So reality is whatever societal norms say it is?

Does that mean that the feelings of Nazi Germany towards Jews reflected the reality of Jewry?

In our current society, since far more people believe in God than don't, does that mean atheists are crazy?

And if the Republicans further their gains in the next couple of elections, will that make being a Democrat a pathology? ;)

Getting hung up on language. "Disease" is not a technical term - we use it loosely for any significant degree of pain, disability, or abnormality. An example: In Germany, high blood pressure is called "strong blood" and they don't treat it.
So it is not only in psychiatry that the word is used loosely. However, psychiatry is sensitive to the abuses of diagnosis in totalitarian states, so are extremely careful not to extend diagnoses into normal variants.
Plus there is the sujbect of Evil - see our re-post this AM.

"Pathological bias is no more or less scientific than major depression?

I don't even know how to begin to analyze a statement like that."

I do. The important bit is the 'pathological' part, not the 'bias' part. I agree that bias in itself is not a good criteria for a disease model, however.

They are correct that pathological bias is a feature within mental illnesses, and they are equally correct that pathological bias can interfere with normative functioning. The problem, as I see it, is that pathological bias is contained very readily under other illness headings, such as social phobias, anxieties, etc.

You are also correct that classifying dissenting thought, speech, or action as disease, no matter how offensive, is an extremely bad idea. It takes us closer to Soviet 'political psychiatry' than I would be willing to tolerate.

BTW, IMPO the mental health fields are just beginning to bifurcate along medical vs. therapeutic lines in a serious way, eg. the therapeutic community is beginning to strongly reject medical modelling, partly in an effort to preserve their own professional ground. Should be an interesting battle over the next few years.

Have to argue slightly with Bird Dog - "disease" is a technical term within psychology, at least. It refers to the modeling for treatment of discrete pathological entities. So schizoid personality is a disorder of normative personality development and may be treated with therapy, but a pervasive chemical imbalance is more appropriately labeled 'disease' and is treated medically.

The model is the important part. A disorder may be more a 'problem with living' that needs coping skills while a disease is something to be cured & rid of.

If memory serves, the soviets did quite a bit of classifying as insane and institutionalizing those who bucked the party line but could not for one reason or another be executed or sent to camps.

The Soviets actually assigned persons determined to be 'ill' to various neighborhoods, so if you were schizophrenic you went to live in a schizophrenic area, depressives to another bleak housing project zone, and I suppose if you were pathologically bigoted you'd go to another.

It was a way to control that population easily, especially for medications enforcement, law enforcement and experiments.

Interestingly, they reported schizophrenia to be somewhat 'catching' in that patients in adjacent areas started to exhibit schizophrenic behaviors. I still wonder if it was all just a ruse to get better meds.

So yes, not camps exactly [they weren't 'criminals'] but they did herd them off just the same.

"Disease" might be a technical term in psychology, but it is not one in Medicine. In the Medical world, it is a casual term.

"Sane" and "insane" shouldn't be looked at as absolutes, but rather as opposite ends of a continuum. To cop the psychiatric jargon: 'we're all nuts, but some moreso than others'.

Between the psychiatrists and the legislatures, we will all be certifiably "criminally insane", so anyone who is an irritant or a challenge can be locked away one way or the other (or both).