your mental illness is NOT an excuse to be an asshole

[magpie]

Not all perceptions are valid, so in some cases yes, one can take precedent.

Convenient that yours are valid and mine aren't.

You failed to understand it then. Further, I guess my sarcasm was missed; I find the fact that you can't (or worse, won't) see some mental illnesses as having a tendency to be worse than others. The big three do indeed frequently have more serious complications than personality disorders do. It's intellecually dishonest to not regard the severe mental illnesses as severe.

Did I say that I don't regard severe mental illnesses as severe? I said it wasn't useful for me to qualify them in that way. I am not being intellectually dishonest. I suspect that each mental illness has its own sliding scale of severity. I also suspect it depends on what you consider severe. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate out of any mental illness.

Yes. Someone who doesn't believe in gravity, isn't really qualified to disprove or speak poorly about it, because it can't be disproven or invalidated in the first place. Same goes with psychology, an established scientific and medical field, is not something that can be denied. If you deny it, then you are indeed not qualified to speak about it with as much weight as someone who does regard it and recognizes what it does.

The chemical imbalance explanation for mental illness has not been proven and there are plenty of respected psychiatrists and doctors who disagree with using it as an explanation, because they disagree with it overall or because they see it as a huge oversimplification. You can't tell me what I can and can't talk about.

If you're judgements are faulty, then yes indeed you should submit to the judgements of others who are within the field. Indeed, this is an overreaction on your part, and you are taking it to the extreme by thinking you can't have your own opinions, but the opinions need to be properly informed for them to carry reasonable weight. It's also not black and white; it's not an all matters or nothing matters thing.

You can't tell me what my opinions need to be. That's the same as saying I can't have my own opinions. You also just told me my perceptions are wrong.

 

[Lark]

Your pithy posts are mesmerizing.

I thought you had a good point and that it deserved to be discussed a bit more. Although I see you're just doing your thing. Carry on. Its not gotten old at all.

 

[á´…eparted]

Convenient that yours are valid and mine aren't.

If there are situations where my perceptions prove to be less valid than someone elses, I drop them. I suspect you do the same as well, as does everyone when the situation arises.

Did I say that I don't regard severe mental illnesses as severe?

It sure sounded like you didn't, which is why I was/am pushing back against it.

I said it wasn't useful for me to qualify them in that way. I am not being intellectually dishonest. I suspect that each mental illness has its own sliding scale of severity. I also suspect it depends on what you consider severe. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate out of any mental illness.

Ok, so it's not useful to you. It is however, dishonest to take your lack of need of this and apply it across the board to back up your argument. If this is not what you're doing, then I stand correct and appologize. From my end it seems like that is what you're trying to do though. I am speaking of this from a statistical standpoint, and within psychology, the big three I mention are regarded as the most frequently severe. Again, if you can't see that schizophrenia is more frequently severe than personality disorders, than there is indeed a problem.

The chemical imbalance explanation for mental illness has not been proven and there are plenty of respected psychiatrists and doctors who disagree with using it as an explanation, because they disagree with it overall or because they see it as a huge oversimplification.

The field of psychiatry and psychology knows and acknowledges that chemical imbalance models and theories are not completely accurate as the causes and biology is often more complicated than that model suggests (the "chemical soup" style models/theories). There is ongoing research to gain a more clear understanding of what's going on. Nevertheless, the current theory is statisically accurate enough from clinical evidence by use of medication, that it has more than enough validity for use. When new discoveries arise, the models will be revised accordingly.

Despite all that, the inaccuricies of the modes does not invalidate the field, because they do provide clinical benefit and direction on how to approach problems.

You can't tell me what I can and can't talk about.

Of course not, no one can. However, if you or anyone says something that's not true or disagreeable, you can't expect it to remain left alone.

You can't tell me what my opinions need to be. That's the same as saying I can't have my own opinions. You also just told me my perceptions are wrong.

If someone has an uninformed or inaccurate opinion, then yes someone can and will say what the opinion should be if it has little to no basis. To use the gravity example again, someone who disagrees with gravity surely is going to be told to correct their "opinion". Do they have to change it? Nope, no one can tell someone how to think and expect them to obey it. Nevertheless, if an opinion is uninformed and unsupported, or factually wrong, it can't be expected to be taken seriously. Nor should it be taken seriously.

