How does the brain fend off mental illness

Needs more autism in Veeky Forums.

there are different kinds of trauma
ptsd develops in the context of poor social support, among other things

So back to the original topic; how does the brain fend off mental illness?

It doesn't. Mental illness either has a genetic component and, as such, is part of the regular cognitive process. Or it is a coping mechanism in reaction to a traumatic experience, ie mental illness is the way the brain "fends off" the problem.

It doesn't.

Liberals wrong as usual

psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners

Fucking pu$$y. More sex, more drugs, more sex on drugs. Get a clue, moran.

>vaccines-causes-autism-denier

I can answer this but the truth will make you question every person.

The way a mentally challenged or mentally ill person fends off one's own mind is by simply having sex, having children.

The child of the mentally ill thus recreates a focus outside of the parent's own mind and onto the child. This is a self suficiency for mental health likened to married couples fixing marriages with child rearing. It is in all its acuteness replication of an individual with an emphasis of procreation.

At its base it is simply life trying to live. In the future (if there is a future for us) - many people will be mentally ill. Evolution is taking its toll. and that toll is subject to fluctuation.

Nobody said anything about multiple partners, degenerate, nice bait and switch, though.

The question was answered, have a brain with a greater degree of neuroplasticity and less genetic chance of mental illness while avoiding suspected neurodegenerative substances in your environment that are believed to trigger mental illness in low motility brains just to be safe.

Mine doesn't

send halp

The National Institute of Mental Health
The American Psychiatric Association
The World Health Organization
and
The World Psychiatric Association
State the Bio-bio-bio [Genetic] Model is wrong.
They have all openly adopted the Bio-psycho-social model.
In fact, at the very most, according to the APA's work with the Human Genome Project, genetics can only influence a maximum of 17% chanse increase on developing mental illness.

There are no alleles for mental illness; none have been identified.

Furthermore, a large portion of psychiatrists reject the "disease" model of mental illnesses, per APA findings.

There are also extreme overdiagnosis when it comes to these "disorders":
ADHD, Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar, PTSD and Personality Disorders.
In the United States, the majority of diagnosticians are also under-qualified to give diagnosis, leading to forced misdiagnosis, and eventually iatrogensis.

Whether Psychiatry is valid at all is also a matter of debate in Medical and Scientific circles, as they prohibit double-blind diagnosis, cross-comparative analysis, and have even tried to have laws passed prohibiting video recordings of interviews, even at he bequest of patients, due to laymen not "understanding" how important "interpretation" is to the process.

It's not genetic and most aren't even illness/diseases.

These idiots are all wrong.
The answer is: Neuroplastic Conditioning.
\thread

No one in my family has mental illnesses, and I've been diagnosed with 7 mental illnesses, even though my brain scans [FMRI/CT] and genetic tests [groupings] show nothing even remotely similar to the data provided in popular science columns.

Where is you reference for
>most mental illnesses are genetic.
?
Because I think you're an idiot that just presumes things via sporadic absorption of online bullshit and conjecture, believing in some sort of authoritarian inevitability that those that publish hypothesis are right due to their professional intuition.
Which is ridiculous.

Which mental disease, the only reason many psyche disease can't be directly identified genetically is because they have to keep changing the specification and adjusting the definitions to keep up with popular sentiment since distress and discomfort is built into the requirement of disease.

>disease
False syllogism detected.
Discomfort =/= Disease.
Disease may include discomfort.

Notice:
>All discomfort isn't a disease
>But all diseases may cause discomfort

>All people are not scientists
>But all scientists are people

>psyche disease can't be directly identified genetically is because they have to keep changing the specification and adjusting the definitions to keep up with popular sentiment

If you're implying it's populist bullshit, then I agree.

If you're implying it's real but manipulated by populism, then you're not well read enough.

Distress, discomfort, or impairment is built into the diagnostic criteria.

That doesn't make it correct, nor does it make it a disease.
Telling on people for being dickheads to you isn't a disease.
Whistleblowing isn't a disease.
Dealing with bullying due to non-conformity (aka being intelligent) isn't a disease.
Not tolerating stupidity and being annoyed by it isn't a disease.
Discomfort isn't a disease.

