News Researchers Doubt That Certain Mental Disorders Are Disorders At All


Or if someone who falls for conspiracy theories lacks knowledge only
if this was in response to what i said-and if it wasn't i apologize for continuing to ramble! and no one really has to read this, because it is just me saying stuff.

but they lack knowledge only. yes. no distinction of why, or what the reason is why they don't have that knowledge, which gets into a lot of things that can be upsetting and offensive and wrong. but they do lack knowledge. specifically they lack the knowledge of what is true. and also because there are "conspirecies" which i believe. which to me, are true.

and because i fundamentally struggle with what is true and false, that is something i am personally familiar with as well. so either i also lack the knowledge of what is true, or maybe some conspirecies are legitimate. but it is really hard to filter what is true and what isn't true. that is a human problem. it is not specific to culture or language or geography.

because of how information is now disseminated. what i do work with, on the project i'm working on right now, is how people learn. what logic is. and how information actually works. what is meaningful and what isn't. and that can be personal (me), or interpersonal (my relationships with other people i know) or it can be impersonal (people in general) or both!

so i'm also not just talking out of my ass, i am familiar with these topics because i am developing a program which specifically does behaviors that humans do. to identify what is what, where, when, and why. and those are contextual cues that the program has, that it can identify what is in front of them, and we know this because we study how humans identify information.

and there are ways that people behave, because they don't know something. and they either don't know it because: they didn't learn it. or they are not capable of learning it. there is either a functional problem (they may have a brain injury that prevents them from learning certain types of information) or it is because they didn't learn it.

either because they didn't encounter that information prior, because that information is not important to their environment (which is relative, and culture, as you mentioned) or because the information they did get, didn't make sense to them. (which could be because of function, or because the information itself was not intelligible.)

and most people who have mental and physical deficits, outside of a very specialized group of people, are able to learn information and apply it. what this means is that fundamentally what i am talking out, is what people know. and like you mentioned very aptly, which was a very great observation, that what people know, is dependent on what around them.

and what is true, or accepted as true, can be different depending on your environment. what is true is not, because that is an objective measurement. but what is accepted as true is distinct, because it is relational. and that was why i had brought up technology as a specific example of something i am familiar with, because it is what i do for a living.

and the interplays of human behavior and how that influences human behavior, and how human behavior influences machine learning. because we can only teach machines how to think like people if we know how people think like. so that involves a lot of different things!

my opinion based on my education (which is limited and general) and my experience (which is very specific and technical, as well as personal, because i am disordered) is that pathological behavior is pathological, and there are reasons why pathology exists, but it is unlikely that it specifically exists for a positive reason. it probably just exists. because there is a functional deficit.

and that applies to me as well. i have a functional deficit in how i learn and express information. that is general and not specific. and i also have deficits in my personality which may be functional (my genetics) or more likely that my environment is responsible, but as far as i can tell, there is no advantage to having these deficits. sometimes these deficits are advantageos, but that is very specific.

i am more easily able to sense negative emotions, for example. and this can be beneficial if negative emotions are happening. but is illogical because i cannot tell what is meaningful information and what isn't. so it is untrustworthy information, inherently. but which becomes more relevent as that specifically guides my behavior. and i behave in ways that aren't rational because of it.

and it's not rational. there is no reason. what i believe and what i think, to me, seems rational, but it isn't. it's nonsense. and if i knew it was nonsense, i wouldn't be disordered. i would be normal, and rational. does that make sense?

and when you talk of ptsd, obviously, that is distinct, because it is caused by external influences, so when we get into what is disordered or not, that is a little different. because it would not be normal to be fine with people being harmed around you, or yourself being harmed. that would be pathological. so there is some variation in this.

because people's behaviors are situationally dependent on what is happening. and sometimes the situation is internal (certain mental illnesses) and sometimes the situation is external (trauma, specifically). and this is all just behavior, it's how we behave, it's how stuff behaves in general. most animals don't like being in pain and will move away from it.

some animals are neurotic and will exhibit compulsive behaviors. like scratching or excessive grooming.