 

[magpie]

If there are situations where my perceptions prove to be less valid than someone elses, I drop them. I suspect you do the same as well, as does everyone when the situation arises.

Okay, then drop your perceptions.

Ok, so it's not useful to you. It is however, dishonest to take your lack of need of this and apply it across the board to back up your argument. If this is not what you're doing, then I stand correct and appologize. From my end it seems like that is what you're trying to do though. I am speaking of this from a statistical standpoint, and within psychology, the big three I mention are regarded as the most frequently severe. Again, if you can't see that schizophrenia is more frequently severe than personality disorders, than there is indeed a problem.

Why are you stuck on three mental illnesses versus personality disorders? I asked for a list of all of them. There are lots more than the three you've mentioned repeatedly and personality disorders. Why have you not acknowledged that there are different sets of criteria for what might be considered most severe? I am not and was never talking about which disorders are the most frequent across populations and I don't think anyone else in this thread was. We were talking about someone saying that people who fake mental illnesses have histrionic personality disorder, remember? And then you said that people who have histrionic personality disorder do not have a very severe mental illness at all and ought to have their shit together. So I asked for a list of the most severe mental disorders from most to least severe. Meaning most severe, not most frequent, so that we could all qualify when someone with a mental illness might not be considered to be faking their mental illness.

The field of psychiatry and psychology knows and acknowledges that chemical imbalance models and theories are not completely accurate as the causes and biology is often more complicated than that model suggests (the "chemical soup" style models/theories). There is ongoing research to gain a more clear understanding of what's going on. Nevertheless, the current theory is statisically accurate enough from clinical evidence by use of medication, that it has more than enough validity for use. When new discoveries arise, the models will be revised accordingly.

So then what's the issue with me expressing doubt about the field? It is logical for me to express doubt. Things aren't set in stone. When scientists doubt it's called making progress. I'd have to be delusional not to have my reservations. The current theory is not statistically accurate enough from clinical evidence to support use of medication. Use of medication is not proven either way. It is a complete shot in the dark. Clinical studies that are negative tend not to be published as much as positive ones. If medication works for you then I support you completely. But don't push your personal and anecdotal experience onto the wider population.

Despite all that, the inaccuricies of the modes does not invalidate the field, because they do provide clinical benefit and direction on how to approach problems.

They provide direction. They don't necessarily provide validity.

Of course not, no one can. However, if you or anyone says something that's not true or disagreeable, you can't expect it to remain left alone.

Likewise.

If someone has an uninformed or inaccurate opinion, then yes someone can and will say what the opinion should be if it has little to no basis. To use the gravity example again, someone who disagrees with gravity surely is going to be told to correct their "opinion". Do they have to change it? Nope, no one can tell someone how to think and expect them to obey it. Nevertheless, if an opinion is uninformed and unsupported, or factually wrong, it can't be expected to be taken seriously. Nor should it be taken seriously.

My opinion isn't wrong. You just admitted that it wasn't. You are really on very shaky ground right now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This is a fascinating topic of discussion. I hope it continues.

 

[Lexicon]

Most people with PTSD do not want to talk about it, or let other people know there's something wrong with them. They want to feel normal.

I saw this post last night, and wanted to comment on it. I was diagnosed with PTSD several years back (not military related). I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I share my issues with those I trust, but, overall, I want to feel normal, and be treated normally. If people walk on eggshells around me, it makes me feel broken, it puts me back in a weird "victim" state, if that makes sense.

Some of the most obvious signs of my PTSD have to do with exaggerated startle responses, awake and asleep. Occasionally I also wake up screaming, as well, for no reason (night terrors - could be unrelated to PTSD, but my therapist assumed they were related). Because this may confuse or upset those around me- and because I want to be treated normally - I do warn people that I do this. Seeing the confused or startled reactions from people when these things happen just, I don't know. Aches. Being treated like glass afterward- when all I want to do is move on- the whole flow of the conversation just darkens and slows down, and I think, I've ruined it, again. Occasionally I'll shut down and retreat into myself at that point, trying to control a spiral of panic and shitty, self-defeating thoughts. But - if my friends know about the startle responses, then if it's triggered, and we just move on casually after it happens, I actually feel a LOT better. My body calms down a lot faster. I feel safe. I'm not focusing on how fucked up that involuntary response makes me feel. I don't want attention directed at it. Just an arbitrary example.

