# Personality Disorder Test



## Turangalîla

I've been seeing a few personality tests floating around here-anyone brave enough to take a personality _disorder_ test? It's a good one, here: http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder.html

If I can post my results, you can too...

Paranoid 42%
Schizoid 46%
Schizotypal 54%
Antisocial 38%
Borderline 10%
Histrionic 70%
Narcissistic 74%
Avoidant 34%
Dependent 18%
Obsessive-Compulsive 86%

Have at 'er, y'all! This'll be fun... :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

My results - you sure this is accurate...... I feel I look to normal here !!

Paranoid |||||| 26% 
Schizoid |||||||||| 34% 
Schizotypal |||||||||||| 46% 
Antisocial |||||||||| 38% 
Borderline || 10% 
Histrionic |||||| 26% 
Narcissistic |||||| 26%
Avoidant |||| 14% 
Dependent |||| 14% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||| 18%


----------



## Turangalîla

Wow, such low results... I'm pretty sure it's accurate, but remember that the legitimacy of the results are dependent upon the accuracy of the responses...


----------



## Ramako

I have taken many of these. I stopped for the sake of my sanity, but here goes...

Paranoid 54%
Schizoid 22%
Schizotypal 54%
Antisocial 14%
Borderline 82%	
Histrionic 46%
Narcissistic	22%	
Avoidant 58%	
Dependent 58%	
Obsessive-Compulsive 54%	


I have become more sane recently it seems. Some of these are probably inaccurate, such as the schizotypal one for example should probably be higher.


----------



## Head_case

They left out a category:


> "I will slit my wrists if I have to complete 50 pointless questions"


I gave up before the end...it was so tiresome.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Wow, such low results... I'm pretty sure it's accurate, but remember that the legitimacy of the results are dependent upon the accuracy of the responses...


Ah now you tell me...


----------



## Mahlerian

Paranoid	||||||||||||	46%
Schizoid	||||	18%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||	54%
Antisocial	||||||||||	38%
Borderline	||||||||||||	42%
Histrionic	||||||	26%
Narcissistic	||||||	26%
Avoidant	||||||||||||||	54%
Dependent	||||||||||||	46%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||	54%

Below average or average on most things.


----------



## Head_case

Results: 
*

"Obsessive-Compulsive 99.9999999%"*

Damn. Got to keep repeat the test to get my grade up.


----------



## Head_case

More results :lol:



> Paranoid |||||||||||| It's not safe to tell you 100%
> Schizoid |||| [ . ]
> Schizotypal |||||||||||||| I like Weird 100%
> Antisocial |||||||||| Fokk off. None of your bizness! 100%
> Borderline |||||||||||| 50-50%
> Histrionic |||||| You cannot be serious!! 10000%
> Narcissistic |||||| I scored the bestest! Lots of love to me 100%
> Avoidant |||||||||||||| 0%
> Dependent |||||||||||| You tell me yours, I'll tell you mine 100%


----------



## violadude

Paranoid |||||||||||||||||| 78% 
Schizoid |||||| 22% 
Schizotypal |||||||||||||| 54% 
Antisocial |||||| 30% 
Borderline |||||||||||||||||||| 86% 
Histrionic |||||||||| 34% 
Narcissistic |||| 14% 
Avoidant |||||||||||||||||| 78% 
Dependent |||||||||||||||||||| 82% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||| 26%


----------



## Weston

Not much of a surprise to me.


Paranoid |||| 18% 
Schizoid |||||||||||| 42% 
Schizotypal |||||||||||| 50% 
Antisocial |||||| 26% 
Borderline |||||||||||| 46% 
Histrionic |||| 14% 
Narcissistic |||||| 30% 
Avoidant |||||||||||||||||| 78% *
Dependent |||||| 26% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||| 30% 

*Or to put it another way, people drive me stark ravin' nuts.


----------



## Turangalîla

Wow, Violadude, you're the complete opposite of me... looks like we have a lot of borderliners on here


----------



## jani

Paranoid	||||||	26%	
Schizoid	||||||||||	38%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||	50%	
Antisocial	||||||||||||	42%	
Borderline	||||	14%	
Histrionic	||||||||||||	50%	
Narcissistic	||||||||||||||||	62%	
Avoidant	||||||||||	34%	
Dependent	||||||	30%	
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||	42%


----------



## PetrB

Head_case said:


> Results:
> *"Obsessive-Compulsive 99.9999999%"*
> Damn. Got to keep repeat the test to get my grade up.


Soooo close to that 4.0 and the scholarship; what a pity!


----------



## clavichorder

Awwww mannn, I took this just a week ago but no longer have my result. I recall scoring more highly on Schizotypal, Dependant, and Borderline. I should have scored higher on Narcissism but I'm too clever for these tests.


----------



## Art Rock

Paranoid	||||||	22%	50%
Schizoid	||||||||||||||||	62%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||	50%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||||	54%	46%
Borderline	||||||||||||	42%	45%
Histrionic	||||||||||	34%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||||||	54%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||	42%	48%
Dependent	||||||	30%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||	58%	45%


----------



## Arsakes

Paranoid	|||	54%
Schizoid	||| 34%
Schizotypal	|||	46%
Antisocial	|||	58%
Borderline	|||	42%
Histrionic	|||	54%
Narcissistic	|||	54%
Avoidant	|||	66%
Dependent	|||	54%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||| 70%


----------



## Head_case

> Quote Originally Posted by Head_case View Post
> Results:
> "Obsessive-Compulsive 99.9999999%"
> Damn. Got to keep repeat the test to get my grade up.





PetrB said:


> Soooo close to that 4.0 and the scholarship; what a pity!


Now I've got a crease on my shirt sleeve typing too much.


----------



## deggial

Paranoid	||||||||||||	42%	50%
Schizoid	||||||	30%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||	42%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||||	*54%* 46%
Borderline	||||||	26%	45%
Histrionic	||	10%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||	38%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||	34%	48%
Dependent	||||||	22%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||	42%	45%

all below the average, except one... I'm going to go bully somebody for a little while


----------



## millionrainbows

You're invited to view my blog on the subject of psychiatry.


----------



## cwarchc

Paranoid	||||||||||||||	54%	50%
Schizoid	||||||	26%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||||	74%	56%
Antisocial	||||||	22%	46%
Borderline	||||||||||||||||||	74%	45%
Histrionic	||||||||||||	46%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||	22%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||||||	66%	48%
Dependent	||||||||||||	42%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||	54%	45%


----------



## Ramako

Of course, the 'average' scores are taken from a sample of internet users seeking out personality disorder tests... We actually seem to have quite a lot of sane people here :lol:


----------



## drpraetorus

Here's mine 

Paranoid |||| 14% 50% 
Schizoid |||||||||| 38% 40% 
Schizotypal |||||| 26% 56% 
Antisocial |||| 18% 46% 
Borderline |||||||||| 38% 45% 
Histrionic |||||| 30% 35% 
Narcissistic |||||||||||| 42% 40% 
Avoidant |||||||||| 34% 48% 
Dependent |||||| 26% 44% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||| 30% 45% 

It seems I'm sub parr in most things and only slightly narcissistic.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Paranoid |||||| 22%
Schizoid |||| 14% 40%
Schizotypal |||||||||||||||||| 74% 
Antisocial |||||| 26% 
Borderline |||| 14% 
Histrionic || 10% 
Narcissistic |||||||||||| 46% 
Avoidant |||||||||||||| 54% 
Dependent |||||||||| 34% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||| 46%

I didn't like some of the questions, I didn't feel they got to the real reasons that motivate my behaviors/actions. To be ethical _just _to be accepted in a community? I feel a lot of values I have isolates me from the larger public. And aiming for excellence in music for the sake of excellence is enough to be obsessive-compulsive? And acknowledging/appreciating that I honestly _do _perform things well is narcissistic? I think it's more than that. I did call myself weird/strange in that test though, because I do have some eccentric tastes, musically, aesthetically, food-wise, activity-wise, etc. Perhaps I take my self-perception of being strange too far though, thus transitioning to my next paragraph...

If I have a "mental condition" it's something along the line of an inferiority complex. This isn't the same as poor self-esteem though, I feel I have very high. But I get into this set of mind of, "status quo is to be ignored," so when I do suddenly get attention, I get all surprised, but really attention is a normal part of life, and it's _not _normal to be ignored/neglected. I prefer to be ignored and off everyone's radar. It's really a form of pride. True humility is appreciating when you get attention for things you _do _deserve, and not throwing it away as if you didn't deserve it.


----------



## Praeludium

Paranoid |||||||||||||||| 62% 
Schizoid |||||||||||||||||| 74% 
Schizotypal |||||||||||||||| 66% 
Antisocial |||||| 26% 
Borderline |||||||||||||||| 66% 
Histrionic |||||||||| 34% 
Narcissistic |||||| 30% 
Avoidant |||||||||||||||| 70% 
Dependent |||||||||||| 42% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||| 34%

Those tests are fun but I don't feel like they're reliable ^^ Otherwise, not really surprised by the results. No high score, a little bit of many things.

edit : http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1097-anti-psychiatry-blog.html nice post


----------



## PetrB

Nope. I'm perfect.

Ha. Haa. Haaaaa. Haaaaaaa.


----------



## jani

Well, i have to say that the test was right about me being little narcissistic.
Since i can remember i have had some kinda extra need for attention etc...
Specially when i was a child i always felt that i didn't get enough of it.


----------



## moody

I'm certainly not posting my results here,I don't want to give people the chance to say : "I knew it!" "I told you so!"


----------



## Ukko

Hmph. According to this, I am below average in _everything_. Damn!


----------



## Vaneyes

I guess I'll be busking with Jani.


----------



## Kopachris

Paranoid	54%
Schizoid	66%
Schizotypal	74%
Antisocial	30%
Borderline	54%
Histrionic	18%
Narcissistic	30%
Avoidant	50%
Dependent	26%
Obsessive-Compulsive	46%

As far as accuracy goes, I can tell you that the questions are pretty much copied from the DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines (whether or not you trust those diagnostic guidelines is up to you). Keep in mind that it's not considered a disorder unless:
(DSM-IV)

An enduring pattern of psychological experience and behavior that differs prominently from cultural expectations, as shown in two or more of: cognition (i.e. perceiving and interpreting the self, other people or events); affect (i.e. the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response); interpersonal functioning; or impulse control.
The pattern must appear inflexible and pervasive across a wide range of situations, and lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.
The pattern must be stable and long-lasting, have started as early as at least adolescence or early adulthood.
The pattern must not be better accounted for as a manifestation of another mental disorder, or to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug or medication) or a general medical condition (e.g. head trauma).

(ICD-10)

Markedly disharmonious attitudes and behavior, generally involving several areas of functioning; e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to others;
The abnormal behavior pattern is enduring, of long standing, and not limited to episodes of mental illness;
The abnormal behavior pattern is pervasive and clearly maladaptive to a broad range of personal and social situations;
The above manifestations always appear during childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood;
The disorder leads to considerable personal distress but this may only become apparent late in its course;
The disorder is usually, but not invariably, associated with significant problems in occupational and social performance.

The ICD adds: "For different cultures it may be necessary to develop specific sets of criteria with regard to social norms, rules and obligations."

So, in response to


Huilunsoittaja said:


> Paranoid |||||| 22%
> Schizoid |||| 14% 40%
> Schizotypal |||||||||||||||||| 74%
> Antisocial |||||| 26%
> Borderline |||| 14%
> Histrionic || 10%
> Narcissistic |||||||||||| 46%
> Avoidant |||||||||||||| 54%
> Dependent |||||||||| 34%
> Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||| 46%
> 
> I didn't like some of the questions, I didn't feel they got to the real reasons that motivate my behaviors/actions. To be ethical _just _to be accepted in a community? I feel a lot of values I have isolates me from the larger public. And aiming for excellence in music for the sake of excellence is enough to be obsessive-compulsive? And acknowledging/appreciating that I honestly _do _perform things well is narcissistic? I think it's more than that. I did call myself weird/strange in that test though, because I do have some eccentric tastes, musically, aesthetically, food-wise, activity-wise, etc.


No, aiming for excellence for the sake of excellence is _not_ enough to be obsessive-compulsive. Acknowledging that you do perform well is _not_ enough to be narcissistic.


----------



## Guest

Kopachris said:


> No, aiming for excellence for the sake of excellence is _not_ enough to be obsessive-compulsive. Acknowledging that you do perform well is _not_ enough to be narcissistic.


It is so hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way


----------



## millionrainbows

Paranoid	100%
Schizoid	100%
Schizotypal	100%
Antisocial	100%
Borderline	100%
Histrionic	100%
Narcissistic	100%
Avoidant	100%
Dependent	100%
Obsessive-Compulsive	100%

Ha ha! A perfect score! I win! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Oh boy, is this ever relevant to a thread I'm about to post on this forum!!


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Oh boy, is this ever relevant to a thread I'm about to post on this forum!!


What, is it about Robert Schumann jumping into the river? We can't wait! What is it???


----------



## Turangalîla

millionrainbows said:


> Paranoid	100%
> Schizoid	100%
> Schizotypal	100%
> Antisocial	100%
> Borderline	100%
> Histrionic	100%
> Narcissistic	100%
> Avoidant	100%
> Dependent	100%
> Obsessive-Compulsive	100%
> 
> Ha ha! A perfect score! I win! :lol:


Another obsessive-compulsive! Welcome to the faith...we should get together sometime! We could wash our hands, sharpen pencils, wash our hands, smooth out bed quilts, straighten picture frames, and wash our hands again! Oh, and criticize wrong notes made in YouTube performances. Sounds like what I do every day, anyways...


----------



## Guest

I've just cancelled the thread I wrote on this because of the fear of my internet stalker!! Yes, that's what I've been dealing with elsewhere - a narcissistic stalker who won't leave me alone. Private emails, following me around message-boards and getting in the road so as to divert attention to himself. He's got "loser" stamped on his forehead but these people can be damaging and dangerous. I'm over 60 and this man is several years younger than myself, so why doesn't he get himself some nice youthful filly to pester?

Qualification: it's not OK to stalk anybody - poor joke.


----------



## Guest

So he is a toy boy be grateful ......


----------



## Guest

Andante said:


> So he is a toy boy be grateful ......


If *only that were true*! Funny!:lol: I wonder if he qualifies - mid 50's and all!! Actually, he's a total nutter - "bonkers", to use his own words!! But, hey, it's nice to get some helpful and sensitive advice here.

The literature says of these narcissists that they are empty inside, devoid of a "real self' - instead they have a "false self" which is a confabulation based on how wonderful they think they are. So easy to detect, in retrospect. A lot of them populate the internet, according to an article I read by a Psychiatrist in a major newspaper recently. And, they are "unspeakably lonely" because "nobody appreciates how wonderful they are". But, who'd have thought....?

We've talked enough about me, let's talk about me (typical narcissist comment).

"My Narcissist" (reminds me of Dickens' "Great Expectations and Pip's "my convict" - Magwitch - it's got the same piquant flavour of irony) said in a recent email that I should 'submit' my research for my music appreciation lectures to the ***** internet forum 'for peer review'. Now that made me laugh - the idea that random contributors to music messageboards are the 'peers' of academia is another hoot for me!! Obviously in his world this constitutes 'academics'. It just gets better....!!

"Oh, yeah, I like Mahler - I give him a 7 out of 10".


----------



## Salix

I took it but am tempted to answer the questions for others. Mainly family. Is there a name for that disorder?

My score for paranoid was 70, everything else was at or below average. Seems legit.


----------



## Head_case

Hmmm.

This thread seems to have bit the dust somewhere between paranoid and anti-social .....! :lol:


Seriously though...a joke here or there is fine, but we should recall, that people with personality disorders are distressed and really struggle with relationships and life to the point of being troubled, or troubling to an extreme (so I guess a test like this is looking for the extreme 1% beyond the 3 standard deviations?).

