zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
I think this is broadly well considered although I have a bit of trouble understanding this point:

> Social awkwardness refers to social ineptness without meaningful impairment

Isn't social awkwardness sort of inherently impairing in social relationships?

>>captai+md
Probably but at the risk of giving a bad analogy maybe the distinction here is like that between an itchy wool sweater (uncomfortable, broadly decreases mobility by making you not want to move) and a garment that actually restricts movement (a too small blazer that won’t let you reach straight up or, in the extreme, a straight jacket).

>>alpini+9e
Yep. Psychiatry (or most of medicine really) is not trying to bring everyone up to the top 10% of the population, or even the top 50% along some dimension of interest. Psychiatry is mainly trying to move people from the bottom ~5% (what we call a "disorder") to the top ~95% of the population - which is then considered normal variability. So, if you take for example extraversion/social skills, then many "psychiatry-healthy" people will not be good at this at all, will make fewer connections, will not ask for raises, will be skipped for promotion, will have weak social support structures if shit hits the fan, etc. That's just normal trait variation.

I think a really good example of this is self-diagnosing with bipolar disorder (and thus mania). Let's forget for a second that mania must last at least a few days non stop; most people do not notice this part somehow :). If you read the DSM criteria you may think that you actually fit them sometimes: elevated/irritable mood, highly talkative, distractible, flight of ideas, ... . However, you probably don't, and it is mainly a matter of understanding the scale of the problem. Most people do not know just how wide the range of "mood" is in humans, and what does it mean to be on either of the far ends of it.

(percentages are much more illustrative than accurate)