Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Mental "illness" in the future


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#21
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
The clash of two long-ass writers.

#22
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

I agree with most of the things that Tw88 and Durakken wrote about psychiatry / psychology, but I wouldn’t call it a garbage science. Soft science is more appropriate. The science is in the biology and statistics, and the rest is philosophy. The main problem that I have with psychiatry is the fact that they routinely make diagnoses without some kind of scan or biological test to confirm a hypothesis. I have a question for all of you. Psychiatric illnesses are usually described as chemical disorders or disorders of the brain. Would you feel comfortable with the idea of going to an endocrinologist or neurologist that made most of their diagnoses by only getting their patients to answer some questions on a piece of paper? 

having just had an appointment with an endocrinologist, the meet does start with most just that. The need to know what I do, how I do it, what I eat, any supplements I take, any medications, sexual activity, exercise routines, lotions and hair care products. environmental exposure vectors.

 

Then we talk about how I feel, emotional impacts, and thought processes. Noticable changes in mental capabilities. Then physiological effects. urination habits and any changes.

 

It's called establishing a baseline and taking note of variances. Because say back pain can be resultant of extra abdominal fat deposits increasing internal pressures of exerting outward forces of the abdomin, as well as restricting abdominal muscle development which carefully balance against back muscles. When such things are out of balance they can cause unbalanced forced to cause misalignments and excess tensions that damage bodily tissues.

 

But it doesn't happen the same for everybody. so one would have to work through a list of the most common factors statistically that may change the problem in favor of the patient.

 

In my case at the endocrinologist it's a matter of more blood tests which don't tell us the cause of the problems, but give us a better view of what the problems are, then comes further discussion of factors and choices of actions to try to change the outcomes, which will be different for everybody dependant on the factors involved in the condition that can vary from cases to case. Then further testing to see outcomes and find potential causative factors, and eventually choices may be needed to be made about course that could remedy my problems, but which one has the best options for my lifestyle and preferrences need to be taken into account.

 

Surgical, chemical, or radiological interventions may be needed, individually, in pairs, or all together. There simply is no way to say what the correct course is until we take into account things like what I eat for breakfast, how many calories I take in a given day, my need for Vit D supplements, sexual activity levels, family history of stroke and clotting issues, and risk of diabetes.

 

for you each of those factors could be completely different, even if the symptoms and health concern are the same. and they need to be taken into account to choose the right course for you. Which is why it's not always possible to get exact repeatable results in a given test. The same dose of Warafin will have different effects on you than it will on me, my genetic tests indicate this. But there are millions of individual variables in any given person that are unknown and so the sciences of medical and psychological treatment must take a different approach to understanding and managing conditions.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#23
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

The clash of two long-ass writers.

I prefer the term internet pedant, thank you very much. :D


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#24
Durakken

Durakken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Durakken

 

I've actually studied psychology, sociology, the history of psychoanalysis and neurology. And what you are spewing is idiotic at best.

 

The results are not always repeatable because it's not possible to compare the neurological development and impacts of varying life conditions of different subjects, as there are too many variables to account for to make any judgement of causative or an effect. But on the broad scale spectrum, it is repeatably domonstratable that lithium will balance bipolar mood disorders, and people who talk through their fears and traumas who they know will discuss it with them and not disrupt the social circles of hold it against them for the rest of their lives... these are repeatedly shown to be of benefit to those suffering and repeatedly shown to help people previously unable to function in the outside world, to become active and functional again.

 

Given those circumstances psychology has to be an improvisation engineering of social perception and interactions.

 

You have a strangely lockstep almost newtonian view of what is an what isn't valid in being called science. There are more than one way to practice sciences, and there are advantages to each.

 

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say your response to the idea stems more from a personal dislike than from any real understanding of the topic.

 

So have I, and it is one of the very first things that is taught in classes discussing this particular issue, that almost all treatments, while not arbitrary, is based largely in pop-psyche shilling or indirect observations of people who aren't the norm and so is unreasonable to base much of anything on. This does not mean that there is absolutely nothing that can be be factually said about the benefits or lack thereof, but rather that much of the research is going to be trash due to dishonest people and the same type of problems you will get in any indirect observation.

 

As far as "there are more than one way to practice sciences". No there isn't. Science is a methodology and in itself IS a practice so what you said is nonsense. If you are not following that methodology and those practices you are not practicing science.