I write this, partly borne out of frustration at being internet stalked by an acquaintance of a friend whom I was introduced to. My friend insisted I put her up to help her when she came to visit him, as he couldn't (since he is married). So I humbly obliged and hosted his friend for the day. I thought nothing of it and the day passed well. 

Six months later, she emailed me directly inviting herself over to stay on the pretext of visiting our mutual friend. I declined, since I work away. All I received thereafter was barrage and barrage of emails from her, and then from our mutual friend, saying I was a 'spoilsport' for not helping out. I felt really guilty and although I had to take a flight back home to arrange to meet, and change my work plans and book holiday time to arrange this, I acquiesced (out of weakness, rather than kindness - that's my own failing). Thereafter, it just got worse. I was rather shocked that there was an expectation I would pick her up from the airport at 5am in the morning. That I would drive her to our mutual friend's. That I would pay for her dinners; lunches...everything. I kept silent and decided to bring this issue up with our mutual friend only to discover it fell on deaf ears.

Having spent much of my student years working part-time in the catering trade, I'm a pretty good host, not because I say so, but because everyone who comes to visit me tells me. Even if I don't take to a customer's attitude and personality, I never let it get in the way of being professional. Anyway, this guest misconstrued kindness: I am very boundaried and only treated her the way I would treat everyone. I put up with her for 3 days, which were torturous - she really acted like a princess as if I was her footservant, expecting to be chauffeured everywhere, and then complaining at the slightest disappointment in the flavour of her tea or scones. 

I was so relieved when I dropped her off at the airport and vowed never to see her again. 

That was a year ago. Unfortunately she has no measure of receiving kindness. There are people in this world who are incapable of understanding kindness. This might seem to be a terrible idea: how is this possible? Well surely, people appreciate kindness, and then scarper, calculating 'what's in it for me?' or 'what can I get free from this transaction with some stranger?'. This is not appreciation. People who use others this way, are transparently obvious, and whereas others may not state it outright, there is only blindness when such people assume that others are fools who can be taken advantage of and that they have managed to screw some benefit out of others, pecuniary or otherwise. 

What such people lack...is that conscience which defines human kindness. That prerogative, to treat others with respect and human dignity, not merely to treat others, because we expect to be treated well. Such a facile concept is no better than tit for tat, or the justification of retribution in its opposite argument.

Kindness is precisely that character whereit is not given out of calculation or expectation of a reward; it is given freely and indifferently, whether to stranger or to friend, and for my friends, this is a way of being. We have no interest in the shallowness of the business and economical human traps which limited pragmatism brings in people whose sights on humanity are no higher than the soles of their high heels. It has a conscience - that is - a duty to oneself to act regardless of the other person's norms.

Since then, I've been constantly email spam attacked constantly by her and although I've never responded once: 16 messages a week, harrassing me, telling me how evil I am; how I am so cruel not to write back or talk. The rate intensifies to about 10 emails in one day. Our mutual friend has also been a bit of a double agent leaking anything I tell him to her. If you've never been stalked before, opening up an email to find someone plying on effort to make you feel guilt; blaming and making accusations against you that you somehow had wronged them because they have a high expectation to be treated better than they deserve.... it's quite harrowing. The latest stream of emails demand that I come over to visit her across the Atlantic to see her and help her because she has become 'depressed' and it's all my fault. 

I subsequently found out that she was rather quite sad and desperate: she seems to have very few close friends and is so self-centred and completely spoilt by her parents, such that even in their infirmity of old age, they run after her. She sees nothing wrong in her behaviour. Although I have some empathy for her suffering, and I can see that she is distressed, more importantly, I can see that she is completely obsessed with me, even though I have only ever met her for 4 days. She has latched on and created a mental world which is not borne out in reality. 

Our mutual friend wrote back to me and told me (finally) that he realised she wasn't well. I feel sorry that I can't help her, since I am the object of her obsessions. At the same time, for such people who refuse help and live in distress created by their own relationship problems, it must be a living hell for them. 

Thank goodness for email spam filters


----------



## Flamme

Paranoid |||||||||||| 50% 50%
Schizoid |||||| 26% 40%
Schizotypal |||||||||||| 46% 56%
Antisocial |||||||||||| 50% 46%
Borderline |||||||||||||| 58% 45%
Histrionic |||||||||| 38% 35%
Narcissistic |||||||||| 38% 40%
Avoidant |||||||||||| 46% 48%
Dependent |||||||||||| 42% 44%
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||| 50% 45%


----------



## Guest

Head_case said:


> At the same time, for such people who refuse help and live in distress created by their own relationship problems, it must be a living hell for them.


....not to mention the effect upon immediate family and other relatives!! You are a very compassionate person and very right that we need to follow our own consciences when applying kindness. BUT, there is such a thing as personal survival and when somebody like your stalker (she sounds "Borderline" - I've done quite a bit of reading!) refuses to get help they make an active personal choice not to be responsible for their behaviour. It is this secondary action of failing to seek help and where relationships are being destroyed which is where they are deliberately negligent IMO.

I tried compassion at first, sensing immediately that something was wrong, as most of us would. Inexperience taught me a very harsh lesson. My sister is a professional Psychologist and said "beware" virtually immediately, but I persisted thinking I was smart enough to handle the situation. Wrong. Narcissists are the most intractable variety of Personality Disorder, and a vengeful narcissist - like in my experience - can be very resilient and vicious. Like a dog chained up for too long that just SHOCKS with its sheer nastiness.

The world of the internet is good for them because they can PRETEND to be normal, having created a False Self. But I know my nemesis IS suffering, oh yes, and jealousy about me is the first way of identifying that. I'm intelligent enough to realize that I'm everything he cannot be, and this is what it's ALL about. Strangely, I still feel that compassion despite the hurts having been inflicted. That and extreme caution. One of my biggest "mistakes" with this person was to be super strong, provide boundaries and then DEMAND that he take personal responsibility for his behaviour towards me. All hell broke loose!

Run for your lives with these kinds of people. As fast as you can.


----------



## millionrainbows

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Another obsessive-compulsive! Welcome to the faith...we should get together sometime! We could wash our hands, sharpen pencils, wash our hands, smooth out bed quilts, straighten picture frames, and wash our hands again! Oh, and criticize wrong notes made in YouTube performances. Sounds like what I do every day, anyways...


The way I see it, Carter, is that there's a right way to do things, and a wrong way.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

With the recent mass-shootings, the new American obsession will now be 'people with mental disorders.' I'm sure that law enforcement, social reform groups, gun-owners, people with power and money, will all support a new 'American witch-hunt' to flush-out such mental defectives, in order to place blame and shift the focus from guns to 'mental disorders.'

This is a new political reality. We are seeing it as it develops, right here on this forum.

This new mindset seems to be targeting people who are presumed to have 'mental disorders,' which is really a nebulous, identity-based assessment which nobody can prove. It's metaphysics, like religion, because it concerns the human soul; nobody can experience anyone else's experience, or prove anything objectively about it. This person is presumed to have a soul, I would hopefully assume. So, the 'new psychiatry' bases their assumptions solely on behavior, nothing else.

What about other types of people who have different 'realities' and mindsets, and exhibit different behaviors and roles than your typical white male (which has been implied to be the 'true' reality)?

What about the history of other "scapegoats" who have been targeted for the 'realities' they experience, or the roles and behaviors they had to adopt to survive in our culture, such as African-Americans, women, and gays?

In fact, gay people were once the target of the psychiatric profession. For example, Lou Reed, the famous poet and founder of the Velvet Underground, was subjected to shock-treatment because he told his parents he was gay and exhibited behaviors and adopted a persona which indicated that he was attracted to men.

I hope that such 'different' people, including people who are artistic, creative, or have been abused, or who simply do not wish to conform to the emerging corporate conservatism mindset, will not be scapegoated, or continue to be castigated in public internet forums, and I urge internet discussion forums and their moderators to refuse to work with, or collude with groups which 'target' or bully such people.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> "My Narcissist" said in a recent email that I should 'submit' my research for my music appreciation lectures to the ***** internet forum 'for peer review'. Now that made me laugh - the idea that random contributors to music messageboards are the 'peers' of academia is another hoot for me!! Obviously in his world this constitutes 'academics'. It just gets better....!!


I don't agree with the general impression that creates, and I don't see it that way at all. *I love internet forums,* and they have taught me a lot, because what is posted is often scrutinized by people who seem to be quite knowledgeable.


----------



## Ramako

millionrainbows said:


> With the recent mass-shootings, the new American obsession will now be 'people with mental disorders.' I'm sure that law enforcement, social reform groups, gun-owners, people with power and money, will all support a new 'American witch-hunt' to flush-out such mental defectives, in order to place blame and shift the focus from guns to 'mental disorders.'
> 
> This is a new political reality. We are seeing it as it develops, right here on this forum.
> 
> This new mindset seems to be targeting people who are presumed to have 'mental disorders,' which is really a nebulous, identity-based assessment which nobody can prove. It's metaphysics, like religion, because it concerns the human soul; nobody can experience anyone else's experience, or prove anything objectively about it. This person is presumed to have a soul, I would hopefully assume. So, the 'new psychiatry' bases their assumptions solely on behavior, nothing else.
> 
> What about other types of people who have different 'realities' and mindsets, and exhibit different behaviors and roles than your typical white male (which has been implied to be the 'true' reality)?
> 
> What about the history of other "scapegoats" who have been targeted for the 'realities' they experience, or the roles and behaviors they had to adopt to survive in our culture, such as African-Americans, women, and gays?
> 
> In fact, gay people were once the target of the psychiatric profession. For example, Lou Reed, the famous poet and founder of the Velvet Underground, was subjected to shock-treatment because he told his parents he was gay and exhibited behaviors and adopted a persona which indicated that he was attracted to men.
> 
> I hope that such 'different' people, including people who are artistic, creative, or have been abused, or who simply do not wish to conform to the emerging corporate conservatism mindset, will not be scapegoated, or continue to be castigated in public internet forums, and I urge internet discussion forums and their moderators to refuse to work with, or collude with groups which 'target' or bully such people.


What did you get in paranoia, millionrainbows? :lol:

However, on a more serious note I too find the division into 'mentally healthy' and 'mentally ill' people strikingly arbitrary. However, speaking as someone from across the pond, where we find your country's obsession with guns to be simply strange, I would say it is not limited to America. It is a new reality - because some kind of categorisation is necessary to remove dangerous, or just unwanted, people from 'normal' society.

This is not to say, however, that there are not genuine mental illnesses - because there are.


----------



## Lunasong

Oddly, I scored equally high on being Avoidant and Dependent.

Like others, I scored highest on Obsessive -Compulsive. What's wrong with being organized and neat, and following routines to make sure all bases are covered?


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> As far as accuracy goes, I can tell you that the questions are pretty much copied from the DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines (whether or not you trust those diagnostic guidelines is up to you).


Where did this come from? It must be an on-line paste, because I can't imagine that anyone would go to the trouble of typing all that out! I'm getting a real education here. Do I get my on-line degree in behavioral psychology after this?:lol:

I thought this part was amusing: "The disorder is usually, but not invariably, associated with significant problems in occupational and social performance."

I guess that means if you're having problems with your new job cleaning toilets, or working at McDonald's in this new "post Wall-Street debacle depression era America" and can't put your music degree to use, that you have a 'mental disorder.':lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Ramako said:


> What did you get in paranoia, millionrainbows? :lol:
> 
> However, on a more serious note I too find the division into 'mentally healthy' and 'mentally ill' people strikingly arbitrary. However, speaking as someone from across the pond, where we find your country's obsession with guns to be simply strange, I would say it is not limited to America. It is a new reality - because some kind of categorisation is necessary to remove dangerous, or just unwanted, people from 'normal' society. This is not to say, however, that there are not genuine mental illnesses - because there are.


Oohh, that sounds ominous. I must say, you are appropriately dressed for the occasion. And who's going to do the categorizing of these people, a government agency?

If you're from the UK, then perhaps you'd like to comment on R.D. Laing. I can't wait!:lol:

-----------------


----------



## Ukko

millionrainbows said:


> [...]
> I hope that such 'different' people, including people who are artistic, creative, or have been abused, or who simply do not wish to conform to the emerging corporate conservatism mindset, will not be scapegoated, or continue to be castigated in public internet forums, and I urge internet discussion forums and their moderators to refuse to work with, or collude with groups which 'target' or bully such people.


I think you are 'reaching' way out there. Most of the 'different` folks you mention would not be 'singled out' as dangerous nutcases in any of the testing scenarios proposed - at least not for those characteristics. Gayness per se does not include an irresistible urge to slaughter schoolkids. Perhaps your concern is that they would be identified as... what they are? But that is an entirely different set of circumstances - and prejudices.


----------



## Ramako

millionrainbows said:


> Oohh, that sounds ominous. I must say, you are appropriately dressed for the occasion. And who's going to do the categorizing of these people, a government agency?


On the subject of how I am dressed... The masses decide who should be got rid of, and in doing so they rightly fulfil their conservative vocation... But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less).

Less on the subject of how I am dressed mental illness is a mechanism by which society gets rid of its unwanted... This works on both sides of the spectrum.

Probably not to your surprise, I don't know about that book, so I am unable to comment.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ironically, my taste in psychiatry runs diametrically counter to my taste in music: I like the older traditional "classics" like Freud, Jung, and Laing, who dealt with the older God-centric view of Man actually having a 'soul' and experience, rather than this new Pavlovian-dog/B.F. Skinner "avant garde" brand of data-based observation which sees Man as simply a collection of behaviors. Corporations love it, though, because it gives them "hard data" to play with. This is "atonal' to my soul, and I think this way of viewing people eventually leads to a dehumanizing, detached view which betrays and marginalizes real human interaction, and our views of other people.

It's the same view warriors and soldiers adopt to enable them to kill: you must "dehumanize" and detach yourself from "the enemy" you have created using this detached perspective. As was said:



Ramako said:


> ...some kind of categorisation is necessary to remove dangerous, or just unwanted, people from 'normal' society...


That sounds like a classic case of creating an "other" which we can see as disposable.


----------



## Ramako

millionrainbows said:


> That sounds like a classic case of creating an "other" which we can see as disposable.


Oh, I just mean that this is just the way that society works... I strongly dislike our current society... It is a natural reaction of people in the _Zeitgeist_, in which part I agree with my avatar.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think you are 'reaching' way out there. *Most of the 'different` folks you mention would not be 'singled out' as dangerous nutcases in any of the testing scenarios proposed - at least not for those characteristics. Gayness per se does not include an irresistible urge to slaughter schoolkids. *


The thing is, as I mentioned in my post about Skinnerian behaviorism vs. the now-discarded classic "experiential-based" model of psychiatry, how can anyone know with any accuracy who is a "nutcase" who would go on a rampage, unless this is revealed as observable data? Crime is an act, not an "identity-brand."

This essentially contradicts the "observable behavior" model of the "new, improved" psychiatry. This is an "identity branding" act, just as gays were branded. That's going to be the net result of it. People will be "identity branded." What a hypocritical pretension the psychiatry profession is revealed to be by this.



Hilltroll72 said:


> Perhaps your concern is that they would be *identified as... what they are?* But that is an entirely different set of circumstances - and prejudices.


Nobody can prove that these sets of DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines, which are "observable behaviors," will lead to "slaughtering schoolkids"(also an observable behavior). I am not prepared to entrust a freshly-graduated psychiatrist to determine who is dangerous and who is not, thereby branding and targeting this person.

What you said about my examples of historical scapegoats (gays and blacks and women) can also be applied to doubt and question the criteria listed as "the DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines."

I don't think these criteria can predict who will "slaughter school kids," and it looks to me like a lot of otherwise innocent people will be targeted and harassed by such practices, seeing as human beings are not infallible.

What if black people begin to fall into this new category of "potential offenders," since blacks are now the majority of the prison population, especially males? This new identity-branding would reveal an inherent bias, just as has happened in the past (and is still happening).

