Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

The whole concept of authority fascinates me. I've had a lot of troubles with this, although I'm not disobedient at all. In fact I'm kind of a goody-two-shoes, am eager to please, and often wish I were bolder and more concerned with my own agenda.<p>Yet I've been told multiple times in the past five years that I'm undermining authority. By both management and peers. (Sometimes admiringly, by colleagues who think I'm the only person who isn't subject to the leader's reality distortion field.) I've asked what I can do to not be as "disruptive" and nobody can quite produce anything concrete.<p>I think there's something about my attitude that people can detect -- I do believe that authority needs to be earned with results. And even though when I have defended the current authority, again this is not good enough, because I'll do it in terms of "we need to be unified", "we don't know everything X knows", "X has taken on this leadership role and it costs him a lot, no one should question X's dedication", etc.<p>The one thing I'm not saying is that we should all bow down to X just because "he's the man". There is something about this atavistic concept of authority which demands a posture of submission, often literally. You don't look the other person in the eye any more, you allow yourself to be swept up in his obsessions, his sense of humor leaks into yours, and you treat his ideas as automatically superior. You're supposed to be happy even if he snatches a slice of cake right off your plate. I just don't have it in me.

I like where this article is going a lot, but let's be clear on terms.<p>"Anti-authoritarians" are people who question and/or reject authority aggressively.<p>"Assholes" are people who have emotional and/or maturity issues that cause them to irritate others.<p>Neither of these are diseases, and you can be both, but don't confuse one with the other. I'm a fairly asocial person, but I've learned to be more diplomatic at times. On the other hand, the world is full of angry immature people who just want to "tear it all down!" without actually at heart being for or against anything. They're just a bundle of emotions looking for a place to vent.<p>But the underlying thesis here, that the professionals diagnosing people as mentally ill carry lot of bias with them that even themselves are unaware of? Spot on. Psychiatry has always been about introducing conformity (both in a good way and in a bad way) to society. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of really mentally ill people who need help, just that when you have a hammer, the world is your nail. :)<p>ADD: I would just be very careful about working this problem backwards, from effect to cause. That is, simply because somebody or another supports a cause you believe in doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't emotionally ill. My personal opinion is that there are a lot of emotionally-struggling people who choose politics as a socially acceptable way to vent on the world.

Good reading to become a mature (ie not just childish) anti-authoritarian: "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilson and "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. I would also throw in "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert Moore, and maybe an occasional dose of LessWrong.com (helps to know of cognitive bias pitfalls if one wants to dance to one's own tune). Rand, Aurelius, Thoreau, Emerson and Nietzsche might be cool too, for the philosophically inclined (what they all have in common is the belief in defining your own values, not just following others blindly).<p>Of course, the way I see it, being anti-authoritarian is just a corollary effect of being a mature, competent, self-validated man who is following his own purpose in life. <i>Of course</i> such a man is going to have trouble with those who want to foist their value-systems on him through threats, psychological manipulation, or subterfuge.

This is basically the premise of the book "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". The major question of the book was: "Who was really crazy, the inmates or the System?"<p>It's kind of frightening that views haven't changed in the 40+ years since the book was written. I guess the difference is that they will simply overmedicate rather than lobotomize.

That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like to take a guess at why people <i>want</i> to diagnose their fellow man as such.<p>First, I'm no psychologist or historian, so feel free to disregard everything that follows...this is just a hypothesis.<p>I've noticed (but I'm probably far from the first) that every seemingly "modern" human behavior can be traced back to a handful of primitive instincts or tribal behaviors (fear, greed, prejudice, etc.). So my guess would be that diagnosing someone as mentally ill because they act anti-authoritarian comes from the tribal instinct that allowed, or even required, all humans to work together without questioning their orders. It was necessary to hunting, protecting the tribe, etc. that everyone act as one. Not acting as one would cause the hunt to fail or the tribe to lose a battle, either way they would die. It's the same way that packs of animals like wolves behave. Shun the outlier because he could put all our lives at stake.<p>So expanding on this theory, maybe the reason we as humans act this way is because our cousin species died out because they <i>didn't</i> act as one. Perhaps those other semi-human species that died out were more independently-minded, but for the first few hundred thousand years that was a negative thing that led to natural selection filtering them out?<p>I guess I get this idea from Seth Godin's talk about "Quieting the lizard brain." Pretty interesting, if anyone is interested: <a href="http://vimeo.com/5895898" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/5895898</a>