 

As to your accusation. I'm not the one giving impassioned pleas to recognize something that is well recognized as the case to not be the case, nor am I stating things I can't possibly know, which is what you did in your very first sentence of your first reply. You can't know what I know or know what I feel. You can only assume it from actions or believe what I say. To say factually that I do or do not know something is just impossible to really say. You can assert that I don't know something and argue that because I have said something that is not in line with some fact that I don't know that fact, but that shows as much evidence for me lying as it does me not knowing something, or me bending the truth to make a greater point, but that's as far as you can go with that assertion.

 

On the other hand the emotional pleas, the lack of good argumentation, the try at asserting authority, these are all signs of the thing that you accuse me of which would be called projection and if I were to guess based on that I'd guess either or both of the following are true.

1. You've dealt with some destructive aberrant psychology, such as bipolar disorder, in your personal life.

2. You are a psychologist and are trying to defend your field as though an attack your field is an attack on you personally, which isn't the case so it doesn't make much sense to do.

 

 

P.S. I do find this post funny within the context of the overall conversation... If you don't, think about what I'm doing.



#25
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

 

“the scientific method” is an idiomatic expression, and must never be taken literally. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question “what is science”. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking.

http://www.av8n.com/...fic-methods.htm

 

Have a read here. I've got to go to an appointment with a medical scientist :p, back later.

 

pss. You're wrong on half your own assumption. I walked out before completeing my degree in psych because I objected to the drug them until they are 'normal' way that the industry was heading. It's not a problem inherent with the practice of psychology as a science it's a social fail in the process of application. But the industrialised model of psychological assembly lines much like the assembly lines in medicines in general are flawed methodologies to legitimate sciences which are seeing a trun around now as individualized and customized healthcare comes into practice. Note that the feilds are not suddenly more legitimate sciences. They've always been legitimate, but the methods are becoming better.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#26
Durakken

Durakken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

 

It's called establishing a baseline and taking note of variances. Because say back pain can be resultant of extra abdominal fat deposits increasing internal pressures of exerting outward forces of the abdomin, as well as restricting abdominal muscle development which carefully balance against back muscles. When such things are out of balance they can cause unbalanced forced to cause misalignments and excess tensions that damage bodily tissues.

 

 

Since this is a jab at me.

I should clarify. The doctor was there to do an evaluation to see if what I said was true. This is not what the doctor did. He saw I was fat assumed the back pain was caused by that. He did no further tests or looking into the matter, this in the face of me knowing exactly what the problem is and it isn't the fat that is causing the problem, rather it is likely exacerbating the problem. This is besides the point though, which is that, imagine if a doctor did no actual follow through on anything you said and just assumed based on one or two points of data that may or may not be tied to the problem that you had x-problem, even though a simple x-ray or scan or other test of some sort could show that the problem is or isn't this thing and should be done to make sure before giving such a diagnosis and treatment.

 

I mean you go to the doctor with a cold, 99% of the time anyone could tell you without much medical knowledge or looking at you its just the common cold, but that 1% chance that it isn't is why the doctor takes a look down your throat to see if there is signs of this not being the case.

 

I agree with you and the point you're trying to make, however, the thing you seem to be missing is that a large number of the practitioners and the observational abilities lead to further complication that cause most of it to just not be worth what most people assume to be.

 

It's sorta like if we were to have the complex economy we have and then trying to figure things out about it based on you never being able to directly see what is going on with the money and the majority of people that are supposedly trying to figure out what's going on are blatantly lying about what is going on or are extremely biased polluting any sort of understanding or understanding causing there to be almost no reliability can be had on what comes out of what is trying to be figure out. That's not to say that everyone in the field is corrupt, just that a lot of it is which complicates the already complicated matters.



#27
Durakken

Durakken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

 

 

“the scientific method” is an idiomatic expression, and must never be taken literally. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question “what is science”. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking.

http://www.av8n.com/...fic-methods.htm

 

Have a read here. I've got to go to an appointment with a medical scientist :p, back later.

 

 

The guy is mistaking methods of observation, methods of testing, methods of hypothesizing, etc for methods of science. Science is a singular methodology. The components of that methodology have their methods. So it's a methodology of methods, not a set of methodologies in itself.

 

Also, I wouldn't listen to anyone with regards to science who thinks that theories and laws are even on the same sprectum like the guy who wrote that article seems to think.



