 So, initially we will begin with the biomedical model, then we would be talking about the medical model and the psychological adjustment, how do we relate both of them, thereafter our focus would be on the adjustment process per se and then we would be talking about how with respect to the concept of adjustment, how do we define the whole construct of normality. Remember that in the beginning we had said that we would be looking at the whole concept of normality, the whole issue of adjustment with respect to three different parameters which at times might overlap, at times it might be little different that would be looking at it from a social view point, looking at it from a legal view point, many a times without quoting the law and third looking at it from a pure psychological perspective. Now, the inherent issue with the biomedical model is that it is primarily a dominant model to define diseases and with the gradual change in the time we find that more and more emphasis has been laid to the molecular biology side of it. So, in most of the cases you visit a consultant physician and he tells you to undergo a certain set of tests based on which judgments are made and these judgments define whether you have certain types of illnesses, certain types of diseases or not. Now, the main issue here is full diseases are accounted by deviation from the norms. So, there is a defined norm with respect to certain biological variables and how much you deviate from the norm that defines whether you have the illness or not number one and number two the severity of the disease is also defined with respect to the extent of deviation. Now, recollect your own experience of visiting a doctor, you go to a doctor and you are asked a set of questions when you try to define the what the problems you have been facing say how long this has been with you issues related to X either in the body or in the stomach or in the head. If it has to do with the eyes then you are asked about watering of the eye. If it has to do with the stomach then you are asked about the discharge of the excreta and all such stuffs. So, finally the idea that you derive is that there is a defined norm that this is a undiseased body and how much you deviate from it in terms of your own expression of symptoms that defines whether you have a disease or not and of course, the extent to which you vary from it you differ from it that also defines that how severe the symptoms are. Now, the whole of the biomedical model is based on this template and as we have already discussed that psychology especially the branches pertaining to psychopathology, clinical psychology, clinical interventions and stuffs like this they had a heavy influence of this biomedical model. Now, this would have once again mean that once you start looking at a behavioral aberration perhaps you start following the same trend that do you have this. So, you have a checklist and you finally start looking at how many items are finally ticked in the checklist in terms of defining whether the person has certain type of behavioral aberration or not number 1 and number 2 the more and more ticks you have in the checklist the more and more severe the problem begins the way it is defined. Now, this is a model which later on dragged the attention of many psychologists who did show their displeasure to it. Now, the biomedical model explains diseases in terms of measurable deviations. So, one interesting thing is that you need to deviate from the norm and two that the deviation should be measured. Now, there could be two ways of looking at it if you look at it from a psychological perspective where I ask you what type of experiences you have once you have been experiencing these set of symptoms and these are all your subjective explanations. The moment I said that all these are subjective explanations this would mean that there could be variation. So, 10 different people having headaches will define their symptoms in 10 different ways there could be a possibility of this. Now, if you want to quantify it then there could be a way of doing it by simply looking at the what we were initially talking about the molecule is a biology influence over medical sciences that I just say that I look at your blood report. So, irrespective of what you say I will only look at know what your WBC count is what your RBC count is what your plated counts are then I look at your SGPTI profile then I look at some other profile. So, you have certain types of functions of the body which are supposed to be indicated by certain types of tests and I am sure all of you must have undergone these types of tests. So, when you see the report it says what is your value and what is the normal range. So, this is what it says that once again once you know that this is the range and once you know what your score is you know that how much you deviate from the accepted range and the larger is the deviation much more severe it is the problem. Now, symptoms and behavioral aberrations both in terms of the biomedical model they have been explained either in terms of the biochemical regulation within the brain and the body or with respect to certain neurophysiological processes. There are lots and lots of literature on say abnormal or pathological behavior and there you would find a large number of research that is dedicated to the biochemical regulation. Say for example, talk about psychotic disorder like schizophrenia, talk about disorders like depression, talk about issues like suicidal tendencies, talk about something like post-traumatic stress disorder. You have the whole range of issues that has to do with psychology, but then you realize that the adaptation of the biomedical model what it has done is that it once again guides you either to look at those behavioral aberrations with respect to the biochemical regulation. This means that I am nothing, but I am a you know my behavioral outputs are basically a byproduct of all you know biochemical imbalances that my body finally manifests. That could be true I should not say that could be that is actually true, but an equal amount of importance is also to be given to factors which are not actually directly linked to biochemical regulation, but it has to do more and more with the subjective experience of the individual. So, you just say that the balance or imbalance of epinephrine and norepinephrine and that decides whether you would be under tremendous stress or not. Such imbalances