[pachyderm]

Is there such a thing as emotional health, something objectively true? Are we creatures governed by "laws" or "principles" that we can more, or less, well understand? Can psychology be a real science?

Or is emotional health defined by what some authority says it is? Is it defined by something like the DSM, version X? Is it defined by a majority vote? Is it defined by what makes us feel good at any given time?

You already answered the question
The term "Emotion" was coined in the 16th century
It's all a matter of human observations and definitions of behaviors

"Sits in corner all the time" - probably depressed, maybe anxious
"Sorts books all the time" - OCD
I'm really simplifying this

Yes, mental health has a majority vote and power-dynamic to it

I'm not gonna sugar-coat and say "Mental illness is a sign of strength", or at least "Mental illness is NOT a sign of weakness!"

But the new realization needed to be made is those kind of illnesses are caused by PEOPLE.
Think of the term "toxic people". Why are they called toxic? Because their behaviors can make one ill! Yet in some cases, there is hardly anything one can do about a toxic individual - either deal with or go away

Have a look at my thread, hopefully it will give you some clarity and information
Not meaning to sway your thread away, but I am showing you my thread to create an intelligence connection, because there is much to discuss and gather regarding intelligence in order to solve them
https://forums.psychcentral.com/othe...police-10.html

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Vibrating Obsidian

Think of the term "toxic people". Why are they called toxic? Because their behaviors can make one ill! Yet in some cases, there is hardly anything one can do about a toxic individual - either deal with or go away

Doesn't the impression of "toxicity" depend on how capable one feels about dealing with the situation? Is the "toxicity" an unchanging property of the person, or only of the interaction between the person and those dealing with her?

Some illnesses we had no idea how to treat in the past are now much better understood, so that we can really make progress with them. Maybe such is possible with psychological disorder too?

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Doesn't the impression of "toxicity" depend on how capable one feels about dealing with the situation? Is the "toxicity" an unchanging property of the person, or only of the interaction between the person and those dealing with her?

Some illnesses we had no idea how to treat in the past are now much better understood, so that we can really make progress with them. Maybe such is possible with psychological disorder too?

Yes, it also depends on that. But just because some people can deal with some behaviors, it doesn't mean they're not toxic
Take robbers for example. They're hurtful. Some people manage to deal with them and some don't. Just because some people manage to deal with them compared to some people who cannot, doesn't dismiss the robbers of bad behavior

[ShadowGX]

I find the topic of "mental health" interesting because of the whole "majority vote decides something is or isn't a thing". You're always expected to act a certain way based on the majority, and mental health is no exception to that. If you don't, you're broken. Society constantly changes the norm too. I wonder if some day most of society will end up reclusive and/or sad instead of people-seeking and happy all the time and that will be the norm... It's interesting to imagine.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by ShadowGX

You're always expected to act a certain way based on the majority...

Not always.

[here today]

It may be that "mental health" may be in the eye of the beholder.

Right now, and for many years in the past, I would say that my "mental health" is poor -- mostly things that would be classified as "depression" so that, to many beholders including me, I don't function as well as most other individuals in my physical situation. If I were happy and content being by myself and "eccentric", maybe, then my mental health might be fine for me and not really anybody else's business if I weren't bothering them. I think that's what I may aim for, at this point. Perhaps a "mentally healthy" change of outlook? We'll see.

[Shazerac]

I don’t know if mental health actually exists or if it just mentally able to function within the expectations of society. Maybe it’s just a Rose by another name.

I do know that when I’m not mentally healthy it doesn’t seem to be coming from exterior source. I do have PTSD symptoms sometimes, but I’m usually aware that I got triggered and why.

Just random journeys into mania or severe depressions seem to come from somewhere within. They don’t seem to be connected to anything external.

Originally Posted by Shazerac

I don’t know if mental health actually exists or if it just mentally able to function within the expectations of society. Maybe it’s just a Rose by another name.