#28
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

you're new to the community and show all the signs of using the libertarian/ an-cap argument style, So I just say that you seem to make a rather lot of assumption about what a lot of people mean and the proclaim your ideological stance as being factual and logic despite use of logical fallacies. Then dismiss anything that does not mesh with your construted world view and offers challenge.

 

It's a strategy that work for creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, and 911 truthers. Inability to acknowledge the limits of their own understanding and failure to account for contextual circumstances and variable in real world vs conceptual and ideal planning. It's also a hallmark of certain autism spectrum disorders. and it's entire to annoying a thing to waste time on. You've latched onto a belief that psych is quackery, and have no prospect of ever believing anything different or that your perspective is possibly incorrect and instead just wish to argue with everybody for the sake of being heard.

 

Yet at the same time you inconsistently refer to me knowing people of abarent psychology, without acknowledging that if psych was quackery there could be no such thing. Or that the very first thing you begin to outline as better than psych is itself a school of psychology called cognitive therapy. And yet you dismiss psych on the premise that there are multiple schools of thought on causes and effect of certain thing, failing to acknowledge that most all areas of scientific investigation have competeing theories that evolve over time... just like psychoanalysis.

 

Had you stated that psych is of no use to you that would be one thing and I will not deny you that belief. But the moment you walk into a community with multiple members who benefit from, have experience with and knowledge of the fields of psychology and proclaim it as universally and not just personally useless, your opinion goes beyond just an opinion and becomes misinformation and ignorance used to belittle and alienate those others.

 

Psychology is not Garbage science, or quackery. Neither are most other feilds of medical science (and those who are members of this board will appreciate the irony of my being the one who has to take this stance) It is irresponsible for you to suggest otherwise. It would behoove you in the future to perhaps preface such notions with "in my opinion..." and finish them with "...for me" Because there is no factual or logical basis for such arguments.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#29
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

Ahem, that was rather embarassing.

 

EDIT:

 

Or not. I was taught in grade 9 that this was the Scientific Method:

 

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_



#30
Durakken

Durakken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

you're new to the community and show all the signs of using the libertarian/ an-cap argument style, So I just say that you seem to make a rather lot of assumption about what a lot of people mean and the proclaim your ideological stance as being factual and logic despite use of logical fallacies. Then dismiss anything that does not mesh with your construted world view and offers challenge.

 

It's a strategy that work for creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, and 911 truthers. Inability to acknowledge the limits of their own understanding and failure to account for contextual circumstances and variable in real world vs conceptual and ideal planning. It's also a hallmark of certain autism spectrum disorders. and it's entire to annoying a thing to waste time on. You've latched onto a belief that psych is quackery, and have no prospect of ever believing anything different or that your perspective is possibly incorrect and instead just wish to argue with everybody for the sake of being heard.

 

Yet at the same time you inconsistently refer to me knowing people of abarent psychology, without acknowledging that if psych was quackery there could be no such thing. Or that the very first thing you begin to outline as better than psych is itself a school of psychology called cognitive therapy. And yet you dismiss psych on the premise that there are multiple schools of thought on causes and effect of certain thing, failing to acknowledge that most all areas of scientific investigation have competeing theories that evolve over time... just like psychoanalysis.

 

Had you stated that psych is of no use to you that would be one thing and I will not deny you that belief. But the moment you walk into a community with multiple members who benefit from, have experience with and knowledge of the fields of psychology and proclaim it as universally and not just personally useless, your opinion goes beyond just an opinion and becomes misinformation and ignorance used to belittle and alienate those others.

 

Psychology is not Garbage science, or quackery. Neither are most other feilds of medical science (and those who are members of this board will appreciate the irony of my being the one who has to take this stance) It is irresponsible for you to suggest otherwise. It would behoove you in the future to perhaps preface such notions with "in my opinion..." and finish them with "...for me" Because there is no factual or logical basis for such arguments.

 

I've explained my position. You've shown a lack of ability to understand it and have referenced material from someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about plus made multiple personal attacks and attempted to claim authority while also making emotional pleas.

 

If you'd like to make an actual argument against what I have said rather than think I'm going to be swayed by such childishness and irrationality I will respond, but if all you are going to do make the same fallacious arguments I need not respond further as others can see and decide for themselves what is happening here.

 

--------------------------------

 

@Cosmic Cat, That's only for rational people, the method for post modernists is...

 

Make up Stuff

Say it's right because everything is subjective

Claim suppression when people think you're nuts

Repeat with crazier and crazier ideas.



