From:
jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 6:30:58 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:01:01 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan" <jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 8:00:42 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:59:34 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:19:41 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 12:30:37 AM UTC-7, thang
ornerythinchus wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 21:06:00 -0700 (PDT), whisperoutloud
<allreadydun@gmail.com> wrote:
work on your self instead.
there's where change begins.
Forget about tryin' to change other people.
They will be just fine.
Fair comment. But Dave is so patronising sometimes...
Thang, you don't have the slightest idea how to help or change me.
You don't get what I've done in the past, or see where I am now.
Yet your arrogance and presumption is far worse than mine.
It's totally not worth it to even talk with you.
I don't need you to talk with me. I've said all that I want to say
and silence would probably be a suitable ending for our interaction.
Definitely more suitable than that complete bullshit you tossed out
and absolutely INSISTED on. Unbelievable arrogance and blindness.
Yep, except it was accurate. Your response demonstrates that. You
should treat it as a learning exercise. As for insistence, you ain't
seen me in insisting mode :)
You're still insisting. Little respect for another's life or word.
If any of our three kids told me some businessman on the net was
plastering little snippets of DSM all over them, I'd just tell them
to stay the hell away from that person.
Dude, you pull every nasty trick in the book, like: attack the shit
out of someone and then turn around and call them 'defensive'. :)
But you're eminently attackable, don't you know? You sit so high on
that horse of your own construct that patronisation of everyone else
is inevitable. Then, when you're called out, it's something like
"don't be so nasty" or "don't attack me" (paraphrased). I mean what I
said - you need to take a long objective look at your behaviour.
Others are human as well as you.
Others are human. No argument there.
But I don't accept your hostile characterizations of my behavior.
To cite: you said something recently about Slider having abandoned
his kids or somesuch; you called me a narcissist. However, when
Slider reacted fairly robustly to that you took offence and now you're
taking offence to me referring to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in
my own defence.
You said this about Slider in this thread:
"Especially when I should have been dinging you for leaving
your own kids as if they're merely 'something you did once'.
That's probably where your true character is most evident.
Even if it may be more that they left you..."
Are you telling me that this is not a form of "attack the shit" or one
of "every nasty trick in the book"? Seems a bit below the belt to
me...
I think it goes to one of the probable serious flaws/consequences
of Slider's avowed "loner/outsider" identification. I merely referenced
his own words and concluded accordingly. He hasn't even denied it,
so no, it hardly amounts to a "nasty trick".
Here's what I said referring to the DSM:
"An example - say I had a history of major fraud amounting to many
millions of dollars coupled with a personality profile which ranged
from narcissism through to antisocial (DSM V definitions). This would
be both significantly outside the norms of society and significantly influential on the people who exhibit those norms of society. Yet, I
have never posted here about that, and in absence of my real name,
which you still do not know, you would have no possible means of
determining this significant extranorm history."
I was using the DSM as a basis for an example, a hypothetical. I was
^not^ " plastering little snippets of DSM all over them" as you say.
That isn't how or where you did that. As you probably realize...
It's a shame you don't refer to the DSM V in your aspersions you make
about others in this NG, there might be some authenticity then to what
you say, even though the conclusions might still be flawed.
Actually I know quite a bit about the DSM. What makes my aspersions significantly more potent is knowing the full history of DSM,
rather than merely looking at its most current version.
I have also made reference to it otherwise and will again, it's the definitive psychiatric diagnostic manual, bar none.
Yes, yet it's still filled with lots of controversial material.
For example, psychiatrist Allen Frances warned in Psychology Today
that DSM 5 "will medicalize normality and result in a glut of
unnecessary and harmful drug prescription". He called DSM 5:
"the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing,
and teaching psychiatry". He encouraged people to "be skeptical
and don't follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to
massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication".
You might want to consider such consequences before you lap up
all of that shit. Then again, you seem to love trying to beat down
people with phony diagnoses, so maybe you'd enjoy such a world.
Conversely, a cherished member of our household grew up - all through
childhood and adolescence - being diagnosed as something that now,
as of DSM 5, no longer even exists. :o
Can you imagine that? You grow up believing "I'm a this" because
important doctors said so, and then when you become an adult they
come back saying "sorry, um, never mind that one." And do you then
believe them if they say: "well, now you're a that", instead?
Fortunately, this person is now doing *great* without a "label". :)
Here are additional comments Frances made:
"More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned
for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment
of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between
its risks and benefits. Professional journals, the press, and the
public also weighed in - expressing widespread astonishment about
decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support
but also to defy common sense... Fortunately, some of its most
egregiously risky and unsupportable proposals were eventually
dropped under great external pressure."
But he proceeds to identify 10 diagnoses areas he thinks are bad.
This shit is only just barely becoming scientific, and I stand by
my skeptical view that a great deal of it is still pseudo-science.
But at least you're protective of your three children :)
This is just a NG. Chill out.
Given what you've attempted and how Slider takes this all so
seriously he acts like he's running a black PR campaign :),
I'm the most level-headed person around here by a long shot.
Nope. Not even close. Let me borrow from the DSM again, seeing as
you like it so much:
Nope, you're just being aggressive, as usual.
"Seeing as you like it so much"...
