How Rampant Do You Think Mental Disease Is On These Forums?

[Inkachu]

Oh well. You see it one way, and I see it another. And that's OK.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Of course, there are plenty of people on CF who are open about having depression, schizophrenia, OCD, and other issues. I think you should bear that in mind if you decide to "engage" that person. I know a few CFers whose posts regularly don't make any sense to me, or who sort of ramble around and can't stay on a coherent train of thought, and I just leave them be. I don't see that engaging them or trying to correct them would do anything constructive. If they enjoy coming here and posting and feeling like they're contributing to a discussion, more power to em.

I've seen the wide range of people posting, if they don't get abusive and pick on people I leave them alone myself. It is those who get out of hand that really shouldn't be online as they may be products of abuse and in that want to pass on the abuse and some online are fragile to being abused... essentially they have no more cheeks to turn.

 

[Jonathan Jarvis]

How rampant do you think mental disease is on these forums? And do you find it ethical that we often engage online individuals who demonstrate mental disease as if they are normal people who can think logically?

You talking about me? I said are you talking about me? Only kidding.

People may have different outlooks on life to what others see as the norm. Over the years my personal perspective has changed on a wide variety of issues that if presented to me years ago would have seemed outlandish.

Getting different viewpoints is what this forum is all about.

If it is about me I better start retaking the pills.

 

[MehGuy]

I'm not even sure..

I do find the more crazy ones to be entertaining.

Sane people bore me for the most part..

 

[ElizaRN]

Engage them in conversation? Sure, they're still people. No reason not to speak with them on a base level. Knowing that they're not capable of logical thought but keep arguing on anyway? No. It will not get either party anywhere, and likely just lead to increased frustration for everybody involved.

 

[FireDragon76]

... Knowing that they're not capable of logical thought ....

Psychologists have noted that everyone has cognitive biases from time to time. It's unfair to single out the mentally ill as irrational, especially because many mental illnesses do not affect a persons ability to reason.

 

[justlookinla]

How rampant do you think mental disease is on these forums? And do you find it ethical that we often engage online individuals who demonstrate mental disease as if they are normal people who can think logically?

Of course you are looking at OTHER people, right?

 

[ElizaRN]

Psychologists have noted that everyone has cognitive biases from time to time. It's unfair to single out the mentally ill as irrational, especially because many mental illnesses do not affect a persons ability to reason.

I should have clarified. I did not in any way mean that I think all mentally ill are irrational or not capable of logic. I only meant that if you know someone is that way, arguing is pointless.

 

[bhsmte]

Psychologists have noted that everyone has cognitive biases from time to time. It's unfair to single out the mentally ill as irrational, especially because many mental illnesses do not affect a persons ability to reason.

Yes, we all have bias from time to time, no question.

The difference is amongst people, is how far they are willing to take their bias and how the bias impacts their ability to reason logically and accept certain realities.

I would have named this thread; psychological disorders, as opposed to mental disease, because psychological disorders are what keeps people from dealing well with reality and being able to reason logically.

 

[Skaloop]

The prevalence of mental illness in Americans is 18.6% overall. So I'd start with that percentage as a rough guess as to the prevalence of mental illness here on CF. But then I would have to add in a couple of other factors.

Because this is an internet forum, chances are high that the users skew younger rather than older. Since younger people have a higher prevalence of mental illness (19.6% to 21.2%) I suggest that that would increase the CF prevalence upwards a bit.

I'm not sure of the gender breakdown on CF, but if it there are significantly more women members, then that will bump the overall rate up a bit more. If it's mostly men, it could bump it down a little (although less than the bump up of more women).

Finally, this is a religious forum, specifically Christian, which will attract predominantly religious people, mostly Christian. A correlation has been demonstrated between mental illness and religious belief, so based on that we would also expect an increase over the general rate of 18.6%. Please note I am not implying any sort of causation, just correlation.

On the other hand, it has been shown that social networks, even online ones, are beneficial in reducing mental illness. So CF could have a reduction due to that.

One last caveat is that the original 18.6% includes all mental illness. Many of them would not even be noticeable when having a discussion here. It could be someone like me with a "minor" mental illness that has no real impact on my general life. Or it could be a "major" illness that requires medical treatment and maybe even institutionalization to properly address.

Bottom line is that there are lots of statistical factors that would come into play in determining the prevalence of mental illness on CF, and more importantly the prevalence of a serious mental illness that would affect one's ability to have a rational discussion.

