Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  Lindaland
  Lindaland Central
  Characteristics of the Narcissist and Others With Personality Disorders

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic has been transferred to this forum: Sweet Peas In The Rain.
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Characteristics of the Narcissist and Others With Personality Disorders
Mirandee
unregistered
posted December 07, 2006 01:48 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
CHARACTERISTICS of the NARCISSIST and others with Personality Disorders

1. Self-centered. Their needs are paramount.

2. No remorse for mistakes or misdeeds.

3 Unreliable, undependable.

4. Do not care about the consequences of their actions.

5. Projects their faults on to others. High
blaming behavior; never their fault.

6. Little if any conscience.

7. Insensitive to needs and feelings of others.

8. Has a good front (persona) to impress and exploit others.

9. Low stress tolerance. Easy to anger and rage.

10. People are to be manipulated for their needs.

11. Rationalizes easily. Twists conversation to their gain at other’s expense. If trapped, keeps talking, changes the subject or gets angry.

12. Pathological lying.

13. Tremendous need to control situations, conversations, others.

14. No real values. Mostly situational.

15. Often perceived as caring and understanding and uses this to manipulate.

16. Angry, mercurial, moods.

17. Uses sex to control

18. Does not share ideas, feelings, emotions.

19. Conversation controller. Must have the first and last word.

20. Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentment.

21. Secret life. Hides money, friends, activities.

22. Likes annoying others. Likes to create chaos and disrupt for no reason.

23. Moody - switches from nice guy to anger without much provocation.

24. Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations.

25. Seldom expresses appreciation.

26. Grandiose. Convinced he knows more than others and is correct in all he does.

27. Lack ability to see how they come across to others. Defensive when confronted with their behavior.

28. Can get emotional, tearful. This is about show or frustration rather than sorrow.

29. In a relationship he/she breaks the other's spirit to keep them dependent.

30. Needs threats, intimidations to keep others close to them.

31. Sabotages partner. Wants their partner to be happy only through them and to have few or no outside interests and acquaintances.

32. Highly contradictory.

33. Convincing. Must convince people to side with them.

34. Hides their real self. Always “on” .

35. Kind only if they're getting from you what they want.

36. They have to be right. Have to win. Have to look good.

37. They announce, not discuss. They tell, not ask.

38. Does not discuss openly, has a hidden agenda.

39. Controls money of others but spends freely on themselves.

40. Unilateral condition of, "I'm OK and justified so I don't need to hear your position or ideas"

41. Always feels misunderstood.

42. You feel miserable with these people. They drain you.

43. Do not listen because they don't care.

44. Their feelings are discussed, not the partners.

45. Is not interested in problem-solving.

46. Very good at reading people, so they can manipulate them.

IP: Logged

D for Defiant
Knowflake

Posts: 588
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 07, 2006 06:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D for Defiant     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

Solane Star
unregistered
posted December 07, 2006 08:11 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A Bio-Social Theory of Neurosis

Dr. C. George Boeree
Shippensburg University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neurosis refers to a variety of psychological problems involving persistent experiences of negative affect including anxiety, sadness or depression, anger, irritability, mental confusion, low sense of self-worth, etc., behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, vigilance, impulsive and compulsive acts, lethargy, etc., cognitive problems such as unpleasant or disturbing thoughts, repetition of thoughts and obsession, habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. Interpersonally, neurosis involves dependency, aggressiveness, perfectionism, schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors, etc.

Generally, neurosis means poor ability to adapt to ones environment, an inability to change one’s life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality.

The first point to note is that there are predisposing physiological conditions, for the most part hereditary. Most obvious is the temperament trait (or traits) referred to as emotional instability. Other traits may also contribute, such as extremely high or low conscientiousness. It may be that any inherited trait, when present in the extreme, makes the person more liable to develop neurotic problems.

The second point is that one’s culture, upbringing, education, and learning in general may prepare one to deal with the stresses of life, or not. These factors may also serve to override any predisposing physiological conditions, or to exacerbate them.

