NationStates Jolt Archive

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."

In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

I think I know better than him that there's something wrong with me.

I think I know better than him that there's something wrong with me.
That's the question. Might it just be that some doctor told you, and then your parents told you, and your whole environment is treating you as if it were?

That's the question. Might it just be that some doctor told you, and then your parents told you, and your whole environment is treating you as if it were?

No, I'm definitely fucked in the head. My instincts tell me to act differently.

One, he's associated with scientologists.

Two, when he's killed by a deranged stalker, it will be the ultimate proof of the falseness of his beliefs.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

Considering some people have mental disorders that make them act against their will (yelling obscenities, losing control, having delusions, feeling their mind slipping away and so on and so on) I daresay metal disorders exist.

However, it is true that society tends to call different "weird" or "crazy", so there definately is a grain of truth in it.

If that grain of truth is called a thetan is another matter.

http://0cents.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Mousepad_Liberalism_A_Mental_Disorder.jpg
It's true!
Even if it isn't working anymore.

One, he's associated with scientologists.
So is every producer and director who worked with Tom Cruise, by that logic.

He's not a member, he and scientology just happen to both believe that modern psychiatry is wrong.

Does mental disorder exist?

Of course it does, just look at NS. Unfortunately the only known treatment is more NS.

I knew a young man once who, when he first met me thought it would be amusing to set fire to my motorcycle. The second time he met me he decided to push me infront of a taxi because he was pissed off that someone else had scored with the girl he was after. Later he destroyed the motorcycle of the person who "stole his girl".

He took his father's classic car off road rallying on several occasions and was the cause for the transmission having to be replaced each time. He put his head through a brick wall (detaching both retina in the process) just to see if he could do it.

He got in a bar fight and it took 5 police officers (on of which resorted to wielding a table) to take him down (no guns in the UK remember).

He stabbed his best friend in the heart with an 8 inch carving blade, (his friend lived because the blade snapped off and remained in the wound). His first instinct rather than phone for an ambulance when he realised what he had done was to go borrow a motorcycle from a friend at work down the road and go home to make a coffee. (he did a year or two in a mental institute, I dont remember how long exactly)

His final exploit (among many that I haven't listed) was to ride his GSXR1100R at over 130mph in a 30 limit through a village center, during a rain storm. He hit a tree that had blown down in the road and was propelled into the front of an oncomming lorry.

And all this before he hit 25

and theres a guy out there who's going to tell me that this man DIDNT have a mental disorder?

bah.

So is every producer and director who worked with Tom Cruise, by that logic.

He's not a member, he and scientology just happen to both believe that modern psychiatry is wrong.

He speaks at meetings of an organization that he and the church of Scientology founded.

If Tom Cruise and say, Oprah, founded an organization, you can be damn sure that I'd not listen to what she was saying - presuming that she was spouting things which furthered the interests of the church of Scientology.

Mental disorder does exist. Specially chemical imbalance ones.

You can debate if ALL kinds of mental disorders are in fact mental disorders, but you cant deny all of them.

Btw, poor people are crazy, rich people are eccentric. As long as you can make money and take care of yourself...

I'm perfectly normal. :)

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz


In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

One of my best friend's father suffers from schizophrenia. Or rather, the family, neighbours and village suffer from him having schizophrenia. The symptoms are a very ... shall we say, strangely-tinted perception of reality and its impact on him personally. And a resulting persecution complex.
He is irrationally scared of authority, and therefore tries to do things "more than correct". His tax forms are know to be quite a laugh at the local Finanzamt, as he will not only declare every single apple that grew on his property, but also - seperately listed, of course - every apple that fell on it from the trees on neighbouring gardens. He will then, again seperately, declare every bottle of apple juice made from his apples. My friend used to spend at least 2 days each autumn checking local shops and supermarkets for the current price of apples and apple juices, so that her father would be able to make a correct estimate on his tax form each year.

He not only respects profane authorities, he's also a firm believer in the Catholic church. As such, he refused to let his children see dentists, because "good Christians know how to suffer".

It sounds funny as a story, but try living as a child or an adolescent with a father like that.
Yes, in his own perception he's the normal person and the rest of the world isn't. But "normal" is something usuallt defined by the majority, and he is clearly "abnormal". Not only that, his abnormality would be treatable, but he refuses.

I have experience with severe depression in my own family, which has motivated me to enter into a career in psychiatric nursing.

So, I say yes.

One, he's associated with scientologists.

