[vertex-four]

> It creates a bar where a person has to show "this many symptoms" in order to be diagnosed with a particular illness.

Go read the DSM-V, or the DSM-IV. (In fact, don't, but at least read up on how they work.) They are the diagnosis guides which are used as a baseline across the USA, and in fact for some things across the world.

They quite explicitly list out symptoms, and how many of them one has to have in order to be diagnosed as having a mental illness, and even within those a scale which allows doctors to prioritise care.

[h1karu]

yes exactly, my point is that if you don't fall within the DSM then you should not not think of yourself as "being depressed". Many people like to characterize themselves as depressed or "mildly depressed" even though they come nowhere near the DSM criteria and I think that articles like the one in question promote that kind of thinking.

[vertex-four]

I do not see the article promoting self-diagnosis? I'm not sure where you got that from at all.

[h1karu]

you're right I mispoke. The article didn't promote self-diagnosis but I felt that what Osmos said subtly did, that's why I replied about it.

I think that one can end up promoting self-diagnosis and over-diagnosis simply by using the term "mildly depressed" to refer to the general idea of "being upset" or "being in a bad mood" which is becoming increasingly common in our vernacular. I would argue that it's becoming increasing common because commercial interests set out to promote it's use in that way.