<laughing> I’m relatively certain @Sietz ((correct me if I’m wrong!)) is referencing “post-processional” “archeologists” ... who have decided that archeology shouldn’t be a science that deals in facts but should make up STORIES!!! about “what” things are, and “why” people did them, even though there is noooooooo way on the planet to know the what’s & why’s without the people there, themselves, to ask.

Post-processional “archeologists” are worse than historians at just making shit up, (historians at least have first person documentation, by and large, even if it’s as biased & likely to incorrect as Herodotus).

- Archeology = Science
- History = Social Science (IE open to interpretation, and heavily influenced)
- Post Processional “Archeology” = Crystal Balls, Fortune Tellers, Dime Novels, & Astrology. IE Who the f*ck knows how accurate/inaccurate it is, as it’s entirely based on 1 persons imagination of what “might” be. >.<

Fortunately? The charlatanism of post-processionalists is a teeny-tiny subset of Archological schools of thought. Unsurprisingly/unfortunately it snuck into academia when people were dropping a lot of acid. (LSD).

Don’t get me wrong... it’s perfectly NATURAL for scientists to get all starry-eyed and “Ooooh! I wonder why....?” and speculate over countless possibilities & pints at the pub (anthropologists as a species drink too much). But that’s speculation. Not science. Only PostProcessionalists are Victorian Minded* enough to go around proclaiming their imagination has the same substantive value as fact.

((Victorians went all around the world defacing & declaring cultures to BE this, that, or the other; entirely certain of themselves and their ideas, no matter how many people from those selfsame cultures told them “No. that’s not what this is, or what that means, why we do A, how we do B, etc.” The penises in Pompeii being removed, just one example amongst literally thousands.))
Right. I wasn’t aware of these. Quite enlightens my day!


@Friday 😩 -> hdhfhjdjdh social sciences are not up for interpretation... That thing about not being "real sciences" is a bit, and excuse me, ignorant about the role of the social sciences in the evolution of our societies.

Mostly a study is more of an essay with a lot of information to analyse and scrutinize. For example, some seriously important forensic cases have been investigated by sociologists and anthropologists - like a human and drugs traffic rings that went from the US to south America to other places in the world. Or the issues very relevant to understand why certain things exist such as racism and how to solve it... Or the level of corruption in certain governments or finding the causes to why certain populations are more prone to victimization.

History is difficult because people lie a lot about what is considered a fact. For example, it's a fact that were some to a lot of wars in the Roman Empire but its also a fact that it was extremely peaceful at a lot of the time. The narrative one chooses to write a history book which does not account for both facts, it's half-factual or quasi-factual. But there is a lot of literature considered History which is just biased made up stuff to gather followers for the New York Times bestseller badge.

I was half joking about Archeology but there is some truth to the little advancement of it, as an example, it cannot advance if most of what is found is interpreted by most people who have little foundation into the history of the place, for example, here in Portugal we are always digging up Roman villages or thermal spas or whatever, at some point someone said "this is not that interesting anymore" and there are barely any studies to why things exist anymore. Or old Stonehenge like domes not even being protected to understand why they are there. The findings in Egypt which are the most famous and studied, have a multitude of opinions who are in disagreement with Egypt's history and if it suits some other government, someone will probably read it in a History class somewhere.
The most clear of it all: Most of Native american findings are stuck in London Museums, expropriated from its culture and knowledge. I follow an Indigenous woman on social media who does a lot of work in piecing together these museum items, and she complains a lot of misinterpretations on the objects and generally what is shown is the huge level of ignorance by those who want to write their version of history.

To illustrate, that in that case most science is up for interpretation, I have a great screenshot (somewhere on my phone) of a list of suggestions in a scientific magazine, paraphrasing it goes something as follows:
"Dark matter is real, findings suggest x and y"
"Dark matter is impossible to exist, recent study says"
"We don't really know if Dark Matter exists or not"
And it went on for another two or three titles completely off of each other like this.