I figure, if you're aware you have a mental illness, and you're aware enough of some behaviors that are linked to it, then you are responsible for how that impacts those around you. If you can't control all of your behaviors, you need to get help, and you need to communicate things clearly to those closest to you, and assure them you're making an effort to work on things. Those who care about you want to see your life improve. Don't fucking make it the rest of the world's problem. A diagnosis is not a cure, it's not a band-aid, and it's certainly not a free pass to shit on people around you.

Feelings never justify hostile, callous, or otherwise fucked up behavior.

 

[Bilateral Entry]

a lot of us here have a mental health issue or two...

nuh uuuuuhh

 

[Lark]

I saw this post last night, and wanted to comment on it. I was diagnosed with PTSD several years back (not military related). I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded. I share my issues with those I trust, but, overall, I want to feel normal, and be treated normally. If people walk on eggshells around me, it makes me feel broken, it puts me back in a weird "victim" state, if that makes sense.

Some of the most obvious signs of my PTSD have to do with exaggerated startle responses, awake and asleep. Occasionally I also wake up screaming, as well, for no reason (night terrors - could be unrelated to PTSD, but my therapist assumed they were related). Because this may confuse or upset those around me- and because I want to be treated normally - I do warn people that I do this. Seeing the confused or startled reactions from people when these things happen just, I don't know. Aches. Being treated like glass afterward- when all I want to do is move on- the whole flow of the conversation just darkens and slows down, and I think, I've ruined it, again. Occasionally I'll shut down and retreat into myself at that point, trying to control a spiral of panic and shitty, self-defeating thoughts. But - if my friends know about the startle responses, then if it's triggered, and we just move on casually after it happens, I actually feel a LOT better. My body calms down a lot faster. I feel safe. I'm not focusing on how fucked up that involuntary response makes me feel. I don't want attention directed at it. Just an arbitrary example.

I figure, if you're aware you have a mental illness, and you're aware enough of some behaviors that are linked to it, then you are responsible for how that impacts those around you. If you can't control all of your behaviors, you need to get help, and you need to communicate things clearly to those closest to you, and assure them you're making an effort to work on things. Those who care about you want to see your life improve. Don't fucking make it the rest of the world's problem. A diagnosis is not a cure, it's not a band-aid, and it's certainly not a free pass to shit on people around you.

Feelings never justify hostile, callous, or otherwise fucked up behavior.

I've experienced those things too, although I never received any diagnosis of PTSD since it was more a time limited experience of symptoms, triggered by an incident and it disappeared again given time.

So its not really disordered by post-incident stress, the over taxing of my, fairly good, resilience, combined with a curious admixture of personal triggers or stressors of which I'm more aware than ever.

However, the whole issue and topic of awareness is one I really find interesting, its a big part of what led me to an interest in psychoanalysis, personality typology, sociology, psychology per se.

I've met people who're totally unaware of the impact of their behaviour, seen full scale resistance, repression, denial, rationalisation, projection, the works, and also seen the insidious combination of those things with organisational politics too and naked self interest of the worst sorts.

The social character and "sane/insane society" thesis of Erich Fromm interest me and Eric Berne's scripts and games because they account for how culture, particularly early family and "playground" culture, set in train enduring patterns people never guess at or bother about too much, sometimes, in the most perverse ways, I've known people to positively "enjoy their symptoms", as in exaggerate any pathological traits as their "being themselves", "making their own rules", any and all of those misguided pop-psychology or positive thinking aphorisms which sound great until you apply them to serial killers or other similar transgressors.

 

[Lark]

what I was speaking about was the idea that one has to be on their best behavior as not to put one's group in a worse light than it already is

Everyone represents.

Its something I mentioned before in other threads, particularly when they turned acrimonious or nasty, which is often the moment when people are least likely to be willing to "hear" or really hear and understand what's being said.

The reality is that if you're going to seek to represent an opinion or faction or subculture or group of any sort, even without engaging in any sort of groupthink deliberately (I'm not even considering this as a prejorative phrase in this context either), then dont be surprised if people consider you representative and form opinions about the entire community or group on the back of how you're conducting yourself.