Perhaps law enforcement will collude and join forces with the psychiatric profession, and we can have "preventative law enforcement" or "thought-crime" as in George Orwell's 1984.

"These mental defectives are unpersons. An unperson is a person who has been...effectively erased from existence. They do not exist. They never existed. Their freedom has not been taken away, because they never existed from the beginning. Such a person would be written out of existing books, photographs, and articles so that no trace of their existence could be found in the historical record.... Mentioning his or her name, or even speaking of their past existence, is thoughtcrime."

How convenient for right-wing conservative gun-owners living in Ohio, Nebraska, Idaho, and Montana.

It sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen. Have a nice day!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> what is post is often scrutinized by people who seem to be quite knowledgeable.


Yes I think 'seem' is the key word


----------



## clavichorder

I really am not sure of expressing an opinion with any authoritative vibe on this topic.

All I know and feel comfortable saying, is that it makes me uncomfortable. 

(this was a re write of my original post)


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't agree with the general impression that creates, and I don't see it that way at all. *I love internet forums,* and they have taught me a lot, because what is post is often scrutinized by people who seem to be quite knowledgeable.


I take your point, but also agree about the word "seem". I have university post-graduate qualifications in Musicology and I think you would agree with me - that being the case - it is inappropriate for me to have to 'submit' my work to a music messageboard for "peer review", which the menacing person in question DEMANDED I do. Yeah right.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows, you are quite right about the 'medicalization' of difference - the DSM itself probably a "child" of the drug companies. It isn't, however, some kind of totalitarian plot to 'weed out' difference. That occurs on every level of society - even on a message-board! The DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is an attempt to codify known mental disorders so that some kind of uniformity of treatment, as well as writings and research, is available. (A bit like technology - trying to provide some kind of 'stasis' through standardization of software and hardware so that these are more or less adaptable and flexible.)

Already we have seen huge improvements in cyberspace with reduced trolling and bullying overall, thanks to improvements through catch-up in law enforcement. In the vast, ephemeral and unpredictable world of the internet there need to be some standards and guides as to behaviour. The DSM has been helpful in identifying some of the types who cause trouble. I know I've read a lot about Narcissism in the DSM, thanks to my sister who is a Clinical Psychologist. I did this so as to keep "up to speed" with what I was experiencing with a ratbag on the internet myself.


----------



## millionrainbows

clavichorder said:


> I really am not sure of expressing an opinion with any authoritative vibe on this topic.
> 
> All I know and feel comfortable saying, is that it makes me uncomfortable.
> 
> (this was a re write of my original post)


clavichorder is "feeling the fear," and I think that's what this thread is designed to do.

*BOO!* :lol:


----------



## clavichorder

millionrainbows said:


> clavichorder is "feeling the fear," and I think that's what this thread is designed to do.
> 
> *BOO!*:lol:


Just not willing to put my energy into this discussion too intensely(given the fact that it will keep me coming back into a debate when I have freshly resolved to be a little away from the internet for a few weeks to be uncluttered in focus on other areas in life). I do think about this stuff on my own terms often enough though.

If anything though, I'm less bothered by the stigma attached to these disorders than I ever have been. Narcissist is the biggest stigma one, and a little trust in myself has allowed me to not be troubled by even being accused of such myself. If one gets called a narcissisist, its possible that they behaved a bit selfishly in the situation that provoked it, and if one can realize this lightly and try to do better next time, it only proves that you can learn and not fall into the pattern.

Anyways, I think I'm more of a dependant/borderline in the testing(with paranoid and schizotypal tendencies). I feel like I could tap into just about any of these, except "antisocial" which is sort of beyond my comprehension(I care too much about myself, and others, and fear the mighty hand of judgement by laws and social customs when I am nervous). Honestly, this is just how I test when I am trying to "be honest with myself." I don't put so much stalk in any of it, and I think its a step in the right direction that I am not scared in the least to take the test to begin with.

edit: ahhhhhhh

contradicted my first paragraph.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I take your point, but also agree about the word "seem". I have university post-graduate qualifications in Musicology and I think you would agree with me - that being the case - it is inappropriate for me to have to 'submit' my work to a music messageboard for "peer review", which the menacing person in question DEMANDED I do. Yeah right.


I think the person was suggesting that you "field-test" it, just in case you have become too comfortable.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> millionrainbows, you are quite right about the 'medicalization' of difference - the DSM itself probably a "child" of the drug companies. It isn't, however, some kind of totalitarian plot to 'weed out' difference. That occurs on every level of society - even on a message-board! The DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is an attempt to codify known mental disorders so that some kind of uniformity of treatment, as well as writings and research, is available. (A bit like technology - trying to provide some kind of 'stasis' through standardization of software and hardware so that these are more or less adaptable and flexible.)
> 
> Already we have seen huge improvements in cyberspace with reduced trolling and bullying overall, thanks to improvements through catch-up in law enforcement. In the vast, ephemeral and unpredictable world of the internet there need to be some standards and guides as to behaviour. The DSM has been helpful in identifying some of the types who cause trouble. I know I've read a lot about Narcissism in the DSM, thanks to my sister who is a Clinical Psychologist. I did this so as to keep "up to speed" with what I was experiencing with a ratbag on the internet myself.


That's as close to a blanket admission to forum/police collusion as I have seen yet. Where can I find this information?


----------



## clavichorder

So, this is off topic, but since the political junkies group seems a little inactive, I thought I'd post an advertisement for a thread I made there here, since it was directly inspired by some of the posts in this thread.

http://www.talkclassical.com/groups...al-questions-concerning-government-media.html


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Already we have seen huge improvements in cyberspace with reduced trolling and bullying overall, thanks to improvements through catch-up in law enforcement. In the vast, ephemeral and unpredictable world of the internet there need to be some standards and guides as to behaviour. The DSM has been helpful in identifying some of the types who cause trouble. I know I've read a lot about Narcissism in the DSM, thanks to my sister who is a Clinical Psychologist. I did this so as to keep "up to speed" with what I was experiencing with a ratbag on the internet myself.


So that's what this is all about! :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I asked my Alter Ego to do the test- handy having two personalities sometimes you know!! Look what I got. Note these are reall scores from this thing- I jsut answered everything with a very accurate answer (dual meaning there - goes with two personalities !!)

Paranoid |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Schizoid |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Schizotypal |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Antisocial |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Borderline |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Histrionic |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Narcissistic |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Avoidant |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Dependent |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 

Thanks for your comment...

Below is a copy of the information you sent:

You wrote: 
is this accurate ?? high score-Histrionic, low score-Narcissistic, 90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think the person was suggesting that you "field-test" it, just in case you have become too comfortable.


Actually it's "field-tested" by the two retired Professors of Music Education with whom I run these Music Appreciation classes. But, love your sense of humour!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's as close to a blanket admission to forum/police collusion as I have seen yet. Where can I find this information?


Surely you are a master (or mistress) of the aphorism? This information is already in the public domain - do you read the newspapers at all? Read, then join the dots. "Time" magazine for a start, perhaps "Huffington Post" and "New York Times". Just saying..


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm having WAY too much fun on this thread, and the John Cage thread! It's only a matter of time before I get cited again, or at least that's the way it seems. Just in case, I've archived my blogs and my favorite posts.:lol:

Hey, I just thought, those Cage bashers could take a cue from this thread, and use this "narcissistic personality disorder" thing against him.


----------



## millionrainbows

DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as being indicated by five (or more) of the following:

•Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

•Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

•Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

•Requires excessive admiration

•Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

•Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

•Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

•Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

•Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.

*Wow, that sounds just like that female boss I used to work for. Several employers, in fact. If "corporations are people," then I think they fit the bill perfectly!*

Or it could be Dr. Phil...:lol: especially the "unlimited success, power, brilliance/ grandiose sense of self-importance" part


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

millionrainbows said:


> DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as being indicated by five (or more) of the following:
> 
> •Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
> 
> •Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
> 
> •Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
> 
> •Requires excessive admiration
> 
> •Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
> 
> •Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
> 
> •Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
> 
> •Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
> 
> •Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.
> 
> *Wow, that sounds just like that female boss I used to work for. Several employers, in fact. If "corporations are people," then I think they fit the bill perfectly!*


Or my wife.....


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Or my wife.....


Or at any rate, more to the feminine side of things, not like 'John Wayne' or 'Tom Selleck'. I wonder if this "Narcissus" disorder is what they used to think gay people were? Too bad they already named it after that beautiful Greek boy. I wonder what gay people think about all this "narcissistic" stuff, and the off-hand association people tend to make? Also, I wonder if this has anything to do with so many composers being gay?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I'm having WAY too much fun on this thread, and the John Cage thread! It's only a matter of time before I get cited again, or at least that's the way it seems. Just in case, I've archived my blogs and my favorite posts.:lol:
> 
> Hey, I just thought, those Cage bashers could take a cue from this thread, and use this "narcissistic personality disorder" thing against him.


Oh no!! It's you, isn't it? I knew you'd find me here sooner of later. And John Cage. Now, be nice won't you?!!


----------



## millionrainbows

"Borderline Personality Disorder," starring Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, and Robert Duvall. They're back! And wackier than ever in this exciting new western thriller!!!:lol:


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "Borderline Personality Disorder," starring Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, and Robert Duvall. They're back! And wackier than ever in this exciting new western thriller!!!:lol:


Would that be "South of the Borderline" personality disorder? Are you talkin' to me??!!


----------



## millionrainbows

I just feel so grateful that I even have what little personality I do have, whether it be flawed or not, and I think the rest of the people who have chimed-in here should stop and count their blessings, so to speak, instead of obsessing about this subject. I'm always rooting for the underdog, it seems. 

I hope the rest of you here have nice, successful lives and enjoy what you have attained; I certainly will, and will not take it for granted or try to bolster my own ego by comparing it to those less fortunate. Now, git along, little dogies, we have a herd to stay up with.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

From Dr. Phil's new book Life Code, Page 140:

*Never, ever put sensitive content, content that can be taken out of context, in writing, especially in an email. Instead, pick up the phone or go in person and have a real conversation.*

Wow, this is a real eye-opener for me! I thought when you write something down it can not be misconstrued because it is a clearly written sequence of thoughts, feelings and ideas.

However, upon reflection, people do not always interpret things as you intend them to, resulting in misinformation.

I guess everybody who posted on this thread are "losers."

As Dr, Phil says, "You take flying lessons to learn to fly, swimming lessons to learn to swim, and singing lessons to learn to sing. So, why not take winning lessons to learn to win?"

It doesn't really matter, at my age. I'm already a loser, and have probably already been "identity branded" by somebody, anybody who doesn't like me for whatever reasons.

*I'm going to go ahead and say whatever it is I feel and think, without fear.*

I have nothing to hide. There may be "winners" and "losers," but nobody is perfect.:lol:


----------



## PetrB

I do not think it paranoid to avoid taking a reductive twenty point quiz re: the depths of psychological personality facets and disorders, and then posting those results on line.

In an era when employers might just look at anyone's internet postings, anywhere, facebook, fora, etc. I would call refraining from such participation merely 'prudent.'

The hook here is -- most everyone loves to talk about their self


----------



## Guest

That's enough about me: let's talk about me!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I just feel so grateful that I even have what little personality I do have, whether it be flawed or not, and I think the rest of the people who have chimed-in here should stop and count their blessings, so to speak, instead of obsessing about this subject. I'm always rooting for the underdog, it seems.
> 
> I hope the rest of you here have nice, successful lives and enjoy what you have attained; I certainly will, and will not take it for granted or try to bolster my own ego by comparing it to those less fortunate. Now, git along, little dogies, we have a herd to stay up with.:lol:


Well, speaking as a "loser", I'd say Dr. Phil is your bog standard, tele-evangelist masquerading as faux psychologist. Have a nice day!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as being indicated by five (or more) of the following:
> 
> •Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
> 
> •Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
> 
> •Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
> 
> •Requires excessive admiration
> 
> •Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
> 
> •Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
> 
> •Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
> 
> •Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
> 
> •Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.
> 
> *Wow, that sounds just like that female boss I used to work for. Several employers, in fact.*


Or a certain composer of music dramas, except that his sense of self-importance was fully justified.


----------



## moody

millionrainbows said:


> I just feel so grateful that I even have what little personality I do have, whether it be flawed or not, and I think the rest of the people who have chimed-in here should stop and count their blessings, so to speak, instead of obsessing about this subject. I'm always rooting for the underdog, it seems.
> 
> I hope the rest of you here have nice, successful lives and enjoy what you have attained; I certainly will, and will not take it for granted or try to bolster my own ego by comparing it to those less fortunate. Now, git along, little dogies, we have a herd to stay up with.:lol:


"We're heading for the last roundup" are we?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I do not think it paranoid to avoid taking a reductive twenty point quiz re: the depths of psychological personality facets and disorders, and then posting those results on line.


Paranoid? Once again I am called paranoid! This is certainly a plot, a plot against me quite personally! But I know some if not all of the plotters. Others, shadowy, sit in high places and think they cannot be touched. Yes, today they laugh at me and make sport, but tomorrow may show a far different picture.


----------



## Head_case

clavichorder said:


> ....
> 
> If anything though, I'm less bothered by the stigma attached to these disorders than I ever have been. Narcissist is the biggest stigma one, and a little trust in myself has allowed me to not be troubled by even being accused of such myself. If one gets called a narcissisist, its possible that they behaved a bit selfishly in the situation that provoked it, and if one can realize this lightly and try to do better next time, it only proves that you can learn and not fall into the pattern.


If someone calls me a narcissist, I really can't take any offence.

Clearly they just don't love me enough :lol:



> .... Honestly, this is just how I test when I am trying to "be honest with myself." I don't put so much *stalk *in any of it....


*shudder*

You have a way of writing to make CountenanceAnglaise and myself rocket up the Paranoid subscale :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Well, speaking as a "loser", I'd say Dr. Phil is your bog standard, tele-evangelist masquerading as faux psychologist. Have a nice day!


I agree with you on that, CountenanceAnglaise. Dr. Phil is not perfect by any stretch. If there's anything good to say about WIK, it's that it seems to be relatively un-biased in presenting any dirt which may exist on any public figure. It must be run by feminists. :lol:

You have a nice day as well!


----------



## millionrainbows

moody said:


> "We're heading for the last roundup" are we?


Well, it certainly appears that steak is on the menu.:lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Now who is the craziest I'll fightem.... for the title!!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Just out of curiosity, why aren't any of these posts are registering on anybody's "view recent posts" function?


Probably because they're of such astounding intellectual virtuosity than no ordinary reader could cope. Just saying'...!!
It's good to have a bit of fun and not take life too seriously at times!!

Now, for the absolutely diffident non-Narcissists amongst us - me (cough) - here's their checklist:

Looks people in the eye when talking;
Actively interested in others - asks questions and listens;
Smiles a lot;
*Non-judgmental*;
"Well, that's enough about me: let's talk about you";
Kind and thoughtful;
Sits back and lets others have the spotlight;
Generous in praise and materially;
Compassionate and empathetic;
Patient;
Honest.

I'm like millionrainbows - grateful for the most meagre intellectual endowments, non-rodent looks and appearance and overall non-cauliflower ears with which to listen to music!:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by millionrainbows 
Just out of curiosity, why aren't any of these posts are registering on anybody's "view recent posts" function?



moody said:


> Because it's on the Community forum which,for some strange reason,is not included.


Thank you for that straight answer, moody. I thought that perhaps there was some other, more sinister reason, but I didn't want to give the impression that I had a mental disorder. :lol:


----------



## clavichorder

PetrB said:


> I do not think it paranoid to avoid taking a reductive twenty point quiz re: the depths of psychological personality facets and disorders, and then posting those results on line.
> 
> In an era when employers might just look at anyone's internet postings, anywhere, facebook, fora, etc. I would call refraining from such participation merely 'prudent.'
> 
> The hook here is -- most everyone loves to talk about their self


I'm ruined. I'll have to hide out for a few years, develop my life skills at home working for my parents.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> I'm ruined. I'll have to hide out for a few years, develop my life skills at home working for my parents.


