From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Sat 10 May 2003 - 01:47:54 GMT
Hi, Dace,
I have read the personality disorder criteria, and worry at how useful the
list is. Here is why:
I can well imagine a person who, say, engages in an unusual area of study,
say the neural net model of information exchange within a government, and on
the basis of that concludes that the head of the government is isolated from
significant portions of information and thinking, and is instead receiving
only a small amount of the information, controlled by a handful of people,
who thus have an easy time controlling the thinking and decisions of the
head of state. Let us posit that he is correct in his analysis. So, our
researcher starts warning people about this, and the more ignored he is, the
more vociferous he becomes, such is his worry that his government is making
or might make dangerous decisions. He finds himself, more and more on the
outs with his colleagues, friends and family. He gets fired, for not
tending to his business and forcing customers to listen to his suspicions.
Friends stop inviting him to parties. He sinks into a depression, over the
state of his country and over what it has cost him personally. He goes to
therapy, where he is told that he is delusional by a therapist who has never
heard of neural nets and believes that questioning the head of state is
unpatriotic. He goes to his minister, who tells him that the country is in
the hands of God and that what he really needs to do is pray for guidance.
He goes to his sister, who tells him he should confide in his wife, who is
worried about him. He goes to his wife, who tells him that if he just
started working again he would feel better about himself. He tries to
explain neural nets to his friends, who tell him that they can't understand
him but why doesn't he come over and have a beer and watch the game. He
becomes morose, and finds himself taking long drives alone, and sometimes
crying when he thinks about things too much. He finds himself guzzling
Klondike Bars, and day-dreaming about the happier times when his mom used to
give them to him up at the lake in the summers.
Now, the list you cite asks only that an individual exhibit two of the
criteria listed. But an outside observers would say, I think, that he has
symptoms of criteria: A 1-4, and B, C, D, E, and F. In other words,
according to the DSM, he has a personality disorder. But, does he? True, he
is alone in his views, but that is because others haven't developed the same
expertise and done the same research. True, he is out of sync with everyone
he talks to about his conclusions, but, again, it is because they don't
understand neural nets, or because they don't want to hear 'subversive'
thoughts. True, it is an enduring pattern, but that is because the danger
that he is trying to warn people about is persisting.
But does he really have a personality disorder?
Is it not possible for one person to be right, though a thousand tell him,
over and over again, that he is wrong, or stupid?
Cheers,
L
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Dace
> Sent: Fri, May 09, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329
>
>
> As I've stated before, Joe is clearly diagnosable with a personality
> disorder. The diagnostic criteria are listed on page 633 of the DSM-IV:
>
> A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates from
> the expectations of an individual's culture, as manifested in two
> (or more)
> of the following areas:
> 1. cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other
> people, and
> events)
> 2. affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and
> appropriateness
> of emotional response)
> 3. interpersonal functioning
> 4. impulse control
> B. The enduring pattern is inflexible
> C. The pattern leads to distress or impairment in social areas of
> functioning.
> D. The pattern is stable and of long duration.
> E. The patern is not better accounted for as a consequence of
> another mental
> disorder.
> F. The pattern is not due to a drug of abuse, a medication, or a general
> medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
>
> > From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> >
> > > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <wade.t.smith@verizon.net>
> > > >
> > > > Memory is a dynamic process of the mind, not just a library of
> > > > experiences, but one of the toolkits of the imagination.
> > >
> > > Yes, and the fact that memeories are not statically stored, either in
> > > genes or in brains, strongly suggests that the whole foundation of
> > > reductionist theory is rotten.
> > >
> > And woo-woo fields are healthy as hell, right? (snicker!)
>
> This comment reveals criterion A-1 (cognition). Now, this is obviously
> pointless ad hominem. I was talking with Wade about memory storage in the
> brain. Joe chimes in with an insulting and ignorant comment on fields (an
> established concept in both physics and developmental biology). What's
> interesting is not so much that he's unaware of how faulty his comment is,
> but that he never stops to think that the people on this list are smart
> enough to see through his childish invective. Not only does he believe
> unconditionally in his own innate "rightness," but he expects
> everyone else
> to blindly follow him in this belief. That he never changes or
> learns from
> this mistake reveals criteria B (inflexibility) and D (stable and of long
> duration). His history of difficulty with other lists reveals criterion C
> (impairment of social functioning). I assume he's not schizophrenic or
> merely suffering from a head injury (E and F).
>
> Wade:
> > > > What you _were_ heralding, remember it or not, was the concept of
> > > > 'morphic fields', which are part of Sheldrake's lunatic explanation
> > > > of nature.
> > >
> > > And I will continue to defend Sheldrake as long as other listmembers
> > > keep bringing him up. (The very first time I discussed Sheldrake on
> > > this list was after Scott brought him up. This pattern has continued
> > > right up to the present post.)
> > >
> > Cause Sheldrake's Dace's MAN! His Messiah and Muse. The fulcrum
> > of his onlist existence.
