Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329

Date: Sun 11 May 2003 - 19:31:50 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Bigfoot as Idea & Meme"

    More of the same pitiful psychological projection from the cluelessly self-oblivious and irretrieveably disturbed Dace (yawn). This sort of elaborate attempt to justify his psychoneurotic fantasies before others, and thus to futilely attampt to reify them in the actual world, while what he's really doing is revealing them to that unaccepting world, is both predictable and pathetic. This warped cheezehedd should try to come up with a new schtick; this one's become terminally tiresome. But he'll probably continue with it for the next year or so , as a severely disordered individual would, since he seems to have found a surrogate fixation to replace his interminable toe-kissing of his Sheldrake statue. It does not matter to or register with him that it is as transparently failed as its benighted predecessor.

    > > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    > >
    > > 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
    > Hi Lawry,
    > Based on the information provided above, no competent therapist would
    > diagnose a personality disorder. This description does not in any way
    > suggest a personality disorder or, for that matter, any other mental
    > illness. Even depression is not indicated because there's a clear-cut
    > trigger for the feelings of despair. Criterion A-1 is not met simply
    > because you take a view of the world that's radically different from
    > that of most other people. The key is that you perceive yourself as
    > some kind of benevolent deity when your behavior is objectively that
    > of a complete jerk. Criterion A-2 is revealed when you react with
    > extreme hostility to anyone who tries to point this out. The example
    > above in no way complies with criterion B. Not only does the pattern
    > have to be inflexible, but it has to apply to a "broad range of
    > personal and social situations." It can't just be an anomoly that's
    > set off by a single, unfortunate situation, as related above.
    > Criterion C refers to an "enduring pattern," not a single event.
    > Criterion D demands that the pattern go back at least to early
    > adulthood and probably adolescence. This is not something that
    > appears during a mid-life crisis.
    > Keep in mind that diagnosis with a PD is just the first step. The
    > next step is to ascertain which of the ten varieties of PD apply in a
    > particular case. You're looking for things like narcissism, which
    > involves a severe deficit in empathy, a willingness to manipulate
    > people, arrogance, a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, etc. Or it
    > could be antisocial tendencies, or paranoia, schizoia, hysteria, etc.
    > When diagnosing a PD, the therapist always looks for these ancillary
    > traits. While there's no question that Joe is suffering from a PD,
    > I've been less certain which form applies in his case. At first I
    > thought it was narcissism, but with his incessant bullying I began to
    > think it was antisocial PD. I recently discovered that so-called
    > "serial bullies" are diagnosable with narcissism as often as
    > sociopathy, so perhaps it is narcissism after all. Of the the nine
    > criteria for narcissistic PD, five are required for a diagnosis. I
    > believe that Joe, based on his behavior on this list, conforms to
    > criteria 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
    > 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. exaggerates
    > achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without
    > commensurate achievements)
    > 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
    > brilliance, etc
    > 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
    > understood by other special or high-status people (or institutions).
    > 4. requires excessive admiration
    > 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
    > especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his
    > expectations
    > 6. is interpersonally exploitative
    > 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
    > feelings and needs of others
    > 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of
    > him
    > 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
    > No doubt a face-to-face relationship with Joe would reveal more
    > evidence of these symptoms. However, long-distance diagnoses are not
    > unheard of. Harper's magazine ran a professional diagnosis of the
    > biblical Samson, who clearly reveals all seven criteria of antisocial
    > personality disorder. US army psychiatrist Walter Langer diagnosed
    > Hitler with antisocial PD during the war without ever having met him.
    > As Dr. M. Scott Peck pointed out in *People of the Lie*, the very idea
    > of "human evil" would not exist were it not for "malignant
    > narcissism." Traditionally, what's evil is things like earthquakes and
    > plagues and swarms of locusts. Human beings aren't supposed to be
    > evil. When they are, like Hitler or Saddam or George W. Bush, they
    > probably harbor a personality disorder. (For a psychiatric analysis
    > of W., see
    > Finally, keep in mind that the DSM-IV contains only diagnostic
    > criteria, not general descriptions. For a really insightful
    > discussion of clinical narcissism, see
    > This is the "traits"
    > page of Joanna Ashmun's website. Like me, she's had a lot of personal
    > experience with narcissists and knows how to spot one.
    > > From:
    > >
    > > In a message dated 5/9/2003 2:54:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
    > > writes:
    > >
    > >
    > > 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).
    > >
    > > [Jake] I interpreted the above as a pure ad hominem. Perhaps a
    > > somewhat sophisticated and intelligent sounding one, but an ad
    > > hominem regardless. Perhaps you could say, "Well, I was just trying
    > > to help people out by
    > warning
    > > them about Joe." But I don't really buy that. Whether Joe gives
    > > you headache, whether you find him full of "brutish eloquence" or
    > > something
    > else,
    > > he has been around these parts for a while now. A look through the
    > archives
    > > of the memetics list, or the Church of the Virus
    > >, for the last several years should
    > > give
    > people
    > > whatever warning they need. I personally avoid psychiatrically
    > "diagnosing"
    > > people over the Internet.
    > So do I. I'll make an exception only when two factors are in place.
    > First, there has to be no doubt whatsoever as to the accuracy of the
    > diagnosis. Second, the offending individual must keep up the bullying
    > for a long time, showing no signs of relenting. I spent months calmly
    > responding to each and every attack from Joe. I spent more months
    > simply ignoring his attacks. Finally, it became obvious that he was
    > never going to stop no matter what I did. Joe is entirely to blame
    > for the exposure of his mental illness. He has brought this upon
    > himself. Not that it matters to him, of course. He honestly believes
    > he's a wonderful guy, and I just harbor some kind of irrational hatred
    > for him. So it's not as if I'm hurting his feelings or anything. All
    > of this goes right through him. If my comments were intended to hurt
    > his feelings, as is usually the case with ad hominem, I'm doing a
    > pretty lousy job of it.
    > > Speaking of diagnosing people, this is one of my favorite "What's
    > > wrong
    > with
    > > me?" fun links.
    > >
    > Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look at it.
    > Ted Dace
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 11 May 2003 - 19:38:08 GMT