You literally grabbed up DSM during an argument to 'diagnose'
a person you've never met, and you are not a qualified professional,
yet I'm supposedly the grandiose one? :)
"Delusional Disorder - Diagnostic Criteria 297.1 (F22)
A. The presence of one (or more) delusions with a duration of 1 month
or longer.
C. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications,
functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously
bizarre or odd.
Interesting choice. That may be one of the passages those bastards
use to over-diagnose and over-medicate half the fucking world.
Questions: is belief in invisible deities a delusion?
Is the belief that one can function as a qualified psychiatrist
without any credentials in an internet argument a delusion? :)
Specify whether:
Grandiose type: This subtype applies when the central theme of the
delusion is the conviction of having some great (but unrecognized)
talent or insight or having made some important discovery."
Should we be calling you "grandiose" mein herren?
Gosh, whatever you decide, Nurse Ratched. :)
Grandiose delusions are supposed to be things like: you think
you're President of the United States, or you believe you invented
penicillin, or think you are God (watch out Hindus) or have
a special relationship with God (watch out Republicans). etc.
Take a careful look at that text - at how broad it is.
So now anyone who believes themselves talented or insightful
could be labeled 'grandiose' in a pinch? You think that's great?
And you call yourself an iconoclast? HA! Christ, that shit's
nearly a license to pen us all up in ROBO WORLD. :)
Allow me to conduct a brief thought experiment and create for you
an alternate world where they caught every creative person on earth
who had "the conviction of having some great (but unrecognized)
talents or insights" BEFORE that person actualized any important
discovery or contribution, and simply... diagnosed them out of it.
:O
Is that just an exaggeration? Or is it dangerously close to potential
realities actually possible under DSM 5?
"Mr. Feynman thought he had another brilliant idea today. Up his meds."
You have considerable room for improvement and should not cast stones >> >> when abiding in a house of glass. But, then, so do I. And Slider.
None of us could ever be improved by anything like this, obviously. :)
Like what? My observations about your motivations? It was meant in a
curative fashion. If you didn't take it that way, your loss.
It's so terribly arrogant to act like you can "cure" virtual strangers
on the net, especially given how about half of DSM is barely less >pseudo-scientific than some cults, even with qualified practitioners.
If you need proof, merely notice how many times it's been seriously
revised in the last 30 years. Then add in that you're not qualified.
Pot. Kettle. Black. And after many years of seeing your words I can interpolate thank you very much.
DSM is pseudo scientific? Are you kidding? You must be.
Here's a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
Here's an extract:
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is
published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and offers a
common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together
with alternatives such as the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and
Behavioural Disorders, produced by the WHO.[1]"
So, a document "barely less pseudo-scientific than some cults" is used
by actuaries in major global insurers, clinicians, drug regulators,
lawmakers and judiciary etc etc. Who to believe? Dave, in all his grandiosity, or the global insurance industry and all the others cited
in the Wiki article.
Hell, I'll go with *you* Dave ;)
Okay. Let's look at a few things from that article.
The original version of DSM listed homosexuality as a 'sociopathic
personality disturbance'. That diagnosis held until 1974.
I graduated from high school in 1973. If any of my high-school
friends or classmates were homosexual then they were all still
officially sociopaths. Since even by low estimates about 3%
of the population is gay, if I had 300 people in my high-school
graduating class, about 9 of those people were 'gay sociopaths'.
Even after they stopped calling them sociopaths they still kept
saying they had "identity conflicts". They were still arguing
about homosexuality in DSM-III in 1980. Not until 1987 was
homosexuality completely removed from DSM-IIIR.
I was halfway through my second stint in college by then.
So about the time I was heavily getting into lucid dreaming
all these Neanderthals finally became willing to stop
calling homosexuality some kind of mental illness.
Thomas Szasz argued mental illness was a myth used to disguise
moral conflicts. And sociologist Erving Goffman said that
mental illness was merely another example of how society labels
and controls non-conformists.
Those are extreme positions, yet they point out the clear danger
inherent in trying to "diagnose" anyone you conflict with or
in using "diagnosis" as a weapon to shut down non-conformity
or anything out of the ordinary.
A 1974 study showed that DSM-II was an "unreliable diagnostic tool."
It found different practitioners using DSM-II were rarely in
agreement when diagnosing patients with similar problems.
The authors reviewed 18 major diagnoses then concluded "there are
no diagnostic categories for which reliability is uniformly high."
This was the state of "mental health" by the mid-1970's,
pretty much covering the entire time when I was growing up.
One question: if in the name of "mental health" our so-called
professionals could wage a veritable "war on all gay people",
then who the fuck else might they mistakenly persecute?
At the end of the day we're all in the same boat and it's as leaky as
hell. You would do well Dave to recognise that fact. Call it
personal growth.
Mistaken assumption: that I didn't realize that long ago.
And knowing the boats are leaky doesn't mean you have the 'cure'.
I've aspired practically forever to what *I* consider personal growth.
But it's only you we're discussing and your ailment, if it can be
called that, is so out there, so prominent, that merely bringing you
around to realisation would be sufficient to start the curative
process. We'll start with those feet of clay, move up to the
achilles, and then onwards till we reach the crest of your cranium :)
None of that seems grandiose or delusional, does it? :)
You imagine "curing people" as a form of aggressive attack.
Perhaps the most unassuming of all here is Chris who, admirably, tries >> >> to mellow things out.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)