Talk:Personality disorder

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Psychopathy is actually considered a personality disorder. Personality disorder is no measure of danger to society (consider antisocial personality disorder), more the underlying psychopathology. This is complicated by the ambiguity as to whether some disorders such as schizotypy are primarily personality issues or part of the psychosis spectrum. - Cyclosarin (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


Cut the following:

Interestingly, a major change in the definition of Personality Disorder came when Psychiatrists went into Native American, Native African, and eastern communities and found that hearing voices, predicting the future, believing yourself to be capable of physical transformation, and even paranoia were often the result of social expectations and were not, therefore, formally "disorders".

Aside from being unsourced & weirdly capitalised, I'm not quite sure what this is getting at. These beliefs would indeed not be regarded as disorders in societies in which they are common, but we have already defined personality disorders in terms of societal norms further up in the article. I doubt that such a major change in the definition of personality disorders took place in the context this passage is suggesting. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel

Isn't this childish?[edit]

Am I the only one herein who is annoyed by the juvenile ideological tone of this entry? I'm not put off by deviance from neutrality, mind you--especially when there is wit displayed--but the Limbaugh comment is off the chart. Whatever your criticism of his bombast, he's beyond question a formidable force on the right side of the spectrum. This strikes me as far beyond being merely snarky, even to the point of eroding the credibility of RationalWiki. (Yeah, I admire his broadcasting skills, but I'm NOT ideologically motivated here; I'd say PRECiSELY the same about Limbaugh's talent were I to the right of Himmler or to the left of Trotsky...instead of being a centrist between Reagan and Obama.) JOKERMAN

Borderline[edit]

Are borderlines in control of what they do, as Paul Elam claims; or are their perceptions and the resulting actions the result of subconscious defense mechanisms? Landmartian (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Point[edit]

What is the point of this article? Why is this in any way relevant to our mission? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png My life I trade in for your pain 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is, de facto, a SJW-oriented wiki, anything that pertains to feminism, misogyny, etc. tends to be considered relevant. A diagnosis of BPD can be a basis by which people attempt to discredit, say, rape or domestic violence accusations (see Randi Kreger's Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder). Landmartian (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with somebody discussing what is rape who's previously tried to describe legitimate rape. 0.--Miekal 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If people want to expand the definition of rape to include consensual drunken sex, consensual sex that someone agreed to indifferently rather than enthusiastically, consensual sex in which one party was slightly underage, etc., that's fine, but then we'll need a new term to describe sex that was actually forced on someone against their will. "Legitimate rape" as used by the Republicans just means "legitimate case of rape" as opposed to a false accusation. Landmartian (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Harper v. Wallingford[edit]

With regard to this revert, Harper v. Wallingford is a good citation about the prevalence of ASPD among prisoners. Landmartian (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a reference to an affidavit about a single prison. The actual affidavit would be a bit better but it would still be a professional opinion about a single prison rather than the result of a formal study.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird pseudoscience surronding Borderline?[edit]

Our section on Borderline says the following:

"Quinn Capes-Ivy argues, "Could that 'inappropriate anger' be not a disordered way of thinking, but valid female rage against a world which devalues women and things which are thought of as 'traditionally feminine'?"[9] BPD was described by Gillian Proctor as "the latest example of a historical tendency to explain away as 'madness' the strategies some women use to survive oppression and abuse.""

1) Is there any evidence for this or is it just a guess? Most evidence on the subject says borderlines are the result of childhood abuse (with males suffering from conduct disorder instead) not patriarchial attitudes.

2) It is most definitely disordered thinking. Practically by definition it is.

3) What exactly is Proctor saying? Borderlines don't have a conscious survival effort and tend to be dysfunctional, as well as a danger to themselves. It may be a defense mechanism but it's still not a good thing to have and comes across as "madness" to everyone else regardless.

This isn't to say that the MRA's are right (they're not) but it's kind of odd to see feminist pseudosceince on the subject as well. This comes across as bordering on mental illness denial or downplaying the seriousness of the disorder. ClothCoat (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NPD + ODD[edit]

Narcissistic personality disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder. Worthwhile to add? The first because, obviously I know what's best. The second because fuck you don't tell me what and what not to do! But seriously the seem to be pretty common and seems to be common in cranks. NPD is basically megalomania, the assumption of entitlement, etc. ODD, aside from being fun with acronyms, is not violence, but more or less automatically disagreeing with the majority even on the obvious and usually being irritable. StickySock (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)