1) It ain't being paranoid if...

2) If you feel safe because you have nothing anyone could want... do you have anything _you_ want to keep?

3) Life _is_ a bowl of cherries.


----------



## Head_case

> 3) Life is a bowl of cherries.


Pick me!! Me!! Me!! This one!


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> 1) Life _is_ a bowl of cherries.


Then, which one of us is the nut in the centre?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I have no personality disorders. My personality is in perfect order.


----------



## aleazk

Paranoid	||||||||||	34%	
Schizoid	||||||	26%	
Schizotypal	||||||	26%	
Antisocial	||||||	30%	
Borderline	||||||||||	34%	
Histrionic	||||||	30%	
Narcissistic	||||||	30%	
Avoidant	||||||||||||||	54%	
Dependent	||||||||||	34%	
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||||||||	82%


----------



## Turangalîla

aleazk said:


> [...]
> Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||||||||||| 82%


No wonder we both like Ravel and Ligeti...you're the only other person on here with an obsessive-compulsive score higher than 80% :cheers:


----------



## Guest

Actually I understand none of it! well perhaps just a bit. but some seems contradictory to me


----------



## aleazk

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> No wonder we both like Ravel and Ligeti...you're the only other person on here with an obsessive-compulsive score higher than 80% :cheers:


, their music is very complex and with extreme care in the details.


----------



## arpeggio

*Bassoon players can not be this boring.*

I finally took the test. I am disappointed. My results are rather bland. 

Paranoid |||||||||| 34% 50% 
Schizoid || 10% 40% 
Schizotypal |||||| 30% 56% 
Antisocial |||||||||| 34% 46% 
Borderline |||| 14% 45% 
Histrionic |||| 18% 35% 
Narcissistic |||||| 26% 40% 
Avoidant |||||| 26% 48% 
Dependent |||| 18% 44% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||| 30% 45%

I would have thought my Histrionic score would be much higher. I probably took the test wrong.


----------



## aleazk

^^^I'm  after reading those results. . Can I recommend some OCD, maybe with a pinch of Paranoid for flavoring?.


----------



## arpeggio

What do you mean I am not paranoid enough!!!!!
How dare you!!!!!:scold:

I thought my Histrionic score was low.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> What do you mean I am not paranoid enough!!!!!
> How dare you!!!!



Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.


----------



## aleazk

arpeggio said:


> What do you mean I am not paranoid enough!!!!!
> How dare you!!!!!:scold:
> 
> I thought my Histrionic score was low.


You are getting paranoid, nobody said nothing about you.

<_<

>_>


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

does this help at all.......


----------



## Guest

Well, that's enough talk about Eddie - let's talk about me (for a change). Some of my favourite words are, I, Me, Mine, Ours, Us and I don't like words such as "you", "yours", "theirs", "His", "Bob's" etc. 

So, come on, let's get back to me!!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

well Sydney is the centre of the universe I guess - so its fits ..................


----------



## Guest

God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> well Sydney is the centre of the universe I guess - so its fits ..................


So right.

And, "Eddie......", I used to work at the ABC and knew Graeme Bond and Rory O'Donahue (and Gary McDonald) when "Aunty Jack" was first created - I worked at the ABC with the show's executive producer, Maurice Murphy and his wife (who also worked there.)

So there...now let's talk more about me!:tiphat:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> So right.
> 
> And, "Eddie......", I used to work at the ABC and knew Graeme Bond and Rory O'Donahue (and Gary McDonald) when "Aunty Jack" was first created - I worked at the ABC with the show's executive producer, Maurice Murphy and his wife (who also worked there.)
> 
> So there...now let's talk more about me!:tiphat:


Glad you agree with Sydney - seen now we have solved that one - can we now demolish Canberra?

Wow-and Maurice Murphy -you are a legend then - Shame can't say as much about more recent aussie comics- bloody Hamish and Andy, is that all we got......


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Glad you agree with Sydney - seen now we have solved that one - can we now demolish Canberra?
> 
> Wow-and Maurice Murphy -you are a legend then - Shame can't say as much about more recent aussie comics- bloody Hamish and Andy, is that all we got......


And Maurice was a handsome hunk of spunk, let me tell you!! Unlike Graeme, Rory and Gary!! LOL.

Should be HAM-ish (as in Xmas Ham) and Andy - they're such an embarrassment with that perennial 'undergrad' stuff. We're over it here!! Stop laughing at these guys - they're not funny!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Very funny - so I guess you didn't like all the hair with Graeme and Rory then lol, not that Rory got much anymore.

Yea, I think HAM and Andy are permanently stuck as undergrads. I can tell you I'm not laughing- they make my ears ache and brain hurt.


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Very funny - so I guess you didn't like all the hair with Graeme and Rory then lol, not that Rory got much anymore.
> 
> Yea, I think HAM and Andy are permanently stuck as undergrads. I can tell you I'm not laughing- they make my ears ache and brain hurt.


And I saw Jackie Weaver on "Ellen" yesterday. OMG, I was embarrassed. But at least she's 'down to earth', as the saying goes. At 65 it's a bit late to make your 'debut' on "Ellen".


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> And I saw Jackie Weaver on "Ellen" yesterday. OMG, I was embarrassed. But at least she's 'down to earth', as the saying goes. At 65 it's a bit late to make your 'debut' on "Ellen".


Jackie, who would have every thought that hey - but she is very good about it and probably very deserving......

This almost sounds like an episode of Neighbours!! Now that would make the natives on TC cringe. Please don't try to youtube that...... for sanity sake....


----------



## Novelette

Speaking of narcissism: I've always been amused when a person claims, "I'm humble!" 

Firstly, people frequently, but not always, boast about their humility.

Secondly, the claim of humility presupposes possession of qualities extraordinary enough to merit humility.

"I'm humble!" About what? Humility is usually, as far as I can tell, reckoned a virtue of the talented, the ingenious, the outstanding. A person is not usually "humble" about mediocre qualities, and especially not about sub-standard qualities.

So isn't the act of disclaiming humbleness implicitly a boast because of the inherent presupposition of greatness or skill?

:tiphat:

Or maybe my paranoid score of 64% was understated?


----------



## KenOC

I think I'm pretty humble. After all, my totally astonishing abilities, discerment, and tastes are the products of either my genes or my upbringing, so I can hardly claim credit for them! So, in spite of the fact that I tower mentally, morally, and spiritually over the vast bulk of humanity, I am hardly prideful. And of that I am, justifiably, proud. (oops...)


----------



## Novelette

KenOC, after reading that, I might have to re-take the test. I think my avoidant score has risen:

"Avoidant Personality Disorder - individual is socially inhibited, _*feels inadequate*_, and is oversensitive to criticism. Core issue is an inability to resolve their codependent need for connection with their codependent fear of rejection and/or discomfort/anxiety around others."


----------



## clavichorder

"Oh, I'm so 'umble"-Uriah Heep

Yes, I have read David Copperfield, and reading about Uriah Heep should not make a compelling case for being verbally demonstrative about one's humility.


----------



## Guest

All well and good, except Uriah Heep used "faux" humility to entrap and deceive. He was actually a Boa Constrictor.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Bad Album cover too


----------



## clavichorder

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> All well and good, except Uriah Heep used "faux" humility to entrap and deceive. He was actually a Boa Constrictor.


That's cause he's kind of a one dimensional Dickensian character made to prove a point right? I hope I never meet a real person like that(or that I never suffer from them showing their true colors). Supposedly they exist.

Most people you deal with in close situations like that can cause the same damage as Uriah Heep, but not be so easy to "write off" as an empty shell reptile of a human being, right?


----------



## clavichorder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Bad Album cover too
> 
> View attachment 12851


How am I not surprised you cite the band? Its possible I even thought, "EddieRUKiddingVarese" might make some comment about the band Uriah Heep. Lol.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How did you guess - could not resist and the album is called Very´eavy Very´umble... of course!


----------



## Guest

clavichorder said:


> That's cause he's kind of a one dimensional Dickensian character made to prove a point right? I hope I never meet a real person like that(or that I never suffer from them showing their true colors). Supposedly they exist.
> 
> Most people you deal with in close situations like that can cause the same damage as Uriah Heep, but not be so easy to "write off" as an empty shell reptile of a human being, right?


I'm not sure Dickens was trying to "prove a point" at all. Many of his characters were actually caricatures, but he understood human behaviour very well and, also, he was anti-Semitic - hence the Uriah Heep character. Dickens had a healthy mistrust of Jews and it shows glaringly in his literature. He represents them as untrustworthy and avaricious, so there is more than 'a point' to his characterizations.

It is a shock today for readers to learn that he was anti-Semitic, but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. Altogether, he was a great writer of huge perceptive abilities and that's what I chose to admire: that and the humour.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't think Dickens put that stuff into his books to shock people; he was a product of his times.

That's the way we see Dickens presently, who was a product of his times.

We see other human conditions, characteristics, and traits which have persisted through time. For example, we are still struggling with the issue of gays. In Dickens' time, they were also castigated, as were mental deficients. Now we are on the verge of "granting them amnesty," although in certain socially-retarded Midwestern areas of the US, such as Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and Nebraska, there is resistance.

The focus in this thread seems to ignore *how people are viewed, * and concentrates on *"who is what"* as if this were a 'given.'

Most gay people now say that they are "born that way," which assumes that "gayness" is a "given," or biologically inherent, and not an "identity-formed" condition or choice.

I'm interested to see how where our 'modern, enlightened members' here draw the line between what is "identity-branding" of a person's characteristics and what should be accepted as a "given" characteristic, such as racial/ethnic characteristics, or, now, "gayness," or "mental disorders?"

We castigate Dickens for using "identity-branding" stereotypes with the Uriah Heep character, so now we must define what criteria should we now use for gays and mental deficients, if we are so "enlightened."

This also involves the dilemma between "identity" and "behavior." Dickens did not live in a vacuum; he was reflecting the social system around him. People tend to bond together according to their shared conditions and characteristics. There are still "black" areas of cities in the US.

The social conditions and perceptions in Dickens era existed independently of how he wrote it down or characterized it; at best, he was recording a "snapshot" of how things were, according to the way "ethnic groups" behaved in order to survive, or as a reaction. At worst, he is a misanthropic racist.

If Dickens is to blame, then this must be clarified. For example, "greediness" is a characteristic Uriah Heep exhibited, but now we must determine if this is because of:

1. Negative "identity branding" by Dickens, as part of a perceived social identity, with Dickens acting as a participant of a social matrix he had no control over, as if Uriah Heep was "inherently" this way, as part of a conferred social identity, which "damns" Dickens; or if Uriah Heep was also part of a "social matrix" which the character had no control over, which associated him with these traits of frugality, etc, which paroles Dickens as a "social realist."

When Dickens is branded or accused of racism, then the accusers are disingenuous, acting as if they are somehow "immune" or outside the social matrix which creates these kinds of perceptions.

Of course, if Dickens is intentionally castigating people, then this is something else. Yet, this illuminates the area of "identity-branding" in general. To be gay was at one time a crime punishable by prison time. The view of "mental deficients" is also subject to the capriciousness and whims of changing social perceptions, and is also becoming more associated with "criminal behavior" which might result.

Cops and guns, "good people" with guns, who simply want to defend themselves and kill criminals who are attempting to kill them, now need to focus intently on this increasingly troublesome problem of mental deficients, seemingly oblivious to whatever these deficients were "born as" or were "created" out of the "social matrix" (your choice).

Look carefully at America's history before you decide to speak; our history of slavery, castigation and criminalization of gays, internment of Japanese US citizens, the post-slavery Jim Crow prison-camp system, suppression of women,* and how "law enforcement" seems to always be involved* with these groups.

And for the rest of the test-takers here: Submit to your fate, rabbit, we will hunt you down with our pack of dogs.:lol:

presently reading: Franz Kafka, "The Penal Colony"


----------



## millionrainbows

WILFRED IN MIDLAND: HELLO HYPOCRITE:lol:


----------



## Head_case

> presently reading: Franz Kafka, "The Penal Colony"


"La colonie penitentiare"

This was my first discovery of Kafka followed by "Métamorphose".

The French translation is exceptionally elegant. A few months later I picked up "The Castle", in English. It translated like a lawyer arguing his case in rather dry language. I reverted back to the French version.

I've found translated literature rather hit and miss. For instance, no one has ever succeeded in translating Walker Percy's epic "The Moviegoer" into English from New Orleans speak :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Kafka sure seemed to be familiar with guilt.


----------



## Head_case

millionrainbows said:


> So what do you think about Kafka, Head_case? He sure seemed to be familiar with guilt.


He was one of my favourite writers when I was a teenager. I think that was to do with his astuteness in tapping into the existential condition of man; the anxiety and dread, and utter sense of helplessness against the bureaucratic ways of systems and organisations and the world at large. His argumentative style (inherited from his training as a lawyer) also appealed to the adolescent pedantic qualities which were to become intellectual in literature. As a teenager, his works resonated with the stage of life I was going through in intellectual rebellion against the sterility of the adult expectations and conveyor belt that was unfolding before me.

His biographer and friend, Max Brod writes some fascinating insights about Kafka in his journal - Kafka's own journal reveals much irony about the human condition. Whereas he was writing tragically human stories with grim apparitions of the modern alienation which man was to come to realise was here to stay in the 20th century, he was laughing at writing such works and never seemed to have taken himself seriously in the way that lesser writers (like Ted Hughes) did when it came to the theme of modern 20th century guilt.

For instance - in 'the Castle' - Monsieur K finds himself in a situation: he is unaware of his guilt and argues black and blue against the ways of the Castle's anonymous keepers. This situation of guilt, is horrifying close to the modern consciousness of guilt which Kierkegaard writes of: that man simply no longer realises what guilt is, and acts in defiance, believing himself to have been served an inexplicable injustice. So the themes in the Penitential Colony and in Metamorphose: "One day I woke up to discover I was a bug!" lol! conveys that serious attitude towards the human condition without trivialising guilt and human emotion, as lesser writers would. Waking up as a dehumanised entity ...in a decorporalised body .. of a bug with no familiarity of one's own being. That's how he starts off so lucidly and tersely.

Ted Hughes' guilt is not of the same order. To have lost one wife to suicide due to mental derangement is unfortunate. To have lost two, is not just carelessness. Marital infidelity and autobiography don't mix very well with the writer's conception of guilt. There is an order of guilt (and denial) due to doing something wrong (like Hughes' marital infidelity). There is a more universal and more human one, which Kafka exposes beautifully and turgidly, as a function of all mankind: coming into a world, guilty as hell with no idea why. Kafka's concept of guilt is far richer and more spiritually profound than Ted Hughes approximation of a poetic Mills & Boon airport novella.

I mentioned in some distant thread in the past, that this European consciousness of literature - the existential novel - just never existed in the English language tradition of Jane Austen or Charles Dickens. Perhaps that's why I'm still fond of Kafka and the tradition of European literature.

Walker Percy (a southern American writer) btw, was also influenced by Kafka's quest for expressing the existential dilemma of man in the novel. His works are suffused with flawed characters in search of meaning in this manner. He is another writer, like Kafka, who was drawn deeply by the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard whose influence in the existential novel is far reaching.


----------



## BurningDesire

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I'm not sure Dickens was trying to "prove a point" at all. Many of his characters were actually caricatures, but he understood human behaviour very well and, also, he was anti-Semitic - hence the Uriah Heep character. Dickens had a healthy mistrust of Jews and it shows glaringly in his literature. He represents them as untrustworthy and avaricious, so there is more than 'a point' to his characterizations.
> 
> It is a shock today for readers to learn that he was anti-Semitic, but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. Altogether, he was a great writer of huge perceptive abilities and that's what I chose to admire: that and the humour.


