Bulllllshit.
I'm empathizing that you feel that that's not true.
You suck at empathy.
A mental disorder means the condition is causing continual distress and impairs functioning.
Yes, the same definition I outlined in my post.
But a stuntman with low neuron mirroring might not be suffering from their condition, just like an artist with high neuron mirroring might have found a way to thrive.
Exactly.
As I said, manifestation counts (in making it a disorder).
So, a stuntman with low mirror neuron activation does not necessarily have a disorder. Just like an artist with high mirror neuron does not necessarily have a disorder.
Again, if you read my post, that's not what I said. Lemme try again:
It makes them
predisposed to certain disorders: low mirror neurons (psychopathy, or less severe, anti-social personality disorder) while high mirror neuron activation (extreme empathy - a disorder). This is my point.
Not all are dysfunctional, is the point. Even if they might be the exception to the rule.
I'm not understanding the logic with which you're interpreting my post as equating high mirror neuron activation to
every case of extreme empathy. Can you show me the evidence for this leap in logic?
I'm calling extreme empathy a disorder, having high mirror neuron activation is not a disorder. High mirror neuron activation can make one, most likely, statistically significantly predisposed to extreme empathy (a disorder). <- which I said in my earlier post.
It's not formally recognized as such yet, as I think this phenomenon is just taking firm footing in the scientific (and psychology) field. But, the conditions which was described in the OP, seems very likely to disrupt functioning in daily life and living. The article calls them disorders as well.
So if they thrive, sometimes even at the conditions credit, is it still a disorder?
If it significantly interrupts their functioning of daily life and living, like not being able to go through life, without being in agony over pain and suffering they indirectly are exposed to, in life, then, yes, most certainly, it's a disorder (i.e., hindrance).
Mood is part of personality. And if we jack up the neurotransmitter serotonin, their personality characteristics and behavior is going to change.
So, if I become angry and stubborn, do I switch to an ESTJ, and if I become happy and feel sweet, do I become an INFP? (caveat: stereotypes have already been hinted at, about types, by your previous post, so I continued ^ - to make a point)
Serotonin? Will change my mood from being depressed to not depressed or vice versa, maybe. But, how will that affect my personality, as you're talking about it, i.e., Type Theory?
Please explain how mood is related to what personality means in type theory.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Playing devil's advocate here; please excuse my fuzzy T, but looking to evolutionary psychology, wouldn't it make sense that instead of a 'disorder' that it might be argued that 'extreme empathy' is a protective mechanism? If anything, extreme empathy might likely keep one from fraternizing with very much that is odd, because to be around much that is odd or abnormal is to feel extremely uncomfortable. Extremely odd or abnormal situations that one would avoid due to extreme empathy are situations that are charged with antisocial behavior, or are resultant from it, for the most part. If I'm avoiding antisocial behavior, I'm probably going to be safer, no? Hence, empathy in this context could be construed as an evolved trait of survival, instead of a disorder. Perhaps not in the median range, for sure, but perhaps moving toward this?
Stretching now: If we were all more empathic, would we have some sort of influence on antisocial behavior in a negatively correlated way> Might discourage antisocial behaviors which would lead to more harmonious environments.
As my previous post outlined, just like extreme empathy has evolutionary
benefits, so does antisocial personality disorders.
This does not mean that they are also not likely to have significant limitations in functioning in our society. Hence, why they're disorders.
Both are positive in an evolutionary sense of occuring as rare cases (which they do) in human society. Both are negative in terms of clinical psychology and looking at the manifestation of these traits in our average society. Hence, disorder.
A thought exercise: imagine if every one of us were extreme empaths, and, one person suffered some kind of pain, then, in such an extreme case, this would then leave that society completely useless and in a catatonic, paralyzed state of pain, as everyone will be in agony, by one isolated incident happening to
one individual in pain. It's thus a debilitating state of being.
And, I've read the anecdotal stories on this thread, I really don't think anyone comes close to the extreme empathy that's being talked about in the OP, which again, is a disorder.