Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just wondering what others think about this? People are not all the same. We have many different traits that make us who we are. I am starting to notice a lot of very talented and creative people are diagnoised with a forum of mental illness, which makes me wonder if to some extent the labelling of non-conformists as mentally ill is often not that legitamate. In some ways is that not like saying if you do not see things the way I do there must be something wrong with you?
Just wondering what others think about this? People are not all the same. We have many different traits that make us who we are. I am starting to notice a lot of very talented and creative people are diagnoised with a forum of mental illness, which makes me wonder if to some extent the labelling of non-conformists as mentally ill is often not that legitamate. In some ways is that not like saying if you do not see things the way I do there must be something wrong with you?
Seeing the world differently is only "bad" when it affects you and/or your relationships negatively. That would be a legitimate diagnosis and cause for concern.
There are very talented non-conformists who run the gamut of being mentally-ill. Some self medicate with hard drugs or alcohol. Others get treatment.
It's not about seeing the world and trying to make them conform, it's about making them healthy. Admittedly this may appear like it's stifling their creativity or views on the world, but in reality it's about keeping them alive in some cases.
---
When it comes to Art, unforgettably there's been a stigma about the struggling and/or genius artist. That one needs to be essentially eccentric and in pain to create great Art. And although in some cases Art from those people can be good, it's not always necessary to create. Ironically people want to see other's pain, other's craziness, other's suffering; all the while we are gawking intellectually about it.
So in one way we as an audience are to blame just as much as anyone.
I think mental illness can cause people to function badly, or perhaps to not be able to function at all. Then, I believe, people need meds. I've known of crazy actions caused by manic episodes to totally mess up peoples' lives. Both mania and depression wreak havoc with individuals and families.
I am in agreement that mere eccentricity is not cause for meds, usually.
I wonder about this because in some sense yes certain actions done by anyone can cause harm to one's self and other, but who gets to decided what is normal? How does anything ever change, evolve or progress if people who dare to think and act differently within reasonable limits are label and treated as ill minded? I do 100% appreciate that medication is needed to help manage certain conditions, but it if various forms of mental illness are so common ... well I question how big of a percentage of the world's population should be need to chemically modify? For example if 1 out 5 adult women suffer from depression does that 20% of the population needs to be modified? Look at the huge number of people diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Who gets to define these bench marks for normal?
Just to make this clear I am not suggesting anyone prescribed medication to help manage any type of mental illness should not take medication. I am just exploring the question because I am really curious about who gets to set bench marks about what it is like to feel normal? How does a normal person feel on average? How would someone understand or know this to compare how they feel to other people to know if something was wrong with them? Also on a bigger note should someone aim to just be average or normal? Is being normal a possible source for discontentment?
If someone is officially diagnosed, there is usually a legitimate reason.
I got to say I work in health care and ... well the lines between diagnosed, educated guess and trial and error can be blurred often. I am not suggesting people outright doubt the person diagnosing them, but there are flaws in all these processes. They are not designed perfectly and the study of science is much better at proving things wrong then right, which means a lot of mistakes need to be made before a better idea comes around.
I wonder about this because in some sense yes certain actions done by anyone can cause harm to one's self and other, but who gets to decided what is normal? How does anything ever change, evolve or progress if people who dare to think and act differently within reasonable limits are label and treated as ill minded? I do 100% appreciate that medication is needed to help manage certain conditions, but it if various forms of mental illness are so common ... well I question how big of a percentage of the world's population should be need to chemically modify? For example if 1 out 5 adult women suffer from depression does that 20% of the population needs to be modified? Look at the huge number of people diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Who gets to define these bench marks for normal?
Just to make this clear I am not suggesting anyone prescribed medication to help manage any type of mental illness should not take medication. I am just exploring the question because I am really curious about who gets to set bench marks about what it is like to feel normal? How does a normal person feel on average? How would someone understand or know this to compare how they feel to other people to know if something was wrong with them? Also on a bigger note should someone aim to just be average or normal? Is being normal a possible source for discontentment?
Society as a whole decides. And different societies are different.
We also have laws that protect us and ourselves from ourselves.
There's a very wide range of things people can do legally that are very strange and weird and no one is being locked up, diagnosed or even called mentally ill.
I don't want to make this political but I think certain candidates for president are insane. No one is really saying if that candidate is mentally ill...at least not yet.
---
Personally at home, I'm nuts. I love to laugh and joke around. My wife is sick of my jokes, and puns, and my parents call me weird. I may have some manic tenancies (just some self-diagnosis), but I tend to keep those in line when I'm out and about.
I hope my son will have the freedom to act quirky and funny the way he wants to act, but respect other's space and quiet if they ask.
So in the end it's about respect and to have a sense of decorum around those you're unfamiliar with. Though that line is moving further and further away from "normal." If you look at the 1950's to today, we're practically aliens in some respects.
Just wondering what others think about this? People are not all the same. We have many different traits that make us who we are. I am starting to notice a lot of very talented and creative people are diagnoised with a forum of mental illness, which makes me wonder if to some extent the labelling of non-conformists as mentally ill is often not that legitamate. In some ways is that not like saying if you do not see things the way I do there must be something wrong with you?
What evidence to you have to backup this observation? I live where there are many talented and creative people and I have not seen anything like you are describing. No epidemic of mental illness diagnoses for non-conformists here. I think you are making a sweeping generalization based on a tiny sample of anecdotes of which you are probably not privy to the actual details.
Just wondering what others think about this? People are not all the same. We have many different traits that make us who we are. I am starting to notice a lot of very talented and creative people are diagnoised with a forum of mental illness, which makes me wonder if to some extent the labelling of non-conformists as mentally ill is often not that legitamate. In some ways is that not like saying if you do not see things the way I do there must be something wrong with you?
Basically, if you can behave like others in the work environment, you are OK and no one would care what you do outside of work. When you engage in online conversations, keep in mind, majority wins (this is why it's called democracy - personally, I'm totally for aristocracy, but it's not an option right now right here), and majority means average. So, if you are above, below, or otherwise fluctuate from averageness, you might end up labeled. If you want a perfect communication circle, you need to build it around you, weeding out those who become dull with time, and nurturing friendships with those who stay high on creativity/paradoxical mindset/ unobtuse opinions, etc.
I never really feel that people expect me to act exactly like everyone else, whatever that may mean since they're all different too, so realistically, there IS no "just like everyone else."
Basic codes of conduct for various situations, yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Diagnosed