Healthy mistrust of jews? >_>


----------



## Guest

BurningDesire said:


> Healthy mistrust of jews? >_>


Don't just leave it there BD "expand"


----------



## Guest

BurningDesire said:


> Healthy mistrust of jews? >_>


I get your point: it does seem oxymoronic. I meant 'healthy' in the ironic sense that he was tapping into a prevailing ideology that existed in Europe. It wouldn't do to think for oneself; Dickens obviously didn't want to go there, so it was easy for him to develop stereotypes but Heeps was quite serpentine and untrustworthy as a character. Remember Shylock? Wasn't Shakespeare stereotyping Jews too?


----------



## millionrainbows

This thread, in its original intent before it was sidetracked by this Dickens discussion, and as it was started with the test, is not going to do anybody here any good.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Paranoid |||||| 26% 50%
Schizoid |||| 14% 40%
Schizotypal |||||| 26% 56%
Antisocial |||||||||||| 50% 46%
Borderline |||| 18% 45%
Histrionic |||| 14% 35%
Narcissistic |||||||||| 38% 40%
Avoidant |||| 14% 48%
Dependent |||||| 26% 44%
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||||| 58%


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm going to get up on my soapbox again, and complain some more about this thread and the test which accompanies it. 

First off, the term "paranoia" is negative; it conjures-up images of Charles Manson, fear, and drug-induced insanity. It's a pejorative, useless, finger-pointing term.

"Paranoia" is easily confused with "guilt." 'Guilt' is a much better, much more understandable term. It is related to religion, and it is a very "subjective" term which we can all relate to as people. On the other hand, "paranoia" is a pejorative term, an "objective" term used to "label" somebody. See the difference?

Furthermore, "guilt" is something every "survivor" of some trauma can understand. We've all heard of "survivor" guilt; the survivor of war feels "guilty" that he survived, while his comrades perished. This is a common post-traumatic reaction.

This test, and its terms, are perpetuating misconceptions, and invite us to "label" ourselves and others using cold, objective terms (see my blog on "your soul" for my further thoughts on this).

Veterans who are returning with post-traumatic stress disorder do not deserve to be labeled as "paranoid" or "schizotypal" or as having "antisocial" tendencies. These terms may be used by shrinks, but as people, we don't need them.

These terms are just variations on the true condition, "guilt," which we have all experienced. Hell, I have post-traumatic symptoms of guilt at this moment, because of a horrible, horrible job I just quit! Thank God I'm out of that place!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Furthermore, guilt can be "induced" in other people. This is typically used by law enforcement, to bring out your "inherent" universal sense of guilt, and play on it. This last job I had was very big on this technique.

So, bearing this in mind, I think that "mental disorders" can be induced in other people; therefore, with this spectrum of "mental disorders," we are really seeing one side of the picture, the "victim" side. I feel this subject would benefit from looking at this from the standpoint of aggression/victimization, rather than "genetic" or physiological inadequacies or deficiencies. Of course, it's not nearly so much fun to examine our own aggression as it is to look at the the victims.:lol:


----------



## Ramako

A question for anyone familiar with the profession of dealing with 'mental disorders'.

(I have no idea what the differences between any of these kinds of things are). Are you suggesting staying away from any kind of mental health treatment? That seems to be what your blog posts suggest millionrainbows. But I don't understand how any of it works.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ramako said:


> A question for anyone familiar with the profession of dealing with 'mental disorders'.
> 
> (I have no idea what the differences between any of these kinds of things are). Are you suggesting staying away from any kind of mental health stuff? That seems to be what your blog posts suggest millionrainbows. But I don't understand how any of it works.


You should schedule a mis-diagnosis sometime, from a burnt-out mental health professional, preferably a feminist with a bias against men. :lol:

Like I said earlier, there is really no difference between "paranoia" and intense guilt (see Dostoyevski's "Crime and Punishment").

I have no problem with people talking to psychotherapists, but psychiatry has changed radically. All they do is prescribe drugs. My main point, if you will re-read my posts, is that "objective" terminology and approaches is for them, not us. We're better off using religion and its "guilt" approach, provided the religious dogma does not get in the way.

It's the way medicine has always been; "imaginary diseases" as Frank Zappa put it. Bromodrosis=stink-foot, Halitosis=bad breath, Neuritis=headache.

The problem of "guilt" actually transcends psychology and religion, and is a basic, fundamental condition of being human. Kafka knew this, of course. Guilt is reflective of our most basic identity, and also reflects society's values.

As long as you haven't committed a crime, don't let anyone try to manipulate your guilt to their own ends. Guilt is universal, and they know this.

You're not in law enforcement or a mental health professional, are you? I suggest anything by R.D. Laing. BTW, I hope we're not getting stigmatized by hanging around this thread.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Any one care to do a test for Sid Vicious or maybe even Lou Reed


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Any one care to do a test for Sid Vicious or maybe even Lou Reed


It would be basically the same problem of guilt and identity. Lou Reed was gay, and was subjected to shock therapy at the behest of his parents, in the late 1950's. I'm sure he would have been given drugs if it were the present-day.

I just watched the new NOVA show on PBS, "Inside the Rampaging Mind" or something like that, followed by "After Newtown". Neuroscience is trying to figure out what makes teenage males go on these "rampages," in terms of brain activity and chemistry; but sociology plays a major, major role in all the cases, and in identity formation. It's a combination of "nature and nurture," but never, never just one or the other.

Our society needs to change the way young teen boys are socialized in public schools. Men need re-defined roles, which are more artistic and less "video-game/kill" oriented.

I say mandatory piano, electric guitar, and singing programs, and less emphasis on sports.


----------



## clavichorder

I have a lot of guilt. But I also have a self protective sense of injustice and anger. The two opposing extremes are not of the surface torment they were a while back, but who knows what's happening under the hood...? I probably am subconsciously blinding myself to it. Certainly I have blinders on, but I slowly take in information that comes in. I think its healthier for me to have a bigger ego than before, it reminds me of how I used to be before puberty when I had more life in me. But I fear I alienate people, and that hurts, the thought does anyway. The irony is, I seem to have more friends(not a lot, but some good new ones). But none of them get any of this really. Still, they aren't shallow friends, I don't think.

Some pretty bizarre psychological strategies both conscious and unconscious are at work, but most of the time, rather than pathologize myself and seek out that kind of criticism, I have been trying to channel that into creative energy and find genuine affirmation I've earned from others. Its all really too complicated sometimes, and it shows when I am tired. But it certainly feeds productivity levels and causes me to look out for my health. So I am trying to embrace this weirdness and myself.


----------



## millionrainbows

clavichorder said:


> I have a lot of guilt. But I also have a self protective sense of injustice and anger. The two opposing extremes are not of the surface torment they were a while back, but who knows what's happening under the hood...? I probably am subconsciously blinding myself to it. Certainly I have blinders on, but I slowly take in information that comes in. I think its healthier for me to have a bigger ego than before, it reminds me of how I used to be before puberty when I had more life in me. But I fear I alienate people, and that hurts, the thought does anyway. The irony is, I seem to have more friends(not a lot, but some good new ones). But none of them get any of this really. Still, they aren't shallow friends, I don't think.
> 
> Some pretty bizarre psychological strategies both conscious and unconscious are at work, but most of the time, rather than pathologize myself and seek out that kind of criticism, I have been trying to channel that into creative energy and find genuine affirmation I've earned from others. Its all really too complicated sometimes, and it shows when I am tired. But it certainly feeds productivity levels and causes me to look out for my health. So I am trying to embrace this weirdness and myself.


I salute you, clavichorder, for appearing to be sincere and honest in your sharing of your "personality quirks."

It doesn't take a "mental health setting" to become patholigised or stigmatized. The way society is, especially nowadays, you almost have to "beg" to become a member, and they are ready to kick you out for any infraction. With decreased privacy and more intensive internet background checks, law enforcement computer use, and the increasing "corporate mentality" in America, *if you are creative or quirky, or eccentric, you can be potentially stigmatized even for what you might post in any e-mail or discussion forum, regardless of whether you have committed an actual "crime." *This is like "virtual thought crime" in Orwell's _1984:_

"An unperson is a person who has been...effectively erased from existence. Such a person would be written out of existing books, photographs, and articles so that no trace of their existence could be found in the historical record.... Mentioning his or her name, or even speaking of their past existence, is thoughtcrime."


----------



## etkearne

This is embarrassing to say, but perhaps will be helpful in overcoming it, but I have been told by multiple clinical mental health professionals that I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. However, they never wrote it on my chart because it can be used to stigmatize patients apparently. 

I can tell you first hand that overcoming this personality flaw is very hard, as it infects every aspect of your thinking. I have been getting better at thinking in a normal, non-self-centered way in the past few months, but I would be joking to say that those "my own little universe where I am important" thoughts don't creep in occasionally. I just now "rationalize" with myself to tell those thoughts that they are biased and ridiculous.

I think the key to overcoming Narcissistic Personality is to first realize that it isn't JUST you that isn't important. In reality, no person is really more important than anyone else. Sure, some people have a cult following around them, but it is not a healthy thing, and leads to problems in the end for everyone involved. I doubt a person with the "disorder" (personality disorders are not Axis One mental disorders technically -so they should probably be called something else IMO) could "give it up" while still maintaining that OTHER people might be more important than them. This would just lead to anger and resentment. 

Sorry to blab on, but these "disorders" are real (just perhaps not actual disorders) and do ruin lives. But unlike many Axis One disorders, they can be reversed through changing one's thinking patterns accordingly.


----------



## Head_case

> This is embarrassing to say, but perhaps will be helpful in overcoming it, but I have been told by multiple clinical mental health professionals that I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


Clearly they don't love you enough? :lol:

I don't understand all the language that is paraded here about personality disorders. Maybe, it isn't......dare I say....helpful for humans?

A simple question: what is your empathy like?

Not from what each of us might think about ourselves. But what is your empathy like....from the position of your family members? Your friends? Your colleagues? What do they say about you - not what do you say about yourself, as to whether you have x, y or z problem or other?

Everybody tells me they love me, but I think I'm hearing voices :lol:


----------



## BartokBela

Paranoid	86%
Schizoid	70%
Schizotypal	86%
Antisocial	50%
Borderline	90%
Histrionic	18%
Narcissistic	34%
Avoidant	86%
Dependent	90%
Obsessive-Compulsive	90%

Well, nothing new for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Head_case said:


> Clearly they don't love you enough? :lol:
> 
> I don't understand all the language that is paraded here about personality disorders. Maybe, it isn't......dare I say....helpful for humans?
> 
> A simple question: what is your empathy like?
> 
> Not from what each of us might think about ourselves. But what is your empathy like....from the position of your family members? Your friends? Your colleagues? What do they say about you - not what do you say about yourself, as to whether you have x, y or z problem or other?
> 
> Everybody tells me they love me, but I think I'm hearing voices :lol:


When you think about it, all religion and art are based on "narcissistic" tendencies: the poet's feeling that the "trees are speaking his beloved's name" or that all nature is "his" and is speaking to him. Likewise, all religious thought is narcissistic: the feeling that there is a "personal God" and that things happen "for a purpose."

In fact, the religious mindset is "paranoia without fear," although that's a misnomer; religion is a "positive paranoia."

American Indians (and the Japanese) imbue inanimate objects and animals with "soul" and treat them as holy.

Of course, Dr. Phil would disagree with this, and would put me on his "law enforcement-tough love-confess your guilt" hot-seat, and would have everyone in the studio audience convinced that these poets and mystics are somehow deficient.

Dr. Phil's criteria seems to be, "If you are not properly equipped to thrive in 21st-century Dallas, Texas, and become a self-sufficient, productive member of the workforce, then you are ill."

Somehow, I find this view lacking and "prosaic": it's ordinary, everyday, commonplace, conventional, straightforward, routine, run-of-the-mill, by-the-numbers, workaday; unimaginative, uninspired, uninspiring, matter-of-fact, dull, dry, dreary, tedious, boring, humdrum, mundane, pedestrian, tame, plodding; bland, insipid, banal, trite, literal, factual, unpoetic, unemotional, unsentimental.


----------



## Head_case

millionrainbows said:


> When you think about it, all religion and art are based on "narcissistic" tendencies: the poet's feeling that the "trees are speaking his beloved's name" or that all nature is "his" and is speaking to him. Likewise, all religious thought is narcissistic: the feeling that there is a "personal God" and that things happen "for a purpose."
> 
> In fact, the religious mindset is "paranoia without fear," although that's a misnomer; religion is a "positive paranoia."
> 
> American Indians (and the Japanese) imbue inanimate objects and animals with "soul" and treat them as holy.
> 
> Of course, Dr. Phil would disagree with this, and would put me on his "law enforcement-tough love-confess your guilt" hot-seat, and would have everyone in the studio audience convinced that these poets and mystics are somehow deficient.
> 
> Dr. Phil's criteria seems to be, "If you are not properly equipped to thrive in 21st-century Dallas, Texas, and become a self-sufficient, productive member of the workforce, then you are ill."
> 
> Somehow, I find this view lacking and "prosaic": it's ordinary, everyday, commonplace, conventional, straightforward, routine, run-of-the-mill, by-the-numbers, workaday; unimaginative, uninspired, uninspiring, matter-of-fact, dull, dry, dreary, tedious, boring, humdrum, mundane, pedestrian, tame, plodding; bland, insipid, banal, trite, literal, factual, unpoetic, unemotional, unsentimental.


"Earth calling Houston - we have a problem Houston. Hello? Earth, are you there? Hello?"

- Yes we receive. Loud and clear.

"We have lost poet. Out of orbit."

- Very well. Move along as before

:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Head_case said:


> "Earth calling Houston - we have a problem Houston. Hello? Earth, are you there? Hello?"
> 
> - Yes we receive. Loud and clear.
> 
> "We have lost poet. Out of orbit."
> 
> - Very well. Move along as before
> 
> :lol:


Ground control to Major Tom...Rocketman...

Houston? I can't think of anyplace on Earth which so resembles Hell, with the possible exception of Dallas, Tx. :lol:


----------



## ProudSquire

Paranoid	||||||||||||||||	70%	
Schizoid	||||||||||||||||	22%	
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||	70%	
Antisocial	||||||||||||||||	26%	
Borderline	||||||||||||||	54%	
Histrionic	|||||||||||||||	26%	
Narcissistic	||||||||||||||	22%	
Avoidant	||||||||||||||	54%	
Dependent	|||||||||||||	50%	
Obsessive-Compulsive||||||	42%	


Very strange indeed.


----------



## millionrainbows

I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade


----------



## Op.123

Paranoid	||||||	26%	50%
Schizoid	||||||||||||	42%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||	34%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||	42%	46%
Borderline	||||||	26%	45%
Histrionic	||||||	30%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||	38%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||	42%	48%
Dependent	||||||||||||	42%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||	42%	45%


----------



## schuberkovich

Oh dear. I got obsessive compulsive and paranoid in the 70% area.


----------



## Ryan

Paranoid 12%
Schizoid 38%
Schizotypal 19%
Antisocial 12%
Borderline 21%
Histrionic 10,932%
Narcissistic 30%
Avoidant 17%
Dependent 10%
Obsessive-Compulsive 7%


----------



## Novelette

Ryan said:


> Paranoid 12%
> Schizoid 38%
> Schizotypal 19%
> Antisocial 12%
> Borderline 21%
> *Histrionic 10,932%*
> Narcissistic 30%
> Avoidant 17%
> Dependent 10%
> Obsessive-Compulsive 7%


Does anyone else catch the jest here? :lol:


----------



## Kieran

Paranoid |||||||||| 34% 
Schizoid |||| 18% 
Schizotypal |||||| 30% 
Antisocial |||||| 26% 
Borderline |||||| 30% 
Histrionic |||| 18% 
Narcissistic || 10% 
Avoidant |||||||||||| 42% 
Dependent |||||||||||||| 54% 
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||| 30%

Good? Bad? Indifferent?


