Monday, 9 October 2006 10:06 pm
On an unrelated note...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcaninehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15196598/wid/11915773?GT1=8618
Why am I not surprised. I know the term has been used questionably many times -- for instance, as a misnomer for what we now call dissociative identity disorder. It also comes up in humor more often than many other disorders, rendering it unsavory as a label.
On the other hand, my Abnormal Psychology professor (caps are important in this case!) had said that SZ was one of the best cases against the extreme Thomas Szasz position that "mental disorders" were merely labels constructed to oppress people. He said it stood out among disorders for its compelling evidence of a genetic basis.
Thoughts?
Why am I not surprised. I know the term has been used questionably many times -- for instance, as a misnomer for what we now call dissociative identity disorder. It also comes up in humor more often than many other disorders, rendering it unsavory as a label.
On the other hand, my Abnormal Psychology professor (caps are important in this case!) had said that SZ was one of the best cases against the extreme Thomas Szasz position that "mental disorders" were merely labels constructed to oppress people. He said it stood out among disorders for its compelling evidence of a genetic basis.
Thoughts?
