wow! So people that experience traumatic stress are more likely to develop PTSD afterwards?

Really groundbreaking stuff.

 

[innonimatu]

I think the point is that a logical and expected reaction to environmental conditions shouldn't be called a "disorder". The disease is not on the people reacting so, but on the circumstances they lived under.

 

[Narz]

I think the point is that a logical and expected reaction to environmental conditions shouldn't be called a "disorder". The disease is not on the people reacting so, but on the circumstances they lived under.

Exactly

 

[Patine]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...gGnS7B_LcqklHqPlq_MWc_HZTtdT5SiU#709d702015a6


It's kinda obvious it's a con, I realized this at 7-years old when they called me disordered, gave me meth & the teacher literally gave my mom a slip with a "yes" or a "no" every day at school based on my behavior (whether it pleased or disrupted the teacher).

Labeling and medicating people is mostly about behavior management not mental "health". Labeling people as "disordered" is designed to create social shame, trying to understand your feelings as adaptive is not profitable to the mental-health industrial complex.

And this revolutionary newsflash about mental health comes from a notoriously right-wing business magazine? Hmmm...

As a social worker who spends a lot of work time arranging permanent, fixed income for those chronically unable to work, including those diagnosed with mental disorders and illnesses, I call this utter and complete bunk, printed for some sort of plutocratic ulterior motive.

 

[amadeus]

I think the point is that a logical and expected reaction to environmental conditions shouldn't be called a "disorder".

It should be if it results in a disorder. Classifying a response as a disorder does not in any way absolve any parties responsible for its onset, it is a medical diagnosis.

The disease is not on the people reacting so, but on the circumstances they lived under.

The subtext (not from you) reads to me like people with real medical problems are being used as political pawns rather than being helped.

 

[innonimatu]

I really wasn't commenting on the linked piece, only what I though it Narz's idea of it.

 

[amadeus]

I really wasn't commenting on the linked piece, only what I though it Narz's idea of it.

That's fair enough, but I take a cautious approach to people that push against psychiatric medical science as an "industry" because a lot of harm is done to people with real medical disorders by charlatans that peddle homeopathy, "natural remedies," and other such quackery.

 

[Berzerker]

if 1 in 5 people are afflicted in high stress environments wouldn't 'order' be the other 4? I dont disagree with the premise, calling an evolutionary defense mechanism to stress a disorder misses the mark.

 

[Hrothbern]

I am pretty sure that in the time long ago when we as hunter gatherers were still living in small tribes...
the typical mental fingerprint of the chieftain was differing from the typical mental fingerprint of the medicin-man... and both mental fingerprints were typical differing from the herb & midwife woman.... and all those mental fingerprints were typical differing from the median and average.tribe members.

And I think that tribes with the optimal amount of diversity in evolutionary terms were tribes with lots of mental fingerprint diversity.

Even defects can be a reliable source help to get systemic diversity.
When defects are really negative, there are in most cases already redundancies from adjacent pathways.
We have >160 genes for our height, 8 genes for our skin color etc. Only genes on the X-chromosome are more tricky, but even there they are a welcome source for generating diversity differences between and from genders.

Disorder is a word that implies that there is an order that generates yardsticks to measure people... it implies that that order is the window to look... and getting the bulk of the people orderly with a small diversity in the tredmills a natural group behavior.

I think you cannot use the word "disorder" if you do not define as well that yardstick and a (clinical) treshold value.

 

[amadeus]

@Hrothbern, there is a yardstick. It’s imprecise due to technical limitations, but that shouldn’t stop us from using it if it is directionally accurate.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The fact that mental "illnesses" or "disorders" are caused by actual real-life events, environments, and so forth is not a revelation, it's also not anything new to people superficially familiar with the scientific literature on the subject. The fact that they're not inherent does not make them less of an "illness" or a "disorder". I wasn't born with a flu, does that mean it's not an illness? That is the level you are operating on rn.

It is simply a fact that a lot of people who have what we call "mental disorders" struggle with them. It's not something they actively seek out to live with. Hence why we call them "conditions" or "disorders" or anything similiar, to express the fact that many of these people perceive themselves to not be alright.

Medicating someone for a perceived mental "disorder" is totally legitimate if that persons responds to it well and is willing to take up that treatment. Your constant implication that it's somewhat illegitimate seems entirely unwarranted. No one (I hope!) is forcing you to take meds. So be glad that you can be med-free, and if that works out well, more power to you. But don't **** all over the people who aren't happy with their "disorder" and who would prefer to take medication.

@Hrothbern, there is a yardstick. It’s imprecise due to technical limitations, but that shouldn’t stop us from using it if it is directionally accurate.

