Published on 12, July, 2020
I notice here on these boards and in other places too that so many behaviours seem to be being pathologised, to the point where I wonder if there's any meaning to it anymore? It seems to me that its lazy thinking to class something as a pathology when its actually perfectly normal. I mean do I have patholgical fire avoidance because I dont' want to get burnt?
Any behavior could be normal or pathological depending on extreme.
TheCatWoman said:I mean do I have patholgical fire avoidance because I dont' want to get burnt?
If its to the point where you avoid any place that's flammable or electricity then I'd say that is pathological fire avoidance.
Yes avoiding burn is a natural instinct but if its to a unnatural extent then it will be viewed as unnatural.
Having interests for example are completely normal but autistic people are seen as having 'obsessions' because of the intensity of our interests.
In regard to the other thread where I mention Pathological Demand Avoidance I had mentioned it not because of the OP's post and examples themselves but as a reference point for future research in case their demand avoidance is more than the usual overwhelm.
I did use fire as an example, I think we need to start asking questions about the numbers of seemingly normal behaviours that are being pathologised, obviously some behaviour can be extreme, but I think we're losing sight of what's normal and that normal is a spectrum too. I want to ask, who does this increase in pathologising benefit? To me its not ordinary people, ND or NT's but psychiatrists, big pharma and the "wellness industry", big pharma has long had an "a pill for every ill" agenda and I think many psychiatrists act as their handmaidens. The wellness industry often just fleeses people for money, the New Age is just like the Old Age, just pinker and fluffier.
I am certain that some people do indeed pathologise more than needed so I am not completely disagreeing with your claim.