can also say how much stress you are or I say that no stress has made you pay the price of that experience simply because the cortisol level increased in your brain. What we actually see as a human being who is not looking at the behavior from a biochemical viewpoint because you do not have an indicator of it. There could be a series of you know behavioral indicators that tells you that you are probably you know experiencing one type of a problem or the other type of a problem and two individuals facing the same problem might vary. So, that flexibility that usually is nowadays thought about in terms of you know identifying the problems of an individual usually those things are not practiced in the biomedical model. You have defined frameworks where the subjective experience of the client does not pay that much of weightage for the consultant and primarily you start defining behavior or you shrink the individuals behavior to biochemical imbalances or neurophysiological functions. Much later in the course we would be talking about stress and at that time we would also be talking about post traumatic stress disorder what is called as PTSD. Now PTSD one way if you look at it from a neurophysiological viewpoint there are no many research which tells that once you have a reduction in the volume of the amygdala and the hippocampus in the brain that is what the PTSD patient show. What exactly we do not know is that whether you had the reduction in the volume of the amygdala and the hippocampus in the brain that led to PTSD or whether it is sustained duration of PTSD that finally made your amygdala and hippocampus shrink. Now this is a neurophysiological way of looking at one of the symptoms at that time right now we will not focus at it, but at that time we would also discuss that there are growing number of researchers which suggests that actually PTSD should not be designated as a disorder rather it is no it should be defined as an extreme form of behavior which is an outcome of or which is guided by an extreme nature of stimuli and because the nature of the stimuli itself is too extreme therefore the extreme manifestation of behavior should be accepted rather than classifying it as aberrated behavior or abnormal behavior. So that is the difference why people have started gradually deviating from the biomedical model and they endorse of alternatives little later we will also see that even within medical sciences also there is strong argument that there is a need to deviate from the biomedical model. Now this is a old statement by Angel who says that in all societies the major criteria for identification of disease have always been behavioral, psychological and social in nature remember that right now we are going to dressing back ourselves to the history no. So we are not looking at the modern phase so what he says even this statement is pretty old but he says that the major criteria of identification of all diseases were either behavioral in nature or they were psychological in nature or they were sociological in nature. Now you do not find microbiology footing in here, classically the onset of a disease is marked by changes in physical appearance that frighten, puzzle or awe and by alterations in functions in feelings in performance in behavior or in relationships that are experienced and or perceived as threatening, harmful, unpleasant, deviant, undesirable or unwanted. So basically he says that diseases were actually considered as something that would finally physically appear and the appearance of those physical symptoms will frighten others means you have not seen usually people with those types of physical appearances say for example take a small example. Those who are not suffering from chicken pox when they look at somebody who has no symptoms of chicken pox now you would have reddening of the eye, watering of the eye and then you have you know rashes all over the body and that frightens you that this appearance is not the appearance which we usually see in the society which might puzzle you you are not able to decipher what it is, but it is certainly different from what the rest has or you could be mesmerized looking at you know it gives you a sense of awe and there is also there could be an alteration in the functions in the feeling in the performance of the individual in the behavior of the individual in the relationship that the individual maintains now. So whole lot of now if you look at this type of an explanation of looking at disease the whole lot of subjectivity finds a space here which usually traditional biomedical model does not allow you to have that. Now it is important to understand that society recognizes individuals and institutions to take care of certain behaviors which usually appears as what we were talking right now that full of frightening puzzle or those type of things. So either society recognizes individuals or society recognizes institutions. Now profession and institutions are outcome of social needs now we are now moving towards why there is a need to challenge the biomedical model and why biomedical model does not know explain behavioral aberrations in its fullest form. So professions like physicians or institutions like medicine one viewpoint is that this is actually these are finally the outcome of social needs. Society needed let us see there are certain types of aberrations there are certain types of changes in the physical appearance there are certain types of changes in the behavioral manifestations there are certain problems with respect to maintenance of relationships that needs to be examined that needs to be taken care of. To examine those behavioral patterns or those symptoms or to cure them to provide a care to them. Society felt that there should be a need of an institution this is how the whole profession of medicine starts as a byproduct of social need and similarly certain people are designated that you specialize in no taking care recognizing and taking care of elements like this or behavioral problems like this and they are socially accepted as professionals. Now the contention is that if your institution and you as an individual you as a professional is an outcome of a social need then there should not be too much of deviation when you make your discipline or your institution know more and more scientific and hence you start drifting away from the actual normal people. Now physicians mixed with scientists they became more and