Given that mental illness represents a tangible defect in the functioning of the mind, does it not stand to reason that we've evolved some mechanism of recovering from these illnesses, since we the body has regulatory mechanisms which attempt to deal with most of the other illnesses?
Could mental health practitioners achieve better results if they knew about said mechanisms and could work to maximise their effect?
No, but the body immediately floods the site with clotting agents and immune vectors to minimise further risks, eventually turning the wound into scar tissue for structural integrity and to keep bacteria and shit out.
But evolution does tend to mitigate things which pose a persistent threat of killing off an organism.
Mental illness seems to be such a thing, given the massive lifetime diagnosis rate (not even counting the masses of people that would qualify for diagnosis but never go for it).
Consider how recent the medicinal advances in human history are. In the 1900's we were still doing surgery covered in shit.
Precautions against mental illness would be against debilitating ones at an early age. Even now we still have things like Downy's and extra chromosomes because not everything works correctly all the time.
Ye but having the wrong number of chromosomes is a reproductive fuckup, that happens and genetic disorders like that are very rare. 20% of the population has a mental illness any given year. That's not rare. Shit that effects 20% of the population (in a year) is definitely prevalent enough to prompt some kind of mitigation to develop.
that's not how evolution works. the environment doesn't prompt anything. the trait either shows up dominant in a gene pool or it stays recessive. what decides that is natural selection and a ton of randomness in chromosome crossovers.
We have developed a fucking amazing mechanism.
It's called waiting for it... time can hear mostly anything brain wise.
And most especially sometimes the mechanism loops... but the doctor is always inside your brain with mostly infinite potential to fix things... you just need a specialist to guide the system into focusing on the real problem.
Some brains have very efficient defense mechanism that are not necessary in said situations... like when you have to process emotional trauma and while aware you refuse to do it... eventually you will trigger denationalization and derealization which was not necessary for such an easy thing.. but in evolution it was a great mechanism for people with dysfunction between their hemispheres to feel integrated and work mostly normal.
The more you know aware about the brain the more itself when you are unaware of the process.
Literally science liberates you... we as w/e we are we're in more control over biological processes than was thought before.
that's apples to oranges. you're saying that we MUST have this defense because we have a disorder. that's not how evolution works. if we're able to survive long enough to reproduce, then the gene pool will still show traits of mental defects. why is this so hard to understand?
I'm not saying we must, it just seems to follow from other things. People with mental issues are at a huge risk of committing suicide.
The body actually has many defences against cancer, tumours which kill people are just the ones that make it through.
I don't know that much about heart disease but I bet there's something, plus it doesn't effect that many people every year.
Before you say anything, the defenses against cancer are rooted in the structural integrity of your chromosomes (DNA's ability to lyse its own cells).
Lobsters, jellyfish, and naked mole rats are able to use stem cells to repair their DNA. We can't. That's why we get cancer.
Your argument in the OP is that we should have evolved some sort of defense against mental disorders because a large population has it.
We haven't developed the ability to repair our own DNA despite a large population having cancer.
By defence I didn't mean a 100% immunity, if that's what you're thinking. Just some way of mitigating it to a degree. Which we do have for cancer. It's not fully effective, but it is there.
You're straw manning pretty hard if you're implying I said we should be immune to mental illness because lol evolution.
I have schizophrenia. Considering that it's one of the worst mental illnesses and it has about a 30% recovery rate that's pretty good.
Many "mental illnesses" are caused by society. They're less a "defect in the mind" than a defect in social relations that society then projects into the mind of the individual, labeling this defect a "disease of the individual," thus further alienating the victim, and worsening his situation, because that's easier to do than fixing the problem in society.
Oh you don't feel safe going outside at night? That isn't because you're poor and live in the ghetto. It's because you're paranoid.
Oh you think everyone you meet hates you? That isn't because you're ugly. That's because you have persecutory delusions.
Oh you feel sad because you're poor, ugly, and everyone hates you? That isn't because your life sucks. It's because you have depression.
When placed in negative circumstances beyond the ability of the individual to change, the mind will react negatively, and that's a perfectly logical, natural, and expected outcome. People are social animals. How is a human being supposed to react when humanity, his own tribe even, drags him out of the firelight into the winter cold and throws him to the wolves?
A good many people experience this because they're too ugly, too poor, too stupid, too fat, too shy, too silly, too fat, too crippled, or too weird to fit in. It's easier for society to just label them "mentally ill" and ostracize them instead of trying to accommodate them. The only reason psychology and psychiatry exist is because total social rejection is so beyond the realm of experience of anyone socially integrated enough to work in academia or medicine.
