"the myth of mental illness"

flyingaway · **Posted:** Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:27 pm

that is the title of a book I once started to read, can't recall why didn't finish

in any case, I used to believe mental illness was a myth, that most people are not so "out there" that they can't manage or learn to manage

But then I have seen some weird stuff since then, like a guy at a restaurant who was sitting at a booth talking to space men and gesturing to them (up in the air where none of the rest of us could see of course)

Highlander · **Posted:** Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:44 pm

You weren't looking in the right place. And you probably didn't have your hat on.

ThomisticCajunAggie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:17 pm

I'm responding not because I'm going to change anyone's mind, but because I think to allow the phrase "myth of mental illness" to go unchallenged would be irresponsible. Mental illness is very much a real thing and I've seen it destroy people firsthand through no fault of their own. If you know someone who is struggling with mental illness, don't tell them it's not real (or just to think on the bright side or whatever). Tell them to get help, and then help them get help if you are able.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:41 pm

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

Highlander · **Posted:** Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:50 pm

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:18 am

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:25 am

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

I think the consensus, or at least the conclusion of most critics of psychiatry, is that there is something in what Szasz said but he went too far. He wrote that book in the early 1960s.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Denise Dee wrote:

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

Highlander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:05 am

Denise Dee wrote:

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

That part about ignorance is spot on. Understanding, IMO, is greatly overrated.

And there seem to be a good number of decapitated strawmen lying about.

Just one point. I have a great deal of respect for real women. You know, waitresses, Moms, clerks, farmers, sales ladies, cowgirls, all sorts of working women. Academics .... not so much.

Highlander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:07 am

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

Ah, you know me. Exactly how harmful would you rate me?

No matter. I'm cooking me up a steak. Pie and ice cream for dessert. No asparagus.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

I think the consensus, or at least the conclusion of most critics of psychiatry, is that there is something in what Szasz said but he went too far. He wrote that book in the early 1960s.

It was around and discussed when I was in the grad psych program, late 60s. Coming from a basically behavioral approach, personally, I found it a reasonable assessment of to what extent, if any, mental illness was a illness.

Highlander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:14 am

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

I think the consensus, or at least the conclusion of most critics of psychiatry, is that there is something in what Szasz said but he went too far. He wrote that book in the early 1960s.

It was around and discussed when I was in the grad psych program, late 60s. Coming from a basically behavioral approach, personally, I found it a reasonable assessment of to what extent, if any, mental illness was a illness.

Similarly. As I recollect, he suggested that the mentally ill should be legally responsible for their actions and that their illness was not a mitigating factor. On the basis of civil rights. Or was that someone else?

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Highlander wrote:

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

Ah, you know me. Exactly how harmful would you rate me?

It depends on the contextual proximity.

Otherwise, you are a cuddly snuggle-bunny with a good capacity for research, analysis, and expression. And I like your choice of pipe tobacco. Your masculinity is within societal norms. You may carry on.

Highlander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:22 am

GKC wrote:

Highlander wrote:

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Highlander wrote:

I understand that the American Psychological Association (APA) published new guidelines for treating boys and men. An accompanying APA article said that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

So, being male is a mental illness. Cause it's toxic and all.

Highlander, you have unjustifiably twisted and completely distorted what the APA has said. It appears that you would rather live in ignorance than understand. But ignorance causes men to die.

I'm sure that if anyone twisted and misrepresented Catholic Church guidelines you'd be quick to complain, but you're okay with twisting and misrepresenting very important APA guidelines.

The APA did NOT say anything like "being male is a mental illness Cause it's toxic".

They said what you have quoted that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.” That is NOT the same as saying that "being male is a mental illness" or that being male is harmful.

Being a man does not mean you should be so stoical that you avoid going to a doctor for medical treatment until it's too late.

Being a man does not mean you should be so "traditionally masculine" that you think you're too tough to be concerned about drinking too much, smoking too much, eating too much meat, too much junk food, and not enough fruit and vegetables.

Being a man does not mean that you should refuse to admit if you have a mental health problem and refuse to talk about it or seek help for fear of being seen as "weak".

