You Gotta Be Crazy
Data from the government-sponsored National Comorbidity Survey Replication, consisting of interviews with a sample of more than 9,000 people, indicate that most Americans suffer from a mental disorder at some point in their lives and that a quarter are diagnosable in a given year. Skeptics, including many psychiatrists, argue that such surveys overestimate the incidence of mental illness because they do not include the sort of in-depth examination that a careful practitioner would conduct before diagnosing someone. A 2002 study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that applying "clinical significance criteria" substantially reduced past-year prevalence estimates based on the National Comorbidity Survey. The estimated rates for anxiety disorders and mood disorders were reduced by about a third, while substance use disorders dropped by a quarter.
But given the broad sweep of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it's hardly surprising that most of us arguably qualify for a psychiatric label. The question is whether that's an indication of how mentally sick we are or of how unscientific psychiatry is. If you set out to catalog every negative state of mind and pattern of behavior as a psychiatric disorder, you will ultimately prove that all of us are mentally ill at least some of the time.
"The problem," Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh tells The New York Times, "is that the diagnostic manual we are using in psychiatry is like a field guide, and it just keeps expanding and expanding….Pretty soon we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a Boston accent, and I'll be mentally ill."
In defense of the survey, the lead author says:
If I told you that 99 percent of Americans have had a physical illness, you wouldn't blink an eye. The fact is that there is a very wide range included here, with the equivalent of many psychiatric hangnails. We don't want to demonize those, but we don't want to trivialize them, either, because we know in many cases they lead to serious problems later on.
The thing is, we know what an actual hangnail looks like, and there's little room for dispute as to whether a patient has one. With "psychiatric hangnails," by contrast, the decision to call them illnesses, as opposed to psychological difficulties or problems in living or spiritual crises, seems utterly arbitrary.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just to provide an example of the subjective nature of psychology, compare the behavioral indicators for gifted children and children with "ADD." (Scare quotes intentional.) They are essentially the same.
This is nuts.
That a large portion of the population could be diagnosed with having had mental illness does not in and of itself preclude it being illness. What percentage of people have had colds? That said, I agree that the difference between "illness" and "difficulty" is indeed subjective and up to the labeler. But then, perhaps that's just in the nature of psychological issues and begs the question, so what? I realize the answer to that may lay in various public policy matters, such as how ADD children are treated. But then, is the trouble manifested in these public policy issues really due to calling psychological problems "illness" or is it a reflection of policies that are bad for their own reasons?
Fyodor-I agree, to an extent, but I would be much more comfortable with the concept of mental disorders if so many of them didn't sound like "Failure to conform." I am not, of course, talking about schizophrenics and the like. Again, ADD is the best example?it sounds a lot like "Failure to sit still and passively absorb indoctrination."
Didn't Kurt Vonnegut once postulate that Earth in fact started out as an insane asylum colony for some alien species, sort of like Australia in its early years?
Jacob,
The logic you describe is the same logic used to close most state mental health facilities. Many people who would have been placed under psychiatric care in the past are now funneled through the criminal justice system instead. (And at much higher cost.) As a recent parent of an adopted child, you might find the research on criminals and emotional neglect of birth parents quite interesting.
I can understand the skepticism, and skepticism often helps advance science. But it is a common daily occurrence that phsyical illnesses are misdiagnosed - disputes abound as to what a physical ailment really is. Most physical ailments are not as clear-cut as hangnails. If you want some examples of commonly misdiagnosed physical illnesses, email me and I can send you the information.
(Here's one I'm quite familiar with:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0213_030213_brownrecluse.html )
Yeah, but I think his son told him he was nuts.
Number 6,
Many physical illnesses are themselves extreme varieties of normal bodily functioning - high blood pressure, leukemia. Similarly, a mental illness can be an extreme manifestation of normal mental functioning, like the normal fidgetting of a child in a classroom.
Number 6,
A lot of people have qustions about ADD, but how many other examples can you come up with? Is ADD the rule, or the exception?
Fyodor- Clinical depression comes to mind, as does oppositional/defiant disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. All refer to real phenomenon, but I think placing a ''mental illness" label on them is iffy. Although in some cases, there clearly is a real disorder, in others, it again seems like an attempt to enforce social norms.