 

[ValleyGal]

If mental illnesses are viewed as a continuum, we are all mentally ill to some degree. Iow, I do not have OCD, but I do have an obsession with getting sticky price tags off of purchased goods. I don't even want one little bit of the glue still on the item. Someone could have a sort of melancholic type of personality, yet not have a depressive disorder - although it is on that continuum.

We might also want to look at mental health from a social contructionist pov. I don't know much about the social construction of mental illness, but I'd have to say it's partly the social environment that contributes to a possible predisposition. If mental illness is even partly socially constructed, what would it do to them if they come seeking conversational engagement and not receiving it just because they are "different" from people who do not have a mental illness? It would likely contribute to the sickness rather than contribute to their healing.

If someone has a mental illness, treat them like a normal human being. After all, having a mental illness does not mean they are not intelligent. If someone has a learning challenge or slower brain functioning, engage them too, at a level they can understand and interact respectfully with. They are human beings and have the same emotional spectrum as you. And if you know how rejection feels, you can then understand how important it is to them to be included.

Personality disorders is another thing. I don't know anything about them except a little about narcissism - enough to know that I will not interact with them when it becomes evident. Typically these are the ones who think they are better than everyone else and that they alone are intelligent and deserving of everyone else's respect. They have no regard for others except when it benefits them. They manipulate conversations so that it appears they were the originators of good concepts rather than the original poster who came up with the concept to start with. There is only one on the forum that I know of, and I avoid her at all costs now. Of course, narcissist believe they are "right" and the rest of the world is wrong, so they do not believe others when they are told they have a problem.

I'm not familiar with other personality disorders, except that they can come across as moody...but then again, everyone gets moody from time to time, and I'm not sure how well those would come across in online forums.

 

[bhsmte]

If mental illnesses are viewed as a continuum, we are all mentally ill to some degree. Iow, I do not have OCD, but I do have an obsession with getting sticky price tags off of purchased goods. I don't even want one little bit of the glue still on the item. Someone could have a sort of melancholic type of personality, yet not have a depressive disorder - although it is on that continuum.

We might also want to look at mental health from a social contructionist pov. I don't know much about the social construction of mental illness, but I'd have to say it's partly the social environment that contributes to a possible predisposition. If mental illness is even partly socially constructed, what would it do to them if they come seeking conversational engagement and not receiving it just because they are "different" from people who do not have a mental illness? It would likely contribute to the sickness rather than contribute to their healing.

If someone has a mental illness, treat them like a normal human being. After all, having a mental illness does not mean they are not intelligent. If someone has a learning challenge or slower brain functioning, engage them too, at a level they can understand and interact respectfully with. They are human beings and have the same emotional spectrum as you. And if you know how rejection feels, you can then understand how important it is to them to be included.

Personality disorders is another thing. I don't know anything about them except a little about narcissism - enough to know that I will not interact with them when it becomes evident. Typically these are the ones who think they are better than everyone else and that they alone are intelligent and deserving of everyone else's respect. They have no regard for others except when it benefits them. They manipulate conversations so that it appears they were the originators of good concepts rather than the original poster who came up with the concept to start with. There is only one on the forum that I know of, and I avoid her at all costs now. Of course, narcissist believe they are "right" and the rest of the world is wrong, so they do not believe others when they are told they have a problem.

I'm not familiar with other personality disorders, except that they can come across as moody...but then again, everyone gets moody from time to time, and I'm not sure how well those would come across in online forums.

There are established guidelines to diagnose someone with a mental illness and it requires a trained mental health professional to distinguish them.

True, we all have our quirks, but it is the degree that which we have them, that will determine whether it meets mental illness criteria.

Personality disorders have just in recent decades begun to be well understood and there is further work that needs to be done. The most common types are; Narcissist, Paranoid and Borderline personality disorders. All of these, share some common elements and anyone who suffers from a personality disorder, usually have a blend of behaviors found in all three, with one being the dominant player.

The thing about personality disorders, is many that have personality disorders, are "high functioning", which means they live a relatively normal life, outside of their home, but people they are very close to will see a different side to the person. Typically, they are very good at manipulating and fooling people, who they are not very close to, from an emotional standpoint.

 

[ElizaRN]

There are established guidelines to diagnose someone with a mental illness and it requires a trained mental health professional to distinguish them.

Those guidelines include a multiaxial approach, including but not limited to, personality and cognitive disorders, since these other factor's in a person's life can have a significant impact on their mental illness.

 

[Skaloop]

If mental illnesses are viewed as a continuum, we are all mentally ill to some degree. Iow, I do not have OCD, but I do have an obsession with getting sticky price tags off of purchased goods. I don't even want one little bit of the glue still on the item.