more interested in developing taxonomies. So, you have more and more know name of diseases classification sub classification of diseases and now application of these scientific methods further know which were initially try in an attempt to understand treat or prevent such disturbances started defining sicknesses as diseases. So, basically what it says is that once your institution and you as a professional start know making your institution or your profession more and more scientific what has actually taken place is that the discipline itself has started deviating long know with respect to classification of the diseases not in terms of say misclassification, but in terms of classifying the disorder or the diseases without taking certain other issues into account. So, it has been largely either looking at the biochemical issues that reflects of a disease or neurophysiological mechanism that indicates of a disorder and then the whole know what called quantified deviation from the standard norm which suggests that the problem is extremely grave in nature it is severe in nature. It seems that the diagnosis treatment and prevention has discussed from its social context and this discretion has finally know made them fit into the scientific temperament, but then the context has become missing I will give you a very different example it has nothing to do with psychology, but it has to do with museums preservation of certain artifacts just this weekend we had a meeting where we were talking about preservation of certain things which has certain cultural, social or historical importance. One very interesting viewpoint was that the moment you take out any artifact and keep it in a museum you are decontextualizing it. For example, an earthen pot in its own social context would have another meaning, but it will suddenly change the moment you take one earthen pot and put it in a glass case in a museum put 2, 3 lights there and you say that I have preserved it. What you succeed preserving is the artifact, but what you do not succeed preserving is the social context and this is actually a strong argument in favor of digitalized preservation rather than making museums and stuffs like that. You can have digital preservation where in the full context along with the artifact is preserved imagine a situation the same earthen pot that you see in the museum versus you know play a video where you see the whole context and there in the social context where the usage of the earthen pot the making of the earthen pot everything comes into picture along with the pot that gives you a much better filling and understanding of the artifact compared to a simple one single artifact preserved in the museum. Now, if I extend that to this, the moment you start fitting in into the scientific temperament and you decontextualize it from the basic social acceptance the accepted social norms you realize that there happens to be mismatches at times. I am right now going not going to talk about it in detail, but just to touch that issue the whole problem with institutionalization of people with certain type of psychotic disorders. When professional based on certain norms demarcates you to be a sufferer of certain psychotic disorder say you are designated as a sufferer of schizophrenia and then diagnosis is done in terms of treatment you are supposed to be institutionalized you are sent to a mental hospital you are supposed to be there for certain period of time till the professional tells you that now you are fit enough to reward back to your own society. Now, you suddenly know diagnose somebody extract that person out of the society make that individual remaining in institution and then at certain point of time you say that now you can be sent back. We have diverse examples I am sure many of you must have heard of the two famous mental hospitals in India one in Rachi the other one in Agra central institute of psychiatry popularly called as Kake in Rachi Kake happens to be the place it is not the name of the institution and similarly Agra mental hospital also know both these institutions came long back after independence of this country. Now, the major problems faced by both these institutions were patients were diagnosed they were kept as in house patients means they were admitted, but then the family members did not come back in many cases to take their relatives back when the doctors told that they are fit enough to reward back to their society. Now, imagine the situation now you have hospitals always will have limited number of beds. So, say if you have a 300 capacity hospital you full you have a know house full situation 300 patients come there and 280 patients after the doctors feel that they can be sent back to their family members their society the family member do not turn up to take them back. So, you are left only with 20 beds I can share this with you that the institute at Rachi the central institute of psychiatry they had to go for a rehabilitation program and you will find that the many of the staff in that institution canteen wallers other that staff know they were actually the previous inmates of that very hospital because nobody came to take them. So, hospital had to rehabilitate them now you can rehabilitate still a smaller number of people if you have to employ them in your own institution you cannot accommodate and you cannot rehabilitate each and every individual. So, people getting cured, but not getting accepted by the society this is one example you all know the famous case of a professor Nash when he was in fact told that he should be institutionalized and later on his wife decided to take him back. He was not institutionalized he was with his family and he could regain to certain extent and many know miracles including Nobel prize came after know he had the onset of the psychotic disorder and he was know being taken care by his own family members especially his wife. So, there is a payback know when you try to make things more and more rigorous in terms of scientific temperament without taking the social context into account and that is the core issue why there was a need felt that psychology needs to deviate from the biomedical model. Now, the need to augment proximity between medical taxonomy and social categorization categorization of the disease or disorder is considered to be the need of the time means what you do is that you increase the proximity means you minimize the distance between the