#31
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

At the rate things are going.. I wouldn't be surprised if all mental illness is accepted by 2050. You can't judge anyone, so there's no mental illness.



#32
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

I covered this topic many times in almost 6 years I have been on this forum, so i won't delve into it much, or get into endless debate once again. However, I just want to give a word or two on this.Both psychology and psychiatric are very limited sciences  and very often are used for social purposes including categorization, control-order and even oppression, and not only for therapeutic endings. The concept of "mental illness" also it can be wrong and it is very costly to society.  What is the main problems with both psychiatry and psychology ? verification most of all. This is very often a scenario, when you treat individuals. We are not talking about "physics".

 

Can we throw these two disciplines into the garbage ? The answer is no, many psychology theories or psychiatric theories are still valuable, they can improve some lives, or help to understand or describe behavior. they are not just harmful to people. However, i would deprive the God status of both psychology and psychiatric. Most of all i am against people who oblige others to these treatments. it has to be a personal choice while in our "modern democracies" often is not the case. 

Anyway there is a lot we need to know about the brain.I hope methods of treatment will very much improve in this century.



#33
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

refute what. There is no point to refute. Psychology is a garbage science is not an argument, it's a belief. Evidence of extreme positions is required to support such suppositions.

 

I've already explained that psychoanalysis can and do have repeatable experiments, they demonstratably have effects to the treatment of quality and quantity of life to those that recieve it and they do aid those who cannot otherwise adapt to function in society themselve by providing them with guidance and assistance in adressing issues they have.

 

That and more than 100 years of documented case histories seem to provide a basis for it being a functional and legitimate scientific feild. All you have said amounts to "I don't like it, I don't believe in it, and it doesn't make sense to me" That's not a discussion or debate. It's personal feeling and limitations of your own ability to grasp the sciences of psychoanalysis.

 

And it provides nothing to counter because it offers nothing of substance. Evidence that psychology is scientificly invalid or you are just making noise.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#34
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

 

chemistry and drug discovery. For instance there has been a longstanding debate in our field about how you define a “druglike” molecule, that is, a chemical compound most likely to function as a drug. The number of definitions of “druglike” that have sprung up over the years are sufficient to fill a phonebook. The debate will probably continue for a long time. And yet nobody will deny that work on druglike compounds is a science; the fact is that chemists use guidelines for making druglike molecules all the time and they work. In fact why talk about druglike compounds when all of chemistry is sometimes regarded as insufficiently scientific and rigorous by physicists? There are several concepts in chemistry – aromaticity, hydrophobic effects, polarizability, chemical diversity – which succumb to multiple definitions and are not strictly quantifiable. Yet nobody (except perhaps certain physicists) denies that chemistry is a science. The accusation that “softer” fields are less rigorous and scientific than your own is common enough to be captured in this xkcd cartoon, but it’s more of an accusation than, well, a quantifiable truth.

Now chemical definitions are still admittedly more accurate and quantifiable than definitions of happiness or satisfaction. But the point is that not everything measurable needs to be quantifiable to the sixth decimal point to call itself scientific. What matters is whether we can come up with consistent and at least semi-quantifiable definitions that are useful enough to make testable predictions. Psychological research is useful not when it’s quantifiable but when it says something about human nature that is universal and revealing. A few days ago I watched a new movie about the life of psychologist and political thinker Hannah Arendt and mulled over the “banality of evil” that Arendt made famous. Now the banality of evil is not exactly rigorously quantifiable like the angular momentum of a figure skater, yet few people would deny that Arendt made an enormously valuable contribution to social science. The contribution worked because it was testable and repeatable (in Milgram-style experiments for instance) and true, not because you could accurately measure it with an fMRI machine. Or consider Daniel Kahneman’s seminal work in behavioral economics which has led to real insights into decision making and biases; very few people would call what he did unscientific.

In fact one can argue that social scientists tread on dangerous ground when they start trying to make their discipline too accurate; the proliferation of mathematical models of finance that led to disaster on Wall Street are good testaments to what happens when financiers start longing for the rigor of physics. As the particle physicist turned financial modeler Emanuel Derman puts it, “Physicists are trying to discover 3 laws that will explain 99% of the universe; financial modelers should be content with discovering 99 laws that explain 3% of the universe”. So is finance a science? The point is that we still know too little about biology and social systems to achieve the kind of quantitative prediction that sciences like physics do (on the other hand, physics – depending on what kind of physicist you are talking to – does not have to deal with emergent phenomena on a routine basis). But that does not mean that everything we say about human nature is completely unquantifiable and useless.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#35
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.
even fields like particle physics rely heavily on statistics these days. Nobody observed the Higgs boson directly, it was only visible through the agency of complex tests of statistical significance. And yet particle physics has always been regarded as the “purest” science, even by other physicists. Or consider non-linear dynamics where dependence on initial conditions is so extreme that systems like weather and biological populations become completely chaotic after a while. And yet you can apply statistics to these systems, make more or less reliable predictions and call it science.