<i>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."</i>

<i>Please</i> try and remember that while there may be many problematic practices and practitioners in the world of psychiatry, the majority are just trying to heal the sick like all other doctors. There is a big difference between putting someone on pills to stop them from presenting a problem in school or at work, and putting someone on pills to stop them cutting out their own eyes, or to help them regain their desire to breathe in and out.<p>A large number of mental disorders are extremely debilitating and often fatal to the patient. When successfully healed, sufferers are usually extremely grateful to their psychiatrist, feeling that they owe them their life.<p>You only hear in the media and online about the times when it all goes wrong, because it makes a good story. Who wants to hear blog posts about how someone was sick, and then they got well? Especially when talking about your experience with mental illness is seen as an admission of weakness or personal failure by society, which it is.<p>This is not to discount the fact that there <i>is</i> a huge amount of malpractice, abuse, and just plain poor quality thinking out there in the world of psychiatry. Most of it is connected to big pharma and their big dollars, as you might expect.<p>You also can't absolve the patient of all responsibility. Go to any psychiatrist, particularly here in the UK with our NHS where doctors don't sit around <i>hoping</i> for more ill people, and they will tell you that they are sick and tired of the parade of perfectly healthy middle class idiots shuffling before them with non-problems, or worse, dragging children with non-problems.<p>You can't really just turn these people away, it's unethical (illegal?) to just deny someone treatment. Unless you can invoke something like Münchausen syndrome, you have to treat these people or their charges in some way if they are in distress. Doctors are reduced to giving them some pills and complaining to each other behind closed doors about the endless stream of "worried well" affecting their ability to help those with the actual problems discussed at the start of this now overly-long comment. Actually, increasingly they send them off to a homeopathy clinic or something like that. That in my eyes is the one good use for alternative medicine, it keeps little jemima off the hard stuff when her dangerously irrational mother decides she needs to be fixed.<p>The DSM and it's ilk make this worse by giving the public cosmo-style checklists they can run against themselves, without all the other contextual understanding that a diagnostician has. It is then made worse again with the DSM published on the internet.

I believe "Anti-Authoritarian" is a misnomer. People labeled as "Anti-Authoritarian", myself included, are more likely "Auto-Authoritarian"; they trust their own authority first, rather than blindly believe the asserted authority of others.

Hence the propensity of authoritarian governments to declare opponents mentally ill.<p>Beware political positions quick to write off differing views as clinical insanity. When they start committing people, that's a sign the line has been crossed.

&#62; After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to excel.<p>I find it an amusing corollary that later in life, no one was able to convince Einstein of the truth--or at least the usefulness--of quantum mechanics. A failing of the anti-authoritarian mindset is that if you have an opposed opinion to an authority on an issue--and that authority happens to be <i>right</i>--you'll never figure this out until you work it out for yourself.

Any 'anti-authoritarian' diagnosis is bunk. This is one aspect of the DSM (of many actually) that seriously bothers me. Since there is no objective scale for delineating behaviors that are acceptable to "authorities", how can one claim this is a valid diagnosis ? THIS is why we can't have nice things.

During reading I always thought about Sheldon, from The Big Bang Theory, in one of the first series when he was sacked from his job. And when he comes to apologize with his mother, he says "I've called you an idiot during our first meeting. I'm sorry... for pointing that out.".<p>I suppose it's the same with many doctors who stamp "mentally ill" diagnoses on people. "If you disagree with me, then you should be treated."

There was a seemingly related hacker news page on the top page along side with this one <a href="http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html" rel="nofollow">http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html</a> , about the 64 bit OS LoseThos and the mental insanity of its author. It was a very interesting read and I wanted to see the comments, but now it appears gone. Was this flagged and if so why?

I've grown up diagnosed as ADD (and ADHD), ODD, and Bipolar. The bipolar was because I was not mature yet, and had trouble communicating effectively. I get angered when I hear people talk as if these aren't real. My ADD makes it to where I have a tough time evaluating priorities to the point where my impulsiveness can cause me to 'not' do thing. I just can't. Like I recently tried doing a bit of homework on paper (first time to write on paper this semester) and my mind raced faster than I could write (I just saw the answer), but most importantly I had trouble just writing. I just couldn't force myself to do it. The hyperactive portion of ADHD is just because I'm either 150% going all out, or I'm asleep. (This makes 60 hour work weeks a breeze because I just keep going and going and going, as long as I have someone around that can help keep my focus, or if my attention isn't needed (like large compiles for programs, somehow I can focus better in the spurts between compiles). The ODD part comes in because I love to challenge people, especially authority, but only when I feel like they are incorrect or misguided. Interestingly though, I find that, for example, I can't bring myself to do the dishes when at my Parents house, but at anyone else's house I'm the first to clean the table up after dinner.

I can't help but notice we are all discussing the opinions of one guy, who is not a psychiatrist, regarding what he has seen in his practice. And this one guy, if you look at his "about the author stuff" is basically an activist left wing hates-the-system damn-the-capitalists kind of guy.<p>This is not science, it's opinion untethered from the constraints of evidence. If we want to have a long conversation about this, it would behoove us to start from science so that actual facts might be involved.

