That is a post-modernist aproach Bradley. Not all mental illnesses are social constructions. My point is: how to quantify perceptions about mental illnesses? That would be a starting ground.
Is "Attitudes to Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ)" of any interest?:
Luty, J., Umoh, O., Sessay, M., & Sarkhel, A. (2007). Effectiveness of Changing Minds campaign factsheets in reducing stigmatised attitudes towards mental illness. The Psychiatrist, 31(10), 377-381.
There are at least three intractable problems in reducing fear and distain even hostility towards mental illness which we should take for granted
1 The brain is not a tool like ,say hands or legs , It is US. 2.fear that we too will get it ,given the conflictual aspects of human nature and the confysing ifiness of out inner life .3.mentally ill fellow humans are unpleasant since invariably their premorbid personality emanates evolutionary from the a-social aspects of human nature self absorbed unconnectable with dearth of altruism or empathy .Remember the term of The narssisistic neuroses of SFreud . People lie in their responses . Education and placing Mentally in a Belgian community-like will help .of course mentally ill have no political cloud .
Generally I would not respond, but I can't let Dr Pediaditakis's post stand. I agree with his first point, partially with the second and must simply reject the third point.
It is not true that persons with a mental illness are "unpleasant since invariably their premorbid personality emanates from an evolutionary for....." First this is simply objectively false; certainly it is false in terms of my patients, friends and family amongst whom are those who have suffered from mental illness. They are no more or less unpleasant than the rest of us can be.
Many countries have been successful in reducing stigma and fear of persons with mental illness, but the struggle continues (see the work of mental health commissions in countries such as NZ, Australia, Canada and the UK).
A response like that of Dr Pediaditakis does not help.
The first task in helping is to ascertain the truth, your strong objection is telling; -especially since normally you will not respond- do us humans have a blind eye when come to study ourselves perhaps evolutionary nessecery to function as conflictual beings?my compassion and affection are for them who are like condemned Jobs unaware for the charges . I meant asocial and alienated, one has to subsidize their aloofness with my warm regards Dr Simpson
Be that as it may, Dr Pediaditakis , that was not what you said in your first reply. The original question was about public perception of mental illness, not about genius. And your comments that they are "unpleasant" etc were not warranted.
As I explained in the editorial, both genius (and to a more modified degree and with mixed traits a lot more individuals insuring temperamental variability hence flexibility and robustness of the tribe/band ) and the sufferers posses a-social lopsided temperament ; emotional distance ,distain for social interactions ,lack of empathy and altruism reticence to participate in social interactions unpredictable in emotionality and have to socially be subtilized in social interactions over all are unpleasant producing discomfort and avoidance by members of the group .Importantly such a-social lopsided temperament is crucial for the expression of creativity as an enabling factor ,but some will end mentally ill as well like Isaac Newton and many others The relatively few mentally ill with the persistent prevalence of 6%world -wide in spite of their evolutionary unfitness, ( They become ill young , die young, and have low fecundity ) is representing anevolutionary down side trade off .thus the paradox is explained regards Nicholas P
I am not sure you should be so quick to thank the interlocutors of this debate, Pedro!
Throwing up a few historical references hoping they will magically land in the right place and citing some disembodied and rather meaningless numbers does not add up to a coherent argument, Dr. Pediaditakis! What, precisely, is your argument? What do you mean by key notions of "genius" and "madness" (or in another version "sufferers") in your attempt to mount an argument? And in passing, this is a scholarly site. I understand that some people are not writing in their mother tongue (as I am not), but some minimal attention to spelling and grammar would indicate that you have actually thought about what you want to say.
As for this old canard about genius and madness, this has been dealt with by specialists in the field. First of all, the term "madness" has no precision whatsoever, and in the usual quick translation of madness into psychosis and schizophrenia, that notion has been roundly rejected in academic psychology and psychiatry. Perhaps by "genius" you mean creativity at a high or highly productive and original level? The link between creativity and controlled phases of elevated mood, sometimes as profound as versions of bipolar mood disorders has been explored fruitfully but is still open to critically important definitional and measurement issues.
I really expect a more informed and clearly argued discussion on a scholarly site - as Mary CR Wilson offered here - not a poorly constructed rehash of the most unreflective nonsense at the level of tabloid journalism.
Assume for arguments sake that the distribution of human behavior follows some kind of modified multidimensional bell curve distribution. Assume also for arguments sake that regions, nations, cultures, religions have different tolerances for different sets of behaviors. If these assumptions are valid, an individual perceived to be mentally unwell in some social, cultural, or theological settings and not in others. If this is the case mental illness is in large part a perceived condition from the observes frame of reference which will vary depending on the frame, not the individual.
That is a post-modernist aproach Bradley. Not all mental illnesses are social constructions. My point is: how to quantify perceptions about mental illnesses? That would be a starting ground.
Nor did i say all were social constructions. What you are looking for, I would think, are the principal components of perception, one of which would be social.....
This is a fascinating exchange between Bradley and Pedro.
The variations are not only in the perceptions of but in the lived reality of everything human and that is part of the cultural diversity of humanity. Social and transcultural psychiatry has made a significant contribution in this area. I will outline this in a later post.
Dear Pedro, I am planning a similar project, Your discussion above is seven months' old. I wonder if there were any tools or methods that you found useful/helpful after undergoing all above discussions and explorations. Kindly consider sharing if you don't mind. Best wishes
Dear Salman, the masters dissertation of my student will be defended this month. It will be made available in Researchgate in the next few days. Maybe you can find something interesting there.
would you be able to advise that where would I be able to find that stuff on ResearchGate? i.e. would that be available in future under any specific name or heading?