medical classification of the disease or the disorder and the social categorization of the disease and the disorder. Now, you remember the medical taxonomies and the social categorization they in many cases they mismatch say something like diabetes for example, according to the medical taxonomy it is a disease and it is not a disease of a smaller magnitude know because you are diabetic for the full life you have to be under certain preventive measures for your rest of your life, but then there is a great degree of social acceptance for the disease. Think of somebody getting HIV infection now you could have an infection of your liver leading to jaundice which has social acceptance you could have something like lifelong disease like diabetes, but there is a great degree of social acceptance for it nobody demarcates you that no you are untouchable because you have diabetes or I would not invite you to my party because you are diabetic. In the hard core sense of scientific temperament it should be done so I simply say that you have a certain type of disease where you should not be leading life the way those who are not like you should lead and hence you are derecognized from attending any party. So, any social function or family function you will not be given an invitation that does not happen, but somebody say who has been identified with HIV infection will largely face this type of problem throughout his life. In fact for many psychological problems and many of the medical problems also it has been found that it is difficult for the immediate society to accept certain types of diseases and disorders and hence they need to be briefed about it somebody needs to work with them and of course we are not going into the details of it, but if you are interested you can read it from other sources that the whole issue of community based rehabilitation for example, the whole you know discipline of social work for example, even within psychology you know community psychology for example. Now all these areas all these professionals they immersed out of the need that the bridge between the social categorization and the medical toxinomy needs to be bridged. So, that is an interesting thing that needs to be understood. Now psychologists have nowadays started criticizing the way medical model has been adopted in psychology and I quote Joseph and Lille that it might serve to help people in one sense, but that it also serve to alienate and damage people in another. So, if you use this biomedical model it serves one purpose in one sense because you are able to diagnose a disorder you are able to name a disorder you are able to talk about the preventive measures or you can talk about the psychological intervention that needs to be given, but at the same time what it also does is that it is starts aligning you from others. Another statement and very interesting statement which says that identification and categorization of disorders are heuristic social artifacts that serve the same socio cultural goals as do our constructions of race, gender, social class and sexual orientations. Such categorizations are some form of socially constructed evaluations this is a very strong statement that the way we have defined race the way we have defined gender the way we have defined social class the way we have defined sexual orientation where you find it if you are lesbian gay bisexual there is a great degree of an acceptance. If you belong to certain other class of the society you do not enjoy the privilege that the majority enjoys or you are made to realize that you are the second sex as a women you do not enjoy the full privilege that many enjoys in the society or if you are made to realize it finally I belong to this race and you belong to that race and this race is superior than the other. These are basically social artifacts and Murdoch's view point says that the identification and the categorization of disorders they also have been done in the same fashion. And therefore, such categorizations are some form of socially constructed evaluations so there is one way of looking at it from a pure molecular biological perspective you look at the biochemical regulation you look at the neurophysiological functioning. The other counter view point where it says that all these are basically socially constructed evaluations and these are actually artifacts which works the same way the way other much bigger issues of sociological importance works and therefore, there is a need to revisit them. Another statement which says that to call a condition a disease is to judge that the person with that condition is less able to lead a good or a worthwhile life and this is what it meant in the previous statement when it said that it somewhere damages you although the Joseph and Lille's view point where it said that it does serve a purpose but at the other end it also really needs you it does damage people in some other context. So this is where the moment you are classified with a certain type of disease you are told or you are made to realize if not told directly that you are dissimilar compared to others in terms of living a worthy life. Now adopting bio-medical model to human behavior would mean now we are not talking with respect to diseases now we are talking with respect to behavioral aberrations. So if you adopt the medical model to human behavior that would mean that you start pathologizing behavioral characteristics that does not fit into the majority view point. So majority has a view point and because it is a majority view therefore you consider this to be the average the aggregate the normal and because you consider that to be normal therefore, all those who does not fit into the majority's view they would be classified as pathological. Little later we will debate this issue at length and we will finally end with now how do we define normality then who is normal and who defines this. Now majority does not actually represent the whole of the society. Society has its own diversity rather it represents the ideals of the powerful individuals and institutions. Remember one thing we are of course you know debating it this very issue in a psychology lecture, but had this issue been raised in a sociological forum the sociologist would have endorsed this statement much more strongly that you have a set of people who are influential those who are powerful they make the institutions they recognize the professionals they define the ideals