From: Dace (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 14 May 2003 - 17:57:47 GMT
> From: Vincent Campbell <VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk>
> Good God not more interpersonal sparring instead of reasoned discussion?
> And the same culprits?
Don't look at me. The only thing I'm guilty of is reasoned discussion on
the topic of disorders of the ego.
> Anyway, on the issue of personality disorders, and their definitions, did
> nobody spot the the obvious flaws in the first part of that definition?
> Here's the line:
> <An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates from
> the expectations of an individual's culture>
The DSM is for people who already have a well-rounded understanding of
psychological disorders. For a full discussion of PD's, see *Borderline
Conditions & Pathological Narcissism*, by Otto Kernberg.
> So you have a 'personality disorder' if you do not conform to cultural
> expectations? Does Noam Chomsky have a personality disorder therefore, for
> being counter to the prevalent political ideology of the US?
No. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with a personality disorder
made just such a claim.
> Maybe the
> claim that the likes of Einstein and Newton had Asperger's syndrome,
> weight in such circles too? Who decides what the 'expectations' of the
> culture are?
No one has to decide anything. Such cultural expectations are ingrained.
We all expect people to be generally honest and respectful.
> Where once people were simply locked up as subversives, or
> and before then burned at the stake for being heretics or witches, now in
> our post-freudian capitalist democracies people are labelled with
> personality disorders and given prozac, ritalin or some other drug.
The witch-hunt is the specialty of the personality disorder. I can
guarantee you that Joe McCarthy was suffering from a PD. Unfortunately, no
drug is known to cure or even control a malignant ego.
> I quote Rosenhan & Seligman 'Abnormal Psychology' ,3rd edition, 1995, on
> definitional problem of the antisocial personality disorder:
> 'There is often debate about whether or not a person is actually suffering
> personality disorder, and that debate arises from the very nature of the
> disorder itself. The antisocial personality disorder is a disorder of
> and will is not an all-or-nothing matter. One does not either have or not
> have will. Rather, like most other psychological functions, will exists
> a continuum: normal people have more or less of it, but those who suffer
> this disorder have even less. The line that divides those who suffer
> disorders from the rest of us is arbitrary.' (p.571)
I have no idea what this person is talking about. A personality disorder
can indeed be called a disorder of the "ego" or the "will," but the problem
is an excess of ego or will, not a deficit. The personality disorder is as
accepted within psychology as any other type of mental illness. All
disorders are subject to contention and debate within the psychological
> I guess 'will' here is equated with willingness to conform to society, as
> opposed to willingness to do what you want to do regardless of others, in
> which case the deliberately anti-social would seem to have rather a lot of
Exactly. One way to distinguish antisocial from narcissistic PD is that
antisocials tend not to care that they hurt people-- or even enjoy it--
while narcissists tend to delude themselves that they're not hurting anyone.
It's the difference between overt agression and "passive" aggression.
> From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com>
> Dace wrote:
> >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
> >of locusts. Human beings aren't supposed to be evil. When they are,
> >Hitler or Saddam or George W. Bush, they probably harbor a personality
> >disorder. (For a psychiatric analysis of W., see
> If that's what qualifies for a "psychiatric analysis" I think I'll pass.
My mistake. It's just a list of possible disorders, not an analysis. W. is
clearly insane, however, and it's just a matter of homing in on the correct
> speculations about Dubya haing an Oedipal complex, making up a "reaction
> formation" or identifying with an archetype are pretty dubious.
I agree. W's a psychopath (antisocial PD). Interestingly, like his
fellow-psychopath Adolf Hitler, W. had to be appointed, not elected, to gain
> The usage of
> DSM criteria for various disorders were not well supported. It's an
> politically biased smear without much depth or substance.
No attempt was made to correlate Bush's actions with the criteria for any of
the disorders mentioned. So let's see if we can correlate him with the
criteria for antisocial PD:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.
