Mental illnesses are real. But the construct of “mental illness” isn’t. There is no such thing as an “illness” that is completely psychological in nature, ie. only “caused by thoughts and behaviours”.
What are called mental illnesses belongs into three broad categories instead:
Biological Illnesses
Many “mental” illnesses are genuine biological illnesses that have been shunned from fields such as neurology and stigmatised by calling them mental.
Ie. Schizophrenia (part genetic, several brain changes), Bipolar (genetic, HPA axis dysregulation + structural signs), Major depressive disorders etc. I’d like to remind that many genuine illnesses that dont even affect the brain were called mental illnesses before we fully figured the pathology out. From peptic ulcer to lupus.
difficult living conditions manifesting through changes in behaviour
ie. Some cases of anxiety disorder (maybe its normal to be anxious in the case you’re living, ie. stressful 9-5 with lots of responsibilities), reactive depression (it isn’t a mental illness to be depressed when your spouse dies, its completely normal)
Normal behaviours that society chooses to brand as deviant
ie. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, it is NORMAL, Same thing as homosexuality was called a mental illness in the past
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah “everything psychological is biological” is the first thing they teach you in psychology class. Nothing unpopular about that opinion.
That’s only in some schools of thought of psychology.
There are plenty of praticing psychologists and psychiatrists (some of my colleagues) who genuinely believe and publish research along the lines of “all mental illness are caused by thoughts and behaviours”. Research that in my opinion is heavily flawed, but still published and peer reviewed, so a lot of people in the field think this way.
Working on my dissertation titled “Bipolar disorder? Just think better, stupid”.
Yeah thats how it sounds to me 😂
Its patient blaming all the way in my (non-official) opinion
Thoughts and behaviour are biological though. They both are caused by biological processes and they cause biological results.
That’s not how these collegues treat them.
They act like you can basically “think yourself out of” most mental illnesses.
I’ve never heard that, but thanks for it!
As a neurologist (specialising in post-viral illness) I don’t have the expertise to comment on points 2 and 3 of your post, but point one is completely correct.
OP has zero education and work experience in the field but that didn’t stop them!
unpopular opinion is not the same thing as academic literature lol makes sense.
Though I found the points to be well thought it (if not clearly written in a rush).
Also to be fair given the post, they could likely be a med student or something. Most people aren’t aware of the specific biological factors they listed nor some of the conditions, as OP used some medical terminology not often seen used by layman.
Mental illnesses are real. But the construct of “mental illness” isn’t. There is no such thing as an “illness” that is completely psychological in nature, ie. only “caused by thoughts and behaviours”.
I don’t think any reputable person believes that mental illness is just “in the mind”. Of course there’s a physical aspect to it, there’s literally a physical aspect to everything about us.
There is no “soul”, or some ephemeral “something” that makes us us. Our memories are nothing more than synapses making connections to each other. Our emotions are a series of biochemical and hormonal reactions as a response to stimuli from other people and our environment. There is no part of being human that isn’t physiological, including mental illness.
I don’t like your opinion because you are oversimplifying.
For example: Where are all the addictions in your view of the world? They can have so many fundamentally different causes.
I mean, it sounds like you’re making a great argument for treating addiction like a symptom, rather than an illness, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.
a symptom, rather than an illness
No.
Elaborate?
What I have said before. Not what you made up after it.
Ok, like I know you’re not trying to make the arguythay addiction is a symptom rather than an illness, but what you said would support the idea.
Why are you even here? This is a discussion forum, and you’re just staunchly refusing to engage with discussion? I’m not telling you to leave or anything. I’m just confused on what you’re even getting out of this experience.
I almost agree with you.
Any mind-alteration which is produced by unconscious or conscious intent, or even by hypnosis, can be mental-illness.
This includes social-programming.
One of Doidge’s books identifies that masochism is when one’s mind … I think in abstract-shapes, so remapping the concept into English, the way I remember it, is going to seem strange…
when one’s mind folds such that the portion of one’s mind which had been among the pleasure-brain now is among the pleasure-brain AND the pain-brain, so it’s getting lit-up by both…
he said the treatment is to get people to notice pleasure that isn’t having any pain in it, to try to get their mind to differentiate again…
“folds” ( sorta like crossing one’s legs, compromising one’s balance, while standing ), is how the abstract-shape feels, in my mind, but he cannot possibly have said it that way…
Also, differentiating between the cause ( the brain-damage of child-onset schizophrenia, e.g. which reduces the person’s brain volume by 10% ) vs the effect of that brain-loss, combined with all the social-pressure to behave as though everything were fine ( I experienced this: if kids were helped, instead of bullied & gaslit, then maybe the suicide-rate would be lower than 10% for such lives )
would be better integrity than what we do.