Two, when he's killed by a deranged stalker, it will be the ultimate proof of the falseness of his beliefs.

Indeed.

So is every producer and director who worked with Tom Cruise, by that logic.

He's not a member, he and scientology just happen to both believe that modern psychiatry is wrong.

The producers and directors of Tom Cruise's movies didn't co-found the CCHR, a CO$ front organization, dedicated to psuedoscence.

While there ceratinly have been serious problems with psychiatry, throwing it out on those grounds is like like throwing out modern medicine because early practitioners engaged in leeching.

Advances in technology that allow us to map brain functions are showing the real physiological diseases like schizophrenia.

Would you reject a modern doctor's diagnosis of liver failure on the grounds that earlier medicine associated the liver with one of the four humours?

I'm not sure if its the same person (dont have time to read the whole article right now), but there is a theory by a historian that says that lunacy/mental disorders were invented some time in the 18th century, as that is when the first asylums appeared. Like that article, you can only define it as abnormal once you have the words to describe it.

Besides the fact that modern imaging actually shows some brains functioning differently, there's the question of whether it's a problem for you.

Obviously if you can't function it should be considered an illness. Yes, there is a spectrum between perfectly normal functioning and the inability to function at all. Mild ADHD or being very moody might still allow you to funtion normally without much trouble. Are you just a little to one side of the normal spectrum or are you slightly ill? But when it makes a normal life near impossible it's definitely an illness.

Besides the fact that modern imaging actually shows some brains functioning differently, there's the question of whether it's a problem for you.

Obviously if you can't function it should be considered an illness. Yes, there is a spectrum between perfectly normal functioning and the inability to function at all. Mild ADHD or being very moody might still allow you to funtion normally without much trouble. Are you just a little to one side of the normal spectrum or are you slightly ill? But when it makes a normal life near impossible it's definitely an illness.

Bingo. Maybe if one pictured it as, lets say, heart disease. In some cases, heart disease is simply a minor inconvenience that doesn't need medical treatment but "lifestyle adjustments" - more exercise, different diet, etc.. For other's, it's a life threatening disorder that needs some sort of medical intervention.

(A serious look at the traditional mind/spirit/brain divide would help bring clarity bto this whole issue.)

I'm not sure if its the same person (dont have time to read the whole article right now), but there is a theory by a historian that says that lunacy/mental disorders were invented some time in the 18th century, as that is when the first asylums appeared. Like that article, you can only define it as abnormal once you have the words to describe it.

Demonstrably untrue. Humouralism, for example, claimed that imbalances in the "humours" caused personality disorders such as "melancholy" (what we now call depression). That dates back to Hippocrates, at the very least. It's also echoed in Chinese medical traditions.

I'm not sure if its the same person (dont have time to read the whole article right now), but there is a theory by a historian that says that lunacy/mental disorders were invented some time in the 18th century, as that is when the first asylums appeared. Like that article, you can only define it as abnormal once you have the words to describe it.

I think the word you're looking for is "described", not invented. Before that time people would assume that people with mental disorders were just strange, "evil" or "possessed", depending on the kind and severity of the disorder.
There are a couple of German words describing depressions, "Weltschmerz" and "Schwermut". Both are far older than the 18th century. Annorexia used to be called "Schwindsucht", it was a known condition long before it was classified as having its origins in a mental disorder.
There are more than enough cases of mental disorders that we have historical evidence and records of. Just remember Caligula, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth Báthory, ....

Saying that mental disorders were invented in the 18th century is a bit like saying that Robert Koch invented bacteria rather than first observing and describing them ;)

i think, biologically speaking, there are neurochemical and other brain differences between people. classifying some of the extremes of these as 'disorders' makes sense as they are not ordinary.

whether or not this is a good or bad thing is subject to interperetation.

Of course there are no mental disorders. People are just possesed by demons sent by Satan

/17th century doctor

I would have to say that mental disorders are in fact very real. Five years(and still counting) of therapy and meds have helped me. :D

No, I'm definitely fucked in the head. My instincts tell me to act differently.

maybe you just don't have any self control. My instincts tell me to act exactly as I do, my doctor and the people around me have defined it as "abnormal", the only real problem I see with it is that it often stops me from doing things that I want to do because my compulsion will not let me.

maybe you just don't have any self control. My instincts tell me to act exactly as I do, my doctor and the people around me have defined it as "abnormal", the only real problem I see with it is that it often stops me from doing things that I want to do because my compulsion will not let me.

