kokoroharu wrote:I don't know. To me, normal is a very abstract word. People who are supposed to be normal often have their own quirks. One thing is what we really feel and other what we show to the world. There is no such thing as normal. I believe the term "normal" itself is abnormal, because who and where decided what's normal? It's like when you read from the magazines "be happy, try to be happy". Oh, go ... yourself (not you, invicta, I meant magazines). When you strive to be normal at any cost, eventually it'll cost your sanity + n, or what's "left of it". We should accept that we have people who are different, act, feel and do things differently.
It's a different thing. Of course everyone has their own quirks, and everyone's different in small ways. But when you look at humans as a whole, there are very stable patterns of behaviour etc. There is individual variability, naturally, but people are more alike than they'd like to think. It's when an individual falls too much outside the norm that is considered not normal. Nobody decided what's normal and everyone decides what's normal. Look at Bell's curve, that's what's normal. Take height, for example. On average, an adult female is 64 inches (approx. 1.62m) with a standard deviation of 3 inches (approx. 7.6cm). That's what's normal. Does it mean that a woman at 60 inches (1.52m) shouldn't be accepted by society, or that that in itself is a bad thing? Of course not, it just means that she's shorter than what's normal, but if she wants to be a jockey, it's a positive attribute. Yes, people are different, act, feel, and do things differently. If they are too different from the norm, though, it is not normal, but they must still be accepted.
kokoroharu wrote:Depression or physical illnesses, of course, are not normal, e.g. our brain/body is not meant to function like this, but one can't say that in case of BP or asthma, six fingers or one kidney, that person is automatically abnormal and should therefore be excluded from the society, or that he or she is permanently damaged. We're not living in ancient times anymore. Rules of our society have changed quite a bit. You don't cast away a member of your family if s/he has an illness, do you?
Again, the fact that someone is/acts/feels/whatever abnormal does not mean exclusion from society. Why do people feel the need to mix concepts? Abnormality in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It's just a deviation from what the majority of the population is/acts/feels/whatever. And of course I wouldn't cast away anyone because of an illness, member of my family or not. But I wouldn't say it was normal. My mom has a chronic illness. Is that normal? No. Do I cast her away? A thousand times no.
kokoroharu wrote:Mental illnesses become "not normal" when a person is no longer able to do everyday chores, becomes danger to other people and so on. But I agree with you as well. Particulary: "Still, if someone is experiencing hallucinations and a physical exam comes up empty, it's safe to say there's got to be a mental problem."
And how do you define when a person is no longer able to function in everyday life? When their behaviour deviates from what's normal, common. Most people shower everyday. If you don't shower for a week when you are physically able to do so, that's not normal. As I said previously, I know the threshold is fuzzy. What if it's 2 days, is that still abnormal? It's hard to create limits. But this is how you decide what's normal and what's not - by taking the average of what most people do.
kokoroharu wrote:The most important aspect of all mental disorders is that the subject itself acknownledges the problem, if it's present, and seeks help or wants to find a solution, even if tests show everything is peachy.
Couldn't agree more! It's not enough, but it is, in my opinion, the most important factor in successfully managing mental illness (and a lot of other stuff!).
kokoroharu wrote:I absolutely did not mean that it's anyone's fault, but I've had my share of psychiatry and psychology studies, as well as adult learning, alternative practices and so on, and what I can tell is that meds do help, but that person who takes them must be able or willing to make some changes, too.
I know, I'm sorry I implied that.
kokoroharu wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
For example: you take meds year after year, but don't change your overall routine. Same places, same four walls, same thinking patterns ... What changes can you expect then? And I don't mean anything radical, just taking some small steps. Finding out what are your likes and dislikes, what you can eliminate from your life, what to gain etc. Meds and therapy go hand in hand, but therapy can't be just talking about what's wrong, it should include cognitive therapy and motivation which comes from the inside, motivation that's gradually built.
Again, I couldn't agree more. Meds are crucial in most cases, but not enough. Same with therapy. There has to be action.
kokoroharu wrote:Why're you sorry?You just pointed out your beliefs and views, that's a good thing. Better than nodding along. And if by your definition not normal is what you've shown in this last paragraph then I'll take it any time over all those "normal" people.
Yeah, but I could've been softer. And that was with a lot of editing after I'd first written it, trust me. It is possible to share one's beliefs without being aggressive, as your post just showed. I'm very glad I didn't offend you, thanks. I enjoy a good discussion, but I don't like it when I act a bit like a bully. At least that's what I felt as I was writing, if it were in "real life" I'd be screaming in your face. That makes me feel like an idiot. Thanks again for being so graceful.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed