are you psychologically healthy?

[FDG]

I like this definition:

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines mental health as a 'state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community'

So i'm a borderline sicko.

Eh, you basically need to be a sort of low stress state employee to do this.

[Words]

Haha. That's an awfully lofty definition of 'mental health'… the "can cope with normal stresses of life" part is reasonable, but I doubt many ever simultaneously attain all 4 aspects listed.

Sure, I was thinking it removed other stuff like bi-polar (doesn't seem to stop people doing those things).

I dunno how to define it but it seems OK to me, I suppose something like not having a breakdown over general life stuff, has a job or some sort of thing to keep the occupied which they can work hard at, and I dunno, playing some soccer game with their pals or going a charity bike ride is making a contribution to their community?

So still leaves in getting pissed off over shit etc or having bad moods which people might equate to mental health issues.

[Words]

Yeah, that's probably more or less how they're construing it. Just seems kind of a minimal life to me—maybe that means I'm ~psychologically unhealthy~.

Na just means it's easy to be classed as healthy by them. Congratulations some wanker at the WHO thinks you're ok.

[strangeling]

easy question!

i think i'll cop out of answering but i'm curious what others will say.

poll coming.

Hi, Lungs.
Let's see, where can we start...So how would you judge your own psychological health?

[Absurd]

Interesting that a small amount of the people who voted "yes" I actually view as psychologically unhealthy or even crazy, while some that voted "no" I've always viewed as healthy well rounded people.

That's called being subjective. You can see that with ease after lungs inquired who is to judge whether one is psychologically healthy or not. The answer is black on white - you. You've have offered your judgment already...

Tackk, it seems you have competition.

And how does one evaluate whether one is psychologically healthy or not? One gets diagnosed - of course, a cook can lay the diagnosis and a psychiatrist make delicious(?) pies and I don't negate the "fact" that some person/people on here are fully capable of diagnosing some kind of mental disorder in their peers...

You've got a cook there and a shrink here, old MacDonald had a farm.

[ashlesha]

Hi, Lungs.
Let's see, where can we start...So how would you judge your own psychological health?

i'm very well functioning in most areas. i think by most standards i would be deemed generally healthy but with some issues to sort out (generally concerning relationships).
i take fluoxetine for depression but i probably don't really need to; i can tell when i've forgotten a couple doses but i still function fine in my day to day stuff.

i suppose i would vote healthy if i were forced to choose but i think its a bullshit dichotomy.

[strangeling]

Tackk, it seems you have competition.

Oh shit. Then how about this
"
This question was a paradox.
If someone answers that they are healthy, they have a narcissistic belief in not being unhealthy in any way. Such a narcissism will judge others who do not live up to their standards as unhealthy. And such an idea is a very unhealthy way to get involved with other people. This person can then not be healthy.
If someone answers that they are unhealthy, even if they could be wrong, they have low self-esteem and are unhealthy anyway because of that.
"

There, I've insulted everyone who answered healthy and at the same time made a case for why no one that votes can be healthy, except for those that don't vote.
YEEHAWWW MONKEY MAGIC WINZ AGAIN.
Fireyed can no longer compete.

i'm very well functioning in most areas. i think by most standards i would be deemed generally healthy but with some issues to sort out (generally concerning relationships).
i take fluoxetine for depression but i probably don't really need to; i can tell when i've forgotten a couple doses but i still function fine in my day to day stuff.

i suppose i would vote healthy if i were forced to choose but i think its a bullshit dichotomy.

How does this make you feel? http://theyellowbrickroadfreeblog.wo...tidepressants/

And there's all these testimonies there as well.

I've even used antidepressants once and I felt that emotional stunting effect. I remember stopping one day and having nightmares for three days as well. This shit can't be healthy. But good luck.

[FDG]

lol americans "i take an antidepressant daily but i am very healthy"

[Minde]

Interesting that a small amount of the people who voted "yes" I actually view as psychologically unhealthy or even crazy, while some that voted "no" I've always viewed as healthy well rounded people.

I was thinking the same thing and about to post as much.

Ahh, good old subjective reality.




Speaking of butterflies, did you know they eat carcasses? It feels like a very appropriate poll option, haha.

I don't think I'll vote. I'm pretty sure I'm ok on some levels, but I know there's quite a bit I need to work on / work through. New issues come to my attention regularly, and old issues like to resurface. I'll never be perfectly healthy, and I accept that.


Edit: I wrote that before reading Tackk's post...

[Absurd]

This question was a paradox.
If someone answers that they are healthy, they have a narcissistic belief in not being unhealthy in any way. Such a narcissism will judge others who do not live up to their standards as unhealthy. And such an idea is a very unhealthy way to get involved with other people. This person can then not be healthy.
If someone answers that they are unhealthy, even if they could be wrong, they have low self-esteem and are unhealthy anyway because of that.

...

Same could go for:

"if some one answers they're unhealthy, they have a narcissistic belief in not being healthy in any way. Such a narcissism will judge others who do not live up to their standards as healthy. And such an idea is a very healthy way to get involved with other people. This person can then not be unhealthy.
If someone answers that they are healthy, even if they could be wrong, they have low self-esteem and are healthy anyway because of that."

Surely this paradox of yours cleared everything, not.

There, I've insulted everyone who answered healthy and at the same time made a case for why no one that votes can be healthy, except for those that don't vote.

Again same case could be made for:

"I've insulted everyone who answered unhealthy and at the same time made a case for why no one that votes can be unhealthy, except for those that don't vote."

Which simply means, even if some person is, healthy/unhealthy, by the standards of some entity/organization for example WHO as Words was kind enough to mockingly point out, where psychiatrists play an important role in the delivery of mental health services, not cooks (kooks) - one, that is, me, you, any one else is perfectly able to asses people on this forum and diagnose them. Furthermore the diagnosis is valid and sought for even though no one on here is actually trained(?) to offer one.

Fireyed can no longer compete.

Yeah right, logics for dummies.

I've even used antidepressants once and I felt that emotional stunting effect. I remember stopping one day and having nightmares for three days as well. This shit can't be healthy. But good luck.

I'm having what could be called nightmares without anti-depressants and I'm not emotionally stunted. Am I healthy or maybe unhealthy? Absurd dilemma.

I know, I'm going to start taking anti-depressants to cement my unhealthiness. Duh.

As for the subjective debate going on here, well epistemological subjectivism (relativism) is a form of extreme skepticism which claims that:

1. Nothing really exists - which is damn entertaining seeing people associate themselves with it and actually preaching against it the moment they open their mouths to speak.

2. That if any really did exist we wouldn't know it - again, I have a really hard time comprehending how on Earth do these people know...

3. If someone actually came to know about something existing, they'd never be able to explain or communicate that to someone else.

This way one can reason about the existence/non-existence of God (not to mention Socionics). Conclusion being God does not exist because there are no longer any claims to his existence.

What I am saying is, none of this really matters and any claims made for or against by people who actually label themselves relativists are moot. Would like to know how is one subjectively crazy though...

[ashlesha]

just saw this and it reminded me of this thread:

“The claim that “mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain” is not based on scientific research; it is a lie, an error, or a naive revival of the somatic premise of the long-discredited humoral theory of disease. My claim that mental illnesses are fictitious illnesses is also not based on scientific research; it rests on the materialist-scientific definition of illness as a pathological alteration of cells, tissues, and organs. If we accept this scientific definition of disease, then it follows that mental illness is a metaphor, and that asserting that view is stating an analytic truth, not subject to empirical falsification.”
— Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness

[xerx]

I'm psychologically healthy, unlike you weirdos.

[Absurd]

just saw this and it reminded me of this thread:

“The claim that “mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain” is not based on scientific research; it is a lie, an error, or a naive revival of the somatic premise of the long-discredited humoral theory of disease. My claim that mental illnesses are fictitious illnesses is also not based on scientific research; it rests on the materialist-scientific definition of illness as a pathological alteration of cells, tissues, and organs. If we accept this scientific definition of disease, then it follows that mental illness is a metaphor, and that asserting that view is stating an analytic truth, not subject to empirical falsification.”
— Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness

"I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. I am by temperament nothing but a conquistador--an adventurer, if you want it translated--with all the curiosity, daring, and tenacity characteristic of a man of this sort"

Sigmund Freud

Not to mention the obvious example of Jung's magical thinking - the notion of synchronicity, that is, apophenia.

[yeves]

lol americans "i take an antidepressant daily but i am very healthy"

There is a silent drug addiction epidemic in america, be it antidepressants, pain killers, or methamphetamine, that doesn't get talked about much imv.
Too much gets invested into the lie of being satisfied with one's life and successful when many americans are neither.

[quetzlabcoatl]

i kind of think so, compared to the typical average person. but that doesn't say a lot.