and the rest of the society is simply supposed to be influenced by it and this means that there could be certain types of things that should not be classified the way it has been done, but because the majority did it therefore there are people who does not fit into that framework. Little later we will see one very interesting example of that. Now it is guided by the tendency to maintain social order that suits those who are powerful in the society. So, if you are powerful then you start guiding the whole society and in order to derive more and more power in your own hands you designate certain forms you recognize certain professionals you recognize certain institutions which in your viewpoint helps you maintain the social order. The social order where you remain powerful the way you are or you gain much more power and you also derive the power of tagging others with certain types of aberrations certain types of deviations. Now the wave of cheater that suits those who are powerful in the society. So, if you are powerful then you start guiding the whole society and in order to derive more and more power in your own hands you designate certain forms you recognize certain professionals you recognize certain institutions which in your viewpoint helps you maintain the social order. The social order where you remain powerful the way you are or you gain much more power and you also derive the power of tagging others with certain types of aberrations certain types of deviations. Now the wave of change is visible nowadays of course both in the area of medical sciences also in the area of psychology in the area of medical sciences now you have departments like preventive medicine and there is an interesting area called holistic medicine which basically again is a disagreement with the biomedical model that we were talking about. Similarly in psychology we have now two branches health psychology which focuses more and more on the well being of the individual rather than looking at the pathologies. Earlier focus was on pathology. So, you take older textbooks of abnormal psychology psychopathology clinical psychology and you will find only and only the descriptions of one or the other form of aberration of the behavior. Now if you turn the pages of health psychology textbook the situation has changed you have basically the description largely of people with normal types of health issues and interesting development in psychology an area called positive psychology which talks about many many things which otherwise was earlier classified with respect to certain negative orientations, but are now classified with respect to their social and personally beneficial byproducts. Right now we referred to PTSD when we were talking about the biochemical regulation in terms of shrinking of amygdala hippocampus. Now if you historically look at this disorder for long after the Vietnam war when this disorder finally got recognized. The focus was continuously on the pathology side of the behavior. So, you look at the symptoms which are indicators of PTSD you look at symptoms like say hyperarousal. Hyperarousal is considered to be one of the symptoms of PTSD. In last 16 17 years there has now been a change in the focus and a new construct has come all together something called post traumatic growth. So, instead of PTSD now the new abbreviation is PTG and PTG is basically we will discuss it at length when we come to this topic when we talk about it I guess it would be after the mid-sem exam that suits those who are powerful in the society. So, if you are powerful then you start guiding the whole society and in order to derive more and more power in your own hands. You designate certain forms you recognize certain professionals you recognize certain institutions which in your viewpoint helps you maintain the social order. The social order where you remain powerful the way you are or you gain much more power and you also derive the power of tagging others with certain types of aberrations certain types of deviations. Now the wave of change is visible nowadays of course both in the area of medical sciences also in the area of psychology. In the area of medical sciences now you have departments like preventive medicine and there is an interesting area called holistic medicine which basically again is a disagreement with the biomedical model that we were talking about. Similarly, in psychology we have now two branches health psychology which focuses more on the well-being of the individual rather than looking at the pathologies. Earlier focus was on pathology. So, you take older textbooks of abnormal psychology, psychopathology, clinical psychology and you will find only and only the descriptions of one or the other form of aberration of the behavior. Now if you turn the pages of health psychology textbook the situation has changed. You have basically the description largely of people with normal types of health issues and interesting development in psychology an area called positive psychology which talks about many things which otherwise was earlier classified with respect to certain negative orientations, but are now classified with respect to their social and personally beneficial byproducts. Right now we refer to PTSD when we were talking about the biochemical regulation in terms of shrinking of amygdala hippocampus. Now if you historically look at this disorder for long after the Vietnam War the war when this disorder finally got recognized the focus was continuously on the pathology side of the behavior. So, you look at the symptoms which are indicators of PTSD. You look at symptoms like say hyperarousal. Hyperarousal is considered to be one of the symptoms of PTSD. In last 16, 17 years there has now been a change in the focus and a new construct has come all together something called post traumatic growth. So, instead of PTSD now the new abbreviation is PTG and PTG is basically we will discuss it at length when we come to this topic when we talk about it I guess it would be after the medicine exam that suits those who are powerful in the society. So, if you are powerful then you start guiding the whole society and in order to derive more and more power in your own hands you designate certain forms you recognize certain professionals you recognize certain institutions which in your view point helps you maintain the social order. The social order where you remain powerful the way you are or you gain much more power