In your case it is debateable if you have a mental disorder or if you are just different. It is simply a matter of how one defines those concepts.

In your case it is debateable if you have a mental disorder or if you are just different. It is simply a matter of how one defines those concepts.

I would think that the problem would be when it starts to encroach on my life to the point that I cannot do the things I want to do, if I could control it, maybe I would just be eccentric.

Does Mental Disorder exist?

Yes.

I'm not sure if its the same person (dont have time to read the whole article right now), but there is a theory by a historian that says that lunacy/mental disorders were invented some time in the 18th century, as that is when the first asylums appeared. Like that article, you can only define it as abnormal once you have the words to describe it.

Yes, mainly because before that, anyone slightly weird was considered a witch and burned at a stake.

Anyone who seriously believes that mental illness is a crock obviously hasn't dealt with a family member or friend afflicted by it.

I'm not sure if its the same person (dont have time to read the whole article right now), but there is a theory by a historian that says that lunacy/mental disorders were invented some time in the 18th century, as that is when the first asylums appeared. Like that article, you can only define it as abnormal once you have the words to describe it.
It's not (the same person).

i think, biologically speaking, there are neurochemical and other brain differences between people. classifying some of the extremes of these as 'disorders' makes sense as they are not ordinary.

whether or not this is a good or bad thing is subject to interperetation.

There are other conditions. Getting clinical depression is not a matter of being 'different', it's being in a state which requires treatment.

of course

I think I know better than him that there's something wrong with me.

Yeah, my thoughts as well.

He doesn't argue against mental disorders as a whole, he just seems to be against the arbitrary definition of odd behavior as a disorder. Most of his criticisms stem from his own experience as a psychiatrist in the 50's and 60's, when disorders were based less on actual medical disorder and more on societal notions of "normal". His main early contention with the profession was that mental illnesses had little or no physical basis, and he seemed willing to accept disorders based in physical problems, IIRC.

His later work is what makes Szasz look more to me like a crusader than a critic. Certainly, he is very skeptical of authority and a little paranoid about the use of psychiatry as a social control, but I think he exhausted his valid arguments a while back and has been going on belief now for quite some time.

Technically, anything that creates a chemical imbalance or gross abnormality in the brain is a mental disorder, especially if related to neurotransmitters such as serotonin which are vital for normal function and performance.

Of course, there are exceptions, otherwise you'd be referred to a psychiatrist when you fall in love.

As for just calling odd or different behavior a disorder, unless there is actually something wrong in the brain impeding it from normal functioning one can't call it a disorder without being wrong, so maybe this guy is on to something. Stuff like depression, anxiety, sociopathy, post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's and so on are mental disorders, because they interfere in normal body functioning and can kill nerve cells and stem cells in some instances. But just acting differently, as long as one's body is still functioning within the normal range, shouldn't be a problem.

I can agree with him about certain personality “disorders” (megalomania for instance) but bipolar disorders, depression, schizophrenia and others are most certainly as much physical ailments as they are mental.

I think the word you're looking for is "described", not invented. Before that time people would assume that people with mental disorders were just strange, "evil" or "possessed", depending on the kind and severity of the disorder.
There are a couple of German words describing depressions, "Weltschmerz" and "Schwermut". Both are far older than the 18th century. Annorexia used to be called "Schwindsucht", it was a known condition long before it was classified as having its origins in a mental disorder.
There are more than enough cases of mental disorders that we have historical evidence and records of. Just remember Caligula, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth Báthory, ....

Saying that mental disorders were invented in the 18th century is a bit like saying that Robert Koch invented bacteria rather than first observing and describing them ;)

Yeah, my bad, I wasn't meaning 'invented'. Sorry, was writing it in quite a rush before going out.

Mental disorders long predate psychotherapy and go back all the way through recorded medical history. This guy's full of it, just like any other anti-psychiatry type.

I'd rather take the chance of mental disorders being an evil plot by the pharmaceutical and medical establishments and save someone from suffering and death than allow someone to die because they didn't get the treatment they deserve for a very real problem.

In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such.

In some ways that's true, in most ways it's just semantical dick waving. Hey, there's no such thing as physically injured people, it's just a case of the majority defining themselves as physically fit.

He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

Psychology is not synonymous with pharmacology. In fact, in the US these days, most prescription psych. pills are given not by psychologists at all, just regular M.D's. It *used* to be that you had to have a psychiatric degree of some kind, and several weeks at least of working on an individual case, to prescribe psych. medication. No more.