BTW, I started college as a psych major. I made it through a couple of semesters before I realized that psych is not science, and is often nothing more than a means of control. The final straw came when a prof said, "the object of pyschology is to even out differences between people." I changed majors later that day to Poli Sci/Phil. Of course, now I'm an inpoverished journalist, but I still think I made the right decision.
I look forward to the day when we have so many syndromes for everyday behavior that there is tacit agreement to just talk about our neuroses in public with no shame. On that day, 75% of psychiatrists will go out of business.
What's the point of this thread?
That psychiatry is nebulous?
So what?
Gene's are nebulous, but that didn't slow the Genome Project, did it.
Douglas Fletcher,
Actually, his son was nuts.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583225439/reasonmagazinea-20/
The operative word is "was." As far as I know, he is now a successful pediatrician.
the question is, what defines "extreme"? the answer can't be social norms, because then only a fixed percentage of people could ever be diagnosed with a certain illness at a certain time. apply that to medical science and it doesn't add up... if only a fixed percentage of people are allowed to be diagnosed with AIDS, and there's an epidemic, then only that fixed percentage will be allowed to be treated for it?
the answer needs to be more objective than social norms. which means that the possibility of everyone having a mental illness needs to be left wide open.
besides, it doesn't matter much whether you call a condition an illness, a personality trait or a demon. the only scientific issue is: does solution X do anything for it? i can say that 100% of humanity is mortal. is it then unscientific to try to do something about it?
Is inability of a female to achieve orgasm a "disorder"?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7481
number 6,
the way i see it, psychiatry is a means of people controlling their own lives. for instance, say you're sad all the time. do you have some kind of mental illness, or is that just your personality? who cares? either way it's a pain in the ass. so take some zoloft and see if it helps. forgive me if i don't see a problem. in fact, maybe the only problem is that people need a doctor's approval first.
roger - maybe the question is, whose disorder, really?
Difficulty in achieving female orgasm a "dysfunction"? Putting the question up front:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1501314,00.html
Number 6,
"the object of pyschology is to even out differences between people."
Yow! In lieu of empirical evidence to the contrary, I tend to doubt most psychologists or psychiatrists or psych profs see it that way, but I can understand your reaction to it!! You should revive your journalism career by exposing that scoundrel!! And maybe that whole department is fucked up....
I agree with zach that when psychiatry is consumer driven, as it oughtter be, the labels used to get what one wants to get out of it are not much of an issue.
Two Pink Floyd references within that last few blog titles..
I love this place 🙂
Peter K.:
Douglas Adams in one of the Hitch Hiker books had the Earth become inhabited by Telephone Sanitizers and the like from some other planet far off...it's when Ford and Arthur end up in the stone age then get out of it by chasing a large sofa.
this has been a concern for some time in firearms owners' circles. By federal law, if a person has ever been "involuntarily committed" for a psychological issue, they are forever disabled (prohibited) from owning a firearm.
The problem is that "involuntarily committed" covers a huge range of occurrences, including being sent for psychological evaluation by a physician without your approval.
As the number of psychological "maladies" increases, so does the number of possible ways to prohibit certain things such as firearms ownership, getting a job in certain industries, or even getting medical insurance.
Number 6,
I am finding out all about that as we speak. Is my child gifted?(yes)learning disabled? (probably) both? (quite likely).Her real problem is that she is just like I was, but worse.
For an even better example, similar to ADD, read up on the definition of "Asperger's syndrome" in the DSM-4. It basically spells out the personality of 70% of the people I have met who work in IT.
BTW, if you are ever in the mood to do something truly malicious, give a copy of the DSM-4 to a hypochondriac.
Gene's are nebulous
No, genes are not all that nebulous.
Is inability of a female to achieve orgasm a "disorder"?
I'd say so, just on a functional level of "something normal people can do that this person can't". Throw in the genetic indicators mentioned in the article, and you've got a syndrome or something.
but eric, extend that then to "passing a math test".
Gene's are nebulous
No, genes are not all that nebulous.
How can the issue of nebulosity be so ... oh ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... unclear?
Actually, his son was nuts.
I knew that. Now you understand what an incredibly subtle sense of humor I have.