>We can't repair our DNA on our own at all
Perhaps, but we can kill cells that mutate and we have things in place which detect that and respond.
I've stated my argument why don't you read it?
What makes it an illness?
Mutants are a byproduct of evolution. Narrow specialization is a death sentence when it comes to adaption.
Schizos may seem useless, but their fucked up chemistry is similar to creatives, which we need.
Idiot savants have abilities that surpass normies and push us forward.
The intellectual stereotype comes with fucked up social abilities since many of them aren't right in the head.
The point of calling theses people "ill" and medicating them is to try to fix them enough to fit into the birth, school, work, loan, work, death mold when we should just eradicate them.
Lemme spell this out slowly for you.
The detection and response is not the cause of cancer happening.
Cancer happens because we can't repair our DNA.
I will quote you
>does it not stand to reason that we've evolved some mechanism of recovering from these illnesses
It stands to reason that we should have developed some sort of DNA repair kit.
We have not.
Okay so you know norton antivirus right? Like how it's meant to stop computer viruses? You know how if you throw enough attacks at it something will get through yes, so it's not completely effective. But that doesn't mean that it does nothing, it just can't do everything. My argument is that it seems mental illness poses sufficient risk for us to have evolved something like norton antivirus but for mental illnesses.
>Could mental health practitioners achieve better results if they knew about said mechanisms and could work to maximise their effect?
This is why they give sad people happy pills anon.
It helps, sure, but really, being happy due to pills is very different from being able to be happy without.
It's not a cure, just temporary alleviation. If this is what you meant by your post, that if we "trick" the mind to feel better by taking advantage of the mechanism, I'd say, straight up, hell no.
It is only a means of alleviation for the actual treatment, and only makes a person more dependant on external sources than being independently able.
Bad or not, is not what this post is about. It's like super-gluing a wound. Unless you've got Dengue fever or something, are you sure you want to do that?
Basically I just think that since most critical systems in the body have something in place for when shit goes wrong the mind should be no different, and that not knowing of this might impede effective treatment, and possibly that knowledge of it could lead to treatments which actually make use of it.
But we do have it, just that it doesn't work as physically as other parts of the body
If you're lacking whatever feel good chemical in your head, you don't automatically just go happy because your brain detected a decrease, you just bitch and moan about it on Facebook and that's how the brain attempts to get it back. I'm guessing the brain tries to make your status known, and for other social beings to stop beating you up, bullying you, etc. Sentient action has become our mind's method of preserving itself.
As such, I wouldn't be surprised that most disorders and complexes are the mind's way of preserving oneself, as warped or twisted it may be.
So the point is that I think you're trying to fix it physically, via chemicals and shit, which is what is the modern practise, but the underlying problems are less physical and more social than anything, ergo, seeing a shrink and support groups, cutting toxic people out, etc.
I'm not an expert however, and I probably worded it badly
>Given that mental illness represents a tangible defect in the functioning of the mind
Does it? What's objectively insane? Self-destructive behavior, obviously. Cutting up the body is self-destructive, unless you take a long-term perspective and the cutting really does help someone in the end.
Insane people often believe in conspiracies to destroy them. Cutting bits out of the brains of people is insane, yet we've done it to both the willing and unwilling. In such cases, who was really insane, and was there really a conspiracy against mental patients?
Humans have been chopping each other's brains up for thousands of years. Today, we have an elaborate library of literature that we point to as justification for cutting up brains. In ancient times, priests justified cutting up brains with... a library of literature.
Are any of us truly behaving rationally, or is rationality an illusion? Consider that seeing patterns where there supposedly are none is a criteria for mental illness - it's called thought disorder. Do we all see patterns where there are none? Occam's razor tells us to accept the simplest solution - which is that there is no pattern, since chaos is simpler than order.
Do apes just have a sick obsession with chopping up the brains of rivals? A mental illness that allowed you to eliminate competitors by calling them - let's admit it - deluded and factually wrong would be very 'adaptive,' as they say.
It's not the same thing though. For instance, if you are hypovolaemic, your heart will beat faster and your breathing speeds up to try to get oxygen round the body despite the lower circulating volume and red cell count. This is not your body fixing your CV system; it's temporary compensation to try to stop you dying from hypoxia.
The systems don't have fail-safes: other systems can up their efforts to try to compensate, but they don't fix the underlying problem (ie a big hole in your abdomen), and to argue this as the system having evolved and adapted to do this to fix having big leaky wounds is erroneous.
For what it's worth I do agree with what you're trying to say, but the way you're trying to say it is flawed. People self-medicate all the time.