There really are a lot of people who think their circumstances or even simply their goals give them licence to be really ugly in their conduct or dealing with others, I think it gets ramped up a lot when whoever is their opposite number is thought to represent their own personal demons or great satan, whatever way they perceive that.

 

[great_bay]

Mental illness can be an excuse for rude behavior. It's only fine if the person has imbalanced chemicals. Rude behavior is also pardon if the person cannot their motor actions in the brain. All cases have to be evaluated by the individual and case itself. We might as well be discussing should a person be pardon for killing? I'm sure there are pardonable cases in this such as an accident as oppose to somebody who planned the murder out.

People with mental illness who are harassing people aren't sometimes sympathetic though. I have seen students complain towards people with down syndrome how they didn't like being in the same class due to screaming,hitting and yelling.

 

[Bilateral Entry]

For example, a dude in a manic phase that has sexual issues starts masturbating while standing at my work station (this is a common trait for men with younger female nurses I've quickly found). I know for a fact he has trouble controlling himself, and that no one.. not one person in the whole world told him this was appropriate behavior like ever. But shrugging my shoulders and saying nothing and letting him do it is not the right answer like pretty much ever. Making boundaries is. You don't have to treat him like a subhuman or be an asshole yourself, but I as a human being don't have to deal with a man masturbating near me, and he needs to be aware that the behavior is not appropriate.

Hehehehehehehehehehhe. He's gotta learn to snap a photo on his cell phone, and then fap one out in the bathroom like the rest of us.

 

[citizen cane]

I think this thread would be a lot more useful if 'asshole' and 'excuse' were clearly defined. Otherwise we're all probably just going to get 20 pages or so of arguing and trolling and hurt feelings instead of valuable observation and insight.


To be fair, I totally TLDR'ed the entire thread...

 

[á´…eparted]

Okay, then drop your perceptions.

Wow, ok sure I will get right on that.

Why are you stuck on three mental illnesses versus personality disorders?

Since you were trying to use histronic PD as an example and to illustrate your points, I am comparing other disorders to it. I've also seen you profess shaky views on stuff like this and haven't said anything, so I am saying it now.

I asked for a list of all of them.

You realize this is a completely unreasonable request, right? Unreasonable requests don't prove someone right. I am not going to go through the DSM and list out every single one just to appease your request. What I did instead, was point out the top three that are regarded by the psychological community as the most frequently severe mental disorders. I have never come across a case, or heard of a situation where a personality disorder limited functioning to the levels that those disorders so frequently do. I'm sure it can happen, but it would be extremely rare.

There are lots more than the three you've mentioned repeatedly and personality disorders. Why have you not acknowledged that there are different sets of criteria for what might be considered most severe?

I have, I pointed out that some disorders are more frequently severe than others. The severity of a disorder is dictated by how much it tangibly effects functioning.

I am not and was never talking about which disorders are the most frequent across populations and I don't think anyone else in this thread was. We were talking about someone saying that people who fake mental illnesses have histrionic personality disorder, remember? And then you said that people who have histrionic personality disorder do not have a very severe mental illness at all and ought to have their shit together.

I did not say that. It would be extremely rare for someone with histronic PD to have a case where it is so severe it limits their function as the NIH link outlined that I provided. I took issue with the fact that you seemed to be excusing that, seeming to try and express disdain for psychology again, and trying to say kyueei was being hostile. All of which I disagreed with, and have been explaining as to how and why. I brought up frequency because that's how its defined,

So I asked for a list of the most severe mental disorders from most to least severe. Meaning most severe, not most frequent, so that we could all qualify when someone with a mental illness might not be considered to be faking their mental illness.

Most frequently severe is how it has to be defined, because disorders are not cookie cutter for individuals, they can manifest differently. That said, there are common threads within individuals with disorders. There are individuals with schizophrenia for example, that function in day to day life with little effect on functioning, but that's rare. It must be spoken in terms of how often a disorder manifests severely.

So then what's the issue with me expressing doubt about the field? It is logical for me to express doubt. Things aren't set in stone. When scientists doubt it's called making progress. I'd have to be delusional not to have my reservations.

