Reply to comment

I found the discussion to be very thought-provoking and it raised several key issues in my mind.

We discussed "treatment" in a broad sense.  I got the impression that treatment should be based on a perceived 'deficit' that the individual feels, rather than a deficit placed on them by society's norm.  However, for a "successful" treatment/therapy to occur, doesn't the individual have to realize that they need the treatment?  But perhaps this striking difference doesn't seem to them to be a deficit, even though we -- as onlookers -- do perceive a deficit.  Because, just as we discussed, we're ALL different to some extent; where is the line drawn?

 The thought that everyone is brain damaged is interesting.  While I understand the mentality of it (whereas everyone has a very different brain with no pre-destined perfect model), it seems to me that the term is more necessary for the 'treatment' aspect -- whereas we must define a problem in order to fix the problem.  However, this brings me back once again to my above thought about 'fixing' a problem.  Does fixing a problem conform to the social expectation/norm of the function?  Do we aim to fix a problem to fit into social norms or to create a sense of happiness/satisfaction for the individual?  Sometimes, I think these two terms become a bit too synonymous.