----------



## science

Paranoid	58%	50%
Schizoid	46%	40%
Schizotypal 66%	56%
Antisocial	46%	46%
Borderline	58%	45%
Histrionic	34%	35%
Narcissistic	50%	40%
Avoidant	34%	48%
Dependent	26%	44%
OC 26%	45%

I guess the second number is the internet's average, and the first is mine.


----------



## Bone

Probably accurate enough.

Paranoid	||||||||||||	50%	50%
Schizoid	||||||||||||	50%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||	50%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||	50%	46%
Borderline	||||||||||||||	58%	45%
Histrionic	||||||||||||||	54%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||||	46%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||	50%	48%
Dependent	||||||||||	34%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||	42%	45%


----------



## Ondine

Paranoid	||||||||||||||||	66%	50%
Schizoid	|||||||||| 34%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||	62%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||	50%	46%
Borderline	||||||||||||	50%	45%
Histrionic	||||||||||||||||||78%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||||||	54%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||	50%	48%
Dependent	||||||||||||||	58%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||||	66%	45%

Wow! I can't trust this test. _It's against me!!!_


----------



## clavichorder

Took it again:



Paranoid	||||||||||||||||	66%	50%
Schizoid	||||||||||||	42%	40%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||||||	82%	56%
Antisocial	||||||||||||	46%	46%
Borderline	||||||||||||||||||	74%	45%
Histrionic	||||||||||||	50%	35%
Narcissistic	||||||||||	38%	40%
Avoidant	||||||||||||||||	62%	48%
Dependent	||||||||||||||||	66%	44%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||||	70%	45%


----------



## belfastboy

Paranoid||||||||||||||||||74%50%Schizoid||||||||||38%40%Schizotypal||||||||||||||||||74%56%Antisocial||||||||||||||||66%46%Borderline||||||||||||||||||||90%45%Histrionic||||||||||||46%35%Narcissistic||||14%40%Avoidant||||||||||||||||||74%48%Dependent||||||||||||||||70%44%Obsessive-Compulsive||||||||||||||54%45%


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

There's only one diagnosis for my bizarre behavior and emotionality of late:

In love |||||||||||||||||||||| 100% 50%


----------



## Ramako

For an internet poll, I think that should be a



Huilunsoittaja said:


> In love |||||||||||||||||||||| 100% *2%*


:lol:


----------



## PetrB

Huilunsoittaja said:


> There's only one diagnosis for my bizarre behavior and emotionality of late:
> 
> In love |||||||||||||||||||||| 100% 50%


Its been determined that the chemical rush induced by being in the state of limerence so imbalances the mind that this state of being is akin to a psychosis  What nature will not stop at to have us get together and reproduce, no? LOL.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Did it again too................. with my real age and details!

Psychometric Tests

Validated, Australian Normed Tailored Recruitment Tests
age 135
gender indeterminate

My favorite Questions

32) I am a rage-aholic.
39) I experience unusual perceptions.
65) I have magical thinking or odd beliefs.

*Results*

Paranoid |||||||||||||||||| 74% 50%
Schizoid |||||||||||||| 58% 40%
Schizotypal |||||||||||||||||| 74% 56%
Antisocial |||||||||||||||||| 74% 46%
Borderline |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 45%
Histrionic |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 35%
Narcissistic |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 40%
Avoidant |||||||||||||||||| 74% 48%
Dependent |||||||||||||||||||| 90% 44%
Obsessive-Compulsive |||||||||||||| 58% 45%

Outcome
Eccentric Personality Disorders: Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal

*Individuals with these disorders often appear odd or peculiar.*

So beware!


----------



## aleazk

schuberkovich said:


> Oh dear. I got obsessive compulsive and paranoid in the 70% area.


lol, really a nasty combination in which the paranoid thoughts are augmented in intensity by the obsessive compulsive side!. :lol:


----------



## clavichorder

clavichorder said:


> Took it again:
> 
> Paranoid	||||||||||||||||	66%	50%
> Schizoid	||||||||||||	42%	40%
> Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||||||	82%	56%
> Antisocial	||||||||||||	46%	46%
> Borderline	||||||||||||||||||	74%	45%
> Histrionic	||||||||||||	50%	35%
> Narcissistic	||||||||||	38%	40%
> Avoidant	||||||||||||||||	62%	48%
> Dependent	||||||||||||||||	66%	44%
> Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||||||	70%	45%


Heart broken and confused and consequently jaded and remorseful. Disliked(so it seems) by someone I invested emotion in. Forced to live life nonetheless and move on, because that interests me.

You started something though, Huilun. And I smiled at that. Hope things are going great!


----------



## clavichorder

aleazk said:


> lol, really a nasty combination in which the paranoid thoughts are augmented in intensity by the obsessive compulsive side!. :lol:


The two combined, are just a magic formula for schizotypal.


----------



## clavichorder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> *Individuals with these disorders often appear odd or peculiar.*
> 
> So beware!


Yeah...way to dehumanize someone just for being weird. Lets hope there is no misunderstanding and that they aren't just throwing these lazy labels to avoid considering someone a human being. Most good professionals don't, I hope.


----------



## millionrainbows

> Originally Posted by EddieRUKiddingVarese
> 
> Individuals with these disorders often appear odd or peculiar.
> 
> So beware!





clavichorder said:


> Yeah...way to dehumanize someone just for being weird. Lets hope there is no misunderstanding and that they aren't just throwing these lazy labels to avoid considering someone a human being. Most good professionals don't, I hope.


The way society is, especially nowadays, you almost have to "beg" to become a member, and they are ready to kick you out for any infraction. With decreased privacy and more intensive internet background checks, law enforcement computer use, and the increasing "corporate mentality" in America, if you are creative or quirky, or eccentric, you can be potentially stigmatized even for what you might post in any e-mail or discussion forum, regardless of whether you have committed an actual "crime."

I can't believe you people are buying into this manufactured version of "normal." I guess you're just scared out of your minds.

What happened to "EtKearne" after his "confession"?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

But computers are always right- yes!!!!!!!!! or maybe not. Maybe we are heading towards Stanley Kubrick's 2001


----------



## millionrainbows

Good luck with this "ideal" McWorld they've invented, and keep "striving for normality." :lol:


----------



## Selby

Hello TalkClassical!

I was a little shocked when I found this thread.

Many of the intentionally funny posts here have been delightful to read; it felt good to have a few good chuckles.

I am, well, from what I've read, probably the only psychotherapist amongst this thread.

I am more than happy to respond to any direct questions, concerns, or comments about the mental health field, diagnostics, the medical health care system (my knowledge limited to the business-model of US practice), or the histories of psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy.

A lot of comments have been made here that are, I'm hoping, well-intentioned, but are being passed of as objective _truth_s with little validity.

In the words of Frasier Crane,

"I wish you a good day, and good mental health."

cheers,

Mitchell


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> Hello TalkClassical!
> 
> I was a little shocked when I found this thread.
> 
> Many of the intentionally funny posts here have been delightful to read; it felt good to have a few good chuckles.
> 
> I am, well, from what I've read, probably the only psychotherapist amongst this thread.
> 
> I am more than happy to respond to any direct questions, concerns, or comments about the mental health field, diagnostics, the medical health care system (my knowledge limited to the business-model of US practice), or the histories of psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy.
> 
> A lot of comments have been made here that are, I'm hoping, well-intentioned, but are being passed of as objective _truth_s with little validity.
> 
> In the words of Frasier Crane,
> 
> "I wish you a good day, and good mental health."
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Mitchell


We have no way of knowing which side you're on, do we? Just your livelihood, which I'm sure you'd be happy to throw under the bus in the spirit of fair play and uncovering the truth. :lol:

You seem to be insinuating that "objective truth" is possible in the realm of the human _mind_...er, _soul_...no, I mean..._behavior.._.no, I mean...er..._data_. Yeah! _That's the ticket! Data!
_


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> We have no way of knowing which side you're on, do we? Just your livelihood, which I'm sure you'd be happy to throw under the bus in the spirit of fair play and uncovering the truth. :lol:
> 
> You seem to be insinuating that "objective truth" is possible in the realm of the human _mind_...er, _soul_...no, I mean..._behavior.._.no, I mean...er..._data_. Yeah! _That's the ticket! Data!
> _


I am honestly not sure what you mean by "which side" or the rest of that first comment.

I am not a strong believer of objective truth, nor will I ever pass off anything I say as anything but subjective. There is, however, more informed and less informed.

When I made that comment it was more out of concern about previous comments which have been made that have implied that their opinions were objective truths. So on that case, rest assured good comrade, it appears we are in agreement.


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> We have no way of knowing which side you're on, do we? Just your livelihood, which I'm sure you'd be happy to throw under the bus in the spirit of fair play and uncovering the truth. :lol:


Sorry for the consecutive posts. I just re-read your comment and what you meant (the second half) clicked.

I assure you that I am free to criticize my chosen profession without fear of reprisal. Beyond the fact that this is an anonymous forum, not only am I free to do so but I am ethically bound to do so.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ but you are yet to subject yourself to our little test.......


----------



## Selby

I did open the test in the OP but my computer's anti-viral software became very angry, so I did not continue. I will disclose, however, that I do have significant hesitations and frustrations about diagnostics in general.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> ...I will disclose, however, that I do have significant hesitations and frustrations about diagnostics in general.


I do as well. I like my McNormal with cheese, and no pickles. I have suffered a lot of social stigma for that. (sarcasm)


----------



## mtmailey

There is one that is not here it is called depression it is to a mental problem.


----------



## millionrainbows

mtmailey said:


> There is one that is not here it is called depression it is to a mental problem.


Me think you correct


----------



## Selby

Everyone should watch this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Generally speaking, and aside from the "mental illness" stigma, it's a nice idea, but social stigma is alive and well, intensified by the internet and cell-phone cameras and videos. Major changes are occurring in society as a result, and there is more pressure than ever to conform, because "shaming" has reached an all-time high, via cell-phones. Anything you do can be captured on camera. Many instances I can recall of this happening, in the press and on TV.

As far as addictions, nobody really knows what causes these sorts of things, what kind of "matrix" creates alcoholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, and other socially deviant conditions. All they can do is stop the behavior, or drug it.

Metaphysics is reasons why. Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics except religious figures.

The brain? That's good, but remember, there is the mind. B. F. Skinner can KMA.


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> Generally speaking, and aside from the "mental illness" stigma, it's a nice idea, but social stigma is alive and well, intensified by the internet and cell-phone cameras and videos. Major changes are occurring in society as a result, and there is more pressure than ever to conform, because "shaming" has reached an all-time high, via cell-phones. Anything you do can be captured on camera. Many instances I can recall of this happening, in the press and on TV.
> 
> As far as addictions, nobody really knows what causes these sorts of things, what kind of "matrix" creates alcoholics, drug abusers, prostitutes, and other socially deviant conditions. All they can do is stop the behavior, or drug it.
> 
> Metaphysics is reasons why. Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics except religious figures.
> 
> The brain? That's good, but remember, there is the mind. B. F. Skinner can KMA.


I do not believe that the social stigma of mental illness is increasing, in fact, a lot of evidence points to it decreasing - although I am daily surrounded by peoples managing "severe and persistent mental illness" (SPMI) so my experience is _very_ skewed.

My wife is currently writing a doctoral dissertation on decreasing self-stigma for individuals managing SPMI, focusing on residents within mental health programs; she manages 3 such programs.

Our, and society as a whole's, understanding of mental health has increased exponentially in the past few decades. Alcoholism is in fact a great example; society's understanding of alcoholism at the birth of Alcoholics Anonymous in the early 1930s, versus where we are today, shows a remarkable breadth of growth of understanding.

Your assertion about cellphones is a non sequitur, so I'll ignore it.

Where does addiction stem from? That is a good question. There is more-or-less consensus within the professional community with the diathesis-stress model; a combination of genetic predisposition with life events. There is a wealth of information as to the circumstances that breed so called "socially deviant conditions" (pretty strong language don't you think?). So when you say that "nobody really knows" you either mean you haven't bothered to look into the readily available literature (research) or you are simply dismissing it.

"All they can do is stop the behavior, or drug it." Neither of the issues you pointed to -addiction & prostitution - are usually treated pharmacologically. If someone is engaging in a behavior that is putting them in danger it is generally considered wise to quit. Then again, addiction, by it's very nature, is difficult to quit; there are usually extreme socio-cultural factors at play in terms of prostitution, so just quitting is also not so simple.

Have a problem you don't know how to deal with - but know you don't want to treat it with prescriptions? They have a thing for this, it's called psychotherapy.

On a side note, using individual deficit language like "socially deviant" does not seem congruent with your anti-mental health professions attitude; I would have expected, and hoped, for a more person-centered lexicon.

"Metaphysics is reasons why. Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics except religious figures." Not being cheeky here; I honestly have no idea what this is suppose to mean.

I like your last statement. Many people forget that the brain and mind are separate things. Please read Dr. Daniel Siegel's fascinating work on interpersonal neurobiology, it is groundbreaking and moving all areas of mental health research and treatment in an amazing direction.

I do not know what Skinner did to you, but I assure you that he prefers kissing monkeys. And, oh yeah, he is not very relevant to the current mental health field. His research was groundbreaking, but we are talking about 2nd generation psychotherapy - we're in the 5th generation for those keeping score; worldviews, orientations, and approaches informed by post-modernism and social constructionism - please read a little from Dr. Stephen Madigan, an amazing proponent (and really nice man) of narrative therapy, which is the framework I use professionally.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy, which owes a lot to Skinner, is very prevalent in the current U.S. managed care system for many reasons: it's the most quickly effective, it has the most evidence-based research, and it is the simplest to learn. But Skinner's relevance to CBT and more modern outgrowths like dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT - Marsha Linehan - awesome stuff!) is very distant.

An analogy: You can see how Germany progressed from Bach to Shoenberg, but you wouldn't credit (or blame) Bach for serialism, would you?

Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and contributing your thoughts.

regards,

M


----------



## Kazaman

Paranoid 26%	
Schizoid 42%	
Schizotypal 70%
Antisocial	18%
Borderline	10%	
Histrionic	10%	
Narcissistic 46%	
Avoidant 54%	
Dependent	14%	
Obsessive-Compulsive	74%


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> Our, and society as a whole's, understanding of mental health has increased exponentially in the past few decades. Alcoholism is in fact a great example; society's understanding of alcoholism at the birth of Alcoholics Anonymous in the early 1930s, versus where we are today, shows a remarkable breadth of growth of understanding.


You'd better talk to the rogue elements out there. Alcoholics Anonymous is still alive and well, and its "franchisees" can do anything they see fit. It's like selling tupperware. There's no central authority, it's more like a religion. How is that progress?



Mitchell said:


> Your assertion about cellphones is a non sequitur, so I'll ignore it.


Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. I think, in relation to the above statement, it is very relevant.



Mitchell said:


> Where does addiction stem from?...when you say that "nobody really knows" you either mean you haven't bothered to look into the readily available literature (research) or you are simply dismissing it.


No, I haven't dismissed it; A A and "tough love" proponents like Dr. Phil have dismissed the reasons. They simply want to change behavior, not ask why.



Mitchell said:


> "All they can do is stop the behavior, or drug it." Neither of the issues you pointed to -addiction & prostitution - are usually treated pharmacologically.


You missed my point; I said "stop the behavior, or drug it." You responded only to the drug issue. "Stop the behaviour" means that reasons behind the behavior are irrelevant to BF Skinner-type therapists.



Mitchell said:


> On a side note, using individual deficit language like "socially deviant" does not seem congruent with your anti-mental health professions attitude; I would have expected, and hoped, for a more person-centered lexicon.


I don't think so. I'm using it in terms of what is now considered "deviant." I'm talking about "them," not us.



Mitchell said:


> "Metaphysics is reasons why. Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics except religious figures." Not being cheeky here; I honestly have no idea what this is suppose to mean.


