Sociopath Community

Friedrich said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

 edgy but doesnt make sense

What about it doesn't resonate with you? 

natasha87 said: 

this sounds like the biggest cope i've ever heard. let me guess, you have been diagnosed with something lmao?

Yes. However, you are right that it is at least partly for that reason that I don't believe in DSM-IV. I believe that the diagnosis was wrong. Furthermore, there is no biological basis for diagnosing someone. It's just behavioral patterns. You and I can change those.

As for why I think it's like astrology, most people, whilst reading DSM-IV, in some way or another relates to what is written there, as long as it's neutral-to-positive. "Highly intelligent and skilled manipulator." Oooh, sounds like me (sociopath). "Has an overinflated ego." Nope, doesn't sound like me (narcissist).

Have you ever been diagnosed with anything, Natasha?

Turncoat said: 

Isn't that pretty much the case for most people's way of thinking?

That's fair. Are you your own screenwriter?

I don't really believe in the DSM-IV thing. It mostly seems like make-believe with no basis in facts; picking up diagnoses is like shopping for excuses these days.

What would constitute Psychology being 'based in fact'? 

Brain scan. If your brain scan shows your brain has some anomalies, then you're probably screwed up in the head for real.

Suppose someone diagnoses you based on your behavior. In that case, they are diagnosing you based on correlation without proving any causal link.

Behavior A can be caused by B, C, and D. However, choosing B and calling it a day is problematic, in my opinion, because the underlying cause could also be C and D. I also find using the conventional medical approach to investigate mental illnesses highly problematic (prescribe medicine, observe change; if the treatment doesn't cure the patient, probably it's C or D), because many of these illnesses are classified as "long-term" or even permanent. When it comes to DSM-IV, it's sometimes even worse; in some cases, there's no evidence that B can even be the cause.

There are many examples of people with, e.g., a brain tumor, exhibiting highly atypical behavior and getting diagnosed with schizophrenia and what-not. No matter how many prescribed pills they eat, it's not going to fix the brain tumor.

I do believe in neuroplasticity to some degree.

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

natasha87 said: 

this sounds like the biggest cope i've ever heard. let me guess, you have been diagnosed with something lmao?

Yes. However, you are right that it is at least partly for that reason that I don't believe in DSM-IV. I believe that the diagnosis was wrong. Furthermore, there is no biological basis for diagnosing someone. It's just behavioral patterns. You and I can change those.

As for why I think it's like astrology, most people, whilst reading DSM-IV, in some way or another relates to what is written there, as long as it's neutral-to-positive. "Highly intelligent and skilled manipulator." Oooh, sounds like me (sociopath). "Has an overinflated ego." Nope, doesn't sound like me (narcissist).

Have you ever been diagnosed with anything, Natasha?

 what did u get diagnosed with? and what's ur reason for thinking its faulty?

ive never been diagnosed, no.

natasha87 said: 

what did u get diagnosed with? and what's ur reason for thinking its faulty?

ive never been diagnosed, no.

Learning disability, dyslexia, ADHD, and tourette's syndrome. I think the diagnosis was faulty because I'm no longer diagnosed.

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

Turncoat said: 

Isn't that pretty much the case for most people's way of thinking?

That's fair. Are you your own screenwriter?

We all are, but we often take inspiration from what we perceive as around us. With the room to gauge off of other observers to the best of our ability we have some means of seeking a Collective Reality, but overall even that we can only observe as far as our perceptions will allow us to, even leading to entirely unrelated ideas over what constitutes Common Sense. 

Our means of understanding what life is is like 99% projectively subjective. 

I don't really believe in the DSM-IV thing. It mostly seems like make-believe with no basis in facts; picking up diagnoses is like shopping for excuses these days.

What would constitute Psychology being 'based in fact'? 

Brain scan. If your brain scan shows your brain has some anomalies, then you're probably screwed up in the head for real.

What of problems that aren't as overtly physical, like a phobia? 

Suppose someone diagnoses you based on your behavior. In that case, they are diagnosing you based on correlation without proving any causal link.

Behavior A can be caused by B, C, and D. However, choosing B and calling it a day is problematic, in my opinion, because the underlying cause could also be C and D.

This has been the issue over larger streamlining over the Pharmaceutical industry, and why I find it a joke that the ones handing out pills only focus on Psychology for about 1/4 of the time compared to a dedicated specialist. When it's used to classify a disorder and there's an easy one to throw at someone... they'll usually just go for those as a 'matter of odds' while reserving the incurable diagnosis' and other ideas they're less familiar with to almost no one but the very obvious cases if not over a consensus between multiple doctors (like in my case). 

I was false positive'd as ADD at the start, but as I started to think that all emotions stemmed from some expression of fear and that 'THEY' were poisoning my future meals based on my credit records that the display of symptoms were a bit more overt. With many disorders they aren't fully developed until somewhere at the onset of to that of post puberty, having the fixation between child development and education lead to a lot of false positives and guinea pigging during crucial formative and developmental years of their growth. 

