Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster But we're not calling "happy," "sad," "angry," and so on DISORDERS. They're emotions, and I wouldn't demand a physiological explanation of emotions (although there are some remarkable gains in that direction in neuroscience). The claim being made about NPD is much stronger than what you're saying about emotions. If an entire profession is going to declare a certain range of actions and attitudes as symptomatic of a DISORDER, I can't believe they would satisfy themselves with criteria that can only be subjectively evaluated. If someone wants to claim a disorder in the medical field, they have to have damned good physiological evidence before anyone takes them seriously. (Read about what's going on with Morgellon's Disease, for example.) The point I was trying to make, and perhaps not too clearly, was that whether it is NPD or being sad, both are things that happen inside your head and therefore are not directly observable (the actual phenomenon itself isn't directly observable, though we can observe the resultant behaviors). There is no "happy meter" and no "narcissim meter" we can hook someone up to. To determine if a person is, "normal, but slightly arrogant" vs "narcissistic" vs "severely narcissistic to the point of it becoming a disorder" is done mainly through observation by the psychologist of the patient over a period of time, and in that it is subjective. There are guidelines to this of course. For it to be a disorder it generally has to be debilitating, it has to exist to such a degree that it significantly impairs the person from functioning. Let me see if I can come up with a more common example. Okay, alcoholism. I drink, but only with meals and I don't get drunk. Am I an alcoholic? No, it does not in any way impair my ability to function nor do I lack control over the behavior. If I were to drink to the point of getting drunk on a regular basis... then am I an alcoholic? Maybe, maybe not... more information is needed (observation). For example if some does this, but only at parties for example, then they are not an alcoholic (but they may be a college student). If they do it regularly at home as a regular routine they might be an alcoholic, or not, more observation is needed. If I were to regularly drink to avoid dealing with my problems, now am I an alcoholic? Possibly yes, the alcohol has become a crutch and by using it to avoid my problems rather than cope with them its beginning to impair my ability to function as a person. But at this point we don't know that the impairment is significant... the person could still hold down a job, be a parent, etc... they may not be very good at it, but they could possibly do it. If I were to drink constantly, could not turn down a drink, was rarely sober... has it become a disorder? Possibly, someone like this is becoming extreme enough in the behavior that it impairs their ability to function in many or most areas of their life. Such a person will need help in order to put their life back together, they are no longer able to do it on their own. Such a person is no longer in control of their behavior, and the behavior is likely preventing them from doing necessary things like working, maintaining relationships, etc. That's a disorder. So someone narcissistic may not be extreme enough for it to be classified as a disorder. For it to reach that point, take those DSM definitions and ask this additional question... do these behaviors occur to a degree that significantly impairs the persons ability to function in many or most parts of their life? And that narrows it down quite a bit. Hopefully that comes across a bit better. quote:
Moreover, I have to wonder about the purpose of all this. In this thread, a professional said this: quote:
Any personality disorder is NOT a disease. It is not a illness. It cannot be treated. It cannot be cured. They simply are. If it's not a disease and cannot be treated, what exactly is the purpose of classifying it in pseudo-scientific language? OK, you go to the shrink and the shrink diagnoses you with NPD. Then what? Seems like a lot of money is changing hands for no purpose. Its not a statement I agree with. A disorder can be treated, or at least some of them can. Those that cannot currently be treated, are so because we currently lack the knowledge of how to treat them, not because they are incurable. You're right, if they were entirely untreatable or incurable it would be largely pointless. This is another area of contention in psychology... there is a lot of debate about how things should be done. There are different groups of psychologists with different ideas about what is and is not possible. I've studied a lot of the behaviorist, most of whom believe virtually any human behavior, including disorders, can be changed. But there are others who disagree... and each tries to prove their point of view. I happen to think the behaviorists are largely right. I believe that in part because I've seen a lot of demonstratable and quantifiable results come from behaviorists... namely, they changed behaviors in a predictable and repeatable way (that last qualifier being very important to arguing the method as a science).
_____________________________
Padriag A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|