all comes down to one word:
SHAME.
(with respect to Clusters A & B, at least. No so much with Clusters C & D).
The root of all personality disorders...
all comes down to one word:
SHAME.
(with respect to Clusters A & B, at least. No so much with Clusters C & D).
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-11-2010 at 07:37 PM.
Relax. Have a cup of tea.
Even the schizophrenia spectrum ones?
That's mental, not personality.Originally Posted by jxrtes
It all has to do with the relation of the vital circuit to the mental. Selfish people do not feel shame, and this results in their attempting to subvert social normatives to their own ends. This in turn leads to ostracism, which leads to their embrace of non-obligational thinking.
Schizotypal personality disorder, last I checked. It has a huge effect on your personality. Schizoid and aspergers are also classified under schizophrenia according to Wikipedia, and schizoid patients often undergo psychoanalysis.
Then Wikipedia disagrees with my textbook. Guess which is correct.
You're referring to Axis I vs Axis II disorders. Personality disorders fall under Axis II.
Schizotypal and Schizoid are listed under Axis II [1] and fall along the Schizophrenic spectrum.[2]
[1] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] Schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know what you were talking about btw. If you mean "personality" disorders, just say so.
Check a book. Wikipedia is not right, it's wrong. I won't say it again. Schizophrenia has nothing to do with either schizotypal or schizoid disorders. Was thought to, but studies failed to show a link.
Here's what I've found out: social extremists and antisocial types have a deep dislike for each other. Social extremists prize selflessness and sacrifice; antisocial types prize selfishness and egoism. There is something about a cultural mindset which shapes how a person can and cannot use social processes to achieve their own ends. It varies from culture to culture and as such, it seems like some (socionics) types can get away with more in a culture than others.
Do you object to schizotypal being Axis II? because you're missing the point. People don't consistently hallucinate, have magical thinking or feel out of body experiences because of a sense of shame, though that may certainly have a hand, but there is a strong genetic component to the disorder.
Unless you can disprove that correlation. ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizot...ality_disorder
Sources:
6. Fogelson, D.L., Nuechterlein, K.H., Asarnow, R.F., et al., (2007). Avoidant personality disorder is a separable schizophrenia-spectrum personality disorder even when controlling for the presence of paranoid and schizotypal personality disorders: The UCLA family study. Schizophrenia Research, 91, 192-199.
7. Matsui, M., Sumiyoshi, T., Kato, K., et al., (2004). Neuropsychological profile in patients with schizotypal personality disorder or schizophrenia. Psychological Reports, 94(2), 387-397.
I defer to DSM-IV.
Textbooks have been known to be wrong. A Google search reveals many sources suggesting that schizotypal personality disorder is related to schizophrenia, including this one:
Schizophrenia Daily News Blog: The Schizophrenia Spectrum
The split between axes doesn't matter - actually, glancing at the axes, the difference between I and II seems to be a matter of severity:
Schizotypal is less severe than schizophrenia? Yep! Doesn't mean they aren't related.DSM IV Explained
Axis I Clinical Disorders
Axis II Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation
Axis III General Medical Condition
Axis IV Psychosocial and Environmental Factors
Axis V Global Assessment of Functioning
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Hold on now. Cause =/= symptom. Besides, the causes of schizophrenia are completely different, on a neurological level, from schizoid personality disorder. I don't think you're very studied on this Brilliand (I am) and I think that you should get a better grip on the literature before making a conclusion.
can you define shame? What causes it and what are its effects?
wow talk about derailing a thread
this was an interesting subject too, shame.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
Shame is a negative feeling created by awareness that one has transgressed society's norms in a way that cannot be justified. It is the feeling that one has done something that is wrong.
Hmm... makes sense. I can believe that the causes are unrelated... which would make you right in general. (I can't get a straight answer on this from the Internet, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt.)
One thing that I wondered about was if schizophrenia in family members might cause schozotypal. If schizotypal is caused by shame, then this makes perfect sense.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
There are web pages on the internet by schizotypal people. I've heard it suggested that schizotypal people are LIIs, and I believe this a sensible conclusion. When I am using my weak functions strongly (that is, using my shadow self) I have a tendency to magical thinking. Like for example, believing that my conviction can change the course of a political movement. Boukalov writes that the shadow has a "supramental" style of thinking, which he says is associated with "atman" philosophies.
Imagine a person to whom "atman" thinking was a normal course of belief, from their earliest childhood. A person who found life so terrible and brutal -- was themselves so terrible and brutal -- that they found the only emotional refuge in fantasies of omnipotence and universal harmony. A person who so desperately wanted to believe these things, that they lashed out against anyone who would try to bring them back to reality. A person to whom selfishness was not concrete, but ideological.
tcaud, there is nothing wrong in positing that shame is a trigger for the disorder or of heightened episodes, so I agree with you that as an overall factor, the stress caused by shame is certainly up there plausible. But look at my link again. They've found a strong correlation between people with schizotypy and schizophrenia in the family, so saying that it's the "root cause" has to account for that.