Bush has demonstrated a total lack of respect for the Geneva Convention, the
Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, the UN Treaty, etc. He and his top cabinet
members have been involved in all sorts of illegal "insider" deals that have
netted them a lot of money.
2. deceitfulness, repeated lying
His whole economic program is geared toward enriching the rich while
crippling the federal government, resulting in big deficits and the
inevitable cuts in social spending. He lies by telling us his tax cutting
plan is to create jobs. He also lies when he says the invasion of Iraq was
to protect us from unconventional weapons or promoting democracy.
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
As reported by Time magazine, he decided to invade Iraq on the spur of the
moment, without any clear-cut justification. This created a big problem for
Cheney, who had to come up with elaborate rationalizations for the invasion.
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights
Keep in mind that these criteria are intended for street thugs. Bush
doesn't like to get his hands dirty. Nonetheless, the pattern of
aggressiveness is clearly present.
5. reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
Emphasis on "others." Bush not only could care less about the thousands of
Iraqis he murdered (when there's no legal justification, it's not war but
mass murder), he even exposed his own troops to depleted uranium in both
Afghanistan and Iraq.
6. consistent irresponsibility
Again, the DSM-IV shows its bias by focusing on failure to hold a job or
honor financial obligations. With the president we're more concerned with
things like Kyoto and putting nuclear weapons in space.
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
W. has never felt a twinge of remorse for anything. The guy is an
over-the-top flaming psychopath. Case closed.
Of course, a good biography of W. would reveal all seven of these traits in
far greater detail. No doubt an airtight case can and will be made.
> Don't get me wrong. I'm no big fan of Dubya and think the new tax cutting
> scheme might be nuts. Asking for hundreds of billions in tax cuts at the
> same time that almost 100 billion is being slated for the war effort does
> not seem sane to me, but this is not a matter of individual psychosis on
> Dubya's part.
He's not psychotic. Insanity does not require auditory hallucinations,
disorganized thinking, etc. The most common source of insanity in the world
is the personality disorder.
> Republicans, as a group, tend to be deluded
It's the way individual ego disorders tend to become collective ego
disorders that makes them so dangerous. What began as McCarthy's private
derangement quickly mutated into McCarthyism. Memes, of course, are central
to this process, infecting otherwise normal people with the deranged beliefs
of narcissists and sociopaths.
> > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Dace, I was glad to see your response, and it seems to undermine the use
> the DSM criteria that you offered initially. I would agree that it is a
> thing to undermine!
The DSM is skeletal. I wasn't undermining it so much as fleshing it out.
> And I would agree that no competent therapist should offer a diagnosis
> on the facts given in my scenario -- but that, of course does not stop the
> rest of us from trying to do so. <smile>
> The Soviets and others have tried to equate disagreement with insanity, an
> execrable response to those who challenge the central power center, and
> somewhat akin to the Inquisition.
Inquisions of all forms, including Ashcroft's current witch-hunt against
terrorists, are always manifestations of disturbed egos.
> To turn to a second element of behavior that has confounded this list, the
> use of invective and dismissive insult...
> My sense is that email, particularly in a public list where we presume
> strangers lurk, is a difficult place to explore true differences of
> Our relative anonymity and disconnect from our list members makes it easy
> choose offensive words, knowing that we will never have any further
> with the person we are debating with. So when we reach the decision that
> other person is not worth debating with, but we may yet wish to persuade
> other lurkers, we hang in on the argument, though caring little about its
> impact of the other debater.
> Clearly, I think, this is not a matter of anyone having a personality
> disorder, but is inherent in the nature of the situation.
> What do you think?
I'm afraid I must disagree. The fact that discussion here is not
face-to-face cannot account for the behavior I've ascribed to personality
Like you, I want to live in a society characterized by tolerance and
interpersonal respect. The more narcissistic, paranoid, schizoid,
antisocial, and hysterical we become, the less tolerant and respectful we'll
be towards each other. What you're looking for is a world free of
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 14 May 2003 - 18:02:45 GMT