Blimey; looks like I'm actually gonna write this post I was thinking about in town. 7 down - 12:30 - not looking good....

So when I say "local society" in that new definition of a mental disorder I do, upon further consideration, mean temporally local as well as geographically local. Something about apologising for burning witches and the slave trade and Yulin dog meat festival and Alan Turing and transsexualism and and egotistical plastic surgery and....and...fall back my G.

7 down as in 7 cans?

I'm not sure what you're saying with this post.

6 cans and a pint. Cracking no.8 as we speak. Read it again m8....

I did.

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

This is my most simplistic interpretation of the term, at an amateurish, linguistic level. Adding morality to the mix complicates things, I would imagine. What should one feel about one's infidelity, for example? Somebody who is indifferent, psychopathic to some degree, but still functional, may not need treatment and may never be diagnosed as having a disorder.

These are just my random thoughts at 7:40 am on a Sunday. So take what you will from them.

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

ETA

Or, how about... adversely affects you (which includes a range of meaning that extends the possibility that your behaviour has an effect others too).

LucidFlight wrote:

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

I think that is covered by the definition I provided - ie it is not generally considered acceptable in local society to damage others.

ETA: Without their informed consent

Happy to go with KiR's definition.

LucidFlight wrote:

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

I'm thinking the set of people that fit that defintion is rather large.

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

I'm thinking the set of people that fit that defintion is rather large.

Yeah, it can be pretty big, depending on where you live. I think for hermits, it's not so much a problem as it is for somebody who lives in, say, Hong Kong.

Keep It Real wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Suggestions for a better definition?

How about this - any thought or behaviour which the majority of local society considers to be maladaptive.

That doesn't work for me. Sometimes adapting to the local society is not the best solution. Sometimes the local society is the problem.

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I guess if your behaviour does not adversely affect you, then it is not a disorder.

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

I'm thinking the set of people that fit that defintion is rather large.

Suppose we believe that adverse effects on us are dominantly due to laziness, incompetence, neglect, or even malice on the part of others; what then? Are most people lazy, incompetent, neglectful or malicious? I doubt it. Suppose we treat those in some authority according to a belief they are generally lazy, incompetent, neglectful or malicious. Will they think we're mistreating them, assuming they care at all? Am I describing some 'mental disorder'? If so, name it. (I'm just asking on behalf of a friend.)

Let's not forget people who are annoying. There's definitely something wrong with them.

Shut up smelly face :sticks tongue out:

We must remember that the observed disorder is not the disorder itself, and indeed there can be no disorder without an observer. Can one observe oneself?

Quite so. The observed gospel according to jamest tells us that nothing exists except the mind of God, but the mind of God needs a psychiatrist to change, to become more like the mind of God. There are some disorderly orchestrations of qualia about, and God needs to sort his observed-head out. Physician, heal thyself. At least that's what observed-jamest would have observed-us believe.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

John Platko wrote:

What if it adversely affects someone else?

Yes, good point. Let us expand the notion of "you" to include those around you. That could be an indicator of some sort of disorder that might need investigating.

I'm thinking the set of people that fit that defintion is rather large.

Suppose we believe that adverse effects on us are dominantly due to laziness, incompetence, neglect, or even malice on the part of others; what then?

The brilliant minds at the Vatican worked out the "what then."

Are most people lazy, incompetent, neglectful or malicious? I doubt it. Suppose we treat those in some authority according to a belief they are generally lazy, incompetent, neglectful or malicious. Will they think we're mistreating them, assuming they care at all? Am I describing some 'mental disorder'? If so, name it. (I'm just asking on behalf of a friend.)

I think lazy, incompetent, neglectful or malicious are symptoms not the disorder. The actual problem is an information digestive issue - IBD irrational brain disorder.

Today, I learned about the WHO's plans to create a new gaming disorder classification.

I think they need one for Facebook and being so engrossed with your phone that you don't even notice there are other people sharing the pavement!

Sorry, went off on a bit of a rant there.

Get a grip of yourself, you're becoming hysterical!

If there's no observer then he can't become anything. Stop looking at him!