Simple. Psychology (Freud, Jung, Laing, Maslow) used to be about the human mind. Behavioral psychology (BF Skinner, Pavlov) replaces all inner experience with observable behavior, to make it a "pseudo-science" with data. So the "mind" or "soul" becomes once more in the realm of metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as *being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, *time, and space).

You should try harder to understand what it is I'm saying, if you are, indeed, a "professional."



Mitchell said:


> I do not know what Skinner did to you, but I assure you that he prefers kissing monkeys. And, oh yeah, he is not very relevant to the current mental health field. His research was groundbreaking, but we are talking about 2nd generation psychotherapy - we're in the 5th generation for those keeping score; worldviews, orientations, and approaches informed by post-modernism and social constructionism - please read a little from Dr. Stephen Madigan, an amazing proponent (and really nice man) of narrative therapy, which is the framework I use professionally.


BF Skinner's own daughter does not like him, because of the roller-bottom "crib" she was kept in, without enough human touch. The magazine Psychology Today is founded on behaviorism. The whole field changed into a behavioral "science" model. Gone, gone, are "drive theory" and archetypes, and "souls." That's too metaphysical. That's religion's territory now.


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> Simple. Psychology (Freud, Jung, Laing, Maslow) used to be about the human mind. Behavioral psychology (BF Skinner, Pavlov) replaces all inner experience with observable behavior, to make it a "pseudo-science" with data. So the "mind" or "soul" becomes once more in the realm of metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as *being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, *time, and space).
> 
> You should try harder to understand what it is I'm saying, if you are, indeed, a "professional."
> 
> BF Skinner's own daughter does not like him, because of the roller-bottom "crib" she was kept in, without enough human touch. The magazine Psychology Today is founded on behaviorism. The whole field changed into a behavioral "science" model. Gone, gone, are "drive theory" and archetypes, and "souls." That's too metaphysical. That's religion's territory now.


I'm afraid it may take a cryptographer to fully understand what you are saying.

million - you make vague, general, and provocative statements; then when they are directly addressed you ignore the replies and follow-up with more vague, general, and provocative statements. This is a communication style I am not very good at.

_"Alcoholics Anonymous is still alive and well, and its "franchisees" can do anything they see fit. It's like selling tupperware. There's no central authority, it's more like a religion. How is that progress?"_
Without delving into the merits of AA, which I believe are extensive, this is progress because they elevated the general understanding of what it means to be addicted to alcohol, that it is not just a behavior to quit, but there are physiological, psychological, and sociological factors at play. Colloquially speaking it moved our society away from "why doesn't he just stop?" to "he should really get some help," which was a huge movement in better understanding the nuances of addiction.

_"No, I haven't dismissed it; A A and "tough love" proponents like Dr. Phil have dismissed the reasons. They simply want to change behavior, not ask why."_
Unless you consider Dr. Phil an expert he is irrelevant to this conversation, you are talking about entertainment. Despite this, yes, many behavior-based theorist believe that having insight is not a pre-requisite to changing behavior. This is more common when dealing with people at a very low-level of functioning for the purpose of meeting basic needs and safety. So here is the question, does this really bother you? If there is a person who literally does not remember to feed themselves, or continuously walks onto a freeway into traffic, behavior modification may just save their lives. Not everyone is at a place for existential self-discovery. Return to Maslow's heirachy of needs.

Also, let me quickly point out that the mental health field is huge; no one theory encapsulates anything.

_"You missed my point; I said "stop the behavior, or drug it." You responded only to the drug issue. "Stop the behaviour" means that reasons behind the behavior are irrelevant to BF Skinner-type therapists."_
I responded to both, re-read my post.

_"I don't think so. I'm using it in terms of what is now considered 'deviant.' I'm talking about 'them,' not us."_
This 'us' vs. 'them' mentality is not useful. If there is indeed a 'them,' as in a professional mental health community, then I am a 'them' (enter daunting music)

_"Simple. Psychology (Freud, Jung, Laing, Maslow) used to be about the human mind. Behavioral psychology (BF Skinner, Pavlov) replaces all inner experience with observable behavior, to make it a "pseudo-science" with data. So the "mind" or "soul" becomes once more in the realm of metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space)."_

Behavioral psychology did not "replace" psychodynamic theories. They both kept progressing, in most ways independently, and in some ways similarly. If you do not like behavior theorists, that is fine, but please refrain from painting all mental health as one thing, or resort to such simplified analyses to make a defensive point.

But, even here, your understanding of behavioral psychology is lacking. You may be stuck on Skinner, but the rest of the community moved on long ago. 
"Over the past decade or so, third-generation behavior therapies have been developed that center around five interrelated core themes: (1) an expanded view of psychological health, (2) a broad view of acceptable outcomes in therapy, (3) acceptance, (4) mindfulness, and (5) creating a life worth living... Mindfulness is a process that involves becoming increasingly observant and aware of external and internal stimuli in the present moment and adopting an open attitude toward accepting what is rather than judging the current situation." - Gerald Corey, 2012.

Like I pointed to in my earlier post, the mind is a very relevant and discussed topic within the mental health community. Psychology didn't "used to be about the human mind," it is today - much more than ever; to the point that even behavioral theorist are incorporating it into their practices!! Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) are all behavioral based therapies that focus on the mind.

As is all of attachment theory, which is quickly becoming the most unifying concept psychotherapy has seen in generations.
_
"BF Skinner's own daughter does not like him, because of the roller-bottom "crib" she was kept in, without enough human touch. The magazine Psychology Today is founded on behaviorism. The whole field changed into a behavioral "science" model. Gone, gone, are "drive theory" and archetypes, and "souls." That's too metaphysical. That's religion's territory now."_
Skinner's daughter? Really? Skinner's daughter's daddy issues are seriously not relevant.

* The "whole field" is not any one thing. Period.
*
_"You should try harder to understand what it is I'm saying, if you are, indeed, a 'professional.'"_
I am trying much harder than I probably should - but I fear it will amount to nil. I am anxious to elevate the conversation, but it will take moving beyond defensive communication styles. I believe my posts will speak for themselves in regards to how informed my opinion is.

happy Monday,

M


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> I'm afraid it may take a cryptographer to fully understand what you are saying.
> 
> million - you make vague, general, and provocative statements; then when they are directly addressed you ignore the replies and follow-up with more vague, general, and provocative statements. This is a communication style I am not very good at.


That's my style of thought; I like a bird's eye view. And your statement really doesn't address the ideas, bordering on ad-hominem. Let's just say we are different kinds of thinkers. Some people "psychically stink" to other people, or at least smell funny, and that's how I feel about your generalized put-downs.

_


Mitchell said:



"Alcoholics Anonymous is still alive and well, and its "franchisees" can do anything they see fit. It's like selling tupperware. There's no central authority, it's more like a religion. How is that progress?"

Click to expand...

_


Mitchell said:


> Without delving into the merits of AA, which I believe are extensive, this is progress because they elevated the general understanding of what it means to be addicted to alcohol, that it is not just a behavior to quit, but there are physiological, psychological, and sociological factors at play. Colloquially speaking it moved our society away from "why doesn't he just stop?" to "he should really get some help," which was a huge movement in better understanding the nuances of addiction.


They shouldn't target people. That's invasion of privacy, and I've seen it happen.

_"No, I haven't dismissed it; A A and "tough love" proponents like Dr. Phil have dismissed the reasons. They simply want to change behavior, not ask why."_
Unless you consider Dr. Phil an expert he is irrelevant to this conversation, you are talking about entertainment.*(I knew you'd say that! -ed.)* Despite this, yes, many behavior-based theorist believe that having insight is not a pre-requisite to changing behavior.[/QUOTE]

_


Mitchell said:



"I don't think so. I'm using it in terms of what is now considered 'deviant.' I'm talking about 'them,' not us."

Click to expand...

_


Mitchell said:


> This 'us' vs. 'them' mentality is not useful. If there is indeed a 'them,' as in a professional mental health community, then I am a 'them' (enter daunting music)


Yeah, and "us" are people with souls and inner experience, who don't want to be drugged-out zombies.

_


Mitchell said:



"Simple. Psychology (Freud, Jung, Laing, Maslow) used to be about the human mind. Behavioral psychology (BF Skinner, Pavlov) replaces all inner experience with observable behavior, to make it a "pseudo-science" with data. So the "mind" or "soul" becomes once more in the realm of metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space)."

Click to expand...

_


Mitchell said:


> Behavioral psychology did not "replace" psychodynamic theories. They both kept progressing, in most ways independently, and in some ways similarly. If you do not like behavior theorists, that is fine, but please refrain from painting all mental health as one thing, or resort to such simplified analyses to make a defensive point.


Yeah, then where are they? All psychiatrists do is prescribe meds. They don't do (yuck!) cognitive!



Mitchell said:


> But, even here, your understanding of behavioral psychology is lacking. You may be stuck on Skinner, but the rest of the community moved on long ago.
> "Over the past decade or so, third-generation behavior therapies have been developed that center around five interrelated core themes: (1) an expanded view of psychological health, (2) a broad view of acceptable outcomes in therapy, (3) acceptance, (4) mindfulness, and (5) creating a life worth living... Mindfulness is a process that involves becoming increasingly observant and aware of external and internal stimuli in the present moment and adopting an open attitude toward accepting what is rather than judging the current situation." - Gerald Corey, 2012.


Yeah, and they've really improved electro-shock therapy with digital machines. So much better than shocking pigs (where it was derived from in slaughterhouses).



Mitchell said:


> Like I pointed to in my earlier post, the mind is a very relevant and discussed topic within the mental health community. Psychology didn't "used to be about the human mind," it is today - much more than ever; to the point that even behavioral theorist are incorporating it into their practices!! Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) are all behavioral based therapies that focus on the mind.
> 
> As is all of attachment theory, which is quickly becoming the most unifying concept psychotherapy has seen in generations.
> _
> "BF Skinner's own daughter does not like him, because of the roller-bottom "crib" she was kept in, without enough human touch. The magazine Psychology Today is founded on behaviorism. The whole field changed into a behavioral "science" model. Gone, gone, are "drive theory" and archetypes, and "souls." That's too metaphysical. That's religion's territory now."_
> Skinner's daughter? Really? Skinner's daughter's daddy issues are seriously not relevant.


Skinner's own daughter hates him! She's an artist, BTW. Seems ultra-relevant to me.

*


Mitchell said:



The "whole field" is not any one thing. Period.

Click to expand...

*


Mitchell said:


> _"You should try harder to understand what it is I'm saying, if you are, indeed, a 'professional.'"_
> I am trying much harder than I probably should - but I fear it will amount to nil. I am anxious to elevate the conversation, but it will take moving beyond defensive communication styles. I believe my posts will speak for themselves in regards to how informed my opinion is.


Then, on the other hand, how do we know you're not just some guy on the internet in his underwear? :lol: And hey, dude, you create defensive reactions when you insinuate that other people are "out in left field" while you are the only focussed, cognizant one.


----------



## Selby

Million -

It is clear that you want your opinions taken seriously, and you place a high value on intellectual pursuits, and for these things I would like to affirm you. I'm not going to respond to many of your statements, for example AA "targeting people," but will try to touch on the themes which prompted me to engage to begin with.

_"Yeah, and 'us' are people with souls and inner experience, who don't want to be drugged-out zombies."_
_"Yeah, then where are they? All psychiatrists do is prescribe meds. They don't do (yuck!) cognitive!"_

These statement well encapsulate the main issue I'm taking with your posts. This sense that there is some sort of grand psychiatric conspiracy a foot. There is not.

I had a long conversation with a peer about this forum and these posts. At first I wasn't going to engage at all. My worry was, and remains, that this forum has a lot of traffic. I fear that people read these generally fear-inspired conspiratorial presentations of mish-mashed truths and then second guess reaching out for help if they need it.

Mental health is not a joke. Psychiatric medications are a serious topic. The long term affects of most psychotropics are absolutely unknown. They continue to be prescribed at a younger and younger age. It is flat out dangerous. No one is downplaying the necessity of ethical prescribing.

You may be interested in knowing that the vast majority of psychiatric medications are not prescribed by psychiatrists, but by medical doctors without the additional training in psychiatry. It is a huge problem! I agree. But psychiatrist don't _only_ prescribe meds, of course they do, but they should be doing so to the highest ethical standard. And in my experience, psychiatrist are some of the most ethical people you will encounter.

_"They don't do (yuck!) cognitive!"_

Here we get into a sticky situation, which I am going to try to tread intentionally and kindly. You seem to have an outright disdain for behavioral psychology, yet some sort of love for cognitive psychology. Does this seem congruent to you? I have a very strong understanding of the development of psychology and psychotherapy and I must admit that I am baffled at the extreme variances of your perceptions. Cognitive and behavioral theories have become so intertwined that most people don't even bother to distinguish them - CBT has become the status quo, a reality I am hugely at odds with, but a reality nonetheless. There are few purists in either direction any more. I personally am not a fan of either, but I am a huge minority in the terms of theoretical orientations. Your reactions are a curiosity, and point to, and I honestly don't mean this condescendingly, a lack of understanding of the mental health field. As does the incongruency of your love for 1st generation psychodynamics, like Freud, but hatred of psychopathology - these people practically invented it.

Of course psychiatrists take into account cognition. An ethical psychiatrist will do a thorough assessment, look into the broadest possible context of a person's experience, and will take a holistic approach to a client's well being. Community mental health psychiatrists have long ongoing relationships with their clients, they do a lot of psychotherapy (including cognitive) even when it is, frankly, not really there place. They should leave that to the psychotherapists! I kid. Well, kind of.

I understand that you may not take this seriously. I also understand that goading me may simply be your way to have fun. But you are furthering, for whatever reason, an anti-mental health agenda using bizarre and conspiratorial conclusions based on meandering ideas: Skinner was a bad father - behavioral theorists are destroying the human mind and soul - psychiatry is out to make us all drugged-up zombies. I am trying to explain my thought process so that you will provide me with a little grace in my frustrations trying to follow yours.

Now, to return to why I'm here to begin with. It has been a particularly hard few years. I have seen 7 clients pass away in the past 3 years; most of them preventable.

This may just be some silly forum you can use to share ideas and rant about things, which is of course in your right, and if you find it satisfies a part of your life (like it does mine), more power to you. But I witness people struggle with sincere and debilitating issues of mental health. And I watch them die from it.

So forgive me if my responses are languaged a little aggressively. I simply can not ethically sit back and watch a patently anti-mental health perspective be propagated to people who may need help but are already resistant/afraid to seek it, without giving an alternative perspective.

People managing schizophrenia literally bash their heads in to stop the voices. People surviving trauma often place themselves into sexual slavery. People managing severe depression slit their rists in restrooms; it is the social workers that see the blood leaking out from under the door who then break it down and scream for someone to call an ambulance. If drugs will save these peoples lives I am all for drugs. I defy you to watch someone die and say otherwise.

p.s. I am in my underwear right now.


----------



## deeslexia

Having been diagnosed in 1997 with disassociative disorder and derealistation plus extreme Gender Identity Disorder after struggling for 50 years being out of sync , it was simply a relief to know a reason behind the general lostness .
I have taken them on board as Dee's association and dee'realisation and of course G.I.dee. LOL

It's not accepted as part of the Autistic Spectrum 'cos after 50 years coping pretending strategies kick in , but it was a relief to find a 'common sense ' which I could understand and relate to .


Music helps enormously


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> These statement well encapsulate the main issue I'm taking with your posts. This sense that there is some sort of grand psychiatric conspiracy a foot. There is not...I fear that people read these generally fear-inspired conspiratorial presentations of mish-mashed truths and then second guess reaching out for help if they need it....you are furthering, for whatever reason, an anti-mental health agenda using bizarre and conspiratorial conclusions based on meandering ideas: Skinner was a bad father - behavioral theorists are destroying the human mind and soul - psychiatry is out to make us all drugged-up zombies.