Further, since the placebo-effect and hypnosis both work, provably, then I’d want to use mentally-induced-healing on physical/biological things which yield to it, wherever possible…
( not ignoring it, or blocking awareness of it, but actually dismantling it, like allergies for some people should be dismantlable by hypnotherapy…
a psychiatrist, who happened to be my dad, told me that it was reliable that some people with allergies would have allergic-reactions to entering his office, when he had a picture of a rose visible.
They woudn’t consciously notice it, but he did. )
_ /\ _
Some of what you say is true, but what’s also true is that for a number of conditions, evidence based talk-therapy can ease or cure psychiatric symptoms. Anxiety disorders, trauma disorders, OCD, and borderline personality disorder, for example, are all treatable with talk therapy, which implies learned behavior may underpin each of them. Depression is more tricky, as there are people who have fallen into learned patterns of behavior, but also people who have serious “brain chemistry” issues
Also I think you misunderstand what gender dysphoria is as far as the DSM is concerned…gender dysphoria is a feeling of stress related to gender expression as it relates to one’s society and support system, it’s not defining being trans as “mentally ill.” Someone who’s trans does not have gender dysphoria unless:
The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Talk therapy also helps cancer patients and people with biological chronic illness. So does exercise. Doesn’t mean these are mental illnesses.
The distress though isn’t the brunt of the condition. If you were of the opposite gender that people see you as you would be stressed too. Same tactic was used in the past to brand being gay as a mental illness. In my country’s textbook the definition also included “severe distress”
If you were of the opposite gender that people see you as you would be stressed too
You still misunderstand, a significant number of people who are trans never experience gender dysphoria. Experiencing distress is the brunt of gender dysphoria, without distress, there is no diagnosis, you’re just trans.
Almost universally in the DSM, diagnoses are qualified by “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”
Talk therapy also helps cancer patients and people with biological chronic illness
Helps them with what? Anxiety? Depression? There are a lot of different people out there, and just how only a subset of people who experience a trauma develop PTSD, only a subset of people with a chronic illness will experience clinically significant emotional distress and meet criteria for a certain psych diagnosis because of it.
If I read your point 2 correctly, you are saying that some mental illness is just trauma response, and therefore isn’t an “illness”?
How is that meaningful different from if I take a pipe and break someone’s legs. It’s clearly a response to (physical) trauma, and I think that we would all call that an illness, no?
I think they’re emphasising that there are mental illnesses that are completely normal, and maybe even expected, when you take into account what’s happening in the individuals life? I.E. chronic depression is the same as depression from when a loved one dies, but the latter is a natural response not caused by physical differences?
In your example, I think an injury would be the best descriptor.
But if we’re talking about a child for instance who is suffering from mental illnesses brought on by repeated or extensive childhood trauma?
That might be most analogous to getting an infection after your legs are broken maybe? I think I’d consider it an illness, even if it’s a purely cognitive response to extreme trauma in ones formative years.
Yes but no. “Mental illness” refers to illnesses in the mind of someone. This doesn’t matter what causes it, or it being arbitrary made up.
Despite, #2 ruins your point. It’s completely psychological here. It may be caused by a change in environment, but it is entirely psychological. Also, being depressed is a mental illness, no matter what. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a good reason to be ill.
Point 1 is arguing that some don’t fit the tag of “mental”
Point 2-3 argue that the rest don’t fit the tag of “illness” even if the behaviour is mental is cause
My understanding of schizophrenia, as someone who has it, is that it’s a disorder affecting primarily the brain but we understand it very poorly. Even clinically, we’re more or less throwing darts at a board when it comes to treating the illness. What we have now works, more or less, but there are new theories emerging to support different potential treatment avenues. I’m really looking forward to seeing where that research goes. In any case, though, given that its primary effects are mental, I think it’s safe to call it a “mental illness.”
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Agree with your main points. Some other important factors are genetics and diet. My main quibble is that nearly all health professionals would agree that mental illnesses aren’t just mental, so then we have just a phrase taken too literally.
