The line between mental illness and personality

[inflatable jesus]

The act of defining behaviour as mental illness makes it mental illness. If the psychological boffins all got toether and decided that dressing up as Star Trek characters was Star Trek Dellusional Disorder, then it would be mental illness.

It would no longer be a personality decision to dress as Mr Spock, but a problem to be fixed.

This issue has been studied extensively and any decent psychologist would be careful to weigh up the evidence that the behavior was pathological. Weird is not pathological. A good psychologist would be careful to understand the role local cultural biases play.

Psychologists wouldn't just 'get together' and decide this, because that conclusion would go against the decades of research into the subject. Psychology is a real academic discipline, it's not something some people invented for a laugh.

However if he lived happily enough with his delusions and didn't want any treatment - would he be mentally ill?

This comes up all the time, particularly with schizophrenics. In my opinion having a mental illness is not the same thing as having a diagnosis. If somebody is experiencing persistent delusions then there is something going wrong in their brain and that is a real problem in the real world, not just some kind of a semantic construct. It's a big line to cross, but in these circumstances a medical professional's opinion is more reliable than the the opinion of the person experiencing the delusions.

This doesn't count for people like conspiracy theorists who's delusions are specific and don't tend to exert that much of a negative effect on functionality. But delusions can be a symptom of a few different serious diseases. It's not something to be taken lightly.

 

[inflatable jesus]

I don't think there is a clear line between personality and mental illness.

There is. Pathology.

 

[frogwoman]

A child cared for by parents with issues that affect how they relate to that child will produce quite identifiable personality traits.

And my guess is that someone raised by two AS parents wouldn't exactly reproduce those parents' traits but would demonstrate a lot of characteristics created - at a more general level in a way - by the degree of responsiveness and empathy of those people as carers of a baby/small child.

of course not, but a lot of the way kids learn is by observation too, right?

 

[inflatable jesus]

It occurred to me that maybe I wasn't being clear enough with what I meant by pathology or the criteria for making a diagnosis.

If you look at the DSM entries for the various disorders, you can see the concerns for misdiagnosis and the attempts to separate pathological behaviors from just weird ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Standardized_criteria

In the criteria for schizophrenia, there are several checks for things like duration and the negative impact that it makes on one's life. Like this for example:

"Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.

Or in a GAD diagnosis, you see those same kinds of criteria being introduced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_anxiety_disorder#Diagnosis

There is the same concern for duration, misdiagnosis and impact on functionality.

So there are real obstacles to overcome in order to be properly diagnosed with a psychiatric or psychological disorder. Doctors are not perfect, but the diagnostic criteria should be enough to separate personality from pathology.

 

[Blagsta]

What is interesting from this thread is how it is desperate to fall into a more well trammelled groove of nature/nurture.

What do I think? I think our personalities are manifestations of our psychological strategies for getting on. These strategies only get called mental illness when they either don't meet our own needs for getting on (we feel sad, scared or experience other symptoms) or when the strategies contravene laws or other social norms.

I don't think there is a clear line between personality and mental illness.

I pretty much agree with this. It's a psychoanalytic position.

 

[Blagsta]

This issue has been studied extensively and any decent psychologist would be careful to weigh up the evidence that the behavior was pathological. Weird is not pathological. A good psychologist would be careful to understand the role local cultural biases play.

Psychologists wouldn't just 'get together' and decide this, because that conclusion would go against the decades of research into the subject. Psychology is a real academic discipline, it's not something some people invented for a laugh..

Interestingly, there is no real scientific basis for most diagnostic categories.

 

[Spion]

of course not, but a lot of the way kids learn is by observation too, right?

Sure, but 'observation' is an abstraction, and what a child observes or learns from its parents behaviour is not necessarily - or even likely - to be a mirror image of that observation but will differ according to the age and level of interaction between the two.

For eg, if a 6 month old is being interacted with by its parent and the parent is distractedly looking around and talking about, err, the locomotive depot locations of the British Rail eastern region, the child will be affected by that in a similar way to any baby with an unempathic carer, but will not learn the details of what the parent is saying.

 

[Spion]

Interestingly, there is no real scientific basis for most diagnostic categories.

What do you mean by scientific?

 

[Blagsta]

What do you mean by scientific?

Based on the scientific method. Diagnostic categories have arisen culturally and historically, sometimes through observation, sometimes due to cultural pressures. Most famous example being that homosexuality was in the DSM until fairly recently.

 

[Spion]

Based on the scientific method. Diagnostic categories have arisen culturally and historically, sometimes through observation, sometimes due to cultural pressures. Most famous example being that homosexuality was in the DSM until fairly recently.

So, are you saying there's no such thing as mental illness, disorder etc or that there is but that the method of defining it is necessrily imperfect?

 

[Blagsta]

So, are you saying there's no such thing as mental illness, disorder etc or that there is but that the method of defining it is necessrily imperfect?

I'm not saying either of those things.

 

[Idaho]

I'm not saying either of those things.

Ooh you're so enigmatic

 

[Blagsta]

Ooh you're so enigmatic

It's a complicated subject and I'm posting from work. I haven't got the time or energy to put my thoughts down atm.

 

[Spion]

I don't think there is a clear line between personality and mental illness.

What, more a buffer zone/disputed territory than a border control point?

 

[panpete]

It's the undiagnosed ones you have to watch out for?
They are loose canons.

Dunno if Mr W&P man is diagnosed with any condition/mental illness?

 

[adc069975]

Or not. Since hunting has a fuckload of sitting around waiting.

