DSM = The Medicalization of Human Nature

Do you disagree with authority? Well, congratulations! You’ve qualified as a victim of Oppositional Defiance Disorder, and are now eligible to receive specialized treatments. This, along with many other questionable “disorders,” are included in the 2010 Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is attempting to medicalize human nature by classifying normal personality traits as specific disorders.

Every few years the American Psychiatric Association (APA) revises its Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This manual provides a common language and criteria for the classification of mental disorders. The legitimacy of the DSM, first published in 1952, has been frequently questioned by the medical community and the public alike, but 2010’s edition has attracted the most criticism. The most talked about new disorders include Cognitive Tempo Disorder and Intermittent Explosive Disorder, which are just fancy ways of saying indolence and adult temper tantrums.

Of course, there are individuals who seriously suffer form mental disorders and benefit greatly from treatment. However, the problem with the DSM is that it takes relatively normal behaviors and classifies them as disorders. In addition to the above mentioned, the 2010 DSM also includes Mary Whitehouse Syndrom (the thrill of being appalled by pornography), hypersexuality (the desire for multiple partners), and relational disorder (where two people struggle to get along).

But let’s go back and focus for just a minute on Cognitive Tempo Disorder. Prior to its induction into the DSM, what is now Cognitive Tempo Disorder was an informal subgroup of ADHD referred to as Sluggish Cognitive Tempo. It refers to ADHD individuals who display symptoms opposite that of classic ADHD. Those with a sluggish cognitive tempo are passive, day-dreamy, and shy. They display hypo-active behavior, both physically and mentally. In the 2010 DSM, sluggish cognitive tempo has been promoted to an official disorder, free standing from ADHD.

The issue I am having is not in the legitimacy of sluggish cognitive behaviors, because obviously there are individuals who display all of these behaviors. My issue is with its classification as a disorder. Where is the line between normal human behaviors and disorders? Some people are introverted, some are extroverted, some get angry easily, some are more disciplined than others (binge eating is now an official disorder as well). What makes life so rich and exciting is the fact that there are so many unique personalities. When did personality divergences become unnatural? When did differences become disorders? And this brings up another question: if differences are disorders, what is normal?

To the ADHD individual, his behavior is very normal. The way he thinks, behaves, and interacts with society is his only reality. That is, until you take this individual, brand him as learning disabled, and convince him (or his parents) that he needs to be fixed to become normal. By taking this individual and branding him as sick, you are segregating him from the rest of society. His unique characteristics went from personality traits to a treatable disorder. How many personalities are lost as we try to conform everyone to this standard of normal? In creating a nation of “normal” people, we may be creating a more productive society, but we won’t necessarily have a happier society.

In viewing the lists of psychological disorders, it becomes evident that this “normal” is essentially whatever allows one to function successfully in society. True, there are certain behaviors that make this more difficult for an individual. But labeling behaviors as disorders is extremely detrimental to the individual, and resultantly, to society at large.

Far from helping people to deal with their problems, the realm of psychiatry worsens these issues by shifting responsibility to an unavoidable disorder. Every person has challenges in life. Learning to overcome these challenges creates a stronger individual. If these challenges are reduced to a psychological diagnosis, the individual is never forced to take personal responsibility for his or her problems. He or she never actually learns how to deal with his or her issues. It is much easier to take pill for anxiety than to learn how to mange your life in a way to reduce it. But this is not a solution and does not address the root of the problems. Psychiatry fixes the symptoms, it does not fix the problem.

So don’t change your self; value your self, and change the external factors that are disrupting your life.

Instead of taking Ritalin, develop your creative potential.

Throw out the Xanax, and find a less stressful occupation.

Replace your morning Zoloft with a morning jog (exercise has been proven to be more effective in relieving depression than anti-depressants).

Because the truth is that there is no standard definition of normal human behavior. Differences are not disorders. Granted, these differences can pose personal or social challenges for the individual, but learning to overcome these challenges may be one of the most empowering feats this person will undergo. I would advise you to take the APA, and the whole realm of psychiatry for that matter, with a grain of salt. If we were to evaluate the mental health of this nation based on the DSM, it is likely that every person would be drugged in an attempt to create a “normal” person. And this medicalization of human nature would only serve to disempower individuals.

“Laws” of Attraction

In his psychology today blog Sax on Sex, Leonard Sax ponders the reason so many more young women identify as lesbian or bisexual than young men. According to his cited studies, roughly 15% of young women identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual while only 5% of young men do. Sax theorizes a few different causes of this. He cites Professor Roy Baumeister at Florida State University who claims that sexual attraction in women is more malleable than in men. He writes that “If a teenage girl kisses another teenage girl, for whatever reason, and she finds that she likes it – then things can happen, and things can change. If a young woman finds her soulmate, and her soulmate happens to be female, then she may begin to experience feelings she’s never felt before.” He also looks at a study that shows that pornography usage among young men is on the rise. He uses this data to suggest that men are becoming more perverted and therefore less desirable to women. This, coupled with the aforementioned reason, is one theory as to why more women are self-identified as lesbian or bi-sexual.