If you say you have magical thinking, then I understand where you're coming from. I had psychotic depression for a while and I know what psychosis and magical paranoid fantasies are like. I also experienced visual hallucinations (of angels, no less) and perceptual distortions. This was a period where I couldn't even remember basic facts about myself, like my name, where I was born or what was my favorite color. So please don't think I'm out to get you or that I'm some kind of evil demon. I'm just offering up some constructive criticism.
Last edited by xerx; 04-11-2010 at 02:01 AM.
Here is the paradox: ****** was known for his selflessness. At least, he believed himself selfless. This is why people believed in him, and were selfless for his cause. (selflessness for intolerance is the engine of war). But ****** was also selfish, meaning that he had no shame for being selfless even to the extent that society proscribed it. Some forms of selflessness are wrong, particularly if they are enacted in the name of prohibiting other forms of selflessness.
Most adults do entertain magical thinking: it's the fire of "grass roots" activism.
The selfish do not process shame. They do not feel it. The concordant avoid all shameful activity and as such, are highly respected. Even more so, they avoid subverting society to their own ends at all -- rather, they serve the ends of society. It is the concordant who establish the standards of shame, who establish when one should feel in the wrong. They go beyond social normatives and actually seek to create them. Their graciousness and kindness comes from their being willing to go to any lengths to help people keep themselves from shame.
The discordant determine shame for themselves, subjectively. They have their own, independent sense of what is right and wrong, and determine to feel shame about norms which they agree with, but not to feel shame about norms they don't. Robin-hood mentality: it's OK to do things some would find shameful, if you do them to help others avoid shame. In their view, society should be subverted to their ends if it can help other people to avoid shame.
Between these extremes is a third view: that of shaming oneself so that others will live free of shame.
Let's put this in terms of socionics. Take for example, an LII. LII Te says "it is shameful to make a person do business with you if it is not to their advantage". A concordant LII would hold this to the utmost, arguing that markets should be tightly controlled to make sure every deal is fair. Further, they would argue against entitlements and for a "good neighbor policy" which provided for the poor. A discordant LII who identified as libertarian might agree with the concordant LII on the matter of entitlements, but would argue in favor of lassie fare capitalism and against the existence of a good neighbor policy. A discordant LII who identified as a socialist would argue for regulation and entitlements, and disregard the good neighbor policy as irrelevant.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-11-2010 at 04:39 AM.
It seems like shame is related to Fe. Violation of social norms and all that. What elements do you think it's related to? It makes me wonder what basic emotions might be associated with the other elements. For example what is fear / greed? Ne / Si? What about guilt - Fi? It seems like there is a list of archetypal negative emotional states like this that needs to be understood.
Shame is an emotion. It is independent of type. (although it is recognized with Fe).
Now here's the interesting thing: doing something shameful does not mean you are "rogue". Social extremists are able to justify doing shameful things, thus they don't get completely ostracized, only by some. This allows them to avoid thinking in antisocial terms (which they despise). They do however learn to think in antisocial terms towards people they disagree with, because, they reason, those people are antisocial already.
So what have we learned today? Selfish people are willing to use their vital functions in the same capacity as their mental functions because they are not shamed by it, while extremists get by with it to a limited extent because they rationalize it and teach other people to do it. Extremists bridge the gap between selfishness and society, but at what cost?
Here is the power of sacrifice, the self-defacement which the concordant ultimately bring upon themselves: by accepting shame for socially subversive acts that are not recognized by their culture as such, they force society to recognize the profundity of their own shamefulness. This cuts the link, created by social extremists, between rationalization and sociopathy. Sociopathy is created when an extremist rationalizes putting people at a disadvantage because they dislike them. Although selfish extremists are natural sociopaths, their conduct is normally proscribed by society. When extremists embrace selfishness, they do so by rationalizing it as a means to help others avoid selfishness. Hurting others becomes socially acceptable, even desirable. You see this process underway now in Iran, as a theocracy which rationalized killing dissenters is now gradually being taken over by sociopaths.
Sociopathy is the root of magical thinking. You see, to rationalize acting shamefully against other people it is necessary to see them in as negative a light as possible. This involves discrediting their ideas to the utmost, even when they make a valid point. Gradually, one is required to surrender one's knowledge before the all encompassing goal of seeing one's enemy as hopelessly stupid, until eventually all semblance of their belief element is vanquished and accurate appraisal of reality lost. The mind self-atrophies, all of its knowledge denying itself into non-existence. The world becomes meaningless, a shell to be dismantled further and further to reflect the "current" state of reliable knowledge. It's like Alzheimer's self-inflicted, accompanied by a determination to remake the world to reflect each day's shrinking reality. Until, nothing is left but a blank slate. Sociopathy leads inevitably to destruction.
Sound like schizotypy to you? This recalls ******'s order to raze German civilization to the ground at the end of World War II (and the Aryan science movement besides); the vanishing of the Easter Island tribes; the downfall of the ancient Aegeans; the emergence of the Dark Ages and cultural atrophy following the fall of ancient Rome; and the destruction of several ancient Buddha statues by the Taliban in 2001 (before the US invasion).
