Autism is a "mental" disorder??

Post Reply New Topic

Because of the wisdom of the crowd, Urban dictionary is sometimes better with words.

That's a search for mental power, and you're looking at meta data, it's not exactly relevant. You could also google the word "mental" and see the number of hits, but that number doesn't mean it's a negative or a positive word, there's no sequence to connect those two.

Yes, and then told you why that's not correct. It may very well be a positive word where you live, but certainly not where I am it's not.

And a pretty accurate source for how language is actually used.

Seriously?

The Urban Dictionary is like wikipedia without the curation.

The Urban Dictionary defines "Brain" as a form of oral sex. Does this mean we should avoid mentioning that the brain is plays a crucial role in cognition?

But this whole line of argument is absurd.

As for "mental" being a term of abuse, of course it can have this meaning--It was one of Lister's favorite terms of abuse on "Red Dwarf" long, long ago--but this does not somehow invalidate the word's primary meaning.

And arguing over this seems like an unrewarding use of time. If you wish to pursue the quixotic goal of eradicating the use of the word "mental" to mean "pertaining to the mind" I suspect you will alienate, rather than influence and this is a poor strategy for activism or advocacy.

I've been known to use it as a reference--I'm curious as to the new slang terms out there.

Most of the terms, and their definitions, are unknown to me.

I'm "hip" when it comes to the slang of the late 20th century--not so much the early 21st.

I, and most people I know, speak in the vernacular, with a few slang terms interspersed, rather than like what is in the "Urban Dictionary."

If one spoke purely in the language of the "Urban Dictionary," one would be a caricature of a slang-slinging hipster.

Yes, and that's why it's sometimes better with words.

Ok, so you found an example where the slang term is not commonly used. That alone doesn't mean all the meanings for other words are useless and inaccurate.

You can even see that meaning used in quite a few other dictionaries. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/mental

Take the word "Cool" for example: The common usage for "Cool" is as a way to describe something that's likable, while the proper usage for that word pertains to temperature. While it's possible to say "It's quite cool", no one really does that anymore, everyone says "It's quite cold", or "It's quite chilly", and they do that to avoid confusion. This is because the primary usage of the word "Cool" is to describe something that's likable, similar to how the primary usage of the word "Mental" is to mean crazy, mad, insane.

And yet the APA did away with the word "Syndrome". Well, how far are you going to get by describing yourself as a crazy person, or worse, everyone already thinking you're a crazy person.

True story time.

Some time ago, I was down at a different medical clinic than I'm used to. I'm at the appointment, right, she mentions the treatment, and hands me a leaflet for the treatment itself, some program I'm not familiar with. So I read over the information leaflet and discover it's exclusively for severe mental illness. I explain to her "Um, there's been some mistake, I don't have a mental illness." And you know what she says to me? Big smile on her face, "Asperger's IS a mental illness." So, I tried to very gently explain that Asperger's isn't mental illness at all, yet find I have to explain away all sorts. I got such nuggets like; "It's in a medical handbook", and "1000 psychologists believe it's mental illness", then scoffing at the idea of these '1000 psychologists' being wrong. So after about 10-20 minutes she starts scowling like a demon, and out came the claws "You are here for mental illness." Which I certainly wasn't. "We can keep arguing about it, but you'll just be wasting my time and yours. Is that clear?"

After a very lengthy Health quality and complaints process, I found out what she meant by "medical handbook", it was the DSM-5. During the process her side of the story was that it IS mental illness, and cites the DSM-5. But it got worse, much worse. Health quality and complaints also looked through the DSM-5, and came to the same conclusion, that it's mental illness. Also, as part of the process, the complaint was sent to the medical board, that is, an entire board of medical professionals and guess what consensus they came to? Yep, they collectively looked through the DSM-5 and went "Oh yeah, that's mental illness alright." So the response I get from Health quality and complaints is basically: "We've determined that it was mental illness, and so has the medical board, therefore we have sufficiently dealt with and closed your complaint."

Now, this happening, it's not some freakish isolated incident now is it. I've met lots of NT's and even some AS people have thought, or think, that it's mental illness, some even citing the DSM. And the ones that adamantly believe it's mental illness, saying to them "Oh no, it's not mental as in mental, it just means, "of the mind"." I don't think that's going to get anywhere, they've already their own meaning and their own interpretation, and you're not going to sway them when you don't even have peerage for starters. The OP even, it's more than possible that the OP saw that catch phrase somewhere, thought it looked like mental illness and posted about it.

