Rant on diagnosing others

[Kubash16]

To be honest, I don't know for sure that it isn't dangerous in all cases. I would say anyone who meets the diagnosis is dangerous by definition.

How about we turn the tables here and get you to define "dangerous?"

How can you say for sure that some people diagnosed with psychopathy "aren't dangerous?"

The traits would be:

Lack of conscience
Lack of empathy
Callous
Glib
Dishonest
Manipulative
Willing to use others for ones own gain

These are actual diagnostic criteria.

So tell me: Is this person dangerous or not?

They can be dangerous. So can a person with ptsd, or bipolar, or borderline, or any number of things.

We should be working towards creating early interventions and reducing stigma by trying to help those that are struggling.

Purusha recognizes her issues and is working to overcome them, are we supposed to just ostracize her because she was diagnosed with that disorder? **** you do realize she also has ptsd right?

Not that long ago we would lock up schizophrenics without a thought because they were “too dangerous”. But with time and persistence we have learned how different medications and therapies can help manage the symptoms. There’s a lot of illnesses that aren’t curable, but can be managed effectively.

But ostracizing an entire group over the actions of a few is just wrong.

 

[Ronin]

Sorry if I m coming on too strong

That cool, I take it strongly agreeing or disagreeing about the issue is about the issue, points raised and such, not a poster wrong by def.

And it makes sense people are terrifying and confusing altogether if you still be living in an unsafe situation.

Safe journeys on your travel, Mums. :)

//

Also, seriously?

But right back atcha with this.
Seriously?
Someone shared something vulnerable (in a thread with so many anti sentiments, that they actually have the disorder that is talked about)... even are doing enough in being honest about their past (whichever it brought), working on the issues...

And THIS is a reply they get, Dana?
You should be congratulating Purusha on moving on from her past, being super honest, being brave with sharing about it and difficulties she has relating...
Or if judging the acts, not the person. That happens people feel strongly about a version of the events they get from postings... mighta been something else going on entirely.

Besides... you were talking about changing Paths.
Here you have someone with NPD, who says they changed, and are committed to changing more.
Is that not right up your alley about things you would WANT to see?

The traits would be:

Lack of conscience
Lack of empathy
Callous
Glib
Dishonest
Manipulative
Willing to use others for ones own gain

You might also reframe on this.
Lack of conscience // Ability to see and consider morality from various angles.
(May be hella useful in negotiations. As in I will not judge you if you are moral, immoral, right or wrong or what the hell, we are working on talking this out for now, I can see where you are coming from, judgments come later. Aaand there we go with saving lives, the opposite of dangerous :happy:)

Callous // Hard and unwavering about stances, no matter who tries to sway them ... we call that loyal and damn firm a leader, in other lands.

Lack of empathy // Not so caught up in feelings and drama they would be unable to make decisions when decisions are called for.

Glib // Shallow may mean passing in various environments and not too caught up on things, as in that may be a good thing, not holding grudges for eternity, being intense about things for a moment but not forever.

Dishonest // Tactful / With understanding their audience carefully, and measuring words depending on the environments. Which, again, in a right place, in the right company? Is helpful. Instead of someone who will spill everything to everyone and not be even aware it is not the place, nor the time.

Manipulative // That would be persuasive. A good communicator. Someone who reads people well.

Willing to use others // Sees others as useful. Sees purpose in people (even if short term, even if for their own gain). Find lining up people and lining up purposes? You have a well working team. :) Since when were well working teams a BAD thing?

So do you see dangerous?
Because I can totally see an ally. Or a friend. Or someone who is someone to not cross, but who will be amazing in strictly resources, professional settings, or in conflict situations, staying above them, minding their own business.

It really is a lot about what you assign as a meaning to words.

 

[mumstheword]

No, not really - I do think though if one is going to rely on stats it's safer to have more than one source particularly since the only source given is making a living out writing and interpreting his own data.



Yes. True. Narcissist and psychotic have become trendy words. I've mentioned this already?



Really pleased you put a 'most' in that sentence ^. Because there is a portion of this mental health group who are not dangerous.

However, all abusers have a 100% strike rate on the dangerous score for me even if they never raise a hand.



The OP did (refer to her first post) and was called a Narcissist for doing so. :wtf:

I guess if she was called a narcissist for questioning, one could assume that the person calling her that, sees the term as a generic pejorative that they call anyone that they have an emotional reaction to. So that kind of discredits their claim by their fly-off-the-handle throw away and flippant use of the term.

I didn't realise the rant was so specific, I thought it was a rant at people in general (that should be in italics but I can't get them, on my phone) who use the term narcassist to indicate the kind of abusive behaviour they have been subject to.

Look, I have developed a great deal of compassion towards my abuser, and nailing down to his particular brand(s) of pathology has been helpful to me.