Authority (and people in power) are currently seen as "once accepted, never question", and that has served humanity well for thousands (even millions) of years because it's effective - you have a leader, you acknowledged he's at least good enough and you start working on common goals under their supervision.<p>But that doesn't work as well anymore because there's so many of us, so much stuff to do and so much information. That's why we've been moving towards increasingly democratic societies and organizations for the past several hundred years, and the trend will only accelerate.<p>Questioning authority usually stopped the whole organization, and people couldn't move forward unless they found a consensus. Today it's easier to question/review/change authority without having to stop everything - it's like it's a separate module instead of a core piece, but obviously, that doesn't sit well for those whose authority is questioned, hence the struggle against anti-authoritarians...

This is mostly inaccurate. He starts by cherry picking his definition of ODD describing it as “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder" and "often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rule". This is ridiculous, and leaves out a half a dozen or so other symptoms including<p>"Have temper tantrums Be argumentative with adults Refuse to comply with adult requests or rules Annoy other people deliberately Blames others for mistakes or misbehavior Acts touchy and is easily annoyed Feel anger and resentment Be spiteful or vindictive Act aggressively toward peers Have difficulty maintaining friendships Have academic problems Feel a lack of self-esteem"<p>Those aren't authority problems, those are major social issues that must persist for greater than 6 months and make the home or school environment hostile. Also, he acts like all psychologists and psychiatrists do is prescribe medicine. This is silly, most psychiatrists and all psychologists would advocate combined therapy or behavioral therapy to help them with parent child interaction and problem solving skills. These authoritarian behavioral treatments include things like "Recognize and praise your child's positive behaviors, offer acceptable choices to your child, giving him or her a certain amount of control." ODD should NEVER get a drug prescription except in the case of comorbitity. Read more here: <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disord...</a><p>ADD and ADHD are over-diagnosed and ODD might also be, but there are people who legitimately suffer from major crushing behavioral deficits which can make properly learning difficult. Sloppy historical analogy with 'famous people would totally be ADD' is a terrible marginalization of this disorder and it's sufferers.<p>Also, lots of people are mentioning the Rosenhan experiment and claiming that psychology hasn't changed at all since then. This is largely inaccurate. I would direct them to this askscience thread <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_psychiatry_changed_since_the_rosenhan" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/orf88/how_has_ps...</a> about changes that have occurred including the rise of counseling and patient bill of rights.

I'm no psychologist but I hope to see those in that profession read this article. I've noticed that many are quick to label a patient mentally ill and prescribe medication. The brain is one of the most misunderstood organs in the human body. While the drugs help some, the profession is far from ready to alter brain chemistry.

Non-conformance, and non-compliance against authority runs the risk of being separated out from the pack, and being treated differently... Does this have any relevance to the debate over ADHD - i.e. there are some that believe a 'good old-fashioned spanking' would set things right.

Prussian schooling is the most counterproductive and expensive ritual ever foisted on innocent kids.

I'm not sure if too many people nowadays take Psychiatry and Psychology seriously. Most problems they label as illnesses are legitimate issues people have that need resolution not pills.<p>I had severe allergic reaction to shrimp. Ended up at the ER where I was treated with Epinephrine, Prednisone and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl administered directly to bloodstream though).<p>Guess what, I had serious panick attacks for another2 days. When the following day I showed up at the ER, I was told by a Doctor who originally treated me day before that I clearly have mental issues because this reaction shouldn't last so long. Psychiatrist didn't even ask questions and prescribed me anti-depressants. Obciously, anxiety diminished on its own next day. FDA.GOV confirms that all 3 medications I was given may cause anxiety (severe) and panick attacks. Including benadryl that does cause anxiety in me. This was widely studied and is believed to be caused by liver enzymes. So, all in all I had never had mentall issues before, never had issues after. But had 3 days of panick attacks and severe anxeity causeb clearly by medication. Hey, but I'm considered depressive, anxious now. It is in my medical records. Just amazing how fast they are to label you and how difficult it is to clear the record. All result of ignorance, but what can I do? Recently I went through cholestycomy procedure outside my insurance, just because I didn't want to be treated by medical stuff with suspicion.<p>I don't believe psychiatrists now at all. I mean this is some type of witchcraft, not science for sure.

The true test of whether someone's really anti-authoritarian is how they behave when they're in authority. 99% of people who use "question authority" as an excuse for what is really anti-<i>social</i> behavior fail this test.

The reality is that political dissenters are often diagnosed with schizophrenia if they, for example, accuse their government of crimes. Of course governments do commit crimes, but one can only acknowledge the crimes of someone else's government, or crimes that occurred long ago.<p>Even in the United States, the automatic reply to any significant claim of criminal behavior against the US government is "bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorist".<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_i...</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry</a><p><a href="http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://thejcl.com/pdfs/munro.pdf</a> The Ankang: China's Special Psychiatric Hospitals<p>Governments, including the United States, project through their propaganda and education, a false reality in which the most important state actions are always moral and justified.<p>There is a type of mass pathology going on in which almost everyone ignores facts that contradict the official reality presented by authority.<p>I think this is unfortunately a normal aspect of group behavior because I have observed it even in a small technical group where the manager decided that Windows Communication Foundation worked differently than it actually did and everyone went along with it even though the documentation clearly stated otherwise.