>
> This comment reveals all four areas of criterion A. Again, there's a
> clear-cut cognitive deficit here (and not just because I comment on a wide
> variety of topics and authors). Late last September I had to
> explain to the
> list moderator, Bruce Edmonds, that I'm not the one who keeps bringing up
> Rupert Sheldrake. No matter what topic is under discussion, if I disagree
> with something Joe Dees says, he comes back with an insulting comment on
> Sheldrake. Then I'm forced into a position where I must correct Joe's
> errors. As soon as I'd posted this observation, Joe came back
> with yet more
> invective against Sheldrake, nicely proving my point. Now he's proving it
> again. It simply never occurs to him that his anti-Sheldrake
> comments make
> him look defensive and hostile. He assumes that everyone will see him
> exactly the same way he sees himself-- as a paragon of reason and good
> sense. He also reveals here a strong affective component (2), as well as
> interpersonal (3) and impulse control deficits (4).
>
> Joe's comments in the following exchange can only be described as High
> Nuttiness:
>
> > > > > > And very few manuscripts here ARE solicited; I
> > > > > > simply reposted it to demonstrate that I had more than
> > > > > > anticipated the line of argument which Dace proferred, and that
> > > > > > perhaps he was even inspired to it by my paper, the substance of
> > > > > > which I cannot fail to notice that Dace fails to comment upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a case study, Joe. Keep up the good work!
> > > > >
> > > > As always: no answer.
> > >
> > > Because you're beyond the pale, Joe. Just look at your statement
> > > above. What happened was that Keith offered his observation that
> > > communism was much like a religion. This reminded of something
> > > Toynbee said, so I dug it up. Then you come along with this truly
> > > bizarre revision of events. It just goes to show that your brain runs
> > > on hallucination instead of glucose, like the rest of us.
> > >
> > Dace STILL will not comment upon my paper, because to disparage it
> > would be to disparage the remarks he made which prompted my
> > reposting of it, since they resemble each other so much, and he cannot
> > bear to praise it, because it is mine. Those who can't produce original
> > work either criticize or embrace the work of others - Dace's eternal
> > modus operandus.
>
> Again, I simply responded to something Keith said with a useful quote from
> Toynbee. Joe then posts (for the second time!) a veritable dissertation
> that no one wants to read and is then incensed when I fail to
> comment on it.
> Poor thing! Keep in mind that a personality disorder is
> essentially the ego
> of a six-year-old in the body of an adult.
>
> > > > One of the reasons that Dace disparages the
> > > > work of others must be jealousy,
> > >
> > > According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
> > > (Fourth Edition), the belief that other people are jealous of you is a
> > > symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. This is odd, because I
> > > had you pegged with antisocial personality disorder. Well, live and
> > > learn. Of course, what you really need is six months alone with a
> > > therapist, so you can get an accurate diagnosis.
> > >
> > What Dace needs to do is furnish his psychological credentials, instead
> > of indulging in a dilettantish perusal of psychology, as many such as he
> > do who know something is wrong with their neuronal firing patterns, but
> > can't quite grok what it is. Might I suggest, considering his
> propensity
> to
> > slavishly endorse pseudoscientific claptrap, that a stiff regimen of
> > antipsychotics might benefit him? I sincerely doubt if talk
> therapy would
> > help his case; this list has long tried that route with him
> with a notable
> > lack of success.
>
> Whatever I say in regard to him-- no matter how well thought
> out-- he simply
> throws it back in my face, only ten times more viciously. It
> doesn't matter
> how many times it's revealed that he tends to thoughtlessly attack people.
> He sees himself in such a positive light that it never occurs to him that
> other people might see him as a bully.
>
> But he's right about one thing: I'm not a licensed mental health
> practitioner. While it certainly doesn't take a license to spot a
> personality disorder, Joe should indeed see a professional. And it won't
> take six months for his therapist to diagnose him. One or two sessions
> should suffice. Unfortunately, people with personality disorders almost
> never seek help or recognize that they have a problem. The problem is
> always with the other guy.
>
> All of this is highly relevant to memetics. The pathological ego
> is crucial
> in the mutation of idea into meme. Memes exploit our unconscious needs.
> Rene Dahinden maintained his ludicrous position on Bigfoot
> because he was a
> narcissist (one of ten varieties of PD) and couldn't admit that he'd been
> taken. The meme perpetuated itself in the face of contrary evidence by
> exploiting his pride. The striking feature of the disturbed ego is the
> capacity to believe one's own lies. This makes PD's far more convincing
> than they would otherwise be. All it takes is one fanatic like
> Dahinden for
> a whole group of eager believers to form up around him.
> Pathological memes
> can spread to individuals who lack a pathological ego only in the
> context of
> a group. The classic example is Scientology. Once the group is in place,
> its pathological memes keep it intact even after the death of its founding
> narcissist (in this case, L. Ron Hubbard). Of course, not every
> PD is able
> to extend his personal pathology to the level of a group, as
> demonstrated by
> Joe's inability to con the memetics list.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 10 May 2003 - 01:53:10 GMT