[ SECRET POST #3763 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3763 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 49 secrets from Secret Submission Post #538.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sarillia]

Do you really want there to be people whose every opinion is 100% terrible? Personally I think we're better off if they have some non-terrible opinions mixed in.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it's basically a question of probability, isn't it? Either they're being non-terrible in this instance, or I'm being terrible in this instance and don't realize it. The second possibility seems a lot more plausible but maybe I just have the fear.

[sarillia]

Ah, I can understand that.

[thewakokid]

That might have something to do with your perspective. There are no... Erm, I mean, there are very few terrible people, just terrible decisions.

We're currently in mode as a society of trying to break people down in to Perfect and Trash. People aren't like that. If you can't see this person as being anything other than trash, that's totally your right, but you might benefit from seeing this as an opportunity to start seeing people, specifically this person as a person who is equally capable good decisions and terrible decisions, rather than as a good or terrible person?

[(Anonymous)]

I acknowledge the possibility that they're being non-terrible. Like I say, it's a question of probability.

From a technical point of view, you're correct that "terrible person" is not the right description. It's an abstraction. It'd be more accurate to talk in terms of a person who frequently has attitudes and ways of communicating that I think are bad and harmful. It's worrying to have someone who consistently approaches the world in that way endorse something that I said.

[(Anonymous)]

.... Either someone is a narcissist, or someone has never spent a lot of time trying to deal with one.

[(Anonymous)]

The vast majority of humans don't have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If you spend a lot of time with someone who does, that might skew your perception as well.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just saying, spend a lot of time around a narcissist and you're not going to honestly believe that deep down every single human is decent. Some people truly honestly are kinda horrible.

[thewakokid]

Well, I did qualify my statement down to "There are few terrible people"

And from a certain PoV Narcissism is an illness, so does it really define the person?

Calling a Narcissist a Terrible person is like calling an epileptic a violent person, no?

[(Anonymous)]

Personality disorders aren't an illness though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder

It may not be their fault, but personality disorders are kind of... their personality? It's like someone who has a cheerful and friendly personality that we look at and go "Well, it's not their fault they're cheerful, it's just their personality." Sure, we can get all philosophical and debate that we're all just chemical soups making complex meatsuits twitch about and what, truly, is the meaning of the word define? But, you know, talking on a more normal human interaction level some people are assholes, like being assholes, and there's literally no way to ever stop them from being assholes.

[(Anonymous)]

Cant give you the response I'd like - At work - But I would be curious to know, do you count depression as an illness?

~Wako

[(Anonymous)]

Yes I would. I know two different people with depression as a side effect of allergies. They get exposed to their allergy (nightshades, and wheat but not gluten) and they get depressed. Things are bleak, they may lash out, they feel numb and/or suicidal. They take allergy meds, it goes away. This isn't the case for everyone but we can look at depression and see how normally the brain has X levels of chemicals and that allows for optimal functioning in all of these different systems and when it doesn't have these chemicals things don't function right AND emotional responses are a side effect.

Personality disorders, as best we can tell, allow for pretty normal brain and body function, just with specific areas of the brain having not enough matter to function at a normal capacity. I am well under the average American height and thus have difficulty with society because of it, but my height is not a disease. Their specific personality type is far enough away from average to cause difficulty with society, but it's not a disease. My not being able to reach the top few grocery shelves isn't a disease just a fact, them not being able to see other people as people is just as much a fact.

A friend I know is diabetic, if he gets low blood sugar he becomes irritable. If he gets high blood sugar he gets loopy. 'Diseases' can affect baseline personality, but they don't cause personality. Personality disorders describe the natural baseline personality.

Does that make sense to you yet? I can't tell if you're seriously curious about the difference between how medicine classifies different deviations-from-the-norm and how even 'the-norm' is always up for debate, or if you're trying to troll by playing stupid.

[thewakokid]

Ok, I'll take that last paragraph and assume less hostility than is coming thourough in my reading of it. It's tricky because it's kinda out of the blue. Like this isn't an argument or me saying or doing anything shitty, or even my usual background levels of shitty. I thought this was civil and utterly untrolly, so possibly this is just be being oversensitive.

See you're talking about depression as a side effect of an illness, which I don't necessarily count as an illness in and off itself. I count it as a reasonable and explainable side effect of something shitty happening to you. Like If I have a heart attack, i will be depressed, but if you're not depressed after a heart attack, there's something wrong. Sometimes depression isn't an Illness, Some times its a perfectly understandable reaction to the world sucking, and some times is a chemical reaction to an illness, but that still puts it in the side effect category, not making it an illness in it's own right. In this case I would say they have the illness allergies, and it's giving them depression to symptom of shitty things happening.

But there is also depression as in the personality type. Some people are just naturally bleak. Some people just have a natural depressed state.

And then there's what I was talking about clinical depression, where the brain chemicals are just plain wrong and it leads to... Shit I would not be getting into, but you see where I am with this, right?

No the reason I'm bringing it up is because the appreciable difference between those last two types of depression (Not talking about the cause of those last two, because those are not easily appreciable) is one purely of scale.

There is a depressed person (Sad gloomy always looking at everything as horrible) and a Depressed person (suffers from clinical depression), now the reason I bring all this up is to highlight the grey area between those two points. At what point does depression stop being a personality trait, and start being an illness?