Except that are certain specific criteria that must be met to be considered mentally ill. Yes, there is a spectrum after that point, but if it doesn't get to that point, it is not a mental illness.

So, your sticky tag thing, do you feel that something horrible will happen if you don't get every bit of the glue off? Does it take you more than an hour per day? Does it interfere with your social interactions? Do you feel the need to remove sticky tags from any items with sticky tags? Do you have to remove them a certain way, or a certain number of times? Does it cause you anxiety if all the glue is not removed? Does it reduce existing anxiety to remove the sticky tags? Is removing sticky tags part of your regular routine? Do you suffer any ill effects if you either (a) cannot get all of the glue off, or (b) are interrupted by a more pressing matter and unable to complete full removal of the glue?

I'm guessing not, so no, you are not on any continuum of mental illness.

 

[ValleyGal]

I know. I have a copy of the DSM IV-TR on my bookshelf, and I use it. There has to be a part of the continuum that suggests a diagnosis is in order, absolutely. But knowing that all of us have those traits to some degree or another, removes the "us" vs. "them" mentality with which "us" treats and interacts with "them."

I am 3 credits shy of an extended minor in psych. It's not much, I know, but I did a couple of courses on abnormal psych. That was a while ago now, and I have since had interesting conversations on the social construction of mental health disorders that have caused me to re-think some of what I learned. My degree is in social work, though, so the bottom line for me is to talk to people "where they're at". Iow, if someone has an intellectual or learning challenge, use simple language without sounding condescending. A lot of this kind of thing comes out in tone and body language, but some comes out in the words we use and the "tone" of a post in context with all of that poster's communications. I'm all about inclusion rather than avoidance - except as necessary and after every effort has been made to be inclusive. My personal challenge is in dealing with narcissism, primarily because of its ego, which makes them think they are too good for an assessment, and even if they did get one, they would be in denial, saying everyone else is the problem and the assessment was obviously flawed. I was married to one, so I find them particularly disturbing. Many borderlines I've known have actually admitted that they have a problem and they often seek help through DBT. The rest, I don't know, but I do think it would be really hard to "see" that online, where it's easier to spot someone who may have depression, anxiety, or psychosis, for example.

I think interacting with people is a better idea than avoiding them - unless interacting is going to cause them emotional harm....but then think about whether or not avoiding will cause them emotional harm.

 

[ValleyGal]

Except that are certain specific criteria that must be met to be considered mentally ill. Yes, there is a spectrum after that point, but if it doesn't get to that point, it is not a mental illness.

Husband just let me know that addictions are absolutely on spectrum. They've done away with abuse and dependence. The same may happen for other disorders in the future. However, I do agree that severity on the spectrums will require an eventual diagnosis. The DSM is always in revision, so it would not surprise me if one day most disorders will be diagnosed on spectrum.

No, I don't have obsessive thoughts about the sticky glue. It just irritates me and perfectionism is part of my personality "pathology." It's a terrible thing. Yes, there are times when some things need to be "perfect". I can't stand a crooked picture on the wall, for example. I don't obsess over things like that but I am certainly more anal about it than most of my friends, who leave the sticky tag on items they purchase.

So while my husband can cope with leaving sticky tags on, I need them to come off and will spend all kinds of time getting them off. But my compulsion to do that is not accompanied by someone further on that same spectrum, who might obsess over the sticky tag coming off. It's all on the same continuum, but there are those who leave the tag on and don't give a rip, and those who literally obsess over it and compulsively pick at the tag until every shred of glue is gone. Same spectrum, different ends. Perhaps the diagnostic criteria is the point of moderate obsession that accompanies the compulsion.

 

[Skaloop]

I know. I have a copy of the DSM IV-TR on my bookshelf, and I use it. There has to be a part of the continuum that suggests a diagnosis is in order, absolutely. But knowing that all of us have those traits to some degree or another, removes the "us" vs. "them" mentality with which "us" treats and interacts with "them."

I am 3 credits shy of an extended minor in psych. It's not much, I know, but I did a couple of courses on abnormal psych. That was a while ago now, and I have since had interesting conversations on the social construction of mental health disorders that have caused me to re-think some of what I learned. My degree is in social work, though, so the bottom line for me is to talk to people "where they're at". Iow, if someone has an intellectual or learning challenge, use simple language without sounding condescending. A lot of this kind of thing comes out in tone and body language, but some comes out in the words we use and the "tone" of a post in context with all of that poster's communications. I'm all about inclusion rather than avoidance - except as necessary and after every effort has been made to be inclusive. My personal challenge is in dealing with narcissism, primarily because of its ego, which makes them think they are too good for an assessment, and even if they did get one, they would be in denial, saying everyone else is the problem and the assessment was obviously flawed. I was married to one, so I find them particularly disturbing. Many borderlines I've known have actually admitted that they have a problem and they often seek help through DBT. The rest, I don't know, but I do think it would be really hard to "see" that online, where it's easier to spot someone who may have depression, anxiety, or psychosis, for example.