>Telling on people for being dickheads to you isn't a disease.
Dependent personality disorder, you can't take care of your own problems.

>Whistleblowing isn't a disease.
Histrionic personality disorder you just want the attention that exposing it bring instead of internal reform

>Dealing with bullying due to non-conformity (aka being intelligent) isn't a disease.
Schizoid personality disorder mixed with Avoidant personality disorder you think every criticism and question is bullying so you outright avoid socialization because you think you are better than everyone else and above question.

>Not tolerating stupidity and being annoyed by it isn't a disease.
Antisocial personality disorder

Discomfort is a necessary component to diagnose disease, so if the general population accepts something that was previously very uncomfortable, you can no longer call it a disease and you have to completely rewrite your mental illness book again which so far has happened about every decade or so as the DSM changes with the political zeitgeist.

>Telling on people for being dickheads to you isn't a disease.
>Dependent personality disorder, you can't take care of your own problems.
False dilemma fallacy
Bulverism fallacy
Personal incredulity fallacy
Cognitive bias
>Whistleblowing isn't a disease.
>Histrionic personality disorder you just want the attention that exposing it bring instead of internal reform
False dilemma fallacy
Bulverism fallacy
Personal incredulity fallacy
Cognitive bias
Denialism

>Dealing with bullying due to non-conformity (aka being intelligent) isn't a disease.
>Schizoid personality disorder mixed with Avoidant personality disorder you think every criticism and question is bullying so you outright avoid socialization because you think you are better than everyone else and above question.
False dilemma fallacy
Bulverism fallacy
Personal incredulity fallacy
Cognitive bias
Not to mention a completely unhinged reaction.
Bullying is a well documented fact, as are injustices.

>Not tolerating stupidity and being annoyed by it isn't a disease.
>Antisocial personality disorder
False dilemma fallacy
Bulverism fallacy
Personal incredulity fallacy
Cognitive bias

>Discomfort is a necessary component to diagnose disease
Again, not all discomfort points to disease.

>so if the general population accepts something that was previously very uncomfortable, you can no longer call it a disease
Disease isn't a populist argument.

>you have to completely rewrite your mental illness book again which so far has happened about every decade or so as the DSM changes with the political zeitgeist.
That proves it's all bullshit though.
Manufacturing = Fake
>Drapetomania

You are the one who said they caused you discomfort, if the dilemma is false, its your fault for misreporting.

Its not cognitive bias, incredulity or bulverism either, its the DSM definitions you have a problem with, not my personal argument, you are the one assuming I am false because you can't even explain yourself in context beyond repetitive generalized catch phrases and aren't even referencing the correct framework of material with your informal fallacies.

I am the one that has been saying you can't scientifically diagnose mental diseases since because they are based on semantics and observation instead of quantification and measurement.

>You are the one who said they caused you discomfort
No, I didn't.

>Its not cognitive bias, incredulity or bulverism either, its the DSM definitions you have a problem with, not my personal argument
That is the exact definition of Bulverism.

>you are the one assuming I am false because you can't even explain yourself
"I am false" - What are you even talking about?
And I can explain myself just find, I just don't like people using fallacies because they're childish.

>ontext beyond repetitive generalized catch phrases and aren't even referencing the correct framework of material with your informal fallacies.
I haven't used any fallacies.
And pointing out fallacies isn't using fallacies as "catch phrases".

>I am the one that has been saying you can't scientifically diagnose mental diseases since
Ok, what does that have to do with me?

>because they are based on semantics and observation instead of quantification and measurement.
But that's not the only reason why they're bullshit, it's because they're calling non-diseases disease because they want to shut people up, plain and simple.

Look, I think you have me confused with someone else you were arguing with, and then I replied to one of you comments, and BAAM you presume I was arguing against you and then switched sides.

No, I've been diagnosed, but I think it's all bullshit because everything points to it being bullshit.

Let's just both agree it's bullshit.