Reasonable doubt is fine. Yours does not appear to be (the doubt appears to go too far). There's an old saying "don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" (note: I am not implying your brains are falling out, or that you are dumb in any way. It's to illustrate a point). It's fine to question something when there is a reasonable basis for there to be. Does psychology have issues? Yes. Nearly every field does. Psychology appears to have more due to the inherient subjective nature of it, and the complexity of brain biochemistry. Scientists cast doubt when there is evidence to do so.

The current theory is not statistically accurate enough from clinical evidence to support use of medication.

Yes it is. If it weren't people wouldn't be prescribing medications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_medication

Use of medication is not proven either way.

Yes it is. See it above.

It is a complete shot in the dark. Clinical studies that are negative tend not to be published as much as positive ones. If medication works for you then I support you completely. But don't push your personal and anecdotal experience onto the wider population.

I'm not even remotely using anecdotal evidence for this. I am an organic chemist by trade, so I know quite a bit about this sort of stuff. Medication works for the majority of individuals who use it. If they didn't, they would not be marketable or be approved by the FDA. Period.

I find it to be very dangerous and offensive for individuals to demonize medication like this, when there is scientific evidence that supports their use. It's akin to anti-vaccine bullshit. Are all of them good? No, some of them are questionable at times and require a lot of monitoring (for example, I regard venlafaxine as a "risky" medication due to it's side effects. But, it's approved, and it does indeed help quite a number of individuals, so as long as things are triaged by a psychiatrist correctly, it's a viable option). But they can be an absolute boon for individuals. Are there individuals with moderate to severe mental disorders who might not benefit from medications? Sure, but the only way for an individual to know that is to try. Psychiatric medication by the nature of the beast requires trial and error for individuals. It sucks, but it's how it has to be with how medicine currently is, and it's the best we got.

And for the record, I have actually had several bad experiences from medications. I've actually never had a psychiatric medication work for me properly.

They provide direction. They don't necessarily provide validity.

Sure, and in practice they work well enough to give us an understand of a portion of what's going on, and enough direction that we can use it as a model and method to develop new treatments. Models that don't work are rejected by the scientific community. It will be in place until enough research is conducted to provide an improved model.

My opinion isn't wrong. You just admitted that it wasn't. You are really on very shaky ground right now.

Some of your opinions are fine, others aren't. I am not on shaky ground at all.

 

[Bilateral Entry]

Don't cloud the issue with facts. Some of us are trying to enjoy the drama. This is like a finessed version of the Youtube comments section.

BTW if you want definitions, use a dictionary. You're not seriously trying to say that you don't understand what 'asshole' and 'excuse' mean, or that those terms are too ambiguous to you.

I think this thread would be a lot more useful if 'asshole' and 'excuse' were clearly defined. Otherwise we're all probably just going to get 20 pages or so of arguing and trolling and hurt feelings instead of valuable observation and insight.


To be fair, I totally TLDR'ed the entire thread...

 

[miss fortune]

nuh uuuuuhh

Hehehehehehehehehehhe. He's gotta learn to snap a photo on his cell phone, and then fap one out in the bathroom like the rest of us.

are you trying to prove that the apparently sane are just as capable of making creepy and inappropriate comments as anyone who is mentally ill with your statement here?

 

[Bilateral Entry]

are you trying to prove that the apparently sane are just as capable of making creepy and inappropriate comments as anyone who is mentally ill with your statement here?

You're right. That was completely unprofessional. I am sorry. It was wrong. Oh so very wrong.

 

[magpie]

Wow, ok sure I will get right on that.




Since you were trying to use histronic PD as an example and to illustrate your points, I am comparing other disorders to it. I've also seen you profess shaky views on stuff like this and haven't said anything, so I am saying it now.




You realize this is a completely unreasonable request, right? Unreasonable requests don't prove someone right. I am not going to go through the DSM and list out every single one just to appease your request. What I did instead, was point out the top three that are regarded by the psychological community as the most frequently severe mental disorders. I have never come across a case, or heard of a situation where a personality disorder limited functioning to the levels that those disorders so frequently do. I'm sure it can happen, but it would be extremely rare.




I have, I pointed out that some disorders are more frequently severe than others. The severity of a disorder is dictated by how much it tangibly effects functioning.