I think interacting with people is a better idea than avoiding them - unless interacting is going to cause them emotional harm....but then think about whether or not avoiding will cause them emotional harm.

I've got my degree in psychology. Focusing on cognition and learning (especially as related to language), but I also had to take a bit on abnormal psych.

I definitely agree with your approach, though. Trying to diagnose someone online through an informal forum like CF is pretty much pointless.

 

[Skaloop]

Husband just let me know that addictions are absolutely on spectrum. They've done away with abuse and dependence. The same may happen for other disorders in the future. However, I do agree that severity on the spectrums will require an eventual diagnosis. The DSM is always in revision, so it would not surprise me if one day most disorders will be diagnosed on spectrum.

No, I don't have obsessive thoughts about the sticky glue. It just irritates me and perfectionism is part of my personality "pathology." It's a terrible thing. Yes, there are times when some things need to be "perfect". I can't stand a crooked picture on the wall, for example. I don't obsess over things like that but I am certainly more anal about it than most of my friends, who leave the sticky tag on items they purchase.

So while my husband can cope with leaving sticky tags on, I need them to come off and will spend all kinds of time getting them off. But my compulsion to do that is not accompanied by someone further on that same spectrum, who might obsess over the sticky tag coming off. It's all on the same continuum, but there are those who leave the tag on and don't give a rip, and those who literally obsess over it and compulsively pick at the tag until every shred of glue is gone. Same spectrum, different ends. Perhaps the diagnostic criteria is the point of moderate obsession that accompanies the compulsion.

I didn't mean to diminish your experiences with sticky tags, so I hope you didn't take it that way. But it does frustrate me when people refer to themselves as OCD just because they like things a certain way. I am glad that you realize that although you may obsess over some things, that is not automatically OCD.

 

[ValleyGal]

lol. No, I do not consider myself OCD at ALL. My son has a formal Dx of OCD (primarily religious obsessions with cleansing compulsions), so I'm quite personally familiar with it....so I use it as an example. We joke about my ocd "behaviour" but we all know I do not have OCD. But I am not afraid to say some of my behaviours could be seen as on that "spectrum". In the same way, if someone has a situational depression, it could not be classed as a depressive disorder, but it is on the spectrum of manic on one end to major depressive disorder on the other end....we all fall somewhere in between, most of us in the middle - think bell curve. Those who fall outside the belly of the curve on the depressive side, may (or may not) fall into a diagnosable state for major depressive disorder. We are still all on the continuum, though, and I do like how the APA is becoming more open about including these kinds of talks in their revisions.

You focused on cognition and learning....wow, that is one thing I have much respect for. I absolutely can't learn about learning. It's why I'm 3 credits short of my extended minor. lol

 

[Skaloop]

lol. No, I do not consider myself OCD at ALL. My son has a formal Dx of OCD (primarily religious obsessions with cleansing compulsions), so I'm quite personally familiar with it....so I use it as an example. We joke about my ocd "behaviour" but we all know I do not have OCD. But I am not afraid to say some of my behaviours could be seen as on that "spectrum". In the same way, if someone has a situational depression, it could not be classed as a depressive disorder, but it is on the spectrum of manic on one end to major depressive disorder on the other end....we all fall somewhere in between, most of us in the middle - think bell curve. Those who fall outside the belly of the curve on the depressive side, may (or may not) fall into a diagnosable state for major depressive disorder. We are still all on the continuum, though, and I do like how the APA is becoming more open about including these kinds of talks in their revisions.

Yeah, my studies were a long time ago, still under DSM-III. But I am aware that DSM-IV has changed the way diagnoses are made, to make it less black and white, which I think is a good thing.

You focused on cognition and learning....wow, that is one thing I have much respect for. I absolutely can't learn about learning. It's why I'm 3 credits short of my extended minor. lol

Yep, primarily child development, language development, and linguistics. Some sociology and human evolution. I was in the unique (though not admirable) position of having almost failed out of pre-med and then transferred to psych. Fortunately, many of my pre-med credits carried over, which left me with lots of time to take elective courses. I took accounting and a course on the sociological influence of television just because I could.

Anyway, it was cool. Good luck on your last three credits!