It's easy to rail at the standard modern medical practice of a pill for everyone, but it irks me when people confuse that with actual psychology.

I think he's a total waste of oxygen who should die horribly. I hate people who claim that my suffering doesn't exist.

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz


In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

He's on to something.
*shaves housecats and wraps them in aluminum foil*

I'm inclined to agree with Szasz. In fact, the entire Neurodiversity movement is founding on the principles he's espousing.

I'm inclined to agree with Szasz. In fact, the entire Neurodiversity movement is founding on the principles he's espousing.

And your amazing insight is based on what, Doctor?

I think he's a total waste of oxygen who should die horribly. I hate people who claim that my suffering doesn't exist.
Szasz doesn't claim you're not suffering. He's claiming there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with you. If you like the way you are, there's no reason for people to force change upon you just because your brain behaves differently.

And your amazing insight is based on what, Doctor?
I like to use sociopaths as an example.

Sociopaths lack any internal concept of morality (just as any ideally rational person would). Their set of beliefs about the world is one short (the belief that certain things are right and certain things are wrong). But since we're supposed to be tolerant of people's beliefs, we must therefore be tolerant of that set of beliefs held by sociopaths.

There's nothing "wrong" with them - we simply have a difference of opinion.

I like to use sociopaths as an example.

Sociopaths lack any internal concept of morality (just as any ideally rational person would). Their set of beliefs about the world is one short (the belief that certain things are right and certain things are wrong). But since we're supposed to be tolerant of people's beliefs, we must therefore be tolerant of that set of beliefs held by sociopaths.

There's nothing "wrong" with them - we simply have a difference of opinion.

...

By that logic, physical injuries do not exist.

Szasz doesn't claim you're not suffering. He's claiming there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with you. If you like the way you are, there's no reason for people to force change upon you just because your brain behaves differently.

Force change? FORCE CHANGE?! Are you so unbelievably arrogant as to say I WANT to feel like that?

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz


In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

No, he's an idiot. Mental disability isn't a matter of just not happening to have a desirable set of mental faculties. Most people don't like being enclosed in small spaces, but we're able to put up with it if we have to. We learn how to deal with people we don't like, how to focus on tedious chores we don't want to do, and how to tolerate environments that make us uncomfortable. Also, our senses tend to give us a reasonably accurate picture of what's going on in the world around us.

A mental disability is anything that makes a person incapable of those things. Just like a physical disability is anything that makes it impossible for you to do the things that most people have to do to get through the day.

In the right situation it is entirely possible to provide for yourself if your legs don't function (lots of edible material close to the ground and nothing that might consider you to be the same). Yet the environment that most people create makes it very difficult to function in if you can't stand up. Therefore we consider paralysis to be a disability.

If you have no ability to think logically, you hallucinate, can't stay indoors, or can't listen to someone else long enough for them to finish a sentence, then you're going to have a very hard time functioning in most situations. It isn't that other people are being unreasonable in expecting you to do what almost everyone else does, or expecting you to see things pretty much the way they do. I mean literally seeing the way they do, as in the potted plant in the corner is just a decorative touch and not a clever piece of camoflage for the listening device that the KGB installed to make sure that you would fail in your job interview.

I've tried to commit suicide twice. That's not something one does when one is in a healthy state of mind.

Anyone who seriously believes that mental illness is a crock obviously hasn't dealt with a family member or friend afflicted by it.

Or maybe they have and it is easier to perceive them as weak minded people who didn't want to change to make up for the guilt they feel for not being able to or not wanting to do anything for them. You know, in some cases.

There's nothing "wrong" with them - we simply have a difference of opinion.

Except for the fact that sociopaths often end up as serial killers or as other violent criminals...I mean, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to enjoy harming others and torturing animals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a lack of conscience and morality...yeah, that's a difference of opinion. Nothing could go wrong there, no sir.

Sociopaths are horribly suffering, delusional people who lack any kind of empathy or conscience whatsoever. They are the complete and utter antithesis of rationality.

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz


In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

I would have thought the definition would be down to numbers, not punctuality...

Besides, of course mental disorder exists. It's mental order that's a fiction. :)

Except for the fact that sociopaths often end up as serial killers or as other violent criminals...I mean, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to enjoy harming others and torturing animals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a lack of conscience and morality...yeah, that's a difference of opinion. Nothing could go wrong there, no sir.

