Scott Alexander rebuts Bryan Caplan's arguments about mental illness, criticizing the preference/constraint dichotomy and providing counterarguments to Caplan's claims. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Bryan Caplan's latest arguments about mental illness, criticizing Caplan's preference/constraint dichotomy and his claim that mental illnesses are just voluntary preferences. Scott argues that the distinction between preferences and constraints is not clear-cut, and that both physical and mental illnesses involve a mix of the two. He provides several counterarguments, including examples from physical illnesses, gradients of ability, and cases where the 'gun to the head' test fails. Scott also discusses how the framing of conditions as preferences or constraints depends on factors like ease of satisfaction and social norms. He concludes by rejecting Caplan's argument that one must either deny mental illness exists or classify homosexuality as a mental illness. Shorter summary