Thread 16843110

Is the fundamental definition of "mental illness" no more complicated as "anything the government wants to define as an illegal belief"?

The more useful a mental illness label is to either discredit others or usurp resources, the more legitimate it is.

Case in point; If your diet powder isn't going to sell anymore because the patents are up, remarket it as an substance enhancing your child's performance. Now, suddenly; ADHD is a completely legitimate diagnosis and millions of children are on what is basically cocaine.
Too many vaccines caused your kiddo's brain to swell up and rendered him lethargic and mentally retarded? Don't call it brain damage. Call it autism.
Your life sucks. You're annoying others with your whining. Go get anti-depressants. You'll feel nothing, your dick's perpetually flat and if you get pregnant, your kid's probably going to suffer from issues, but atleast you won't annoy others.

Excluding shit like schizophrenia or dementia where your brain actually is fucked up the definitions of most mental illnesses boil down to having thought and behavior patterns that make it hard to function and conform in the real world. Some governments abuse the obvious flexibility there to repress political dissent, and others use it (or allow it to be used) to make billions of dollars selling pills to losers.

>>16843342
>others use it (or allow it to be used) to make billions of dollars selling pills to losers.
Try functioning with mania or manic depression and see how far you go.

>>16843366
That's the point, the diagnosis isn't inherent to the patient, it's dependent on how the patient relates to the rest of the world. Whether *you* have an "illness" or not is decided by how your personality lets you function in society, which is more about society than you. All the direct criteria are fuzzy and subjective, which is why anyone with a copy of the DSM can flip through it and convince themselves they've got almost everything in there.

>>16843110 (OP)
>Is the fundamental definition of "mental illness" no more complicated as "anything the government wants to define as an illegal belief"?

It would be more accurate to say that a mental illness could be defined as anything that compromises the survival of an individual within a group or environment (both social survival and biological survival). To this extent the definition of what constitutes a mental illness can vary, yes.

To contextualize this: nowadays schizophrenia and epilepsy are seen as disruptive and scary, but in the past (and even today in some 3rd world shitholes) these mental disorders were seen as a qualities necessary to be a good shaman. The ability to see shit that wasn't there and the ability to enter into an epileptic seizure or fit, were both perceived as supernatural abilities benefiting a person who was expected to interact with magic.

>>16843386
>Whether *you* have an "illness" or not is decided by how your personality lets you function in society, which is more about society than you
That sounds like total Wu slop.