A friend of mine studies particles in CERN, he specialized in neutrinos - in a recent conversation he says a lot of physics scientists are Business men now, it's about contracts and "people dogs" to "contract bones" instead of actual research validity. Which in turn, just breeds bad science or not science at all.

Nutrition is a field, one of the oldest studied fields in the world which has studies "asked to be geared a certain way" so companies like Nestle and Coca cola sell more product. They have entire institutions working for them.

So, I like social scientists because they are the ones who have been exposing this absurdity since the 50s and shunned and considered bad science because of it.


Yes and no. While I do agree that Skinner was horrific, thinking of Skinner in such bad terms is quite the dominant tendency of most behaviourists, more especially amongst animal specialists. It’s true that for things going from animal behaviour to psychology/psychiatry to social sciences to general knowledge, a certain time is required but I don’t think that in the academic world Skinner perspectives are still given a lot of credit. I don’t know the field of social sciences enough to have a clear cut-vision of what’s the dominant view or at least in the majority of currents. You also quoted Sapolsky so I guess that you might already know quite a lot of the following.

However, Pavlov’s and Skinner’s methods do work, for best and worst. The conditioning and the association of cues. Albeit limited, it is very efficient. I have trained my cat with the ding dong clicker positive reinforcement technique, it looks meaningless but it works. Now I profoundly detest Skinner who is a torturer and a maniac, unempathetic, deranged mind. He’s the kind of pseudo ultra-rational guy who will put animal to starve in a room if they don’t find the right button to get out, and then concluding they’re dumb. The ironic thing being that it was his own distorted idea of what reason is that made him decide to do things that we now find profoundly irrational.

Experimentally, he didn’t place animals in situations they could even hope to solve, as they just weren’t environmentally realistic conditions for them to solve. It’s as if you asked a toddler to solve a complex puzzle for a biscuit but letting them captive in a green room their whole life. I’m forcing the trait, but really it isn’t that far from that. Chances are that kid won’t have many opportunities or even the will to understand how a Chinese puzzle works. Perhaps most important Skinner’s contribution to science is that animals aren’t just interested in food (that was his supposition) and that placing them in conditions of torture will create all sorts of very conditioned, automatic, dumb responses. Sounds familiar?

Positive or negative reinforcement might be dumb, they do work. If you want to teach something, positive reinforcement will work way better. If you want to produce avoidance and aggression, defo opt for the negative reinforcement. You can manage to extinguish sets of behaviours with negative reinforcement, but it will at the cost of having the animal (or the person) negatively affected by it if you cannot make it or them avoid the origin of the negativity, that is the environment that causes it or yourself and, by extension, a collection of elements that are predicative of the conditions where the negative experience happens.

So, while conditioning really isn’t everything about teaching, learning and psychology, it still is a very fundamental notion. The way we look at it now is however radically different than the one we did at his time. Unfortunately, he wasn’t the only one to think like this at all.

Quite ironically, one of biggests Skinner’s critiques was Konrad f*cking Lorenz. Lorenz, who’s been a Nazi in his time, albeit "repenting," was all about trying to understand animals in their context and even socializing with them in order to have an actual close approach to behaviours you cannot observe if you aren’t sufficiently closed. Very different from the "objectivity" stated by Pavlov, Skinner and co. Still, I find he’s quite full of projections on competitive or aggressive behaviour, I guess it’s not coming from a random place. However, just as Skinner, he’s made fundamental findings in animal psychology, very notoriously on the social behaviour of grey geese and intra-specific aggression. There is a book that did call my attention a long time ago, it’s called "Aggression: A Natural History of Evil" (what a title! that was in French though, I’m uncertain they had this translation in English).