This in itself doesn't explain magical thinking, though. No, to get from sociopathy to magical thinking, you have to return to myth and "mysterium conjunctionus"-type thoughts. You have to start replacing ideas you disagree with with "empowering" ideas, ideas that help you believe in your ability to do anything. That's where magical thinking comes in. (and of course that leads to the occult, crazy religious interpretations, shamanism... the whole nine yards). McNew once described his view of the world to me in terms of a crystal ball that had been shattered by a supernatural hammer, with one hand trying to put the ball back together and the hand that wielded the hammer trying to smash it again. He asked me who won. I interpret his personality as the intersection between those two forces, a sort of Hephaestus who tries to mold the world with his hammer, but getting enraged by forces beyond his control periodically pulverizes his own workpiece in a fit of blind rage. Although theoretically someone like McNew (an occultist, let's be frank) could halt civil decline, they would do so only temporarily, because there are worse things even than the collapse of civilization -- the mind can reduce itself to a blank slate (or near blank), but from that point forward it can only seek to understand the world anew. So long as man lives, civilization will rise like a phoenix from every decline. But combine someone like McNew with a truly sociopathic temperament, and you get someone obsessed with the unnatural, determined to create something truly abhorrent. (The FLDS over in Utah should give you a clue). That road leads farther than mere civil decline... it leads to incest, disease, maladaptive intelligence and devolution... maybe even the end of life itself.
But doesn't that beg the question: what would create a person like Reuben McNew?
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-11-2010 at 07:58 AM.
I would attribute more to hormones. It isn't hormones alone that are attributed to personality disorders, but they are perpetuated by both environmental and genetic attributes of personality disorders and are behind the continuation of such disorders due to this.
The OP's response either lacks understanding or seeks attention...or both. But that's cool
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Hmmm.. devolution. Very interesting. So is the question: what explains devolution? (What could create a person like Mcnew?) It is a basic disconnection between the self and the environment which happens due to fundamental incompatibilities between the self and the environment. These incompatibilities are formed through accepting flaws into the self. Engaging in inherently flawed behavior, or holding inherently flawed beliefs are two examples. A flaw is defined as a contradiction. The flawed self is literally at ends with itself. Any flaw in the self contributes to a disconnect from the environment.
Let's think more about devolution. If we consider that healthy evolution happens through balanced interaction between a thing and its environment, what happens when communication between a thing and its environment is severed, like in the case of the flawed self? i.e. a thing stops taking in and responding to stimuli in its environment. What happens is evolution of the self stops, and atrophy sets in. This atrophy can occur in levels. Devolution is just an extreme version of atrophy, where the self is endlessly reduced to nothingness. This is not a state of homeostasis, it's an endless regression.
When a thing no longer takes in information from the environment, it instead looks to itself as the source of information. Its responses are responses to itself. This is inherently flawed; responding to your own responses is regressive. This regressive form of evolution can only lead the self into nothingness, hence the special term devolution.
This mechanism is why we cause ourselves and others pain. We are attempting to interact with the world in the only way which we will allow.
Now the big question is: why accept a flaw into the self in the first place? That I think is explained by a basic will to empower ourselves over the environment.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-11-2010 at 10:08 AM.
I thought that the root of most personality disorders lies mostly in the upbringing / nurture.
No, that just comes with the territory.
I qualified the assertion -- only A & B cluster disorders are associated with shame.
Schizotypal is Cluster A.
I think shame is a byproduct of being disconnected and acting accordingly. The real question is what causes the disconnection.
Nitpick: "Beg the question" is the wrong phrase here.
I'm of the opinion that McNew's behavior was primarily a desperate, incompetent attempt to save his image. Also, he was obsessed with black magic much as many of us have been obsessed with Socionics in the past, and wildly connected it with the situation he was in.
I suppose the first part could be considered shame...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
McNew's real problem was his shamelessness. I remember his campaign against the socionics institute on Wikipedia was justified by him as a crusade against the shameless association by socionists with esoterists.
Wait, back to the OP... you're saying that personality disorders are caused by the presence of shame or the absence of shame? I read it as the former...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Absence.
It needs to be distinguished the difference between being shamed and feeling shame. Feeling shame leads a person to reconcile.
I disagree then. But maybe it's an issue of what you're ashamed about... a person who behaves oddly must be both ashamed by normal behavior and not ashamed by the odd behavior. Being ashamed by both will simply lead to a different odd behavior (such as total inaction). However, at this point your claim descends into tautology...
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Interesting thread. But what exactly are you considering shame in this context?
****** expressed shame for Germany's defeat, saying Germany deserved to fall before "those disciplined people from the East". (this after his "rescue army" refused to march on his behalf) There may be some truth in what you say.
But you can bet a prostitute does not feel a lick of shame for what they do.
Some of them do, but they feel a greater shame in stopping. They follow the path of least resistance; this does not mean that there is a path of no resistance.
(I realize that I am contradicting something that I said in my last post; please take this as a correction.)
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
The feeling that one is lacking self-worth for having done something they believe was inexcusable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