I think you're just begging the question here.

I think "Mental Disorder" does exist, however, I feel that it's overplayed and is taken the place of accountability. It's being used more and more as an excuse to commit a horrendous acts against others.

I think you're just begging the question here.

Well, he's sort of right. Sociopaths pretty much invaribly turn out to be murderers.

Edit: And it's less begging the question and more arguing from the definition.

Force change? FORCE CHANGE?! Are you so unbelievably arrogant as to say I WANT to feel like that?
I didn't say you do. But nor did I say you don't. Because it's not my place to decide.

You get to decide whether you like how your brain works.

Well, he's sort of right. Sociopaths pretty much invaribly turn out to be murderers.
If you believe that, you're vastly underestimating the number of sociopaths in society.

Except for the fact that sociopaths often end up as serial killers or as other violent criminals...I mean, it's perfectly normal and acceptable to enjoy harming others and torturing animals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a lack of conscience and morality...yeah, that's a difference of opinion. Nothing could go wrong there, no sir.
But you're jecting not to hteir point of view, but to their behaviour. And that's fine - society has rules governing behaviour, and no one gets to opt out. I'm right with you, there.

But that they don't feel empathy isn't reason for you to treat them like they're broken. Here's why:
Sociopaths are horribly suffering, delusional people who lack any kind of empathy or conscience whatsoever. They are the complete and utter antithesis of rationality.
The antithesis of rationality? Would you care to explain how empathy is rational? Or, given that the absence of empathy is the "antithesis of rationality", how empathy is logically required? Because that's what needs to be true for your statement not to be absurd.

If I look at the world rationally, there's no reason why should feel empathy. Society functions better if most people feel empathy, but I'm just one guy. I can rationally be a free-rider on that (because Kant's Categorical Imperative has nothing to do with reason). I don't need to care about other people at all in order to be rational. In fact, an ideally rational person could choose not to do so.

If you believe that, you're vastly underestimating the number of sociopaths in society.

Or perhaps you're overestimating them. There are some pretty strict guidelines. A few extenuating circumstances aside (dealing solely with punishment), sociopaths are going to end up doing something horrible.

If you believe that, you're vastly underestimating the number of sociopaths in society.

Yah seriously. I mean, I haven't been convicted of ever killing anyone.

Well, he's sort of right. Sociopaths pretty much invaribly turn out to be murderers.

Edit: And it's less begging the question and more arguing from the definition.

Ok. So if I say that God exists because it is God's nature to exist, I'm just arguing from the definition, which is perfectly legitimate?

Punishment is a strong deterrent force.

And the DMS diagnostic tools for sociopathy rely on behaviour.

The antithesis of rationality? Would you care to explain how empathy is rational?

Humans are social creatures, and are hardwired for empathy. Thus, by definition, empathy is rational. Ergo, sociopathy is both irrational and a disorder.

Ok. So if I say that God exists because it is God's nature to exist, I'm just arguing from the definition, which is perfectly legitimate?

Is God defined as existing? No. Sociopaths are defined for lacking empathy and for violent behavior, along with several other traits.

But you're jecting not to hteir point of view, but to their behaviour. And that's fine - society has rules governing behaviour, and no one gets to opt out. I'm right with you, there.

And if their behavior tends to be very destructive and dangerous, it should be changed for the good of them and of society. Allowing someone to be killed because of untreated mental illness is wrong. Socipathic behavior poses a major threat to the person's well being and that of those around them.

The antithesis of rationality? Would you care to explain how empathy is rational? Or, given that the absence of empathy is the "antithesis of rationality", how empathy is logically required? Because that's what needs to be true for your statement not to be absurd.

The benefit of having empathy is greater than the cost no matter which way you try to examine it. You will be better liked, more successful, more emotionally fulfilled, and happier if you have a sense of empathy than if you don't. From a simply utilitarian perspective, it is rational to be empathic towards others because both you and the person in question benefit.

If I look at the world rationally, there's no reason why should feel empathy. Society functions better if most people feel empathy, but I'm just one guy. I can rationally be a free-rider on that (because Kant's Categorical Imperative has nothing to do with reason). I don't need to care about other people at all in order to be rational. In fact, an ideally rational person could choose not to do so.

No, that's not true. You are not a free rider on society because your lack of empathy will be noticed and it will negatively impact you over time. The inherent cost of not being empathic increases over time, and you continue to lose out more and more due to it.

