[da1]

> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms.

Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else doesn't like the symptoms negatively affects the patient and therefore he is ill.

Circular reasoning like this is common practice.

[mzl]

> Even if this were true (which it isn't)

Maybe I was being too general, but the diagnosis criteria I remember from when I've looked at such (including ADHD, Autism spectra disorders, and Depression) have included such qualifiers, IIRC.

Checking ASD, the following is one of the criteria:

    The deficits result in functional limitations in effective communication, 
    social participation, social relationships, academic achievement, 
    or occupational performance, individually or in combination.

While the word "negatively affected" is not specifically used, I would at least argue that the above is morally the same.

Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts, but arguing whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".

[lutusp]

> whether or not psychiatrists accurately apply diagnosis criteria is a different matter to arguing that "to avoid one or another mental illness diagnosis, [...] you can't be extraordinary in any way".

But that happens to be true and easily verified. If you're bright, you're assured of the Asperger's diagnosis unless you insist on avoiding the company of psychologists, increasingly difficult in modern times. If you're gay, it was the same thing -- until the public demanded that psychologists stop handing out mental illness diagnoses to gay people.

The history of psychology is punctuated with examples in which obviously appropriate behavior was falsely labeled as evidence of disease, including the infamous example of "drapetomania" -- slaves who ran away from their masters were obviously mentally broken and in need of professional help to reunite them with their owners.

Psychologists don't wait for people to appear and ask for help -- they issue press releases announcing the discovery of yet another imaginary ailment from which many are claimed to be suffering in silence. Example:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201207/el...

[da1]

> Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts

But there is no fudging. Someone not liking something about you that you are totally OK about does negatively impact you if that person is say your spouse.

There is no fudging. This is the usual modus operandi.