There is no objective yardstick, and there never was. It's not just "a bit of a grey area".

I think the point is that a logical and expected reaction to environmental conditions shouldn't be called a "disorder". The disease is not on the people reacting so, but on the circumstances they lived under.

"Disorder" literally means that things are not in order. It does not mean the same as illness. One could just as well see disorder as an indictment of our society (as you and Narz do, correctly imho). It's not the worst term, though it still follows the normal vs not normal dichotomy, which is inherently harmful.

I do agree with @Narz that we need to move away from faulting an individual and acting like his/her "disorder" is of his/her own doing, in that regard Narz is 100% right. That is indeed a tactic of stigmatization and only makes all occurring problems worse. If we see mental "disorders" as endemic to the type of societies we are running, it would probably lift a big burden which those people who are told they are "disordered" are carrying.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Ladies and gentlemen. This is now an RD thread. Please behave accordingly. Thank you.

 

[Synobun]

I really wish people would talk about the unreasonable focus on medicating people without also packaging it with conspiracy theories about mental illness.

I would highly recommend people read The Body Keeps the Score, which goes into how the DSM and the medical associations have pushed for medicating PTSD patients at the cost of research into other therapies. The author is a highly respected figure in the PTSD field, and he doesn't waste any time with this "mental disorders aren't real, man" mumbo jumbo.

I've only read the excerpt in the OP, so it's possible this is addressed in the full article, but does the author there really believe that psychiatrists and doctors diagnose all mental illness as chemical imbalances? Even the most basic of discovery would immediately disprove this claim. With disorders like depression and anxiety, you get into chemical imbalance territory when your life is otherwise fine (people get trapped here because they think having a job or being able-bodied means they're fine, but your life has a problem if you're listless or otherwise existentially unsatisfied with who you are) or if you've been entirely unresponsive to several different treatments. Trauma- or situation-based depression and anxiety can be cured if the trauma or situation are resolved. If your disorder is in imbalance territory, you're largely left with management.

A discussion about the failures of the mental health system would be great, but not if it has to be done in the context of "people with ADHD were just born in the wrong society."

 

[bernie14]

The diathesis–stress model is a psychological theory that attempts to explain a disorder, or its trajectory, as the result of an interaction between a predispositional vulnerability, the diathesis, and a stress caused by life experiences.

 

[ShogunGrumpyBear]

I remember someone saying once that most people have a "mental illness" if you look closely enough. That's probably why some people treat it like a joke. You got anxiety, like 200+ million other Americans, etc.

 

[Narz]

I call this utter and complete bunk, printed for some sort of plutocratic ulterior motive.

Wow you finally got a few likes. I'd ask you to expand but...

That's fair enough, but I take a cautious approach to people that push against psychiatric medical science as an "industry" because a lot of harm is done to people with real medical disorders by charlatans that peddle homeopathy, "natural remedies," and other such quackery.

You can critique the mainstream view without supporting nonsense views.

For example, some study from German showed both acupuncture and sham-acupuncture (putting needles in the "wrong" spots) gave more relief from back pain than "conventional" treatments. Obviously this doesn't prove acupuncture is good just points out how unhelpful conventional treatments were at the time

The fact that they're not inherent does not make them less of an "illness" or a "disorder". I wasn't born with a flu, does that mean it's not an illness? That is the level you are operating on rn.

That's a weird strawman.

It is simply a fact that a lot of people who have what we call "mental disorders" struggle with them. It's not something they actively seek out to live with. Hence why we call them "conditions" or "disorders" or anything similiar, to express the fact that many of these people perceive themselves to not be alright.

Yeah being not ok doesn't mean you have "a disorder", that's capitalist gaslighting, its alot deeper than that.

If you're alive today and feel everything is a-ok now thats a disorder!

No one (I hope!) is forcing you to take meds

Well I was certainly forced to take drugs for much of my childhood, in restraints if "necessary".

But don't **** all over the people who aren't happy with their "disorder" and who would prefer to take medication.

No one is doing that...

Disorder" literally means that things are not in order. It does not mean the same as illness.

You're nitpicking, it means the medical industry found a box for you and can bill either you or your insurance company to deaden the problem (ideally creating a new disorder or two as side effects :chaching: )

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't understand why we separate disorders into "mental" or "physical" ones. The brain's still part of the body, isn't it?

 

[Narz]

I don't understand why we separate disorders into "mental" or "physical" ones. The brain's still part of the body, isn't it?

Yeah of course but mental suffering is much more difficult to quantity than say blood sugar levels.

Maybe someday w brain imaging and AI.

Also there's much less stigma about physical problems, "you clearly have a broken leg" is a strange insult to throw at someone whereas "you clearly have a personality disorder" is fighting words.