I do know that when I’m not mentally healthy it doesn’t seem to be coming from exterior source. I do have PTSD symptoms sometimes, but I’m usually aware that I got triggered and why.

Just random journeys into mania or severe depressions seem to come from somewhere within. They don’t seem to be connected to anything external.

The idea of PTSD is stress caused by trauma, an external and environmental event
The new innovation which should take place is not only taking care of mental illnesses, but also taking care of whatever and whoever causes mental illnesses
The common question is “how?”, but the one fact we know is it has to be done

[marvin_pa]

Originally Posted by Vibrating Obsidian

The idea of PTSD is stress caused by trauma, an external and environmental event
The new innovation which should take place is not only taking care of mental illnesses, but also taking care of whatever and whoever causes mental illnesses
The common question is “how?”, but the one fact we know is it has to be done

Those triggers can be very subtle - a sound, a taste, or a smell & could even come from something internal, like a memory brought conscious by a thought process.

I think that more benefit will come from understanding the mechanics of brain function, rather than from attempting to eliminate percieved external causes of MI.

[here today]

Originally Posted by Vibrating Obsidian

The idea of PTSD is stress caused by trauma, an external and environmental event
The new innovation which should take place is not only taking care of mental illnesses, but also taking care of whatever and whoever causes mental illnesses
The common question is “how?”, but the one fact we know is it has to be done

I'd argue that it's not enough to focus just on identifying and eliminating the negatives and those aspects of life that cause harm and "mental illness". Social scientists, innovators, and plain ordinary citizen visionaries and activists need also to focus on and try to identify what makes for positive social environments in which to live, grow, and change.

And then -- how can we create or encourage those environments?

Originally Posted by here today

I'd argue that it's not enough to focus just on identifying and eliminating the negatives and those aspects of life that cause harm and "mental illness". Social scientists, innovators, and plain ordinary citizen visionaries and activists need also to focus on and try to identify what makes for positive social environments in which to live, grow, and change.

And then -- how can we create or encourage those environments?

That is true
But as people, everyone is responsible to behave in a civil manner, and that goes for abusers

[Deejay14]

Mental health exists on a continuum.

[BudFox]

I think these are unanswerable questions, and those who make a living trying to define what is "normal" are themselves of questionable mental health.

Also, i think most people judge mental health on the basis of how the majority of people behave. But most modern societies are quite pathological, and those who are on the fringes of a sick society might actually be more sane, depending on point of view.

I would argue emotional/mental health exists as a cultural concept akin to morality.

Throughout history, what has been deemed as moral or immoral has drastically differed culture to culture, and even from one time period to another within the same culture. Similarly, whether or not a person would have been considered emotionally/mentally healthy would rely entirely upon the culture and time period they are being judged by.

As an example, a wealthy, narcissistic, slave-owning Roman in 1st century BCE who enjoys going to watch people get killed in the Coliseum would be seen completely differently if they were alive now. In today's world that kind of behavior would be seen as horrific.

With that in mind, my guess is that if we were to try to define what "mentally healthy" means, it would be something along the lines of how well a person lives up to the behavioral expectations of the culture they are being measured by. So to us today that ancient Roman would not fit at all in our culture and would therefore have numerous mental health issues, yet viewed by those within the context of their own culture and time period they were probably seen as well-adjusted. Perhaps even as an example of the status others should strive to attain.

Leave the past in its place, because life is about the present and future, and the present situation is, the mental health field has allot of molding to be done to
Mental health is “health”, not “how well a person is according to expectations”. It’s about health, which must be protected as physical health is.
Just like physical health is protected from plagues and violence for example, so should mental health be protected in the same manner

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by nextstep_butwhat

As an example, a wealthy, narcissistic, slave-owning Roman in 1st century BCE who enjoys going to watch people get killed in the Coliseum would be seen completely differently if they were alive now. In today's world that kind of behavior would be seen as horrific.