and you also derive the power of tagging others with certain types of aberrations certain types of deviations. Now, the wave of change is visible nowadays of course, both in the area of medical sciences also in the area of psychology. In the area of medical sciences now you have departments like preventive medicine and there is an interesting area called holistic medicine which basically again is a disagreement with the biomedical model that we were talking about. Similarly, in psychology we have now two branches health psychology which focuses more and more on the well being of the individual rather than looking at the pathologies. Earlier focus was on pathology. So, you take older text books of abnormal psychology, psychopathology, clinical psychology and you will find only and only the descriptions of one or the other form of aberration of the behavior. Now, if you turn the pages of health psychology text book the situation has changed. You have basically the description largely of people with normal types of health issues. And interesting development in psychology an area called positive psychology which talks about many things which otherwise was earlier classified with respect to certain negative orientations, but are now classified with respect to their social and personally beneficial byproducts. Right now we referred to PTSD when we were talking about the biochemical regulation in terms of shrinking of amygdala hippocampus. Now, if you historically look at this disorder for long after the Vietnam war when this disorder finally got recognized the focus was continuously on the pathology side of the behavior. So, you look at the symptoms which are indicators of PTSD. You look at symptoms like say hyperarousal. Hyperarousal is considered to be one of the symptoms of PTSD. In last 16, 17 years there has now been a change in the focus and a new construct has come all together something called post traumatic growth. So, instead of PTSD now the new abbreviation is PTG. And PTG is basically we will discuss it at length when we come to this topic when we talk about it I guess it would be after the medicine exam. You know whole process of evolving as a much more better human being is what is the focus of positive psychology. We will now talk about the medical model with respect to psychological adjustment. Now, the disadvantage of applying medical model to mental disorders and behavioral aberrations are that it does not allow understanding of full range of human functioning. Means whenever you take a given situation and you try to look at the possible forms of responses that any individual can elicit the range would be 2, 2, 2, 2 wide. Now, the moment you start applying the biomedical model and hence try to stick things in rigid frameworks you have difficulty because you do not allow yourself to look at the human behavior in the widest possible range. So, you have limited domain within which you start looking at those behavior to it emphasizes on the negativities by highlighting pathologies. So, it does not look at what you have rather it ask for what you does not have. For example, if you are asked that do you have sound sleep or do you have stomach upset? Do you have periodic body aches? You basically count on how many of these negative things do you have and, but when you count it you do not say that oh great you have only 4 there could have been a possibility of 44 more types of symptoms. Thankfully you have only 4, but that is never told to you you are just told oh you have 4 symptoms means other should have 0. So, the strengths are never discussed it is always the focus is more and more on the negativities and then the strength of the human being is always disregarded if you keep on extending biomedical model to psychological adjustment because there are we will discuss all these things in the coming days that there are no issues like say your own resilience means your ability to bounce back whenever you face a negative situation in your life. We do suffer in that process, but then we do also have the capability of bouncing back. You have the ability to cope with the situation. So, you struggle with it and finally, it is not that always you sink when you are in that type of situation rather you know struggle for sometime and then you sail across. Now, this course will focus more or less on the realization of the human potential. So, even though we have been talking about these issues as of now the focus has been on aberrations and pathologies, but by and large this course will focus more on the potential rather than looking at the symptoms except for the last unit where we would be talking about certain types of psychological problems. Now, disruption in the harmony at the personal and social front can contribute to mental pathology. However, there are examples of life adversities that positively influences human beings. Now, right now we took the example of PTG. We will have many such examples in the coming days to talk about and we should also be able to look at the fact that even though no people deviate and there could be a wide range of normal forms of behavior even though you show certain degree of behavioral aberration it does enjoy social acceptance. It is not that there are no very well demarcated black and white lines in terms of social acceptance of behavior. There are there is a no huge gray zone where although it is aberration, but it also has certain degree of acceptance. There are many such examples. Now, you can take the examples of acceptance of certain forms of marriages in the society for example, whether love marriages are accepted or not, intercast marriages are accepted or not, interreligion marriages are accepted or not, whether one can be an unwed mother or not. There are several such issues which you realize that grossly violates the social protocol, but then it has acceptance. It is not that because you have done this and therefore, this is a pathological behavior. It is not defined that way. So, in this course what we will be doing is that we would be looking at no different potentials of the human being that has to be you know recognized and we would also be looking at all formats of behavior which can be fit into the normal range. We would also look at behavior which does not fit into normal range, but still enjoys certain degree of social acceptance and at times we would be looking also at the behavior which are otherwise classified as disorders.