I have no doubt that's a true story.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I notice a elements in common between that dispute and the one you had on the other discussion board about the autism charity gaming event.

In both cases, you were in conflict with people about them mearning of language with a significant number of people. Is it possible that you have an idea about language that is not shared with all people? Could this difference of understanding be bringing you into conflict?

I wonder what those people would have said if you had focused on the content of the booklet instead of the name? What details of the advice given were inappropriate for people with autism spectrum disorders?

Perhaps the professional committees and boards that you felt were all wrong in their use of language would have agreed with you about the content?

One thing I try to bear in mind is that I can have hard time seeing other people's perspectives and that difficulty is a feature of my autism. Another feature that I have learned is related to autism is a certain rigidity of thought. Once I see something one way, it can be hard to change track and look at it in a different way.

Yes, not getting proper medical and instead getting a treatment that's intended for severe mental illness and being marked as having mental illness, that would cause conflict. No, I don't have that problem, the problem being that people can be very arrogant.

The problem is not my speech, they confuse themselves without my help. They look at these things, don't understand it, and just fill in the blanks with guesses. Mental something, don't know what that is, oh, that must be mental illness. Yeah, it does seem you can't change their mind once and help them see it a different way once they've decide on something, I don't think people like being wrong.

This is surely true.

Sometimes with language though, it isn't as simple as right and wrong. There can be disagreements that flow from differences of perspective. The classic illustration is the indian parable of the blind men and the elephant LINK

Subjective reality? Objective realty? Things can be so slippery when you try to grasp them with language.

Except these are meant to be factual not subjective, there's no grey area for if it's factual or not, it's either mental illness, or it's not mental illness, it can't be somewhere in the middle.

This is actually a common problem for those on the spectrum, even advocates that are NT. You tell them, they don't listen, then turn around and say they know better, and do all sorts to believe it.

To call autism a mental disorder is to create the false and misguided presumption that it can be treated with drugs like a mental disorder is often treated. When you look at the meaning of disorder you get "a derangement & abnormality of thought" and the definition of derangement is insanity, a disorder of the mind exhibited by odd bahaviour. That's a little odd because although there are differences in behaviour, there are also differences of how, particularly people with Aspergers, conceptualise things and create new ideas but there other things that are disabling to them.

I struggle to understand why it isn't called a disability rather than disorder. "Disability" is an inability to function normally to the average standard of other people, which I think is a fair term to use for someone on the autism spectrum.

Autism isn't something that is treated in the hope of "curing" it or at least it shouldn't be. Even people with mental illnesses who are given drugs by their doctor to "treat" the mental illness but it doesn't permanently cure it.

Why not pervasive development disability?

I am more concerned about the word "disorder" then "mental", yet the word "disorder" is put right into some of the diagnostic names.

Some more unpleasant aspects of autism probably can be treated with drugs....also with a lot of other mental disorders, medications can really only treat symptoms they don't cure the disorder. Also insanity isn't even a disorder, and in order to be diagnosed with autism you'd need to exibit 'odd' behavior, otherwise what reason for a diagnoses is there? Also I think it is referred to fairly often as a disability, also referred to as a disorder....makes sense to me especially since mental disorder implies an inability to function normally due to the mental disorder.

It is already referred to as a pervasive developmental disability, but that doesn't exclude it from being a mental disorder.

Definition of DISORDER
1
: to disturb the order of
2
: to disturb the regular or normal functions of

So let me get this straight you don't think autism disturbs normal functions?

It appears that I should have looked up the definition before I came up with this conclusion. I thought that the word "disorder" meant having a problem or illness that has to be fixed. Anyway, now I know for the future.

Mental is a vague word that means "of [or relating to disorders of] the mind.

It is vague because the best neuroscientists in the world have not yet adequately defined "mind", but it is generally accepted that it is not a separate entity (as in "mind, body, soul"). The best definition of mind I have heard so far is the cognitive processes that combine attention, awareness, and the internal "voice". Awareness and attention need to be carefully defined in this description.

"Mental" is not directly pejorative, but people can use any word insultingly and Moromillas provided some good examples.

I argue with the OP (and anyone else), not about mental vs developmental, but with

disorder vs difference
and the
LFA/HFA dichotomy.

These terms would be insulting if not used so naively, but they have been over-discussed on WP already. Anna_K seems a bit out of the loop. I hope she keeps learning about the politics of autism.

actually, there are. neurology is about the brain's structural/chemical makeup and functioning. psychology is about the consciousness' makeup and functioning. psychiatry is the medical speciality dealing with psychological issues.