The New Definition of a Mental Disorder
Select Commentary
November 21, 2013
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
After informing Apprentice Sarah Louise that 10% of school children suffer from ADHD, we took an ADHD test for adults from a random internet site. We concluded that majority of adults are ADHD. Since this could not be correct, Yours Truly wanted the symptoms as listed in the DSM. Once we learned that Tobacco Use Disorder exits, then we wanted to understand what a "disorder" is in our Modern world. The surprising results are found below. We am indebted to Dr. Eric R. Maisel, Ph.D for the following article in Psychology Today.
No one really doubts the phenomena of birds and bees. But to call birds and bees miracles and to create a miracle-maker god who created them is a certain kind of fraudulent leap. No one really doubts the phenomena of sadness and worry. But to call them symptoms of mental disorders is exactly the same kind of fraudulent leap. We make gods and mental disorders in exactly the same fraudulent way, by illegitimately using real phenomena as “proof” of the existence of non-existing things.
We are immediately struck by the phrasing of "a certain kind of fraudulent leap." We can only conclude that this "leaping" is not by the rational mind, but through emotions. If "sadness" and "worry" are symptoms of a mental disorder, the disorder must be labeled "Modernism", as everyone who is exposed to Modernism becomes ill. We learn that Modern psychology observes verifiable phenomena [gold] and then creates a mental disease [Leprechaun] to explain the phenomena [gold]. The repeated use of the named disease [Leprechaun] is "proof" of the disease and symptoms [gold].
Part of the joy and ease of this fraudulent creating is that you can define the non-existing thing any way you like. Who is to say if a god isn’t or isn’t friendly, spiteful, eternal, or taking a personal interest in you if there is no real thing involved? Who is to say if a mental disorder is the same or different from a brain disorder, the same or different for a Jungian, a Freudian, or a drug dispenser, the same or different from unwanted thoughts or behaviors, if there is no real thing involved? It ought to be the case that those making the claim for a non-existing thing should have to prove its existence but in real life the burden always falls on the whistle-blower. The perpetrators have it easy!
The author implies that certain people experience "joy" in creating new definitions of subjective ideas. The reader can not but notice the clarity of thought by the author. The "perpetrators" of fraudulent science have an easy time of creating meaningless causes, while real or rational scientists must go against the majority or, as Nietzsche would say, the masses.
See how easy the definers of non-existing mental disorder have it. First they define it one way, as they did in the DSM-4: “A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.”
To paraphrase: A disorder is present if the subject continues their behavior and this behavior will lead to a poor outcome.
Then, under pressure by skeptics as to the whether this definition made any sense whatsoever, they redefined non-existing mental disorders this new way in the recently released DSM-5:
"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."
We learn that "conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above." When we reference the description above, we learn that mental disorders are usually, but not always, found in social settings. One is tempted to "leap" to the reasonable conclusion that people or society is the cause of mental disorders. The more conspiracy minded reader will "jump" to the conclusion that the DSM V is hinting at a larger unspoken problem.
The very idea that you can radically change the definition of something without anything in the real world changing and with no new increases in knowledge or understanding is remarkable, remarkable until you realize that the thing being defined does not exist. It is completely easy—effortless, really—to change the definition of something that does not exist to suit your current purposes. In fact, there is hardly any better proof of the non-existence of a non-existing thing than that you can define it one way today, another way tomorrow, and a third way on Sunday.
The author notes that nothing in the "real world" has changed. We conclude that author implies that the editors of the DSM-V do not have practical experience of the subject matter, only theories. The author believes that the alternations to the definition of mental disorder suits "your current proposes." We would expect a careful or thoughtful writer not to be cavalier with the use of "your" in this circumstance. The author does not like changes that are an inherent aspect of subjective thought.
