Rant on diagnosing others

[Dana1010]

Slandering people you have never met, comparing them to a serial killer

I'm slandering no one. I am simply pointing out that the worst paths and narcs have people in their lives who have no clue who they really are.

What you see is what you see. Saying you know someone diagnosed who isn't evil is like saying you know someone who doesn't go to the bathroom, because you've never seen them on the toilet.

 

[Chris-duck]

What you see is what you see. Saying you know someone diagnosed who isn't evil is like saying you know someone who doesn't go to the bathroom, because you've never seen them on the toilet

Um. No. Because every single human goes to the bathroom. Not every single human is abusive. I don't understand this analogy. It makes no sense

 

[Dana1010]

@Chris-duck, how do you know every single human goes to the bathroom? Did you meet every single one of them and follow them around for a day? What if they are taking a medication in trial that dissolves food and evaporates liquid in their digestive tract? It's entirely possible that this drug is in trial right now unbeknownst to the public. It could be under development for people with damaged rectums or bladders.

See, you can't say that every single person goes to the bathroom, because you haven't seen every single one do it.

Just like I can't say that every psychopath is bad. It's just critical thinking.

No, wait.

Someone who meets the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy is bad by definition. So that is a logical conclusion.

 

[Chris-duck]

@Chris-duck, how do you know every single human goes to the bathroom? Did you meet every single one of them and follow them around for a day? What if they are taking a medication in trial that dissolves food and evaporates liquid in their digestive tract? It's entirely possible that this drug is in trial right now unbeknownst to the public. It could be under development for people with damaged rectums or bladders

I'm a nurse. I have worked in urology and in gastro wards. Trust me. No matter what way people go to the bathroom (urethrally, catheters, stomas, whatever). Everyone goes somehow. I know that this fake trial drug doesn't exist because biologically it's not possible for a bunch of reasons that to be frank I can't be arsed explaining to you so I'll just go with "it doesn't exist cos that'd make people really f*cking unwell and there's better options out there for every condition" so again. I don't understand what you're arguing here

 

[mumstheword]

The thing is, anyone willing to 'fess up for a diagnosis, especially if they tell other's, is a lot more honest and accountable than the sorts of sly criminals that I think Dana and myself are referring to. Unfortunately, they exist, and they are not turning up at mental health professionals offices to get a label, so this whole argument is a bit moot.

Many DON't get caught, and they WILL never admit to any wrongdoing, that's not what these types of people do, when they are in the grip of their patholgy. Now they may change and maybe they won't but the REAL pathological narcs and 'paths typically, DON'T get diagnosed. People that have been in contact with them? Hurt by them? THEY are the ones turning up, in droves, to psychiatrists offices.
Most truly narcy people think EVERYONE else is inferior to them, they are grandious, they are CONSUMATE decievers. But they will NEVER admit to transgressions, that doesn't fit with their image of themselves that they work so hard to put toward. So most won't be diagnosed with it.

People who are subject to it, know it though. That's why it's a helpful descriptive label, it describes a type of relating that causes a huge amount of harm, that erodes other people. Those people need our compassion, not pedantics, I believe. And truly narcy types need love too, not trust perhaps, but love, because they don't love themselves. They are committed to winning and power, but I believe they are deeply unhappy and frightened and they fear, more than just about anything, judgement, condemnation and ostracization.

So we need to find ways to stay safe, understand the game plans and the dangers and help them heal and grow and become trustworthy and honest. And I don't mean us personally, necessarily, but collectively, as society and cultures.

I know for my young son, who insists that he would be a psychopath if it wasn't for me, that he likes hurting people but chooses not to, because he doesn't want to be one of those people (there are plenty around here, this is a high crime, anti establishment town) he decided he wanted to be like me. He holds back on his impulses to hurt, to.manipulate, to lie and to frighten people, even though he has a natural impulse to behave in that way. He says "You taught me morals, mum" and I don't doubt that he would have been a very anti social person, without a loving, honest, intelligent, moral mum like me and a strong, kind, no- bullshit role model, of my partner and a good school that keeps an eye on him.

We caught it early and we handled it the right way. He s going to be a good person (I hope, I do think so). He still says stuff like "I want power, mum" and lots of violent "jokey" stuff, but we have a love bond and he was raised without harsh judgement and unkindness and unfairness and with people who insist on honesty and integrity.

What I think I'm trying to say is, understanding and compassion go along way.

 

[Chris-duck]

The thing is, anyone willing to 'fess up for a diagnosis, especially if they tell other's, is a lot more honest and accountable than the sorts of sly criminals that I think Dana and myself are referring to

I agree. But that's why I dont think the diagnosis is the issue, the abuse is an issue. And yes. It's a big issue, but I don't think stigmatising a diagnosis is the right way to go about things. And mums. I agree with your post and the way you support your son. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you :)

 

[Sideways]

Someone who meets the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy is bad by definition.