 

 

 

Testability and prediction are indeed two cornerstones of science. I have already indicated that testability can often be accurate enough to be useful. As for prediction, firstly it can lie within a window of applicability. In my own field we routinely predict the activity or lack thereof of novel drug molecules. Sometimes our predictions are 90% successful, sometimes they are 40% successful. Even when they are 40% successful we can get useful data out of them, although it’s also clear that they have some way to go before they can be used on a completely quantitative basis. And all this is still science.

 

 

The physicist David Deutsch has noted that after watching a magician perform a magic trick ten times you would be able to predict what he would do next, but it doesn’t mean at all that you have actually understood what the magician is doing. Contrary to popular belief, in science understanding is at least as or more important than prediction. And psychological studies have definitely provided some understanding of how human beings behave under certain circumstances. It has helped us understand questions like: Why do smart people believe weird things? Why do otherwise decent people turn into monsters under certain circumstances (the banality of evil)? What is the basis of the bystander effect in which empathetic people don’t come forward to stop a crime? Psychology has provided intriguing clues and explanations in all these areas, even if those explanations are not one-hundred percent reproducible and quantifiable.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#36
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.

the debate about whether you can study mind and behaviour scientifically. It’s clear that you can, even if some areas are harder to measure than others. This is what is usually meant by the “is psychology a science?” debate. I consider this to be a settled issue but it is also where the debate usually misfires.

In other words, psychology can be a science, but it isn’t only a science.

There are many folks who do legitimate psychology research who are not doing science. It’s not that they think they are but really aren’t (pseudoscience) or that they’re doing it so poorly it barely merits the name (bad science). It’s that they don’t want to do science in the first place.

Instead, they are doing qualitative research, where they intend to uncover patterns in people’s subjective impressions without imposing their own structure onto it.

 

 

 

The reason that human psychology can be studied both scientifically and non-scientifically is that the object of study can be objectively observed and can describe their own subjective experience.

This doesn’t happen with electrical impulses, enzymes or subatomic particles.


Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#37
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,785 posts
  • LocationUK

At the rate things are going.. I wouldn't be surprised if all mental illness is accepted by 2050. You can't judge anyone, so there's no mental illness.

Evidence? Data? Resources? What previously classed as a mental illness are you referring to here? People used to say homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism was a mental illness but this is technically untrue as it does not damage or inhibit mental function. The definition of "mental illness" is "a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking", so you can see that this does not apply to so-called "non-traditional" sexualities/gender identity.



#38
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,132 posts

At the rate things are going.. I wouldn't be surprised if all mental illness is accepted by 2050. You can't judge anyone, so there's no mental illness.

I will dispute the fact that all mental illness will be accepted by 2050. First of all, some mental illnesses cause one to be violent or otherwise unable to function in society. They can't be treated the same as normally functioning people. It's also likely that many forms of mental illness will be eradicated with advances in medicine and psychology. (Though it may take until 2100 for nearly all forms of it to be eradicated).



#39
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,050 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

There is no such thing as mental illnesses. To say mental illnesses exist, you suddenly face the logical inconsistency of contrasting normal behaviors with that of "non-normal" behaviors. The act of doing this is to subvert yourself to the illusion that there are two abstract behaviors that have their set boundaries, which just so you know are always changing. This is not accepting the fact we don't have the ability to perceive reality on all scales. The human brain is a massively parallel machine designed for the sole purpose of pattern recognition. Calling something a mental illness is an end result of that pattern recognition process.

 

But I'm not saying someone with a "mental illness" won't end your life prematurely or not make life difficult for others who happened to be around this person.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#40
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

Eh.. mental illnesses definitely exist. Pedophilia will never nor should it ever be accepted in any way, shape or form because it harms people.

 

Maybe illness is not the right word, but let's instead call them harmful abberations if you're going to say this is really subjective.


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users