But in general, I’d say that the characteristic Western vision of intelligence is conflated with the use of reason/abstraction. And the very term of rationality is actually foggier than what we think. In anthropology, there is one book (unfortunately still untranslated in English, La rationalité des croyances magiques (Rationality of Magical Beliefs), Pascal Sanchez) that is an anthropological review of anthropological studies on magics, beliefs, and reason. We often think of rationality as something that works. And it’s true, to an extent. Thing is, folks like Skinner also did believe that, so how come it doesn’t work or not completely, visibly? The whole stance of the book (that is around 2000 pages) is to demonstrate that magic beliefs do work, in many ways. And that, in many ways, reason acts as a mere system of beliefs, with, in its experimental disposition, has allowed to huge technical leaps. It certainly allowed to promote certain modes of thinking, such as abstraction, and excluding others. It is also a system of belief that relies very heavily, if not almost entirely, on a certain type of technology that is writing, or the externalisation of memory. It allowed to preserve knowledge in bigger quantities than what a human is capable to store. You can’t physically remind all that is the books you’ve read. But you have the remembrance of the memory. You have a path towards a knowledge. Like a sort of internal dictionary coupled with actual memories.

Alexander Luria has studied back in his time the cognitive impact of the knowledge of writing, and it’s absolutely massive. It throws people in an entirely different world, cognitively, with quite a clear effect of no-return. There is the world before and after learning to read and write. And with computational systems and network thinking, there is even more of this externalisation of memory not only on the form of semantics, words and numbers, but on the form of more or less raw data, very structured information such as videos, sounds, and so and on. This also probably will come with its cognitive changes, and I think we’re already seeing it at work in many aspects. 40 years ago people were used to remember an insane amount of phone numbers, addresses, geographic directions. Now it’s much less. It’s not dumber. It’s just different, and actually adaptive to the fact this type of information is now externalized to your phone or computed.

Now if language and abstract thinking are pretty recent, the limbic system, that is the one at play in disorders such PTSD, is much more deeply seated and therefore, less prone to quick adaptations. What has worked for millions of years is less likely to change than what has worked for only a few thousands. PTSD exists in animals rather distant from us. So the mechanisms exist since VERY, very long. On this, it’s quite the proof it’s very adaptive on a species scale on a very long run.

Sorry if I’m slow to develop I hope this all isn’t very boring or repeating what everyone already knows. But if we want to resolve whether or not PTSD or depression are adaptive, the thing is that we no longer are in the conditions that would create the disorder from a behaviourally adaptive point of view, and, in mirror, be susceptible to respond well to the collections of behaviours linked to these disorders. What I found very surprising with a study that I mentioned in my journal but that I don’t manage to find anymore, is that depression was adaptive in contexts where actual fast responses are bad. Sometimes, not to move or not moving fast is the best thing you can do. There are many situations where that does happen, even for a long time. Where being rather disinterested in your peers or in your environment is adaptive. We had situations like that. And they can be very long, so the set off of a tipping point where the disorder goes from acute to chronic isn’t that absurd. That study just wanted to show that depression was possible to genetically inherit through stress factors on the parents only, but it had the collateral effect that the mice in question did actually perform better than healthy peers at performing cognitive tasks in unfamiliar environment. Because they didn’t give a f*ck about it, to shorten it quickly. But they also were less combative and did surrender quicker to nice tests such as being trapped in a puddle of water they couldn’t get out and would end up drowning.

There is also another effect in evolution that we often forget to take into account is that evolution is not necessarily optimal. It depends only on passing genes. And genes don’t care if you’re feeling awful They’re genes. Evolution, is evolution. Nature, nature. It’s not doing something to do something. It’s not animated by the desire of optimization or anything. It’s not animated at all. Basically, everything you see, although by many aspects amazing in complexity and structure, has no reason to be (here is our word again). You can’t expect evolution to give something entirely adaptive in any sense. Even if you come back in times where our social structure and non-artificial environment very probably would be more "receptive" to what we call disorders now.