So there's no difference between "the norm" and health?

[Shazerac]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

So there's no difference between "the norm" and health?

***Looks into crystal ball...sees a strange women staring back*** I don’t have an answer for you pachyderm. I wish I did.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Shazerac

***Looks into crystal ball...sees a strange women staring back***

I don’t have an answer for you pachyderm. I wish I did.

Just trying to get people to think about it.

Originally Posted by pachyderm

So there's no difference between "the norm" and health?

That's how it appears to be to me. Within the DSM there are frequent mentions of the need to take backgrounds into account when performing a diagnosis, since "normal" varies by context.

To provide a couple examples...

"In addition, cultural and religious background must be taken into account when considering whether beliefs are delusional."

"Cultural and socioeconomic factors must be considered, particularly when the individual and the clinician do not share the same cultural and economic background. Ideas that appear to be delusional in one culture (e.g., witchcraft) may be commonly held in another. There is also some evidence in the literature for the overdiagnosis of schizophrenia compared with schizoaffective disorder in African American and Hispanic populations, so care must be taken to ensure a culturally appropriate evaluation that includes both psychotic and affective symptoms."

Those kinds of mentions are found all throughout the DSM, and they seem so suggest that even if two people hold the same characteristics, only one of them could be considered to be showing signs of mental illness if the other lives in a culture where those characteristics are deemed to be normal.

That's what I was trying to illustrate with the ancient Roman example. If we view ancient Rome through the lens of the modern world it becomes a horrifying empire where it's citizens openly engaged in behavior that we cannot fathom any sane person doing. Yet if we observe their behavior within the culture they lived (like the DSM mentions doing) rather than by today's standards, I'm not sure we could call them mentally ill within that context.

Originally Posted by nextstep_butwhat

That's how it appears to be to me. Within the DSM there are frequent mentions of the need to take backgrounds into account when performing a diagnosis, since "normal" varies by context.

To provide a couple examples...

"In addition, cultural and religious background must be taken into account when considering whether beliefs are delusional."

"Cultural and socioeconomic factors must be considered, particularly when the individual and the clinician do not share the same cultural and economic background. Ideas that appear to be delusional in one culture (e.g., witchcraft) may be commonly held in another. There is also some evidence in the literature for the overdiagnosis of schizophrenia compared with schizoaffective disorder in African American and Hispanic populations, so care must be taken to ensure a culturally appropriate evaluation that includes both psychotic and affective symptoms."

Those kinds of mentions are found all throughout the DSM, and they seem so suggest that even if two people hold the same characteristics, only one of them could be considered to be showing signs of mental illness if the other lives in a culture where those characteristics are deemed to be normal.

That's what I was trying to illustrate with the ancient Roman example. If we view ancient Rome through the lens of the modern world it becomes a horrifying empire where it's citizens openly engaged in behavior that we cannot fathom any sane person doing. Yet if we observe their behavior within the culture they lived (like the DSM mentions doing) rather than by today's standards, I'm not sure we could call them mentally ill within that context.

That is obviously true. I come as an activist when I say the mental health field has allot of molding to be done to.
Speaking of culture, can one really define western culture nowadays? What is it? To be human and that's that?
There is no longer any culture - just to live your life and that’s that.
And mental health is not a constant despite popular belief. It changes and depends on the environment. Honestly, I understand stigma and all the bad words applied to mental health - “shrinks”, “bug catchers”, all those filthy words
On the other hand there are the compassionate attempts to make us all equal.
But one problem prevails - no responsibility for mutual well-being, lack of culture hence lack of ability to live harmoniously.
Challenge me if you think I’m wrong, but these are the kind of thoughts I hate to keep to myself and think they are needed sharing

By the way, I know I am swaying from the main question OP asked, however all those topics are related because the mental health field is such a complicated mess, across all spectrums including those who have never been to the mental hatch field in whichever way