At least for those who can't give you pills... they are forced to work smarter when it comes to the issues. They may recommend that you seek pharma down the line but they will not start there (or they'd be out of a job lol), meaning that even with a potential disorder being classified that they're more likely to try forms of non-medicated therapy, conditioning, and mental restructuring as they try to make the patient more functionally flexible and potentially happier if not at least more fulfilled than how they started. 

I also imagine that it'll stay this way until brain scans can become as common to self-use as a blood pressure cuff, and that if we ever hit that point that we somewhat risk elements of Psychopass' dystopia. As is it's simply more efficient given the tools we have to look for speculative patterns that are noticed across enough subjects to warrant similar treatment. 

I also find using the conventional medical approach to investigate mental illnesses highly problematic (prescribe medicine, observe change; if the treatment doesn't cure the patient, probably it's C or D), because many of these illnesses are classified as "long-term" or even permanent. When it comes to DSM-IV, it's sometimes even worse; in some cases, there's no evidence that B can even be the cause.

Conflating the DSM with big pharmaceuticals does a disservice to the DSM. The field of Psych for it's many twists and turns of error is still otherwise an admirable goal, and for those who care enough to combine it with cold reading and the like it can prove surprisingly effective to look at people as a set of patterns, especially since people aren't really special and unique snowflakes that are otherwise above classification. 

Psychology is a tool that is being misused in that regard; much like a knife it's really more contingent on it's intended use and the skill of the wielder. 

There are many examples of people with, e.g., a brain tumor, exhibiting highly atypical behavior and getting diagnosed with schizophrenia and what-not. No matter how many prescribed pills they eat, it's not going to fix the brain tumor.

Schizophrenia can't be cured (yet), but then again most mental disorders can't they can at best be managed. 

I see the analysis as more meaningful than the treatment choices. 

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

natasha87 said: 

what did u get diagnosed with? and what's ur reason for thinking its faulty?

ive never been diagnosed, no.

Learning disability, dyslexia, ADHD, and tourette's syndrome. I think the diagnosis was faulty because I'm no longer diagnosed.

What are your feelings on Tourette's? Do you have the classic verbal tics or something else? 

I think we more or less agree on the medicine issue. I still think DSM-IV is magic that isn't based on anything quantitative, making it problematic, but I can accept your rationale. Basically, repeated patterns of behavior that are in some way harmful are classified as mental illnesses. However, I'd say those illnesses don't really exist. Like phobias. You can just stop having a phobia if you want to.

Turncoat said: 

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

natasha87 said: 

what did u get diagnosed with? and what's ur reason for thinking its faulty?

ive never been diagnosed, no.

Learning disability, dyslexia, ADHD, and tourette's syndrome. I think the diagnosis was faulty because I'm no longer diagnosed.

What are your feelings on Tourette's? Do you have the classic verbal tics or something else? 

I think people with Tourette's are retarded and have no self control. I think it's a made-up syndrome. I don't have anything you'd call tics now. However, I used to frequently 1) lick my lips, 2) swing my head around like a gearhead, 3) cough, 4) play with my fingers in a weird way (hard to describe). I'm very ashamed of having been diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome.

Anyway, I decided at some point in school that I didn't have Tourette's syndrome because I believed I was being really retarded for doing all of that, so I (consciously) stopped the tics.

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

Like phobias. You can just stop having a phobia if you want to.

That strongly depends on what brought that phobia on, such as if it's some sort of traumatic association or even a leftover outdated instinct. 

Turncoat said: 

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

natasha87 said: 

what did u get diagnosed with? and what's ur reason for thinking its faulty?

ive never been diagnosed, no.

Learning disability, dyslexia, ADHD, and tourette's syndrome. I think the diagnosis was faulty because I'm no longer diagnosed.

What are your feelings on Tourette's? Do you have the classic verbal tics or something else? 

I think people with Tourette's are retarded and have no self control.

Have you heard how they describe trying to not fall into the strange habits? 

I think it's a made-up syndrome. I don't have anything you'd call tics now. However, I used to frequently 1) lick my lips, 2) swing my head around like a gearhead, 3) cough, 4) play with my fingers in a weird way (hard to describe). I'm very ashamed of having been diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome.

Anyway, I decided at some point in school that I didn't have Tourette's syndrome because I believed I was being really retarded for doing all of that, so I (consciously) stopped the tics.

It could be possible that rather than Tourette's that you actually just had some sort of motor function impairment or proneness to repetitive behaviors. 

The way that Tourette's victims describe the experience seems pretty hard, it reminds me a bit of how my OCD was except rather than intrusive thoughts it's more like a failure of reflexes.