While this may very well be true, I think that our culture is largely responsible for this disparity in numbers. Female sexuality may be more malleable than male sexuality, but this is a product of our culture, not our biology. From an evolutionary perspective, it would be no more advantageous for women to be homosexual than it would be for men to be homosexual. Heterosexuality is required by both sexes in order to pass on genes through reproduction. Therefore, the notion that female sexuality is more malleable must have cultural roots.

These roots grow from a few places.

Firstly, the female body is much more glorified than the male body. This is found not just in American today, but in many cultures throughout many different times periods. The female body is much more frequently depicted in various forms of art. In fact, the female body itself is often referred to as a work of art. Rarely is such a thing said about the male body. This reverence is well founded, considering the female body is capable of producing and feeding another human. But regardless, the fact remains that the female body is much more worshipped in our culture, which makes it more appealing to not just men, but women as well. Women are going to be attracted to other female’s bodies to a greater degree than men will be to other male’s bodies by the simple fact that our culture worships the female body. Both genders will be affected by this.

Secondly, I propose that female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality because we allow it to be. Female homosexuality is not just more culturally acceptable than male homosexuality, often it is actually encouraged. Male centered media outlets, such as Spike TV, often feature lesbians in a sexually erotic way. By contrast, female centered networks, like Lifetime, never depict male homosexuality in a sexually erotic way to its viewers. If we were able to isolate humans from culture, I assume the number of homosexual females would equal the number of homosexual males. Male homosexuality is not as culturally acceptable, so it is likely that homosexual men may suppress that side of their self. Biologically, there is no reason for the number of homosexual women to be 10% higher than that of men.

Junk Food Tax A Triple Win

Smokers and drinkers have long had to bear the brute of their questionable habits in the form of hefty government taxes. And with the new health care plan, those who frequent tanning salons can expect to be financially penalized for their decision to fry themselves. But what about those who nosh on aspartame, trans-fats, and MSG? Should their destructive behaviors go unnoticed by a policy that attacks the vices of their neighbors? Though it’s been hailed as undemocratic, I propose that a federal junk food tax would strengthen the existing health care system by generating revenue while simultaneously encouraging Americans make healthier food choices.

With a price tag of $147 billion per year, obesity related illnesses make up over 9% of all medical spending in the United States. It is the second cause of preventable death, killing up to 365,000 people a year. But while the leading cause of death, tobacco, is levied with a hefty tax to compensate for its financial burden on the health care system, the causes of obesity remain uncompensated. There is no public policy to address one of the main causes of obesity—the overconsumption of high-calorie, low nutrient foods. Junk foods are laden with sugar, fat, and high fructose corn syrup—all of which have been linked to obesity. Soda is particularly dangerous, and has been directly linked to obesity.

In response to this, several states have proposed imposing a soda tax to reduce consumption as well as to pay for public health programs. The most visible is New York’s. New York Mayor Bloomberg estimates that the tax cold raise $1.2 dollars to help contribute to the $7.6 the state spends annually to treat obesity- related diseases. Such a tax is expected to reduce healthcare costs by about $50 billion over 10 years and raise $150 billion in revenue over the same period. Last year, however, this proposed soda tax was rejected by legislators. In this year’s plan, the same tax is now being met with protests from bottlers and vendors. Citizen groups, such as Americans Against Food Taxes, have also spoken out against the tax increase. Opponents claim that the tax would be inefficient in improving public health and would harm business. “New Yorkers know that taxes don’t make people healthy, they cost jobs and hurt working families. This is a job-killing tax that will devastate grocers and other retailers,” said Nelson Eusebio, the chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, in a statement supported by a number of state senators.

However, a recently published study by the University of North Carolina suggests otherwise. The study followed 5,115 patients from 1985 – 2006 and found that a 10% increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7.12% decrease in calories consumed from it. The same increase in the price of pizza lead to an 11.5% drop. The team estimates that an 18% tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year, along with reductions in the risks of most obesity-related chronic diseases. With a junk food tax, junk food will no longer have the financial advantage over health foods. Consumers will no longer be swayed solely by the low prices of junk food. A junk food tax would level the playing field.

Other countries have also recognized the value in this. Norway currently has an excess tax on sugar and chocolate, and Romania recently became the first country in the world to propose a comprehensive junk food tax. The tax applies to products that are high in fat, salt, or sugar. There has been some public outcry that the tax would disproportionately affect the poor, but the government remains firm that the overall effect of the tax will be a positive one. It is expected to lower obesity rates while generating $1.3 billion in revenue.

Other European countries are carefully watching Romania, as it could be a model for future policy. The U.S. should be observing Romania as well. Romania has a much larger lower class than America, so if this tax is successful in reducing obesity rates while not adversely affecting the lower class, it could be a model for America to follow as well.

A junk food tax would be a triple win. It would increase the likelihood that consumers would make healthier food choices. When consumers make healthier food choices, they are less likely to suffer from obesity related diseases—the same diseases that make up 9% of medical spending. And to put the icing on the cake, in this process the government would be bringing in billions of dollars which could be used to fund public health programs. It’s a win- win – win.