There is no homo economicus in the real world. It is a model created to analyse economic theory and nothing more.

Punishment is a strong deterrent force.

And the DMS diagnostic tools for sociopathy rely on behaviour.

Well, yeah. You can't really know if someone has mental problems unless they start showing it in their behavior and attitude. Psychologists can't read minds after all; they have to rely on visual and behaviorial cues in order to begin other forms of therapy that can treat the problem.

Yah seriously. I mean, I haven't been convicted of ever killing anyone.

If you haven't done any of the things that constitute sociopathic behavior, you're probably not sociopathic. That doesn't mean something isn't wrong.

If you haven't done any of the things that constitute sociopathic behavior, you're probably not sociopathic. That doesn't mean something isn't wrong.

I've never been diagnosed by a liscensed psychiatric practitioner as being a sociopath, and I'm not liscensed and it's also in good practice to never try diagnosing one's own behavior.

I've never been diagnosed by a liscensed psychiatric practitioner as being a sociopath, and I'm not liscensed and it's also in good practice to never try diagnosing one's own behavior.

Well, if you think you're sociopathic it might be a wise thing to do.

Humans are social creatures, and are hardwired for empathy. Thus, by definition, empathy is rational. Ergo, sociopathy is both irrational and a disorder.
How does that have anything to do with reason?

Rationally, I have no incentive to care about other people.

And if their behavior tends to be very destructive and dangerous, it should be changed for the good of them and of society. Allowing someone to be killed because of untreated mental illness is wrong. Socipathic behavior poses a major threat to the person's well being and that of those around them.
Again, you're criticising behaviour.

Plus, sociopathy isn't treatable. Punishment tends to make them more cunning and skilled at hiding their behaviour, and counselling makes them better at manipulating people (particularly counsellors).
The benefit of having empathy is greater than the cost no matter which way you try to examine it. You will be better liked, more successful, more emotionally fulfilled, and happier if you have a sense of empathy than if you don't. From a simply utilitarian perspective, it is rational to be empathic towards others because both you and the person in question benefit.
If I lack emotions there's nothing to fulfill. And whether I'm liked is based not on whether I have empathy, but whether I'm perceived to have empathy. That's a different thing.

As for happiness, I don't think you know that. If I'm ideally rational, I think I'd be pretty annoyed to have feelings which ran contrary to reason.
No, that's not true. You are not a free rider on society because your lack of empathy will be noticed and it will negatively impact you over time. The inherent cost of not being empathic increases over time, and you continue to lose out more and more due to it.
Aspies do okay.
There is no homo economicus in the real world. It is a model created to analyse economic theory and nothing more.
It's something to which one could aspire.

How does that have anything to do with reason?

Rationally, I have no incentive to care about other people.

You want other people to care about you. The rational choice is to care about others.

You want other people to care about you. The rational choice is to care about others.
Which is of course a bit of shakiness at the centre of all this "rationality" talk.

Rationality is first and foremost a tool. It's a way for doing stuff, but in the vast majority of cases it's not a reason for doing stuff. It's weighing up pros and cons, but often what's a pro and what's a con is decided on an emotional basis.

You want other people to care about you. The rational choice is to care about others.
How? That looks like a non sequitur to me.

Rationally, I have no incentive to care about other people.

Do us all a favor and read up on the evolution of altruism.

Again, you're criticising behaviour.

Behavior is what ultimately matters, because that's the only way we know what is going on inside someone's head.

Plus, sociopathy isn't treatable. Punishment tends to make them more cunning and skilled at hiding their behaviour, and counselling makes them better at manipulating people (particularly counsellors).

If it's not treatable, then the only other course is to assess whether the person in question is a danger to society and inter them if necessary in an asylum.

If I lack emotions there's nothing to fulfill. And whether I'm liked is based not on whether I have empathy, but whether I'm perceived to have empathy. That's a different thing.

If you lack emotions, there's probably something seriously wrong. A life without emotion is, for lack of a better term, dead.

Also, there are a lot of people out there good at seeing through false emotions; you're going to fool some people, but eventually they're going to see through it and it's going to hurt you. Besides, in all honesty, if you have no emotions why would you care if anyone likes you or if you succeed in anything to begin with?

As for happiness, I don't think you know that. If I'm ideally rational, I think I'd be pretty annoyed to have feelings which ran contrary to reason.

Sociopathy is contrary to reason.

Aspies do okay.