But they had to be reactive and scan their environment. There was no need for them to focus on boring tasks, or conforming to the kind of rigidity demanded by civilisation.

 

[Spion]

But they had to be reactive and scan their environment. There was no need for them to focus on boring tasks, or conforming to the kind of rigidity demanded by civilisation.

Yep, poor attention is a real boon when tracking prey for long periods

 

[inflatable jesus]

Interestingly, there is no real scientific basis for most diagnostic categories.

That sounds entirely plausible. However, there is plenty of scientific basis for believing that the disorders themselves exist (and are useful diagnoses) and that they have common causes.

I don't know much about why the DSM categorizes them in that particular way, I would assume it's a legacy from it's less scientific days.

 

[Idaho]

What, more a buffer zone/disputed territory than a border control point?

I think the line is a cultural one. It depends on the expectations of oneself and one's community. It is a blurry line when looking at one's own mental health, and gets more blurry when you apply it to a culture as a whole. And then a neighbouring culture may have a different take on it.

Is alcoholism mental illness, a sign of mental illness or just a desire to be drunk a lot?

 

[Spion]

I think the line is a cultural one. It depends on the expectations of oneself and one's community. It is a blurry line when looking at one's own mental health, and gets more blurry when you apply it to a culture as a whole. And then a neighbouring culture may have a different take on it.

If we want to get anywhere discussing this we need to find out what professional psychologists think and see where it overlaps and contrasts with your rather relativist viewpoint. You should be well up on that, no?

Is alcoholism mental illness, a sign of mental illness or just a desire to be drunk a lot?

I tend towards the first two but then it depends what we define as 'mental illness'. It could also be a manifestation of a particular personality and/or a personality disorder. If you're calling it 'alcoholism' however, you are - i think - defining it quite clearly as a problem, an issue for someone, as opposed to just 'drinking'

 

[Idaho]

If we want to get anywhere discussing this we need to find out what professional psychologists think and see where it overlaps and contrasts with your rather relativist viewpoint. You should be well up on that, no?

I tend towards the first two but then it depends what we define as 'mental illness'. It could also be a manifestation of a particular personality and/or a personality disorder. If you're calling it 'alcoholism' however, you are - i think - defining it quite clearly as a problem, an issue for someone, as opposed to just 'drinking'

My view isn't rather relativist, it's completely relativist. There are no asbolutes with regard to mental health. As Blagsta pointed out, this is the psychoanalytic view - which much to my own chagrin, I also believe in.

Drinking alcohol is bad for you. The more you drink, the worse it is. Therefore the more someone drinks, the more they are harming themselves and potentially acting detrimentally. Such detrimental behaviour could easily be viewed as a kind of mental illness.

 

[tommers]

you're trying to define something that is a massive grey area. You're never going to do it.

Mental illness & personality disorders are a sliding scale. For me they are a problem when they impact on somebody's ability to live the life they want to lead. IMO almost everybody has some kind of minor "mental illness" in their life but they cope with it, or don't even realise it is there.

My colleague, who has a mental health diagnosis, defined "Mental Illness" as a change in mood and a change in perception.

 

[tommers]

Drinking alcohol is bad for you. The more you drink, the worse it is. Therefore the more someone drinks, the more they are harming themselves and potentially acting detrimentally. Such detrimental behaviour could easily be viewed as a kind of mental illness.

Drinking alcohol has positive effects as well as detrimental ones. It is easy to rationalise "potential" detrimental effects as being less important than relaxing/socialising/forgetting your immediate problems. Alcohol is an addictive substance and alcoholism is an addiction.

 

[Spion]

My view isn't rather relativist, it's completely relativist. There are no asbolutes with regard to mental health. As Blagsta pointed out, this is the psychoanalytic view - which much to my own chagrin, I also believe in.

Can you define mental illness and give me some examples?

 

[Idaho]

Can you define mental illness and give me some examples?

I can't define it beyond what I have posted above:

Personalities are manifestations of our psychological strategies for getting on. These strategies only get called mental illness when they either don't meet our own needs for getting on (we feel sad, scared or experience other symptoms) or when the strategies contravene laws or other social norms.

 

[Spion]

Personalities are manifestations of our psychological strategies for getting on. These strategies only get called mental illness when they either don't meet our own needs for getting on (we feel sad, scared or experience other symptoms) or when the strategies contravene laws or other social norms.

I think that's way too broad. There are all sorts of reasons, all of which would be to do with elements of my personality, that might might make me variously sad or scared or in some cases contravene laws or social norms that would in no way be taken together and categorised as mental illness. It needs nailing down more than that.

What's your take on personality disorders?

 

[Blagsta]

Personality disorders are a good way of describing a set of behaviours that some people have. They seem to be linked to abuse and poor attachment in childhood and a distorted or unstable sense of self.

 

[Spion]

You could substitute mental illnesses for personality disorders in that post and fit Idaho's definition of mental illness in post 85.

I'm going to have to think about this. It's all getting rather nebulous and kind of unsatisfying in terms of finding definitions.

 

[Blagsta]

You could substitute mental illnesses for personality disorders in that post and fit Idaho's definition of mental illness in post 85.

pd's describe a particular pattern of behaviours and perceptions

I'm going to have to think about this. It's all getting rather nebulous and kind of unsatisfying in terms of finding definitions.

Yes, confusing isn't it?

 

[tommers]

I'm going to have to think about this. It's all getting rather nebulous and kind of unsatisfying in terms of finding definitions.

Brilliant.