|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Andy's Psychological Well-being
I know I can't be the only person who has wondered whether or not Andy has a disorder of some kind beyond just being ridiculous. Of course, as far as I know, nobody here has ever met Andy(I know I haven't) so diagnosing him would be not only ridiculous but also unethical from a psychological perspective. But it is interesting and I've spent some time pondering over my DSM. In particular I'm not entirely unconvinced that Andy doesn't meet a dual diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Paranoid Personality Disorder. He almost certainly meets the criteria for NPD though there's a ton of other questions that would have to be answered. I did wonder, for a while, whether or not he might be slowly descending into a late-onset Paranoid Schizophrenia but I'm not sure that fits. Any thoughts?Ayzmo (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair warning...this might be inappropriate for discussion. Similar questions about Ken's mental health were summarily reverted, and we almost never revert discussion threads. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Diagnosing someone with disorders in absentia, and on the internet, is a bad idea to start with. It could also be legally construed as libel. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 19:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm aware of that and I just mentioned speculation. But it appears this thread may have been a bad idea in general. Ayzmo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, clearly none of us can diagnose the guy with any disorders; I doubt anyone here is qualified to do that even if given the opportunity to do a proper evaluation in person. But there's a difference between diagnosing someone with a mental disorder and us musing "what the fuck is wrong with this guy, seriously?" looking at various symptoms he seems to possess. I don't think libel is much of an issue. Wouldn't he need to prove damages in some capacity anyway? I think part of the problem with doing any sort of honest examination of what's going on in his tiny little brain is that we can't know if he means what he says, or if putting on a show and supporting his side no mater what. Some people have to do that because it's their job, and Andy, as a trained lawyer, has been taught how to do this. He's either taking this training into the real world, or there is something mentally wrong with him. We can say that much without fear of libel, to be sure. The only issue I know of with Ken was that someone posted a link to the facility where she claimed he was institutionalized. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's brain runs on God. That's all you need to know. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Careful :-) it's a pretty well educated community, you'd be surprised who might be qualified to diagnose mental disorders. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's brain does run on God--Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's brain runs on God. That's all you need to know. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, clearly none of us can diagnose the guy with any disorders; I doubt anyone here is qualified to do that even if given the opportunity to do a proper evaluation in person. But there's a difference between diagnosing someone with a mental disorder and us musing "what the fuck is wrong with this guy, seriously?" looking at various symptoms he seems to possess. I don't think libel is much of an issue. Wouldn't he need to prove damages in some capacity anyway? I think part of the problem with doing any sort of honest examination of what's going on in his tiny little brain is that we can't know if he means what he says, or if putting on a show and supporting his side no mater what. Some people have to do that because it's their job, and Andy, as a trained lawyer, has been taught how to do this. He's either taking this training into the real world, or there is something mentally wrong with him. We can say that much without fear of libel, to be sure. The only issue I know of with Ken was that someone posted a link to the facility where she claimed he was institutionalized. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm aware of that and I just mentioned speculation. But it appears this thread may have been a bad idea in general. Ayzmo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
To quote Cardinal Richelieu, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged". The problem with DSM diagnosis — especially untrained armchair diagnosis of someone you've never met — but even with the real in-person psychiatrist stuff — is that the DSM is so vast and broad and vague that you can find something to diagnose anyone with if you try hard enough. A lot of psychiatry is of questionable scientific value. I remember a friend of mine — it was obvious she was very troubled, no doubt — but every psychiatrist she went to had her or his pet diagnosis to diagnose her with. The symptoms stayed roughly the same, but the diagnosis always changed. Oddly enough, many consultant psychiatrists diagnosed her with their research speciality — what a coincidence! (Both her, and her parents, cycled through psychiatrists a lot, "This one isn't working, try another!") My personal belief is that Andy Schlafly is perfectly sane, he just believes different things from what you or I do. Claiming that people you disagree with politically have psychiatric disorders is what the Soviet Union used to do; it concerns me that people seem to be laying the groundwork for a repeat of that episode. (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)