People with Asperger's aren't sociopaths. They may have trouble with relating to others and empathizing, but they lack the violent, destructive, and sadistic traits associated with sociopathy.

It's something to which one could aspire.

It's a model which is inherently self-destructive outside of economic theory. Not all situations are suited to rational self-interest.

Which is of course a bit of shakiness at the centre of all this "rationality" talk.

Rationality is first and foremost a tool. It's a way for doing stuff, but in the vast majority of cases it's not a reason for doing stuff. It's weighing up pros and cons, but often what's a pro and what's a con is decided on an emotional basis.

Exactly. Rationality is a process, not a reason in itself; if anything, rationality as a reason for behavior is mind-numbingly dull and emotionless. There are many things that are not rationally valued, possibly even more things than can be valued rationally.

I'm starting to think mental disorders aren't what they are cracked up to be. Especially stuff like ADD, which I think isn't a real disorder.

I'm starting to think mental disorders aren't what they are cracked up to be. Especially stuff like ADD, which I think isn't a real disorder.

And your peer-reviewed studies are...?

Behavior is what ultimately matters, because that's the only way we know what is going on inside someone's head.
But what's going on in their head is what we're discussing.
If it's not treatable, then the only other course is to assess whether the person in question is a danger to society and inter them if necessary in an asylum.
So now you're locking people up for disagreeing with the majority? Thought crimes?
Sociopathy is contrary to reason.
Sociopathy is irrelevant to reason. It's just a different set of starting assumptions.
People with Asperger's aren't sociopaths. They may have trouble with relating to others and empathizing, but they lack the violent, destructive, and sadistic traits associated with sociopathy.
What you're describing is Secondary Psychopathy (using Robert Hare's definitions). Primary Psychopathy does not feature necessary violence or sadism - just the lack of empathy and the willingness to manipulate people.

I recommend Robert Hare's work. Without Conscience is a good introduction (though I read it many years ago).
It's a model which is inherently self-destructive outside of economic theory. Not all situations are suited to rational self-interest.
Of course they are. By definition, even. Rational self-interest is always in your best interests. It cannot fail to be.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?

Some of both, I think. :)

There are unquestionably mental disorders - hell, I've been dealing with one my whole life. However, even as I've been doing so, I have wondered more than once if "disorder" is really the right term. Under certain circumstances, I can be functional. Heck, under certain circumstances, I can be significantly more functional than "normal" people. Unfortunately, in society as we know it, those circumstances rarely exist. I question, then, if it is really accurate to label the aspects of my disorder which could be non-problematic in different circumstances as intrinsically bad or unhealthy simply because those circumstances are unavailable to me.

On the other hand, there are certainly aspects of my disorder that make my life hell regardless of society's input, and those I have no qualms about labelling as intrinsically unhealthy, and I take medication to try to combat those effects. However, if a magical fairy came to me tomorrow and offered me the chance to cure myself entirely, I honestly don't know whether I'd take her up on it. I wouldn't be the person I am if I didn't have the disorder I do, and I'd like to believe that the person I am is a person worth being.

Do us all a favor and read up on the evolution of altruism.
I might have a reason to behave as if I care for them, particularly under specific circumstances.

But genuinely value them? No. That's like saying there's a rational incentive for you to like rice pudding. There might be a rational incentive for you to EAT rice pudding, but like it? You can't control your prefences, anyway.

Well, if you think you're sociopathic it might be a wise thing to do.

No way! People would just start assuming I'm a murderer... :p

Any sociopath with half a brain learns quickly to hide their lack of empathy. The problem is that people who know them tend to figure them out over time.

Is there a possibility of being mildly sociopathic? I have an aunt who is an expert at manipulating people. She worked as a home health aid and exelled at getting her patients to give her things. One old guy even bought her a car. She doesn't even trade sex for this stuff, as she's gotten older she's figured out how do manage without that. The family has slowly learned not to trust her. If she does anything nice for you you'll eventually pay triple for it.

When she was younger she did things like cheat on her hubby openly and even burned him with a cigarette just to see how he reacted. If his later relationships weren't healthier you'd think he was a masochist, but she was just good at manipulating him.

Is God defined as existing? No.

Yes, God is defined as existing. The fact that some choose to reject that part of the definition hardly means it isn't there.

You see, some folks don't take things as they get defined by the majority. Funny how that works, ain't it?

Yes, God is defined as existing. The fact that some choose to reject that part of the definition hardly means it isn't there.


Not in any dictionary I've seen.