I did not say that. It would be extremely rare for someone with histronic PD to have a case where it is so severe it limits their function as the NIH link outlined that I provided. I took issue with the fact that you seemed to be excusing that, seeming to try and express disdain for psychology again, and trying to say kyueei was being hostile. All of which I disagreed with, and have been explaining as to how and why. I brought up frequency because that's how its defined,




Most frequently severe is how it has to be defined, because disorders are not cookie cutter for individuals, they can manifest differently. That said, there are common threads within individuals with disorders. There are individuals with schizophrenia for example, that function in day to day life with little effect on functioning, but that's rare. It must be spoken in terms of how often a disorder manifests severely.

You and kyueei were using hpd to illustrate your points. I was asking you to take your points all the way and apply them to all disorders. If this is something that you find unreasonable, it's a reflection on you, not me, because it was your point originally. You guys were saying that people with hpd were not severely limited or affected by their mental illness. I was asking you to tell me which mental illnesses were most severe. Apparently you can't because they're all on a scale of severity. It is fine and good to give me a list of the most frequently severe, but how will that answer the pressing questions for people like you and kyueei about who is on the legitimately severe side of the illness scale and who is faking about how severe they are and ought not be taken seriously? Why did you ignore what I said about anorexia being the mental illness with with highest mortality rate? I have never expressed shaky views on stuff like this. I have expressed what you interpret to be shaky views.

Reasonable doubt is fine. Yours does not appear to be (the doubt appears to go too far). There's an old saying "don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" (note: I am not implying your brains are falling out, or that you are dumb in any way. It's to illustrate a point). It's fine to question something when there is a reasonable basis for there to be. Does psychology have issues? Yes. Nearly every field does. Psychology appears to have more due to the inherient subjective nature of it, and the complexity of brain biochemistry. Scientists cast doubt when there is evidence to do so.




Yes it is. If it weren't people wouldn't be prescribing medications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_medication




Yes it is. See it above.




I'm not even remotely using anecdotal evidence for this. I am an organic chemist by trade, so I know quite a bit about this sort of stuff. Medication works for the majority of individuals who use it. If they didn't, they would not be marketable or be approved by the FDA. Period.

I find it to be very dangerous and offensive for individuals to demonize medication like this, when there is scientific evidence that supports their use. It's akin to anti-vaccine bullshit. Are all of them good? No, some of them are questionable at times and require a lot of monitoring (for example, I regard venlafaxine as a "risky" medication due to it's side effects. But, it's approved, and it does indeed help quite a number of individuals, so as long as things are triaged by a psychiatrist correctly, it's a viable option). But they can be an absolute boon for individuals. Are there individuals with moderate to severe mental disorders who might not benefit from medications? Sure, but the only way for an individual to know that is to try. Psychiatric medication by the nature of the beast requires trial and error for individuals. It sucks, but it's how it has to be with how medicine currently is, and it's the best we got.

And for the record, I have actually had several bad experiences from medications. I've actually never had a psychiatric medication work for me properly.




Sure, and in practice they work well enough to give us an understand of a portion of what's going on, and enough direction that we can use it as a model and method to develop new treatments. Models that don't work are rejected by the scientific community. It will be in place until enough research is conducted to provide an improved model.




Some of your opinions are fine, others aren't. I am not on shaky ground at all.

MMS: Error

Edit: I don't know why the link says error. It's working fine.

 

[á´…eparted]

You and kyueei were using hpd to illustrate your points. I was asking you to take your points all the way and apply them to all disorders. If this is something that you find unreasonable, it's a reflection on you, not me, because it was your point originally. You guys were saying that people with hpd were not severely limited or affected by their mental illness. I was asking you to tell me which mental illnesses were most severe. Apparently you can't because they're all on a scale of severity. It is fine and good to give me a list of the most frequently severe, but how will that answer the pressing questions for people like you and kyueei about who is on the legitimately severe side of the illness scale and who is faking about how severe they are and ought not be taken seriously? Why did you ignore what I said about anorexia being the mental illness with with highest mortality rate? I have never expressed shaky views on stuff like this. I have expressed what you interpret to be shaky views.

This is the 3rd time I have had to say this. You are either not getting it, or flagerantly ignoring it. Let's break this down:

A. Different disorders manifest with different levels of severity with varying frequencies.
B. HPD is very rarely severe.
C. Since it is rarely severe, and given the nature of what HPD does to an individual, unmanaged it can and does result in individuals who use "mental disorders" as a crutch. Does this mean ALL individuals with HPD will be like this? No.
D. Individivuals with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorder, are often severe.
E. I am, and do, in fact apply this same rule to all disorders and individuals. Consider the severity of each individual case. See point A.

