Hey. I think we sure are complicated!

One thing I'm interested in is what entitles us to say that some people are disordered whereas other people aren't.

The standard justification is that some people have a 'dysfunction' and when they are harmed by their 'dysfunction' then they have a disorder.

So... psychosis is supposed to be caused by some kind of dysfunction and we consider that people are harmed by their psychosis (or that other people are harmed by their psychosis).

If you look to other cultures... Then people with psychosis might be revered as holy people, prophets, seers etc. The person doesn't seem to be harmed in those societies (whether or not they have a dysfunction).

Yet mental health professions often advocate us medicating these poor people who don't even realise they are dysfunctional! BUT THEY AREN'T HARMED. Looks like... Colonisation of values to me...

What entitles us to say that people with psychosis are dysfunctional? We might find that people with psychosis have inner state x that people without psychosis lack. That doesn't tell us that x is a dysfunction, however. We might find that conservative voters have inner state x that people who aren't conservative voters lack. Similarly, that doesn't tell us that x is a dysfunction.

Studies have shown that people with a disposition to psychosis tend to be more creative than people without a disposition to psychosis. Sometimes people say 'well yes, but psychosis is surely malfunctional because people clearly aren't creative when they are in the grip of psychosis!' Except that... Notably... People can be. Painters and musicians and poets etc seem to be MOST creative while they are in the grip of psychosis (manic psychosis, notably). Maybe... It is about learning to focus the psychosis...

;-)