I found out about this...interesting character here the other day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz


In some ways he's the ultimate libertarian, or rather the ultimate relativist. He says there is no such thing as mental disorders, it's just a case of the majority defining it as such. He also criticises the whole industry of psychology (and psychopharmacy) as a way of making money from imposing what we see as "right" and "normal" on other people.

What do you reckon? Is he on to something? Or should we put him on valium?



I think he is on to something.

Obviosly when the brain does not work properly as in the socialpath, then it is easy to see. Who though can define for me(not withstanding what I have mentioned) what the normal working parameters are?

Do people who suffer bipolar, actualy have an abnormal brain, one that is not working as it should do? I honestly don't think so, perhaps bipolar, like other mental health issues is nowt more than the brain coping in some strange way with stress.

It is well known that LSD causes changes in brain chemistry so that you can experiance reality in a diffeant way, either by seeing what is not there, or more commenly by seeing what is there in a totaly differant way.

The brain does this this, the drug is just a way to manipulate existing chemicals. The only reason that we can say the sky isn't really purple, is because the majority of us do not see it that way, and we call that normal. To deviate from this then is abnormal. Yet we can't objectivly say that this is the case, we nesiceirly call that which is experianced by the majority the norm, and perhaps this too is just a way that the brain copes.

Not in any dictionary I've seen.

American Heritage Dictionary

n. God

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Oh, look, the dictionary says God is a being. You know, someone that exists. Plenty of people would contest it, but there it is in the dictionary.

Try another line of argument, please. This one is getting you nowhere.

Oh, look, the dictionary says God is a being. You know, someone that exists. Plenty of people would contest it, but there it is in the dictionary.

Try another line of argument, please. This one is getting you nowhere.

Being? Is that a thing or a state?

Hehhehheh

Oh, look, the dictionary says God is a being. You know, someone that exists. Plenty of people would contest it, but there it is in the dictionary.

Try another line of argument, please. This one is getting you nowhere.

A being isn't necessarily defined as something that exists. The Cat in the Hat is a being, and he isn't real. Trolls are beings, but they don't exist.

Plus, in a medical discussion, medical definitions are used. Claiming that saying that sociopaths lack empathy is begging the question is like claiming that saying that depressed people are sad is begging the question.

A being isn't necessarily defined as something that exists. The Cat in the Hat is a being, and he isn't real. Trolls are beings, but they don't exist.

Plus, in a medical discussion, medical definitions are used. Claiming that saying that sociopaths lack empathy is begging the question is like claiming that saying that depressed people are sad is begging the question.

Oh I dunno, I'd say MTAE is fairly real. =)

A being isn't necessarily defined as something that exists. The Cat in the Hat is a being, and he isn't real. Trolls are beings, but they don't exist.

Trolls do exist. I don't doubt that you've seen some of them on this very forum. ;)

But more seriously, when you suggest that the Cat in the Hat isn't real, you're not contesting its existence. What you are saying is that it exists in a vastly different modality than you or I do, that it doesn't have the same sort of material existence that we do. And I suspect that most people who believe in or do not believe in God would allow that God exists in a vastly different modality than you or I, which would not detract from the fact that God exists, and is defined as existing. Whether you think God is a supernatural being or a delusion or just words on a page and images in artwork, God exists.

Plus, in a medical discussion, medical definitions are used. Claiming that saying that sociopaths lack empathy is begging the question is like claiming that saying that depressed people are sad is begging the question.

Yes it is indeed. Of course, what we were actually discussing is whether or not sociopaths actually have a disorder simply because they are defined as having one. I'm going to have to say "No". The definition of sociopathy as a disorder no more confers upon it genuine reality than does the definition of God as a being confer upon it genuine reality.

_____

"My gut instinct is to say no, even though 9 out of 10 voices in my head say yes, but as everyone knows Mental Disorder doesnt exist in our Great Nation thanks to advanced in our Department of Pharmaceuticals and Pesticides"
--Dr. Lithius H. Prozec, PHD, PHP, LLC, LTD, ETC; 1st Minister of Department of Health and Human Standards, Empire of Lots of Stars.
***A Healthy Mind is A Happy Body. A Happy Body is a Happy Every Body.***
______

No, I'm definitely fucked in the head. My instincts tell me to act differently.

Everyone's instincts tell them to act differently. I know of no one who acts purely on his gut--that's what the mind is for, to make our decisions. Those decisions will, as a matter of course, go against your instincts from time to time.