Nope.

Otherwise, “bad” would be part of the definition.

I think you still have a ways to go with your research. There’s studies around that link the success of many individuals in the corporate world with psychopathy. And not in abusive terms.

It seems to me that you’ve decided “psychs and narcs are bad by definition”, without much reference to the actual definitions of those conditions, or how they apply.

 

[mumstheword]

I agree. But that's why I dont think the diagnosis is the issue, the abuse is an issue. And yes. It's a big issue, but I don't think stigmatising a diagnosis is the right way to go about things. And mums. I agree with your post and the way you support your son. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with you :)

Total agreement. Seriously, you have me convinced. But I also think behaviour that causes so much harm, need to be called.

Some people have no respect for other's. The best we can hope for, is that they learn some healthy fear of repercussions, and, like I said, these types of people, DON'T want to be called out, because they lose credibility and thus lose power over others. And sometimes, all the victims have is words, to fight back with, so I say, use whatever empowers you to stay safe and build personal empowerment. As long as we don't stoop to vengeful character assassinating, which is narcy behaviour, attacking people in a demonising way is just part of the problem, in.my opionion, but calling something, to give it a label, can be very empowering and I want victims to.feel empowered, just not at the expense of their integrity. Anonymous ranting? No harm done. But yeah, maybe we should leave the diagnosis for the clinicians, maybe, you're all right about that.
Ok, I'm done. You win. Diagnosis for those who will treat the problem, not demonize with it. Sounds fair.

 

[Dana1010]

There’s studies around that link the success of many individuals in the corporate world with psychopathy. And not in abusive terms.

I know it. And a lot of power-hungry assholes crave status. It makes perfect sense. The conductors of that study have no idea what those people are like in their private lives.

I've read several books on psychopathy, and I'm related to one.

I need to brush up on narcissism.

 

[blackemerald1]

Also, seriously?

Dana.. I understand that you feel passionately about this but Purusha has been really honest about diagnosis here. So, yes seriously.

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

Go into ANY school yard in any place and you will find a load of children who will meet this criteria. Are they dangerous? Silly, stupid, ignorant, uneducated etc yes... dangerous no. That doesn't mean we let them run around town with machetes either... because yes they would ALL then become dangerous. Circumstances and supervision and commonsense rule the day!

Go into any shopping mall on a SALE day and the same applies... Ugh...

I've been guilty of all of those traits :wtf: :oops: maybe I am a Psychopath - but hey I'm not. :oops: But on a bad day with ptsd I could be dangerous but I'm not, but I could be...

These are all very human traits. It's where they display the lack of empathy, how they are callous, the way the express glib, what the dishonesty is, what and whom they manipulate and how they use other's... And.. a whole lot of circumstances that are discovered, over time by keen clinical observation and objective opinion. I've probably got that wrong but I hope you get my meaning...

There is a whole lot more to a diagnosis than just the words.. observations and behaviour reign supreme alongside words.

Therefore abusive could mean extremely dangerous. Think of domestic violence for instance... lot's of deaths every day from abusive partners who would not fit the criteria for Psychopath or Narc's. But they are definitely abusive people.

Dangerous.. the ordinary meaning. People do live with many mental health conditions and they are not dangerous. Same goes for Psychopaths and Narcissists.

I think you are using the terms in a popular sense whilst I am sticking to the clinical meaning. Is that where our differences lay?

how do you know every single human goes to the bathroom?

It's a fact, not a diagnosis. If you don't shit - you die. lol

Just like I can't say that every psychopath is bad

Did you just agree with us Dana?

Someone who meets the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy is bad by definition. So that is a logical conclusion.

No.. that's adding a emotion to a diagnosis.

Evil isn't a diagnostic or even a very good descriptive word either.

Unfortunately, they exist, and they are not turning up at mental health professionals offices to get a label, so this whole argument is a bit moot.

The OP was concerned with the random use of the terms. Is that a moot argument? Why are her concerns not relevant?

As previously discussed, Psychopaths and Narcissist are notoriously hard to count because of they don't hit anyone's radar to be counted but that doesn't make them dangerous either.

Many DON't get caught, and they WILL never admit to any wrongdoing

the REAL pathological narcs and 'paths typically, DON'T get diagnosed.

So most won't be diagnosed with it.

Agreed. But that doesn't make them dangerous either. Once they cross the line into active harming they do become abusive and there is a higher (though probably not high enough) probability they will become a statistic which may then mean they will be diagnosed (not by popular media or popular psyc lingo).

But that's not what the OP was talking about...

 

[Chris-duck]

Yes. What @blackemerald1 said

 

[Dana1010]

Did you just agree with us Dana?

/Sarc/ But you knew that.