No time now but quick comments:
Thank you Paul!
you have insufficient information about me to fit me against the list in your web reference re: Asperger's.
I don't even fit it; though that is irrelevant.
There is a non-sequitur in your answer:
you go from talking about lists of identifiable patterns to "symptoms". Botanists and geologists do not do that.
The use of "disease" re: dissaproved-of behaviours is a category error.
The "problem" of "mental illness" is a pscyo-social problem. Calling it "disease" yet identiying it pscho-socially: Szasz tells us: "the definition of the disorder and the terms in which its remedy is sought are at odds with one another"
Go to the medical library! Look up textbooks on pathophysipology and read about real medical dieases. Look at the way they ignore; or in some cases have ridiculuous entries for, so-called "mental diseases". See for yourself!!
The so-called mental diseases are NOT diseases. If they were they would be kicked out of psychiatry.
"Mentally ill" people do not seek treatment as there is NOTHING to treat. If that is good enough for psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz it is good enough for them too! Read the letters at www. szasz.com !
Do the Taleban of Afghanistan hope I get well soon from listening to music?
The so-called mental diseases are defined in behavioural-dispute social-morality ways. The correct solution to these problems is:
dispute mediation; dialogue NOT "diagnoses"
Not everything that "makes people miserable" is sickness.
If you categorise as "mental illness" anything that associates with failure in society; of course you will get high incidence of these fictional illnesses in homeless etc.
You accuse me of "infatuation" with "infant knowledge"?
My impression: you want to be important. At Counterbalance you reacted to my claim of mapping physics by saying I must be a math-whiz kid. You then said sort of "yeah good for you ".
Harv you do not have to put people down to feel good about yourself; they love you regardless.
I don't know I should be so blunt!