Your characterization of my perceptions as "conspiracy fear" borders on ad-hominem. Most of these "professionals" can't tell good old fashioned guilt from paranoia, because most of them are so "normalized" that they never experienced anything close to it.



Mitchell said:


> The long term affects of most psychotropics are absolutely unknown. They continue to be prescribed at a younger and younger age. It is flat out dangerous.


That's true; even your basic serotonin-uptake inhibitors are a mystery. Not to mention all the wonderful new "anti-psychotics" (just glorified specific-target tranquilizers) which also shut-down involuntary movement inhibition areas of the brain, leading to "side effects" like _tardive dyskinesia_ (that's "tardive" as in "retarded").



Mitchell said:


> You may be interested in knowing that the vast majority of psychiatric medications are not prescribed by psychiatrists, but by medical doctors without the additional training in psychiatry. It is a huge problem! I agree.


Things must be different there in Idaho. I can't even get over-the-counter decongestants for my allergies without submitting ID, and restricted quantities at that! Show me a doctor in Texas that will prescribe anti-depressants. I've never seen one yet.



Mitchell said:


> But psychiatrist don't _only_ prescribe meds, of course they do, but they should be doing so to the highest ethical standard. And in my experience, psychiatrist are some of the most ethical people you will encounter.


_In your ideal world._ I talked to a female psychotherapist who revealed another of her clients to me as a co-worker! He was _not pleased_ when I revealed to him that I knew he suffered from panic attacks. Another "pro" I talked to disappeared after a short while; "Oh him? He was dismissed for not being nice to patients." I can vouch for that bitter, cynical doctor!

_


Mitchell said:



"They don't do (yuck!) cognitive!"

Click to expand...

_


Mitchell said:


> Here we get into a sticky situation, which I am going to try to tread intentionally and kindly. You seem to have an outright disdain for behavioral psychology, yet some sort of love for cognitive psychology. Does this seem congruent to you?


No! I love Jung, and Freud, and I especially love R.D. Laing. They are concerned with the human mind and soul, not in behavior modification via "chemical straight-jackets."



Mitchell said:


> Now, to return to why I'm here to begin with. It has been a particularly hard few years. I have seen 7 clients pass away in the past 3 years; most of them preventable.
> 
> This may just be some silly forum you can use to share ideas and rant about things, which is of course in your right, and if you find it satisfies a part of your life (like it does mine), more power to you.


Hey, dude, you're not the only one here who is serious. I have good reason to be. And these are not "rants."



Mitchell said:


> But I witness people struggle with sincere and debilitating issues of mental health. And I watch them die from it.
> 
> So forgive me if my responses are languaged a little aggressively. I simply can not ethically sit back and watch a patently anti-mental health perspective be propagated to people who may need help but are already resistant/afraid to seek it, without giving an alternative perspective.
> 
> People managing schizophrenia literally bash their heads in to stop the voices. People surviving trauma often place themselves into sexual slavery. People managing severe depression slit their rists in restrooms; it is the social workers that see the blood leaking out from under the door who then break it down and scream for someone to call an ambulance. If drugs will save these peoples lives I am all for drugs. I defy you to watch someone die and say otherwise.
> 
> p.s. I am in my underwear right now.


_If you were smart, you'd listen to what I'm saying. If you were wise, you'd admit that you need the kind of critical thinking you get from me. This is your shadow, and no colleague is going to ever tell you what I'm telling you. I speak from knowledge, wisdom, and experience. You can try to invalidate my perception all you want, but I have learned one great lesson in life: my soul is my own, and I will trust my "gut" intuition. I will never again make the mistake of "entrusting my soul" to any agency of man._


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


> _If you were smart, you'd listen to what I'm saying. If you were wise, you'd admit that you need the kind of critical thinking you get from me. This is your shadow, and no colleague is going to ever tell you what I'm telling you. I speak from knowledge, wisdom, and experience. You can try to invalidate my perception all you want, but I have learned one great lesson in life: my soul is my own, and I will trust my "gut" intuition. I will never again make the mistake of "entrusting my soul" to any agency of man._


I feel inclined to let your hubris speak for itself. If I was wise I would admit that I need you? Please.

Every colleague I have ever encountered has wrestled with the types of concerns you have presented. Best theoretical approaches to therapeutic change (cognition, unconscious material, systems, behavioral, narrative, etc.), the dangers of unethical prescribing, etc. You are not on the inside of some seedy, secretive world, run rampant by mental health practitioners, who are afraid of being exposed.

It sounds like you have had some seriously negative experiences with psychotherapists. I am genuinely sorry to hear that, because their responsibility is a grave one, and they should be held accountable for the affect they have on the people they are supposed to be serving. There is an inherent power dynamic at play between clinician and client. If handled inappropriately it can feel super dis-empowering and inspire outright aversion. If this is what you experienced I would like to express my sympathy.

In regards to the scenario you pointed to with your therapist, it sound like there were multiple direct ethical violations, I can think of three right off of the bat. The ACA's code of ethics is here: http://www.counseling.org/Resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf; there are similar codes for psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, marriage and family therapists, and Christian counselors. Violation of their respective ethical codes should be reported at the state level; they will be investigated. If you have not done so already I highly encourage you to report that person for their ethical violation. This breaking of confidentiality is also a violation of HIPAA, which is Federal law; not okay.

This is not my ideal world, this is my experience, much like you have had yours. My experience is a world of clinicians who barely make ends meet, are emotional punching-bags day-in and day-out, are only able to celebrate their success in a small room with no witnesses; people with huge hearts and baffling levels of empathy. People who literally put themselves in direct danger, repeatedly, and receive no thanks for it. These are special people; these are good people; this is my world.

On the other hand, I have witnessed practitioners engage in unethical practices; I have also witnessed them loose their jobs and/or licenses. And to make it personal, to 'fall on my sword' if you will, I watched my Uncle, who was a great mentor of mine, a LCSW for 3 decades, loose his job and license - and deserve it. But it is not a conspiracy; real people, real dilemmas, real mistakes, real consequences. Also, real successes! Let us never forget the successes, which is how we remember to keep getting out of bed in the morning and face another day filled with pain, anger, and occasionally violence.

I am not trying to invalidate your experience. My concern is, as I clearly outlined above, that your posts could cause harm to people who need help but are hesitating to reach for it. I felt duty bound to offer a different perspective. On a side note, minutes after my previous post I started getting personal messages from people I had never interacted with thanking me for presenting a different perspective.

I am here to attempt to remove any shame associated with mental health and any unnecessary fear of mental health practitioners.

Having mental health problems is nothing to be ashamed of. The number of people managing severe and persistent mental illness is very small, but the number managing less severe mental health problems is, well, everyone. At some point everyone catches a cold, at some point everyone experiences some form of depression, anxiety, or addiction. Reaching out to a psychotherapist or psychiatrist should feel no different than going to your family practitioner to get cold medicine.

thank you for the continued discourse,

M

p.s. This is the second time you've mentioned Laing, I agree he is wonderful, I especially love his poetry. Have you read Knots? It's a blast. I feel like this exchange has ran it's course. I look forward to more light-hearted exchanges over the thing we both love: music.


----------



## Selby

deeslexia said:


> Music helps enormously


A true panacea, indeed!


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> I feel inclined to let your hubris speak for itself. If I was wise I would admit that I need you? Please.


I speak not of my hubris; I speak of your need to be receptive. Humble yourself before the great force of existence!


----------



## Selby

millionrainbows said:


>


That is amazing! Thank you so much for sharing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Apparentlly, this thread has accomplished its purpose. Anybody have any more confessions? Don't worry, there's no stigma....you just won't be able to own a gun.


----------



## PetrB

The way it appears to be set up, correct me, anyone, is that almost no matter who takes this standardized joke will be partially:

Paranoid / Schizoid / Schizotypal / Antisocial / a Borderline personality (WTF?) / Histrionic / Narcissistic / Avoidant / Dependent / and Obsessive-Compulsive.

So is this set up to sucker any or all who take it into running, horribly concerned they are disordered, to a psychologist or psychiatrist?

Hmmm?


----------



## Selby

PetrB said:


> The way it appears to be set up, correct me, anyone, is that almost no matter who takes this standardized joke will be partially:
> 
> Paranoid / Schizoid / Schizotypal / Antisocial / a Borderline personality (WTF?) / Histrionic / Narcissistic / Avoidant / Dependent / and Obsessive-Compulsive.
> 
> So is this set up to sucker any or all who take it into running, horribly concerned they are disordered, to a psychologist or psychiatrist?
> 
> Hmmm?


I think the test was set up just to be a laugh. I don't think, please correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone was taking the actual standardized test seriously.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mitchell said:


> I think the test was set up just to be a laugh. I don't think, please correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone was taking the actual standardized test seriously.


I was. I was taking the whole thread very seriously, and still do. I think this is very, very, serious stuff. Sincerely.


----------



## BlazeGlory

millionrainbows said:


> I was. I was taking the whole thread very seriously, and still do. I think this is very, very, serious stuff. Sincerely.


I believe you. All I have to do is take a look at your avatar. It's just hemorrhaging seriousness.


----------



## millionrainbows

BlazeGlory said:


> I believe you. All I have to do is take a look at your avatar. It's just hemorrhaging seriousness.


Ha haaa! But seriously now, he does have a serious look on his face, even though he's wearing that ridiculous hat...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Does your avatar do this kind of thing often- maybe we can suggest a FEMALE PSYCHOTHERAPIST or two for you.

Possible options would include: Jiang Qing, Imelda Marcos and Catherine the Great. 

Glad to be of assistance


----------



## millionrainbows

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Does your avatar do this kind of thing often- maybe we can suggest a FEMALE PSYCHOTHERAPIST or two for you.
> 
> Possible options would include: Jiang Qing, Imelda Marcos and Catherine the Great.
> 
> Glad to be of assistance


OK, that sounds very therapeutic.


----------



## Cosmos

Paranoid 54%
Schizoid 34%
Schizotypal	50%	
Antisocial	46%
Borderline	58%	
Histrionic	54%	
Narcissistic	40%
Avoidant 66%
Dependent 50%
Obsessive-Compulsive 46%


----------



## millionrainbows

Paranoid Guilt 54%
Schizoid Guilt 34%
Schizotypal Guilt 50% 
Antisocial Guilt 46%
Borderline Guilt 58% 
Histrionic Guilt 54% 
Narcissistic Guilt 40%
Avoidant Guilt 66%
Dependent Guilt 50%
Obsessive-Compulsive Guilt 46%

Redemption: $50 hr.


----------



## lll

I'm bumping this.

@Mitchell (or anyone else), how does a psychiatrist or psychologist make a formal diagnosis for PDs?

I'm currently seeing a shrink at school in order to get some form of help, or at least a diagnosis, but in the span of two sessions i've only talked about my life and gotten virtually zero feedback...

I met a borderline a few months ago, and they suggested that i may have BPD myself (that's what borderlines do, they eventually make you behave like one (imo )), so then i educated myself about it (i had no idea what the DSM was, PDs in general) and finally discovered that i am most likely AvPD (avoidant); 1. i have all the 'symptoms' 2. it's ruining my life

I understand that all psychologists probably follow their own method, but i'm afraid that coming in with a self-diagnosis i won't be taken seriously and that the shrink in question will look anywhere but AvPD...


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

Paranoid	||||||||||||||||	62%
Schizoid	||||||||||	38%	
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||	54%	
Antisocial	||||||||||||	50%	
Borderline	||||||||||||	42%	
Histrionic	||||||||||	38%	
Narcissistic	||||	18%	
Avoidant	||||||||||||||||||||	90%	
Dependent	||||||||||	38%	
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||	18%


----------



## Garlic

Paranoid	||||||||||	34%
Schizoid	||||||||||||	42%
Schizotypal	||||||||||||||||||	74%
Antisocial	||||	14%
Borderline	||||||||||||||||||||	86%	
Histrionic	||||||	22%
Narcissistic	||	10%
Avoidant	||||||||||||||||||||	86%
Dependent	||||||||||||||||||	74%
Obsessive-Compulsive	||||||||||||	50%

I was under the impression that BPD was a category psychiatrists put you in if you don't fit any other diagnosis neatly, particularly if you're female. Not to say that there aren't genuine sufferers. I don't think my problem with interpersonal relationships is due to being unstable, just that I'm too weird for people. Human psychology is far to complex to be summed up with labels like these.


----------



## Musician

Here are the results when you cheat:

Paranoid	||	10%	
Schizoid	||	10%	
Schizotypal	||	10%	
Antisocial	||	10%	
Borderline	||	10%	
Histrionic	||	10%	
Narcissistic	||	10%	
Avoidant	||	10%	
Dependent	||	10%	
Obsessive-Compulsive	||	10%

By the way after clicking submit it said no good 'You have missed question #16". I looked the question, and it was :"do you accomplish your work on time"? well as we say in music 'silence is also music'...

I think that by not answering the question I actually* did *answer the question... (well, sometimes I do _finnish_ my tasks on time, especially when they are not _Swedish_ related ) :lol:


----------



## mstar

PetrB said:


> The way it appears to be set up, correct me, anyone, is that almost no matter who takes this standardized joke will be partially:
> 
> Paranoid / Schizoid / Schizotypal / Antisocial / a Borderline personality (WTF?) / Histrionic / Narcissistic / Avoidant / Dependent / and Obsessive-Compulsive.
> 
> So is this set up to sucker any or all who take it into running, horribly concerned they are disordered, to a psychologist or psychiatrist?
> 
> Hmmm?


Borderline Personality Disorder is very serious, and the person diagnosed should always try to seek help right away.


----------



## mstar

FAIL. I took it and they deleted my answers. I'm not doing that again.... :lol: Whatever, that's how they make money, I guess.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Garlic said:


> I was under the impression that BPD was a category psychiatrists put you in if you don't fit any other diagnosis neatly, particularly if you're female.


No, it really isn't. There is a population of people with characteristic difficulties who have often had rather poor attachment relationships in early life, often perhaps due to the interaction of inborn temperamental disposition and parental difficulties in meeting a child's emotional needs - this can be subtle to not-so-subtle.

Talking therapies can and do help many.


----------



## mstar

Borderline Personality makes little sense to begin with, no offense meant. I have several personalities, they are like more extreme moods. BPD really comes in when you personify those personalities. It is more of a mindset than a physical illness....


----------



## lll

mstar said:


> It is more of a mindset than a physical illness....


It's a personality disorder.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

mstar said:


> Borderline Personality makes little sense to begin with, no offense meant. I have several personalities, they are like more extreme moods. BPD really comes in when you personify those personalities. It is more of a mindset than a physical illness....


I think you might be thinking more of what psychiatrists who like to categorise things call Dissociative Identity Disorder (people used to say 'multiple personality disorder')

BPD (Emotionally Unstable PD in Europe) is not really a 'mindset'; it's an established pattern of feeling, thinking, behaving, relating to one's self and to others which is not under conscious control, and is 'structured' by early life relationship experiences. Some have rightly described it as 'stable instability'

I don't think of it as an illness like pancreatitis or Huntington's Disease, but it is very debilitating for people who find emotional regulation and interpersonal relating so difficult.


----------



## mstar

TurnaboutVox said:


> I think you might be thinking more of what psychiatrists who like to categorise things call Dissociative Identity Disorder (people used to say 'multiple personality disorder')
> 
> BPD (Emotionally Unstable PD in Europe) is not really a 'mindset'; it's an established pattern of feeling, thinking, behaving, relating to one's self and to others which is not under conscious control, and is 'structured' by early life relationship experiences. Some have rightly described it as 'stable instability'
> 
> I don't think of it as an illness like pancreatitis or Huntington's Disease, but it is very debilitating for people who find emotional regulation and interpersonal relating so difficult.


Oh, it's Borderline Personality Disorder in the USA..... Weird that its different.


----------

