1 in 5 Young Adults Have Personality Disorder, Study Finds

It interests me that so many of you are jumping to the conclusion that because the numbers cited in the study are so high (1 in 5), the fault must lie with the study or with the mental health professions' definition of "normal."

That could indeed be the case. But it could equally be true that, indeed, 20% of the people in this society are suffering mental problems severe enough to materially hamper their day-to-day lives. In that case, maybe we do indeed have an epidemic of depression, PTSD and similar disorders on our hands, and something is seriously wrong that is physically affecting our brains for the worse. In societal structures. In the environment. In our diets. In the gene pool. Whatever.

Why would one leap to the first conclusion and not admit the possibility of the second?
 
rightbrain said:
It interests me that so many of you are jumping to the conclusion that because the numbers cited in the study are so high (1 in 5), the fault must lie with the study or with the mental health professions' definition of "normal."

I don't think anyone's said the survey results might be downright wrong, exactly. Perhaps you can tell us which posts you're referring to? I think the disputes have been mainly over what proportion of the problems need to be treated by drugs, and how much can be treated by other means.
 
I don't think anyone's said the survey results might be downright wrong, exactly. Perhaps you can tell us which posts you're referring to? I think the disputes have been mainly over what proportion of the problems need to be treated by drugs, and how much can be treated by other means.

There are several posts in this thread espousing the idea that mental health professionals (and big pharma) want to declare as many people as possible mentally ill, that they're ignoring genetic diversity, that normality is being redefined, and so on.

All of that could, of course, be true--but the numbers in the cited study do not warrant jumping to those conclusions. While 20% is high, it is by no means an outrageously high number, especially when you're talking about teenagers. A skeptical approach would be to find out if other research confirms the study, how well designed the study was, etc.

My only opinion on drugs vs. other means is based on experience (strong family history of ADHD and depression). I'm no fan of big pharma, but believe that medications play a critical role in treating mental disorders. While I would never minimize the roles of therapy and lifestyle changes, it's a lot easier to make lifestyle changes when you can get out of bed in the morning and concentrate for more than 10 minutes at a time.
 
Personality disorders are the problem, they are not useful in terms of treatment, they are useful in classifying theraputic frustration.

But given the rule outs in the DSM and the fact that most doctors and clinicians ignore them, I didn't find them useful. I rarely if ever used them in the assesment process. If I did it was like in two of 500+ assesments

Typically you have someone with PTSD, various anxiety and substance abuse disorders and the docto tacks on Borderline PD, despite the fact that the others are an automatic rule out.

I only knew one doctor who used them well, as he put if "Yes they are normal behaviors, but these put the person in the hospital." But even he said taht really they were not useful disagnostics criteria.

As to the other who want tp say "We have redefined normal to make mor epeople sick."

It is not fun to be depressed or anxious, it is about functioning.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom