Varieties of suffering in the clinical setting: re-envisioning mental health beyond the medical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we argue for the need to rethink mental health beyond the medical model because much of human suffering cannot be diagnosed by the DSM-5. During the pandemic and post-pandemic, people have learned to accept the fact that no one is immune from suffering. Given the universality and complexity of human suffering, it is natural for people to wrestle with existential questions such as "Why struggle when all life end in death?" and "How can one flourish when life is so hard?" Existential positive psychology (EPP or PP2.0) was developed to address these existential concerns. After explaining the inherent limitations of the medical model and the need for EPP as an alternative vision for mental health, we provide illustrative clinical cases to demonstrate the advantages of this broader existential framework for both case conceptualization and interventions. According to EPP, mental illness is reconceptualized as both deficiency in knowledge and skills in coping with the demands of life and deficiency in meeting the basic needs for livelihood and mental health, the Soul's yearnings for faith, hope, and love. Finally, we introduce integrative meaning therapy as a therapeutic framework which can equip people with the needed skills to achieve healing, wholeness, and total wellbeing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".