For me, it's the point at which it needs treatment, and then we get into the appreciable differences: The point at which treatment helps.

All that in mind, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a personality trait that affects your behaviour, can be beyond the persons control, and both requires and responds to treatment. Much like having depression. That being the case is it not reasonable to give a person with a personality disorder the same breaks you would give a depressed person, and as we both agree depression is an illness in it's own right, some of the same allowances we give to epileptics? I'm not saying we absolve them of responsibility, just like with depression, alcoholism, and any other illness that affects your behaviour in more subtle ways, you need to take a measure of control to get the help, but just like depression and alcoholism, personality disorders have their mechanisms to prevent the person getting that help. They're not free of responsibility - Good gods do I wish depressed people could be considered free of responsibility - but they're not undeserving of understanding and a degree of sympathy either.

[(Anonymous)]

The just coming back with a short "But why is mental illness an illness but a developmental disorder a disorder not an illness?" was what made me wonder if you were trolling. Like asking "If vaccines are so great, why does Big Pharma claim you can vaccinate for measles but not for AIDS?!"

Also I don't think the science supports Narcissistic Personality Disorder responding to therapy. And even then therapy is more about recognizing that you're wrong and need to pretend to be normal, than in fixing it? Like when recently researching Borderline a lot of the stuff tended to be "Yes, it's very logical and makes sense that everyone hates you and I understand you believe it 100%. This isn't true. Here's methods to help you function even though you believe this." Because you can't fix it, you can't change it, you can only give people tools for coping with a innate personality that's maladaptive for modern society.

Plus when you start about trying to get in and rewire who someone is in order to make them fit better with society you start getting into dystopia-type stuff.

Basically, depression is considered an illness. Epilepsy is considered an illness. Narcissism is considered a normal personality type that is considered potentially maladaptive to modern society, but is not always a bad thing for personal success. It does not cause personal harm to the person, ONLY to social bonds. Epilepsy causes harm to yourself. Depression causes harm to yourself. I mean, a lot of people believe that Trump's probably a narcissist because his actions fit. You can't say that untreated depression is likely to lead someone to that level of personal success.

[thewakokid]

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT

I just typed out a long fucking comment and the internet ate it.

Fuck

Points were I disagree with most of this.

Science doesn't support SSRI's as a treatment for depression, but it sometimes works because "Brain chemistry is not an exact science" so it's used.

Antipsychotics and antidepressants are used to some success to treat NPD, with some success. Not solid science but about as solid as depression treatments are.

"And even then therapy is more about recognizing that you're wrong and need to pretend to be normal, than in fixing it?"

Noooooo no no no. Really not. Shitty therapists I've known seem to think like that but no. Therapy is about understanding why your brain is broken and in what way and finding the best way to cope with it. Sometimes with medication, which is why shrinks can rescribe those above SSRI's/Antipsycotics to NPD people.

"Because you can't fix it, you can't change it, you can only give people tools for coping with a innate personality that's maladaptive for modern society. "

I've heard people say that about depression to. Those people are to be ignored. Telling a depressed person "The science is hinky, don't bother they can't help you" is a bad idea. I see no reason why it would be any better with any other mental disorder.

"Plus when you start about trying to get in and rewire who someone is in order to make them fit better with society you start getting into dystopia-type stuff."

You ever spoken to someone with Bi Polar who is trying to justify coming of their meds? This is a biggie for them "The meds are brain washing me, they're stealing my creativity, they're stealing myself, ETC". You ever hear "Take the pill" by Emilie Autumn? Suicidally depressed singer (No, really) who wrote a song about how you cant trust doctors and medication is a tool to brainwash and control and abuse you. Singing it to her fans who are ... Very goth, very teen and very fond of the "Glamour of depression". First time I stopped listening to her with my dick, and started to realise I might not be such a big fan after all. Very Yuck IMO.

"Narcissism is considered a normal personality type"

See I know you're smart, I know you must know the difference between self centred and narcissistic. I mean, I know the internet likes to throw the word around like it's just the new word for people we don't like very much "Oh, my god, he is LITERALLY a narcissist" but you have displayed remarkable medical knowledge, you must see that citing trump as a narcissist is... Immature. He's selfish to a large degree, but, like, the other reason I think narcissism deserves the same respect as depression of alcoholism is that it requires a diagnosis. You can't just say "This is an example of a narcissist." any more than someone could point at Hilary and say "this is an example of a Sociopath" thats just not the way it works.

Is the line just that Narcissistic behavour Benefits you? - Until you lose your friends and family I mean, and that would be very naive to think - And Depression has never lead anyone to success - Look at the entire histrory of rock singers if you want to make a lie of that, by the way. Start with Kurt Cobain and work backwards. When you get all the way back, start on movie stars. On that little journey, you might want to take a moment to stop at Robin Williams. You will be too sad to continue.

Sorry if this comment seems short, I'm just fucked off about having to type it again. When you said my other comment was short, did you mean, like short in tone, or literally not a long comment? Cause I was at work.

[(Anonymous)]

At this point I'm just going to nod out because we're arguing from a "This is a mental illness and this is a developmental disorder" vs. "These are both mental illnesses" and I just don't see a good way of having a productive discussion when the foundations are so different.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/2/110.long is a paper on how disorders and illnesses are defined and how yes, it is messy, but why medical science draws the distinctions that it does.

"Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ‘deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations’; they represent ‘either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others’ and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind. "