[ednut]

such as bipolar etc ones which you can develop when your older and such, im just tying to understand it, we are infact all animal we are a product of our environment and experiences and if this makes a human being behave in a way which society does not accept.

Do you beleive in it? discuss

[Tilly87]

Of course mental illness exists? It is not something you 'believe' in, it has a neurological basis!

[Martyn*]

Environment, people, situation,'things' in general, can impact on our state of mind, our well being. We can have chemical imbalances which affect our mood and behaviour. Humans have neurological disorders or illnesses, many experts still (falsely) believe are 'mental disorders' or 'mental illnesses'.

[buildalegohouse]

Of course it exists! Can't believe anyone would doubt it to be honest...

[Lollyage]

What's not to believe? Of course some people have mental illnesses. What is debated are the causes of mental illnesses and exactly what constitutes 'illness'.

[BabyGirl92]

Yes it does exist, all mental illnesses have a physical basis. For example anxiety can be caused by a deficiency of Serotonin neurotransmitter.

[oo00oo]

(Original post by Tilly87)
Of course mental illness exists? It is not something you 'believe' in, it has a neurological basis!

I think the OP's point (in a way), and certainly my point, is that before you can diagnose something as "not working correctly", then you need to have a rigorous definition of what "working correctly" is in the first place.

At the moment, we define "working correctly" as "working in a way that is close to the statistical average of the way in which all similar things work".

In other words, we define somebody as mentally ill if their brain behaviour (and hence, actual behaviour) deviates significantly from what we would see, on average, in most other brain behaviours.

But I question whether or not that's a valid definition of "not working correctly".

I don't doubt that the neurological differences between individuals exist, and that these neurological differences can be measured, and their effect evaluated. But I do question whether or not the current method of measuring these differences is sufficient for diagnosing somebody as mentally ill.

[marky--mark]

Umm... Yeah. That's like saying 'Do you believe in the postman?'. He exists. They exist. What's the confusion?

[Nuffles]

What is there not to believe? It's not even that it causes you to 'behave unacceptably' in the eyes of society, a lot of the time mental illness can coerce or force you into doing psychological or physical damage to yourself and/or those around you. It's hardly something you can simply choose to believe in or not.

[ednut]

(Original post by marky--mark)
Umm... Yeah. That's like saying 'Do you believe in the postman?'. He exists. They exist. What's the confusion?

no its not

[ednut]

(Original post by Nuffles)
What is there not to believe? It's not even that it causes you to 'behave unacceptably' in the eyes of society, a lot of the time mental illness can coerce or force you into doing psychological or physical damage to yourself and/or those around you. It's hardly something you can simply choose to believe in or not.

so everyone who commits suicide is mentally ill?

[najinaji]

(Original post by oo00oo)
I think the OP's point (in a way), and certainly my point, is that before you can diagnose something as "not working correctly", then you need to have a rigorous definition of what "working correctly" is in the first place.

At the moment, we define "working correctly" as "working in a way that is close to the statistical average of the way in which all similar things work".

In other words, we define somebody as mentally ill if their brain behaviour (and hence, actual behaviour) deviates significantly from what we would see, on average, in most other brain behaviours.

But I question whether or not that's a valid definition of "not working correctly".

I don't doubt that the neurological differences between individuals exist, and that these neurological differences can be measured, and their effect evaluated. But I do question whether or not the current method of measuring these differences is sufficient for diagnosing somebody as mentally ill.

This.

[xoxAngel_Kxox]

I think the word "mental" gives it a kind of "abstract" feel. You can't see/measure thoughts and feelings.

However, if you know anything about mental illness, you'll know that there is a biological basis for each and every one of them. Whether it's that an individual's brain is slightly different to other people's, or whether there is a hormone imbalance, there is always something physical. The SYMPTOMS might be "mental", but the cause is physical.

Of course, things like depression/anxiety can have physical symptoms as well. I've always thought that splitting "mental illness" into something different to "physical illness" has been a strong reason that many people refuse to accept it.

[brightonlad89]

it's a tricky one. Yes, 'symptoms' of mental illnesses exist-- however, we currently understand very little about it. There are NO mental illnesses which have conclusive evidence. Even 'flagship' mental disorders such as Schizophrenia have been inconsistent in studies to the point that the medical industry don't know what causes it, what it reacts to, nor how to cure it.

Until the 1980s, there wasn't even a definition of 'mental illness', and the one today is so vague that it could cover all sorts of human behaviour-- such as selfishness etc. However, what they do choose to categorise as mental illness tend to be human behaviours which are either undesirable or cause the person to be economically inactive.

For example, depression, ADHD and other such mental disorders which may affect the person's ability to hold a job are medicated as this is an alternative way for them to contribute to the economy (by being a consumer of the pharmaceutical industry).

Every brain has different chemistry, and no one knows what a 'balanced brain' actually is. Treatment is trial and error, and there is no objective way of testing for mental illness existing.

The pharmaceutical industry also funds many aspects of psychiatry, causing a conflict of interest-- this is why there are many new mental illnesses being classified-- more illness= more money.

Doctors are also subjective beings and are not immune to their own societal standards, and often subscribe to what society wants to create rather than look after the service user's best interests. For example, transsexuality (i.e. Gender Identity Disorder) is currently categorised as a mental illness, not because of evidence for it existing that way (in fact, studies imply quite the contrary), but because if it was classified as a biological/physical condition then there would be less ability to control it from the State persepctive.

If you're interested in reading about mental illness from a critical perspective, I recommend 'Making Us Crazy' by Kutchins, Kirk 1997. A very accessible and eye-opening read.

[Miss_Scarlett]

Yes I do "believe" in it.

[najinaji]

(Original post by brightonlad89)
For example, transsexuality (i.e. Gender Identity Disorder) is currently categorised as a mental illness, not because of evidence for it existing that way (in fact, studies imply quite the contrary), but because if it was classified as a biological/physical condition then there would be less ability to control it from the State persepctive.

I've never quite understood this classification either. From what studies have shown, it appears to be more of an offshoot of some sort of intersex condition than anything else.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

do i believe it exists? er... yes... im an example

[Notethis]

No. It's really a farce that an increasing number of psychiatrists' methods are referred to "biological-psychiatry" when by definition mental illnesses are not physical- psychiatry shouldn't be a medical specialty. I'd never take a diagnosis from a psychiatrist seriously; they're puppets for the drug industry, and are responsible, and will continue to be responsible for generations permanently debilitated through chronic use of one or more of the so called miracle drugs. People tell you never to buy drugs on the streets because you "don't know what's in them", but at least the neurotoxicity of cocaine and other recreational drugs is well documented, and I'd rather take half a gram of talcum powder on board than any research chemical a psychiatrist is trying to prescribe me.

[Bey Taco]

Think this would answer the question

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

[OU Student]

(Original post by ednut)
so everyone who commits suicide is mentally ill?

Well, yes. Why would anyone who is of sound mind commit suicide?