On this, I remember reading quite a lot of texts from the Middle Ages and it’s completely striking to see how many things familiar to us as disordered, mad, bad, uncivilized are simply spoken as to be a norm—with magnitudes. When you read Tristan and Isolde or Melusine, f*cking hell you can tell these folks were emotionally dysregulated as hell and many gruesome details are juxtaposed to day to day stuff with perfect tranquility. Or simply, knowing that they can die at any moment because the environment is largely more hostile and aggressive than what ours is. They still do comment that X character or person really is off the grid to the point of madness (psychosis seems to be the level to be reached to be considered crazy), but anything before the point of losing contact with reality seems to be at the very least, quite okay. And here in the context of a Western type of civilization. Violence was just ubiquitous. It’s wasn’t an information. In a culture like this, PTSD and personality disorders (A, B and C by the way), again depending on the magnitude, or even DID if you think about it, aren’t that maladaptive. In Brazil, where violence in the streets is such that everyone you know has been robbed or physically assaulted at least one in their life, you really can tell that people are far more nervous and are scanning the streets visually all the time. You just have to. There is stuff that is super normalized in levels of aggression and fear. I don’t think it should, but it is.

In chaotic contexts, things that are typical of these disorders do work. Now evidently one can argue that a chaotic context is abnormal in itself, but if an entire species cannot resist to something abnormal, then we’re screwed. A species can sacrifice many individuals and even entire generations.

And even in a civilization scale. Aggression, colonization, imperialism, violence, slavery, coercion, manipulation, lack of empathy, all this works very well on a whole to divide and conquer and multiply. Now, it doesn’t mean it’s indifferent, or that it always works, or that it works on an individual scale.

Also you can totally land on evolutionary outcomes that are very suboptimal for an entire species, while never being critical enough to have the trait extinct. Of this I always think of babirusa pigs that have their teeth growing all their life to the point of slowly killing them by pressing against their face. It just doesn’t go fast enough to kill them young, and that’s enough.

So there might well be all sorts of behaviours and characteristics that are pretty bad for the individual and/or the group but are nonetheless selected in because not selected out quickly enough. And this not only with genes. With culture too. So while all our shit can work to this extent, it might just be a dead end. Or not. Difficult to know.

So, knowing if something "makes sense" in terms of evolution (and evolution doesn’t make sense) is actually quite distinct of knowing if it’s good or bad, desirable or not.

Good and bad are moral judgements partially based on empathy but that also influence it. Over all, more or less the only thing you can use to decide is the factor of suffering, even more than the one of happiness. It produces suffering? Bad. It doesn’t? Okay. Produces happiness, and suffering? Then bad, too. Having happiness at the cost of suffering isn’t right. Having happiness in a cooperative way that makes more happiness and also in the long term and as far as we know, then good.

Quite simple. But with larger scales and growing complexity it quickly becomes mind-bogging. On this, we clearly aren’t cognitively equipped to deal. Getting along all well as good as we can is technically a hellish problem.

So I guess at the end of this very long exposé (sorry for its length I got a bit set off as it was a big part of my dissertation topic), what I mean is that if something used to be adaptive or even can individually be, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to change. And that what we call "rational" might not be as stable or… rational as we think. Again, it’s difficult to know what we generally mean by reason as it isn’t really much of a precise term. Empiricism? Heuristics? Logic? Cause? Adaption? Optimal adaption? Intelligence? Reason covers all of this and yet it has its special flavour.

Sorry I just ended up writing a novel so I cross posted with a lot of people. I’m trying not to be too repetitious with what has already been said.

? Just curious.
There is a lot of mixed information on here.

Skinners conditioning are bullocks. Give an animal the freedom to explain their intelligence to you and if you're able, you might take some conclusions out of it.

Seriously, a lot of information does not mean it's all factual. You chose a list that makes sense to your narrative and you are supposing that divide and conquer makes sense. Let's see: fascist governments tried the divide and conquer strategy, it failed miserably for every single one of them. Strategy that's been working? Xi Jinping, consensus and conquering is more likely to work... where common sense is is difficult to ascertain validity of horror. China has evolved immensely as a society recently, even in a very weird governamental position.

