I would have to go back to check what he means - but in general a mentally ill person shows maladaptive behaviour. In many cases it interferes with a person being able to function normally in their daily lives - but the thing is what IS functioning normally, or behaviour that isn't maladaptive?

We'd need a definition of what constitutes mental health to begin to understand what mentall illness is, but since we're talking about a rext that refers to the WHO - this definition might be appropriate for our discussion:


The World Health Organization (WHO) and national surveys report that there is no single consensus on the definition of mental illness or mental disorder, and that the phrasing used depends on the social, cultural, economic and legal context in different societies or contexts.

there are other definitions also from this page: http://www.answers.com/mental+illness&r=67

this is what makes capitalism so great. It weeds out the weak.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I think the wives as labor issue transcends the form. Pairing still usually meant the wife (and the wife's labor and property) became the husband's property and still does in some places.
I know many species use pairing but our closest animal relatives are not among them. Primitive and tribal societies which more closely mimic the social structure of primate groups are more likely to mimic the reproduction pattern of those groups where dominant males do most of the reproducing with most of the females and a relatively large group of males father no offspring at all. Such a scheme won't work in a modern society but it still might be the one for which we are best suited biologically.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

If that's what capitalism is good for, I think we would be better off going back to the stone age. It's a lot more radical when it comes to "weeding out the weak".

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

any more responses to those who want to make inane and irrelevant comments like the one you responded to here - and I won't be posting in this thread anymore.

there is a lot of variation in familial patterns among our closest relatives - even between bonobos and chimpanzees. There is also ample evidence that so called 'primitive' humans often have pairing relationships as the norm.

In any case - I agree that such a scheme (polygamy) wouldn't work in modern society.

An analysis of the consequences of feminism in modern society is also highly relevent to this discussion, although I haven't time to explore that right now.

I do think that pairing relationships probably are the norm for humans (if there is such a thing), but the expectation that these relationships should be completely sufficient to themselves and last a lifetime may be unrealistic, and even place more stress on the relationships. It at least makes any eventual 'failures' less likely to be amiable, since promises are so often made that can't be kept.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Even cancer patients sometimes refuse to consider themselves ill, sometimes with beneficial results (keeping the spirits up), sometimes with detrimental ones (refusal of treatment). Cancer used to be similarly stigmatized as psychological illness still is today and therefore many patients would indeed not acknowledge it.
This subjective notion of the patient, whether he feels a part of the group of 'ill' is not a criteria though, that can be used by an organization such as the WHO. They need objective criteria and for that purpose manuals of the kind I quoted earlier are established.
And it's within the context of these that the numbers are to be understood.

It's in no way this random or arbitrary.
To humour you, I will quote the complete list of diagnostic criteria for generic substance dependence:
This is rather clear cut, isn't it ?

Prozac is prescribed for depression, anxiety, OCD, and similar problems, after the patient is diagnosed by a professional with any of these illnesses. What else but mentally ill could you call it ? It really seems to me that you have a problem with the stigma rather than with the numbers.

No. The diagnostic criteria are as follows:
A. The predominant complaint is difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, for at least one month.
B. The sleep disturbance (or associated daytime fatigue) causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Etc.

Generally speaking, the criteria always look for symptoms or behaviour that extends in time and is disruptive to the personal life of the subject. That doesn't include the equivalent of a sneeze or a cough

Neither have I but from reading some works on the subject, it is clear that it's not about everyday discomforts but about things that actually and prolongedly impair the subject's functionality. I'm afraid our populations are in a worse state than you choose to believe.

I have a problem with calling someone mentally ill, because he/she uses Prozac. The causality must be the other way around: you eat Prozac, because you are mentally ill.

I still cannot believe more than one fourth of the American population would be, by scientific medical standards, mentally ill. It is just unfathomable for me. It is even more so when I read:

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.