AO3 Evaluations - Failure to Function
An issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately is
how there is subjective judgments. So when deciding whether someone is
failing to do this, someone has to judge whether the patient is worried /
worrying or concerned. Patients may suggest that they are worried but
may be seen in a light that suggests that they are not. There are methods
for making the judgments as impartial as possible, one being the Global
Assessment of Functioning Scale checklist. Although, the idea remains
that somebody, like a psychiatrist, has the right to make this judgment.
This approach therefore cannot judge whether or not somebody needs
therapy / medication successfully.
An issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately is
how it’s difficult to differentiate between whether or not somebody is
really failing to function, or whether they’re just deviating from social
norms. An example of this could be those who practise dangerous sports
could be seen in a maladaptive light, whereas the people who are apart of
religions may be seen as being idiotic in terms of what they’re believing in.
Treating such behaviours as failures from being able to function
adequately can limit the personal freedom that minority groups may have,
therefore suggesting that some people may have two different subjective
views on a singular thing.
Another issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately
or not is how there are two different subjective views between
individualistic cultures in the western side and collectivist cultures in the
eastern side of the world. For example, self-actualisation puts an
emphasis on personal achievement, and in the majority of the world we
leave in would believe that this is self-indulgent because the focus is too
much on the singular individual than on the family or community that they
belong in.
An issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately is
how there is subjective judgments. So when deciding whether someone is
failing to do this, someone has to judge whether the patient is worried /
worrying or concerned. Patients may suggest that they are worried but
may be seen in a light that suggests that they are not. There are methods
for making the judgments as impartial as possible, one being the Global
Assessment of Functioning Scale checklist. Although, the idea remains
that somebody, like a psychiatrist, has the right to make this judgment.
This approach therefore cannot judge whether or not somebody needs
therapy / medication successfully.
An issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately is
how it’s difficult to differentiate between whether or not somebody is
really failing to function, or whether they’re just deviating from social
norms. An example of this could be those who practise dangerous sports
could be seen in a maladaptive light, whereas the people who are apart of
religions may be seen as being idiotic in terms of what they’re believing in.
Treating such behaviours as failures from being able to function
adequately can limit the personal freedom that minority groups may have,
therefore suggesting that some people may have two different subjective
views on a singular thing.
Another issue with the concept of somebody failing to function adequately
or not is how there are two different subjective views between
individualistic cultures in the western side and collectivist cultures in the
eastern side of the world. For example, self-actualisation puts an
emphasis on personal achievement, and in the majority of the world we
leave in would believe that this is self-indulgent because the focus is too
much on the singular individual than on the family or community that they
belong in.