Being a man does not mean that you should have little respect for women. Being a man does not mean that you see women as objects for your pleasure rather than the reality of who we really are.

Being a man does not mean you should disrespect homosexual men. Being a man does not mean you don't treat homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

And so on.

Being a man does not mean you need to conform to the stereotype of "traditional masculinity" with all it's harmful aspects.

Ah, you know me. Exactly how harmful would you rate me?

It depends on the contextual proximity.

Otherwise, you are a cuddly snuggle-bunny with a good capacity for research, analysis, and expression. And I like your choice of pipe tobacco. Your masculinity is within societal norms. You may carry on.

You forgot "sensitive". And I prefer..."exceeds societal norms" ... as in excessively.

Had lunch with a rancher at the Gatherin' Place in Pie Town yesterday. Next table. He's only running about 15 head cause he's retired. Near three months. Learned important stuff ... like they got 16 inches of snow in this last storm. And that he was mending fence the day before. I'd call him a gentleman. But, whew ... was he toxic!

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Highlander wrote:

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

I think the consensus, or at least the conclusion of most critics of psychiatry, is that there is something in what Szasz said but he went too far. He wrote that book in the early 1960s.

It was around and discussed when I was in the grad psych program, late 60s. Coming from a basically behavioral approach, personally, I found it a reasonable assessment of to what extent, if any, mental illness was a illness.

Similarly. As I recollect, he suggested that the mentally ill should be legally responsible for their actions and that their illness was not a mitigating factor. On the basis of civil rights. Or was that someone else?

Roughly, yes, IIRC. I have the book (how easily that phrase rolls off the keyboard!) but haven't looked at it in over 50 years and will not do so until another 50 have passed. From the behavioral aspect, he stressed that (usually) like illness, as he was defining the subject, there was (with only rare exceptions) any tissue degradation, pathogen, or physical pathology related to this class of illness. Obviously there were some such, say, tertiary syphilis.

I was never greatly interested in the mental health aspect of the field.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Good for him, says I.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

GKC wrote:

Highlander wrote:

GKC wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I haven't read the book, but here's part of an Amazon review:

All Thomas Szasz really says here is that we can't view mental illness, that is to say, the major mood disorders and psychoses, as normal diseases. We can't pretend that mental illness is some exogenous force that is totally irrelevant of the victim's life experiences, the victims traumas and tragedies, and the victim's behaviors. In fact, new research into the pscychosocial explanation finds very strong evidence for the importance of these things in predicting the incidence of mental illness. And if its true, as Szasz argues, that there is this very strong psychosocial element, then therapy to understand these issues and perceptions and to allow the patient to change behavior is the best option for treatment. Again, research shows the efficacy of Psychotherapy in general as well as CBT specifically.

I think the consensus, or at least the conclusion of most critics of psychiatry, is that there is something in what Szasz said but he went too far. He wrote that book in the early 1960s.

It was around and discussed when I was in the grad psych program, late 60s. Coming from a basically behavioral approach, personally, I found it a reasonable assessment of to what extent, if any, mental illness was a illness.

Similarly. As I recollect, he suggested that the mentally ill should be legally responsible for their actions and that their illness was not a mitigating factor. On the basis of civil rights. Or was that someone else?

Roughly, yes, IIRC. I have the book (how easily that phrase rolls off the keyboard!) but haven't looked at it in over 50 years and will not do so until another 50 have passed. From the behavioral aspect, he stressed that (usually) unlike illness, as he was defining the subject, there was (with only rare exceptions) no tissue degradation, pathogen, or physical pathology related to this class of illness. Obviously there were some such, say, tertiary syphilis.

I was never greatly interested in the mental health aspect of the field.

Highlander · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:44 am

This is pretty much the ideal I aspire to ... in order to purge my toxicity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2WIOa7CEI

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 19683

Highlander wrote:

This is pretty much the ideal I aspire to ... in order to purge my toxicity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2WIOa7CEI

I believe I met him.

Or his brother.

theJack · **Posted:** Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:57 pm

I think "poof" in all its derivatives might be my new favorite insult.

"the myth of mental illness"

Who is online