I would never go around character assassinating him with those critiques and labels that I and other's agree for his behaviour, though. That kind of behaviour, trying to smear someone's name with pejorative labels, wreaks of the same ploys that those we are calling narcassists, use. But in an anonymous site? I don't see the harm? It's just blowing off of steam, in my opinion.

When I talk to my kids about their dad, I talk about the particular behaviours that are hurtful, if I need to talk about him at all. And I have told them I suspect he might be autistic, as an explanation for the strange lack of empathy he consistantly demonstrates, because it's a softer explanation than saying, "Well my clinical psych says he's a psychopath, but I think he's a textbook narcissistic" . And having SOME EXPLANATION has helped them understand his deficits and not to expect too much of him.

All his lies and crimes will catch up with him, eventually.

Now I don't know if he will really fit the diagnostic criteria for Autism, although it's possibly part of the mix, but I do know he fits many, many criteria boxes for anti social personality disorder, addictive personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder and that when I read book after book on narcissistic abuse, it fits TO A T, the kinds of behaviour and ploys that he used on me. But I want to.be kind, so I told my kid's that he might be autistic. Even he has the capacity to change, to treat people better and to not hurt his children the way he hurt me, I've seen it. People are people, at the end of the day, and it's best to forget labels, at a certain point, and just address THE BEHAVIOUR.

 

[Dana1010]

@Ronin, you're spinning the facts like a top. They don't mean them in that positive light you shed on them.

Let's try this:

Willing to HARM others for ones own gain.

How do you spin that?

 

[Chris-duck]

I agree with @Ronin I have an acquaintance (close friend of a close friend) who has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. He isn't abusive to the best of my knowledge. And if I want sound practical advice there is nobody better because he doesn't get tangled up in all the complications that most people do. He observes people and understands them, possibly uses that to his own advantage but I think everybody does to an extent. A diagnosis doesn't equal abusive. Being abusive equals abusive.

 

[Chris-duck]

Willing to HARM others for ones own gain

That's obviously wrong. But also not in the diagnostic criteria

 

[Ronin]

Willing to HARM others for ones own gain.

... Most mothers defending their kid (to keep their kid from harm)?
That totally fits your definition.
MamaBears? A foundational miracle. :)

Those words basically do not mean all that much, separated from individual people and situations.
(And it is not spinning things to be actually thinking critically, or questioning the use of language, thanks.)

 

[Dana1010]

Apparently a lot of people here had the idea put into their heads that mentally ill people are in the same boat. They're not. You shouldn't feel any need to feel solidarity with narcs and paths. We're ill -- something happened to us that made us ill. These people just are who they are. "Evil" might be a better word for them, but we've lost the language to talk about evil in our time. It's all a misunderstanding, everyone's the same. We'll sacrifice sanity and common sense to the God of equality.

He isn't abusive to the best of my knowledge.

Ted Bundy wasn't abusive the best of his mother's knowledge.

By the way, how do you know he was diagnosed? Why would he tell people? I don't get it.

 

[Dana1010]

(And it is not spinning things to be actually thinking critically, or questioning the use of language, thanks.)

But, @Ronin, experts who actually study psychopaths would be rolling on the floor laughing at what you've done with the criteria. It's just not how they mean it.

 

[Kubash16]

@Dana1010 I think you need more (therapeutic) help than you are currently getting. I’m banging my head on the keyboard because I am so frustrated by how dense you are acting. And I thought I was a stubborn ass. I’m out of this thread, I’ve said my piece and tried to understand yours and I just can’t wrap my head around how narrow minded you are acting.

 

[Ronin]

Ted Bundy wasn't abusive the best of his mother's knowledge.

Slandering people you have never met, comparing them to a serial killer, could be well read as quite manipulative and harmful, willing to go out of your way to harm others, and as dishonest, deceitful, and before I drag up all of the adjectives in the nono list, one could jump to the all powerful religious evil just as well.

... But as the voice of Goodness And All Right you are being here, that would of course be me reading your comments wrong.

 

[Chris-duck]

He was diagnosed following pretty awful abuse as a child. Things affect people in different ways, symptoms have different intensities in different people. He has PTSD traits but doesn't meet criteria, because it's better explained by another diagnosis.

I don't think everyone is good. I just don't think a diagnosis necessarily equals bad. People manifest their symptoms in different ways. Take PTSD. Some people have done abusive things while symptomatic, is everyone with PTSD abusive? No. Do people deserve to be judged by the worst of their actions? Depends.

And I know he was diagnosed because he told me. Because he wanted to get rid of the stigma of the diagnosis. Because he isn't f*cking Ted Bundy (or any other serial killer). He is someone with a mental illness trying to deal with symptoms the same as everyone else here.