>No, I didn't.
Then why did you bring them up when talking about things that cause distress but aren't diseases?
>That is the exact definition of Bulverism.
No, that is an appeal to authority, but its not a fallacy because that is the academic medical authority responsible for defining the mental disease definitions that you dismiss outright with bulverism because you prefer to appeal to informal fallacies that are just protopsychological folk psuedosciences that suffer from even more lack of rigor and precision that makes your call psychology bullshit.

>Then why did you bring them up when talking about things that cause distress but aren't diseases?
Ok, ^ that's not English so I have no idea what you're attempting to communicate, but I believe you're asking why I brought up discomfort.
I didn't. You did.

>Bulverism
>No, that is an appeal to authority
What the fuck are you talking about?!

This
>its the DSM definitions you have a problem with, not my personal argument
IS BULVERISM.

If you are dictating to me what my problem is, and telling me I am not criticizing your argument, and telling me why I criticized your argument the wrong way, which is what you clearly did, then that is the very definition of Bulverism.

You can't tell me what I'm having a problem with, only I can point out what I have a problem with. You can't just dismiss my criticism and then tell me my argument is something else.

My criticism was of YOUR declaration that 100% of discomfort is disease.

No one made that claim but you, and no, the DSM doesn't either, although it's still bullshit.

The fact you use Bulverism is just hysterical.
You can't interrupt people and tell them what they're thinking.

My criticisms of the DSM are ENTIRELY SEPARATE of my criticisms of your argument.

Proof:
Criticisms of DSM:
Ambiguous, shoddy terms.

Criticisms of your argument:
Your insane insistence that all discomfort is a disease and is said as much in the DSM (it doesn't say that).

>that are just protopsychological folk psuedosciences that suffer from even more lack of rigor and precision that makes your call psychology bullshit

Also, I haven't mentioned psychology at all.
And fallacies aren't in the field of Psychology, they're in the field of Epistemology.

You brought up "discomfort", you brought up me believing in the DSM [not me, because I don't], and now you're claiming I said something about psychology, which I never did.
You're broken in the head.
You're making all these wild insane accusations without any reference point what-so-ever.

Again. I'm against psychiatry, psychology and the DSM. You're also applying fallacies incorrectly. Epistemology is my life.
Stop projecting on me like a faggot.

I brought up distress as a diagnostic criteria for mental disease and you brought up a bunch of random things that you claimed weren't diseases in the context of distressful, discomforting behavior. Why did you bring up all those behaviors in the first place in response to discomfort, which you did mention specifically. That isn't what happened and that wasn't my declaration, I said that discomfort is a necessary component of mental disease diagnostic via the DSM criteria and definition of mental disorder (you then used bulverism to assume psychological diagnoses is automatically false and inserted the folksy authority of your informal fallacies instead and manipulated my words with a strawman to say each discomfort is an individual disease when they fall into spectrums according to DSM standards), but yes according to psychological diagnoses 100% of behavioral discomfort can be associated with some degree of one or several mental diseases.

>Also, I haven't mentioned psychology at all.
Then you are in the wrong thread because mental illness is a term from the framework of psychology not your favorite flavor of bullshit.

Was this not you who immediately outright rejected all psychology as bullshit? What does Epistemology have to do with mental illness and what point of reference do you have for interjecting informal fallacies that are even less rigorous and more vague than the psychological terms you have such a problem with that you won't even learn what they mean?

Mental illness for the most part can be seen as a distortion of self-image.

The mentally Ill person, for various complex reasons, has developed a warped idea of himself and his relations to the world as he experiences it.

A popular theory of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder is the double bind. A classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. A person seeking their goals is punished when they do right, and rewarded when they do wrong, and it creates a nasty cycle.

A big fix for mental illness is to extract from double bind situations, and go to a healthy environment where you can gradually process your mental content until you acquire a healthy self-image.

Cognitive behavioral therapy works this way, by getting the patient to develop insight into their disordered thinking and actions by gently contradicting their assumptions and exposing how their behavior is hurting them

A conservative with an impaired reading ability. Typical.