So, not to dismiss the entirety of your post and going on topic, there is the base narrative of science that most scientific consensus matter if they make sense of the reasoning of the past. Does not mean its no assumption, you mentioned a lot of people who aren't respected in the sciences at all, and we can mention how these people brought on things like Post modernism and the validity and harm they have done to all fields they were involved in. Descartes made a huge mistake and most followed suit, the mind is not separated from the body. To find reason and not respect the life of the body is not reason, which does not mean you won't find a logical train of thought. But it's not truth. The jumping on the truth train because positive reinforcement works is dangerous ground for accepting just about anything. If you put water to heat under a candle it works, does not mean an actual fireplace doesn't do the job better.

To believe in human or worse, western superiority in science or anything, is a crass mistake.

The issue of reason only exists with common sense or good sense, if Skinner believed torture can give him clues to his findings, he will have assumptions which can work or not, but it's not common sense. Today's animal behaviorists, animals in which excuse the very obvious, human are part of, translate Skinners finding into a historical nonsensical context and a lot of ignorance into what is actual intelligence itself.

Pavlov was half right. Anyone with a dog knows dogs know extremely well if they want the cookie or not, and despite the bells ringing, they will do what they want if they are not extremely trained (I'm going to take out the "well" word here) to do what you are told. Most animals who do exactly as they are told are conditioned, that's true, but with the freedom to be themselves, they show far greater intelligent behavior.

You lost me at no matter the system the findings are valid and despite nice words that do appeal to the western based white supremacist line of thinking that "who cares if they were nazis, they were nice scientists" because right now we live in a cultural context on grabbing what we can to make the past centuries meaningful, has no solid ground in sounding history.

Despite what you said here, what constructs culture is common sense based behaviors and emotional wellbeing. And what does the multiplying of the species is based in human love and affection. Try reading less Nazi apologist science, seriously. Reading that text was disturbing.



Two things that I forgot to mention that are relevant, most respected western scientists of the recent centuries stole work from other renowned scientists from other cultures and contextualized their stealings to make sense for the predominant western narrative of white superiority.

Amongst them Darwin and the darwinistics, the actual evolution theory was made a thousand years earlier by an arabic sofist called Al-Jahfiz, in which also animal behaviorism was one of his fields of study and is far more factual than behavioral science of the past centuries, and excludes Skinners and Pavlov's behaviorsm, also excluding racist rethorics in science while at it.

Two, Blackfoot Nation notions of wellbeing in a society in a tipy, plus Aztec notions of wellbeing in a society in circular motion, gave Maslow hierarchy of needs a push towards gravitating in pyramidal notions of divine entity quasi monarchies of marketing control. Maslow stole from the Blackfoot Nation and did not care to understand their reasoning, but to be published in an era where science was only valid if it appeases certain standards, which is a valid thought even today.


The huge issue being discussed in this thread is whether depression, anxiety, PTSD and other disordered states of being can be adaptive responses to adversity in evolutionary terms.

It certainly responds to being valid that living beings in general develop adaptive responses to the betterment of life itself.

Luckily for us all, these findings are not based in Nazi science.

Nazi apologists always come with the excuse that it takes intelligence to create the atomic bomb, on the same level social sciences question if the act of creating an atomic bomb is an intelligent behavior.

Good day to all, I'm out.


A very wise person once said that in the sciences of the western superiority mind, usually the poop potty is a throne. That very wise person is not a scientist but is right.
Last edited:


Not Active
For someone who does not have clinical level of depression/anxiety, from my own tiny subjective experience in therapy from cptsd, I find depression is an adaptive mechanism built in for a purpose but everything else, when the mechanisms are broken or overused or have other external or genetic deficits, then depression is a real disease. It is like cancerous cells, they exist in humans but only become cancer in some of us.

