The Problem of Normalcy and Abnormality in Clinical Science - Essay Example

? The problem of normalcy and abnormality in clinical science Introduction The problem of normalcy and abnormality in clinical science has been a debatable subject for a long period. This paper seeks to verify whether there are precise boundaries of abnormal behavior. The terms mental illness, mental disorder, and psychopathology are frequently applied interchangeably by experts in psychology and related disciplines; all are associated with the study of abnormal or unusual behaviors. Unlike terms and ideas in a number of physical sciences, however, there is not a solitary, accepted by all functional definition for these terminologies (Strack, 2006). The key definitional conflict anchors on this question: Can psychological disorders be distinct as a scientific expression, or are they as an alternative socially constructed? This lack of a particular classification can lead to confusion and communication challenges both when cerebral health professionals, such as psychiatrists, counselors, psychologists, or social workers, try to talk to one another and to the common public. As a consequence, mental disorders are defined and used in a variety of ways. This is associated with the concern of this paper that seeks to clarify whether abnormal behaviors have definite boundaries. Thesis statement: a verification whether there are precise boundaries of abnormal reveal that different experts have different approach to the matter: argument for and against the phrase is an effective way of tackling the issue to get answers. Arguments and counterarguments Arguments for Impairment: This is a concept that shows there is a precise boundary of abnormal behavior. According to this argument, maladaptive behaviors that stop a person from operating in daily life can be regarded abnormal. Impairment is a situation where there is a reduction in an individual‘s capability to operate at an average or optimal level. Definitely, this is a clear cut between normalcy and abnormality. Distress: This principle supposes that behaviors ought to be regarded abnormal if the person suffers embarrassment as a result of the behaviors and wish to stop such behaviors. The encounters of distress such as emotional or physical pain are normal in life. However, distressed individuals display behaviors that are abnormal in their quest to overcome the situation. Distress makes people to behave in a manner different thus it is clear distress is a cause of abnormal behavior. If the cause of misbehavior is identifiable then clear boundaries of abnormal behaviors are available (Trull, 2005). Risk to Self or Other People: Society norms guides on means how individuals should live in harmony with others. The norms are clear cut between normalcy and abnormality in the way people behave. When a person’s actions pose a danger to their existence or to the life of other people, the behavior is considered to be abnormal. A severely depressed person is in danger of committing suicide and consequently the condition is regarded as abnormal. Likewise, an individual suffering from Schizophrenia is in disconnect with reality and may endanger oneself or others at vicinity. In some instances, an individual‘s imaginations and conducts threaten the physical or psychological safety of some people and are therefore, regarded (Nevid, 2009). Mental Disorders as Statistical Deviance: A behavior is regarded abnormal if it happens rarely or uncommonly in the general population. This description lends itself very accurate to measurement, as clinicians and researchers can administer objective evaluations to clients and get precise measurements of extent their depression, hyperactivity, anxiety, and so on differs from the norm. As such, this description is frequently seen as highly scientific, and provides a clear distinction regarding boundaries of abnormality (Mahoney, 2011). Counterarguments Misjudgment: People perceptions differ and sometimes a behavior could be perceived abnormal due to misjudgments thus making it hard to clearly distinct between abnormality and normalcy. In certain instances, an individual may admit feeling great and express him/herself in positive conditions but those around may propose that she or he is operating inadequately in personal or work life. Norm’s definers: The norm is determined by people and differs from one society thus cannot be used as cutoff between normalcy and abnormality. Who determines how far a behavior is too far from the norm? This is a question that clearly counter argues the statement that there is a precise boundary of abnormal behavior. The norms are defined by individuals, unfortunately these norms do not cut across the societies thus abnormality cannot be restricted to such criteria. It has been proven that researchers and clinicians make such decision regarding abnormality cases. Frequently, behaviors are regarded “abnormal” if they happen in less than five percent of the population, but this is a completely arbitrary cutoff (Trull, 2005). Social deviance issues: Behaviors change with time and it becomes very difficult to conclude on abnormality of behaviors. The challenges with the social norms standpoint are fairly apparent. First, there is slight to no objective soundness, due to persons and groups even within the similar culture having diverse ideas of what is socially satisfactory. Second, what is good enough at one point in moment can become intolerable with the passage of time, or vice versa, for example, homosexuality (Nevid, 2009). Lack of definite definition: Abnormal behavior is always associated with mental disorder; however, there is no definite distinction from clinical, psychological and other experts’ perspectives. This shows that there is no boundary associated with abnormal behavior. Integration and analysis The topic of normalcy and abnormality is debatable and many researchers have looked at the subject in various perspectives. A different way to reflect on mental disorders or abnormal behaviors is captured in the idea of dimensions versus categories (Sue et al, 2013). In a categorical concept, psychopathology is dichotomous, meaning that abnormality is either present or not present. In simple term, one either have a mental disorder, or does not, there is no amid. This tends to back up arguments for the concept that abnormal behaviors have precise boundaries. On the other hand, dimensional concepts acknowledge the fact that a very big majority of people’s behaviors exist on a range, rather than the polarized perception of the categorical concept. What tends to be branded as unusual and abnormal are just the far ends of people’s normal arc of behavior. In this concept, then, abnormal behaviors are just extreme differences of normal psychological feature or problems that many or most of people experience. Clearly, this concept counter argues the subject of this paper. The dimensional concept has a very huge amount of scientific support, especially in the section of behavior disorders. There are various disorders that dimensional models deal with concerning behaviors such as anxiety, psychotic disorders, and even depressive episodes. However, scientific treatment requires that one is distinctively diagnosed with a particular problem. This scientific perspective has led to variance approaches to abnormal behavior cases. Humans are by nature categorizers, with a necessity to categorize, group and order things that people encounter. Scientific diagnostic typologies replicate this underlying requirement. It is much simpler to comprehend and communicate to a person that a patient is diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and compound anxiety than to give relative responses such as “Their general anxiety condition is at the eighty sevenths percentile” (Mahoney, 2011). Conclusion The problem of normalcy and abnormality in clinical science has various perceptions. The paper analyzes the existence of precise boundaries of abnormal behaviors. Argument for the concepts is analyzed and subsequently counterarguments are also provided. Abnormal behaviors are hard to identify, even by experts who make it their life’s job to research and treat them. Even though there are certainly flaws and faults with the most extensively used and social constructed perceptions, the drawn boundary between abnormal and normal are necessary to clinical psychology; however, does give clear distinction of abnormal behavior. References Strack, S. (2006). Differentiating normal and abnormal personality. New York: Springer. Trull, T. J. (2005). Clinical psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Nevid, J. S. (2009). Psychology: Concepts and applications. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Mahoney, B. (2011). Personality and individual differences. Exeter: Learning Matters. Sue, D., Sue, Stanley, & Sue, Derald Wing. (2013). Understanding abnormal behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Read More