Yes you HAVE expressed shaky views, on all the stuff where I discussed medication, and the voracity of psychology of the field. Those I honestly take much much more contentiously than I do with the bullet point list I made above.

I haven't mentioned anorexia because I feel the three I mentioned are more illustrative since they do impede on function more signicantly than anorexia does overall. Mortality rate is a factor, but it is not the only factor.

MMS: Error

Edit: I don't know why the link says error. It's working fine.

A single study does not invalidate medication. What it does do is call into question how they are used, and lends to further studies being conducted to back it up, and I am sure that has been attempted.

If your claim were accurate, then the field wouldn't be using medication as it does.

 

[magpie]

This is the 3rd time I have had to say this. You are either not getting it, or flagerantly ignoring it. Let's break this down:

A. Different disorders manifest with different levels of severity with varying frequencies.
B. HPD is very rarely severe.
C. Since it is rarely severe, and given the nature of what HPD does to an individual, unmanaged it can and does result in individuals who use "mental disorders" as a crutch. Does this mean ALL individuals with HPD will be like this? No.
D. Individivuals with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar disorder, are often severe.
E. I am, and do, in fact apply this same rule to all disorders and individuals. Consider the severity of each individual case. See point A.

Yes you HAVE expressed shaky views, on all the stuff where I discussed medication, and the voracity of psychology of the field. Those I honestly take much much more contentiously than I do with the bullet point list I made above.

I haven't mentioned anorexia because I feel the three I mentioned are more illustrative since they do impede on function more signicantly than anorexia does overall. Mortality rate is a factor, but it is not the only factor.

Okay let's assume I'm not getting it. Are you saying you find death less severe than impeded functioning? How come when I tell you something isn't the only factor and bring up another factor you discount it by saying the thing I brought up isn't the only factor? Isn't that a bit circular? Where does that get us?

I don't think people with HPD use mental illness as a crutch. I think what you are seeing is a manifestation of the mental illness that you dislike and feel judgemental towards and are therefore refusing to see it as legitimate. HPD is by defenition an attention seeking disorder. If you truly believe in the validity of personality disorders as diagnoses then you should have no problem understanding the severity of what these people are dealing with. The fact that I, someone who doesn't believe in the validity of personality disorders as diagnoses, has to be telling this to you, someone who does, is beyond ironic.

A single study does not invalidate medication. What it does do is call into question how they are used, and lends to further studies being conducted to back it up, and I am sure that has been attempted.

If your claim were accurate, then the field wouldn't be using medication as it does.

That is not true. The field will always use medication the way it does as long as it remains as easy and as lucrative.

 

[miss fortune]

Okay let's assume I'm not getting it. Are you saying you find death less severe than impeded functioning? How come when I tell you something isn't the only factor and bring up another factor you discount it by saying the thing I brought up isn't the only factor? Isn't that a bit circular? Where does that get us?

I don't think people with HPD use mental illness as a crutch. I think what you are seeing is a manifestation of the mental illness that you dislike and feel judgemental towards and are therefore refusing to see it as legitimate. HPD is by defenition an attention seeking disorder. If you truly believe in the validity of personality disorders as diagnoses then you should have no problem understanding the severity of what these people are dealing with. The fact that I, someone who doesn't believe in the validity of personality disorders as diagnoses, has to be telling this to you, someone who does, is beyond ironic.

To throw in my two cents here, I understand that it's not always easy to bite your tongue or apologize when you've done something asinine whether you have a mental illness or not... and yeah, if you do it can be a real bitch to feel like you're restraining yourself sometimes and believe me, I know that. However, difficulty in restraint or not wanting to apologize does NOT prevent a person from knowing when they've screwed up or screwed someone over or done something else that's generally in the category of not cool to do behaviors. Whether a person likes it or not, and whether it's difficult or easy (and I can't think of anyone who finds it particularly pleasant and easy to do), you've got to own up to your screw ups and apologize... just throwing out an excuse of "I can't help myself!" doesn't really cut it... you KNOW you shouldn't do it in the first place and you have the power not to do so and you did it anyway, so apologize genuinely without making any excuses. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me