Finding "the one"

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's how scientists define these things though. For most psychological disorders, one of the requirements for someone to be diagnosed with it is "significantly interferes with quality of life" or "causes distress" in a way that is not expected during normal development.

I was not speaking from a psychological perspective when I said infatuation is abnormal. Not at all, and it should have been obvious once I began citing the chemicals and their effects on the brain. Broadly speaking, a psychologist touches upon that, but it is the specialty of a neurologist. A neurologist will tell 'you infatuation is not normal.

And I am not defending myself because I am stubborn. I have admitted my mistakes likely more often than anyone I know here in the Backroom. I agreed with SFTS that the 60% stat was incorrect. But I am serious about this. A psychologist and a neurologist have exceedingly varied views. Psychology is often criticised for calling almost anything a syndrome. A neurologist will see if there are physical manifestation of the alleged disorder and whether they correlate before declaring something a medical disorder.

P.S. Not to mention, DSMD-V (or DSM-V) is soon to come out, who knows what surprises it will hold? EDIT: No, I did not see your post about DSM-IV yet, not when I wrote this postscript

You are simply making up your own definitions. If you want to argue about scientific and medical abnormalities, you need to use the scientific and medical definitions for those terms. My job is almost entirely devoted to medical disabilities, and I actively specialize in mental health claims. As a result, I have medical books sitting all around me.

OK, but now you are accusing NG of doing the same, since I did not just make this up, but found out in the NG article. I would be more careful about this.

Here is the definition of disorder:
disorder - a derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid phsical or mental state.

I would need to consult DSM-IV before I debate this, but nevertheless, I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin. Do you not know how radically the brain chemistry is altered once this occurs? Additionally, I do not see why morbid had to be thrown in - not all disorders could fall into the 'morbid' bracket, especially not from the first glance.

mental disorder - any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Mental disorders are assumed to be the manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. The concept does not include deviant behavior, disturbances that are essentially conflicts between the individual and society, or expected and culturally sanctioned responses to particular events. Id. at 549 (emphasis added).

That is the psychological definition, why do you thrust it at me continuously? Is it so difficult to admit that the highly irregular and disorderly activity of the brain is not a neurological disorder, albeit not in necessarily a pathological sense due to its origin? Does the release of mind-altering drugs not result in a disorder of the brain?

I also have a copy of DSM-IV sitting next to me. Love is not listed in it.

Once again, psychology. Nor would I ever expect it to be there. But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count? Oh, and use 'infatuation' if you may, instead of 'love', because infatuation is unique in its neurological characteristics.