Certainly one could scrutinize the changes and make reasonable comments about the way that language has been employed to say absolutely nothing. A mental disorder is a psychological thing, or maybe it isn’t. A mental disorder is a biological thing, or maybe it isn’t. You can rail about your society unless you have a “dysfunction,” at which point your railing is a mental disorder. You can have a conflict with your politicians unless you have a “dysfunction,” at which point you are a mental deviant. One could go on with such observations but making such observations plays into the hands of the creators of non-existing things, who love it if you play their game. They can slip about with impunity, adding, qualifying, and shifting, while you waste your breath being reasonable and thoughtful.
The author changes persons, from "you" to "one", for no apparent reason. We conclude that the audience he is writing to in this section is a different audience from the preceding section. Under the guidelines of the DSM-V, we are uncertain as whether a biological or social agent is the cause of mental disorders. We encounter the familiar "if you play their game" and "you waste your breath". The author implies that certain people are not "being reasonable and thoughtful". We infer that the editors of the DSM-V are unreasonable and thoughtless.
The question is not, “What is the best definition of a mental disorder?” The question is not, “Is the DSM-5 definition of a mental disorder better than the DSM-IV definition of a mental disorder?” Those are absolutely not the right questions! The first and only question is, “Do mental disorders exist?” The phenomena certainly exist. The birds and bees exist; pain and suffering exist. But birds do not prove the existence of gods and pain does not prove the existence of mental disorders. Let us not play the game of debating the definitions of non-existent things. Let us move right on.
The author dismisses the two questions as not the right questions, as though the best definition of a mental disorder does not nor can ever exist and the reader should not compare the conflicting definitions from the different editions of the handbook. We are told emphatically that phenomena of mental disorders exist, although empiric evidence is lacking in the text, but is presumably present in people's lives. Since "pain does not prove the existence of mental disorders", we are inclined to "leap" to the conclusion that society is the problem. Regretfully, we can not make this ration "leap" from either the text or the commentary.
The phenomena itself confounds us and it would be lovely to create gods and mental disorders to explain them. But, being non-existent, gods and mental disorders explain nothing. Let us move on and do better.
The author now uses a common esoteric writing technique, to wit, a contradiction. We are initially told that the phenomena of mental disorders exist, but then we read that mental disorders are like gods, id est, non-existent. The thinking reader or co-conspirator must come to a reasonable conclusion, even when all pertinent facts are not present in the text.
Like the princes of Serendip, we feel fortunate to have found this thought provoking article after our initial research lead to an article on Tobacco Use Disorder that left me incredulous. We have long been suspect of the plastic nature of Psychology. However, we were lulled into believing that after a century of work and research, Psychology was a branch of science. Clearly, knowledge and experience can not be redefined with a new edition. Regarding tobacco products, Psychologists have created a disorder where no disorder existed from the Dawn of humanity until 2013.
One wonders if the increasing prevalence of ADHD, specifically, and mental illness, generally, is not a function of the subjective and ever more inclusive nature of the definitions found in the DSM V. It is sobering to realize that the definition of a Leprechaun has not changed, even though Leprechauns do not exist, while the more exact "science" of psychology can, by fiat, create previously unknown disorders ex nihilo.
The Gentle Reader may want to peruse and ponder a related article [Western Christianity as a Diagnosed Illness].
Like the princes of Serendip, we feel fortunate to have found this thought provoking article after our initial research lead to an article on Tobacco Use Disorder that left me incredulous. We have long been suspect of the plastic nature of Psychology. However, we were lulled into believing that after a century of work and research, Psychology was a branch of science. Clearly, knowledge and experience can not be redefined with a new edition. Regarding tobacco products, Psychologists have created a disorder where no disorder existed from the Dawn of humanity until 2013.
One wonders if the increasing prevalence of ADHD, specifically, and mental illness, generally, is not a function of the subjective and ever more inclusive nature of the definitions found in the DSM V. It is sobering to realize that the definition of a Leprechaun has not changed, even though Leprechauns do not exist, while the more exact "science" of psychology can, by fiat, create previously unknown disorders ex nihilo.
The Gentle Reader may want to peruse and ponder a related article [Western Christianity as a Diagnosed Illness].