Whenever, I fell into deep dark depression during therapy, I am usually seriously re-integrating and there was no any other way my mind/brain could do it without me going down into extremely offline mode sort first I hated this and got scared like I am losing my mind, when I started to journal, I realize the pattern. Work, processing, deep depression, integration. This has been my experience and when I looked up, I realized I was not alone.

Is PTSD adaptive? There are countries where they have wars all the time. I wonder what their overarching mental health is like. A lot of people from those countaries have higher tolerance for uncertainty and general chaos. One striking feature in North America, I notice when I came here, is we are shy or afraid to truly express negative thoughts or feelings - we even call them "negative"....and that was very striking to me. I am from a region full of war....

Simply Simon

This thread has blown up since I started a response, and I don’t have the energy to catch up, so I will merely respond to grief:

that calls into question of what should be normelized and i agree that if we lived in a society that normelized ptsd behaviors? we wouldn't have a disorder, we would just be normal people. it is that vareable.

I wasn’t saying sufferers are not disordered. Let me clarify: I was positing that our disorder is an appropriate response to our experiences that should not be pathologized in the sense that acquiring PTSD from trauma, often compounding traumas, is a normal reaction to abnormal circumstances.

I liken PTSD to poison ivy: some are more susceptible than others, contracting a horrible reaction at first brush, while others are not. However, poison ivy works by breaking down resilience upon repeated contact (contrary to what a lot of folk knowledge proclaims where I live). Trauma and PTSD work very similarly. When I break out from poison ivy, I have a medical condition resulting from an experience. No one blames me for this reaction; it’s an expected possibility from contact with something harmful. PTSD could be viewed like this and therefore create a community that would not stigmatize sufferers, which would be beneficial to sufferers.

Does this make sense?


I have a medical condition resulting from an experience. No one blames me for this reaction; it’s an expected possibility from contact with something harmful. PTSD could be viewed like this and therefore create a community that would not stigmatize sufferers, which would be beneficial to sufferers.
i do think that what you are saying here is pathological in the colloquel since of the term. and i agree with you there. (i disagree that ptsd isn't medically pathological, because it is. but i do agree that in the general sense of the term. that is essentially a semantic disagreement. and also i cannot tell if that is what you were saying anyway. but which at the end of the day. that is not as meaningful as:)

and that the stigma and assoceations with ptsd should be reducted. the same as with any mental and physical illness.

one of the worst and stupidest and irrational things that human beings do is give meaning to diseases. they're diseases. they are not conscious. and most people do not choose to have them. i have two highly stigmetized mental and physical illnesses. and people do blame me for them. and that has happened on a clinical level as well. they are my fault. because i am: abusive. insane. promiscuous. a junkie. etc.

and it is nonsensical the way that people are treated because of it. i do wish that pathology itself were more normelized. because there are a lot of cases that even within the medical communety it is not normelized. they deal with sick people all day but some sick people are better than others. not in the sense of that harmful behaviors are encouraged. but that people would be more willing of accepting those that do have disorders.

and at this point i know i am just preaching to the choir here. but i do agree. just look at how terribly people with shizophrenia are treated today. and that is a reletively harmless disorder. for them obviously it is harmful. and scary. and it can lead to dangerous scenareos of things. but most people with schizo-spectrum disorsders don't hurt anyone. they just sometimes don't know what is going on.

and not blame and shame and berate and emberess people who are suffering. it's unfortunete. because it's not rational. because people just get sick. mentally, physically. it's something that happens and it happens often. and people are not at fault because they are sick. we are biological organisms and we get effected by the world around us.

and one of the ways in which we are effected by the world around us. is ptsd. and it does not make us crazy (which even if we were irrationally insane. that is still not a reason to mistreat us. speaking as someone who is periodically crazy.) or a serial killer or what ever. we don't go around eating people. we don't walk around being completely nonsensecal.

we are just another type of human.
Last edited: