1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Freethinking Declared a Mental Illness

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Zurkhardo, Oct 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    As much as I've enjoyed dabbling in this field, and as vital as it may still be, I for one could never show it the respect I once gave it.


    I think a true mental illness is to insist that everything from personal quirks to personality traits constitutes a mental disorder. That would thereby declare everyone and anyone mentally unsound, defeating the very purpose of maintaining a field that aims to treat ailments that are apparently normal anyway.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2010
  2. morning rush

    morning rush Well-Known Member

    what the fuck? questioning authority is a symptom of a mental illness? that makes absolutely no sense...we have to question authority sometimes because like it or not, they aren't perfect either, and could be hiding things, and for all we know the authority could be a murderer, child molester or whatever....and we're just supposed to do what he says blindly like in the military?

    free thinking is definitely NOT and illness, its freedom of expressions and I think that goes against the 1st amendment...

    I mean think about all the great minds we had in the past, they were all mentally ill for thinking outside the box, and challenging the current thoughts...

    what about the guy who said the earth was round not flat, was he mentally ill?

    sounds more like the gift of intelligence rather than a mental illness...
  3. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I wholeheartedly agree. The line between mental disorder and "quirkiness" has always been blurred in some ways, but this latest update to the DSM turns it all on it's head. Even cynicism and above-average creativity have been declared a mental disorder!

    As you've implied, we probably would have drugged every last one of the great thinkers of previous times had this sort of sentiment been around. In that sense, being mentally unsound could've provided us with some of the greatest art, innovation, and leadership in human history.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2010
  4. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Have you read the book itself, it can be found online and they are not illnesses but symptoms. this i can fully agree with, when im at my worst i will argue the toss about anything regardless of whether im right or not. i think one problem with the article can be seen in the address bar, "offthegridnews". The article is clearly biased and however much i despise authority i do agree with a lot of what the DSM-IV says. Yes there has been an increase in mental illnesses but then again mental health is still a developing subject and with populations at there highest point ever we are going to see more mental illnesses emerge.
    the point i hate about the counterculture (even though i follow a lot of what is said) is that many many people will make assertions and expect readers to not blindly follow what the authority says but expect them to blindly follow what they say. One of the best examples of this is the freeman movement, while studying it i learned a hell of a lot which is applicable in life (by reading into law) but the majority of what i was being told was actually manipulated bollox (i do mean bollox, not bollocks)
    I was once given a piece of advice which i still use, it went "only ever believe half o what you see and even less of what you hear"
    Read the DSM-IV for yourself before you pass judgement!
  5. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    On what said about quirks being considered mental illness. :) Yeah you know it man.
    Here's a question for the people who say everything is a mental illness, please define a person without mental illness.

    It's like every action, thought, possibility has to be defined and catagorized, and the compared to a preset standing of "normal" and if it varies it's unhealthy because isolated it appears to go against the combined traits that encompass "normal".

    You ask yourself who are these people identifiying and creating this logic string for these "disorders". What ground perceptions and definitions are they useing as a core to rationalize a diagnosis about X trait or personality expression.

    One thing isdefiantly not the same as another. Especially considering the background and other countless elements that these analyst fail to see and incorporate in their analizing moments.

    Ive read a bit of that report, Ive just closed it. My heads not ready to look at the fact that who I am from someone elses eys is being defined, and then theyll look at me by breaking all my traits down and comparing them to a spreed sheet to create the defintion that they will believe and then use and see whnever they look at me, forceing me to believe even more that someone in a governmental position could see and define me and change my life by regulations that truly are wrong and do not work for me, but for them, are the just and the right and the stepping stones to re-distributing and positioning my characteristics to make me more "normal" thus weaking me.

    Rant of depression
  6. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    the same bloke also wrote "Is it any surprise that with the shredding of the American Constitution and the removal of our Christian heritage "


    seriously america was a triumph of rights when made, the constitution states it is a country for all religions...

    again this man seems biased!
  7. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I have read the DSM-IV, and I'm still critical of it. While this particular article was clearly biased, others covering the subject seemed quite skeptical as well.

    Even if what is identified are just symptoms, that's besides the point: what are ultimately personality traits are being branded as potentially symptomatic of illness, which I feel is completely off the wall and erroneous.

    "Above-average creativity's" and "cynicism" is no more a sign of a mental disorder than "happiness" and being lazy. This blurs the line of what is "normal" and what is "illness."

    The DSM-IV has merits, and I never meant to imply otherwise. I simply think that it's going way too far and delving into over-medicalization.
  8. Xaos

    Xaos Well-Known Member

  9. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    It has long been known that people with illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar etc are much more creative, the links are scientifically proven.
    Also when it comes down to symptoms such as happiness, laziness or things such like argumentative, i dont think they mean within a normal limit, everyone has these traits to a limit but when it becomes an all consuming trait it can be seen as abnormal, look at bipolar for example, when im manic i am stupidly happy, i do stupid things through this happiness, i get so emotional at looking at the stars because theyre so beautiful ive dragged my ex out of bed took her into the middle of nowhere and told her to sit down and watch the stars with me, yet when im stable i admire the stars but not so much i have to drag people into fields to share my experience.
    When im manic im also extremely creative, buying 100's of pounds worth of wood then carving and building everything i can think of with enthusiasm which means ill be sat up for 3 days straight making things (then when i hit a down i sit and wonder why i have so much moneys worth of wood in the garden lol) but when im stable i will make a couple of things but i will also remember to eat, drink and sleep.
    For all human traits there are limits to which we could call normal behaviour.
  10. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    i fully agree there is disease mongering and many people are being made to feel unwell but at the same time we are treating more people than ever and giving them their lives back. if it wasnt for my meds i would be sat on roofs trying to catch "night eagles" again. i would not be able to leave the house in daylight and i was speak to noone.
  11. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    You've made fair points. My concern is the potential for mis-diagnosis. The number of mental illnesses has grown far too quickly and far too large. It's one thing if these disorders do genuinely interfere with living one's life; but if we're stigmatizing the otherwise normal behavior of children or geniuses, the potential harm is too great.
  12. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    I've got a few things to say:

    1. The DSM-IV was last revised in 2000
    2. The DSM-V is in the works, new illnesses would go in there.
    3. Not everything in the DSM-IV is necessarily something recommended for 'medication into barren normality'. I have Schizoid Personality Disorder as diagnosed by a psychiatrist and I readily fit into the DSM-IV's description of it. Despite this the psychiatrist, as many others in the field, decided that although personality disorders are anomalous they're not really something to bother 'treating' unless it actually interferes with your life, and even then most personality disorders would be treated with therapy centered around adapting to the average mind to understand why everyone disagrees with you on certain subjects or emotional cues rather than medication. The disorder that whatshisface was talking about sounded like it'd fall in that category - no treatment unless it's severe to the point of someone questioning all authority as a matter of course - even mathematical proofs and whatnot - for no other reason than that they're authoritative.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.