The third point concerns the triggering stressors in people’s lives which lead to the various emotional, behavioral, and cognitive symptoms of neurosis. These stressors can be understood as consisting of situations of uncertainly and confusion, usually involving interpersonal relationships, that overwhelm the person’s capacities, learned and/or inherited, to cope with those situations.

Basically, we deal with the world by using our previously acquired knowledge of the world, in coordination with our inherited capacities, to solve the problems presented to us as efficiently as possible. When we are up to the task, our emotional responses are kept to within tolerable limits. When we are not up to the task, we experience anxiety. This anxiety may develop into other emotional responses as well, depending on the details of the problem, our inherited traits, and our learned patterns of response to problematic situations.

When we experience repeated occasions of stress and anxiety, we begin to develop patterns of behavior and cognition designed to avoid or otherwise mitigate the problem, such as vigilance, escape behaviors, and defensive thinking. These may develop into an array of attitudes which themselves produce anxiety, anger, sadness, etc.

The family is often the focus in discussing the origins of neurosis. First, any genetic predispositions towards neurosis may be inherited. Secondly, the family may have provided little in the way of preparation for a child to deal with the stresses of life. And thirdly, the family may itself be a source of the stress and confusion which the child may be unable to cope with. It may often be the case that a parent is him- or herself troubled by neuroses, and thereby provides the genetics, the poor parenting skills, and the stresses that lead children to develop neuroses.

A child is still in the process of learning the skills required to survive and thrive in the social world, and is thereby more susceptible to stress. He or she needs both parental guidance and a degree of security. The child needs to know that the parent will be there for him or her. This reliability is communicated by means of the love a parent expresses to the child. If the child fails to perceive that love (even if it does actually exist), he or she will be left with considerable and very general anxiety, as well as feelings of incompetence and unlovableness.

On the other hand, we should not jump to conclusions in this regard: Not all neurotics raise neurotic children, and not all neurotics were themselves raised by neurotic parents. There are many stressful events which can overwhelm even fairly emotionally stable and well educated children, adolescents, and even adults. Among these, we can mention the death of parents, their divorce and remarriage, foster homes, institutionalization, ill health of the child or the parents, war time experiences, immigration, poverty and homelessness, assault, sexual abuse, bigotry, and so on.

Many people develop neuroses during adolescence. The sometimes dramatic physical and emotional changes can by themselves overwhelm some adolescents. Even more likely, these changes, combined with the need to demonstrate social competence and to gain peer approval, can lead to great stress and overwhelm the adolescent’s emotional capacities. Teenagers rejected by their peers, due to weight problems, physical appearance, weakness, retardation and learning problems, social shyness or awkwardness, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, etc., are especially vulnerable. Many, if they have the resources and especially if they have support from family and friends, recover in early adulthood. Others do not.

Just like the child, the adolescent is still in a stage of development, and has the added burden of requiring the social skills involved in sexual competition. These are usually learned by imitating other adolescents, especially those that are admired for their skills and successes. The learning is then supported by gaining validation from other adolescents in the form of acceptance and approval. Without that approval, the adolescent feels no confidence in his or her social skills and again lives with the anxiety of never quite knowing how to act. The adolescent is left with feelings of isolation and self-loathing.

Many of these issues continue to apply in young adulthood and even later. Young adults typically feel the need for a partner in life, for a network of friends, for a sense of competence as evidenced by success in college or in the workplace, and so on. Later, the desire for children, for financial security, and for social respect add to the stress. And later still, coming to terms with the prospect of ill health, the death of friends and family, and one’s own mortality provide the older adult with new challenges for their emotional strength. The better the foundation in childhood and adolescence, however, the better the chances that the adult will be able to cope.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted December 10, 2006 01:21 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have been reading more on this topic. I had a male friend that showed most of the traits of a narcissistic personality. Wish I had known this then. I guess that is why I find it very interesting. I had no idea of what his problem was at the time. Just thought he was a self-centered jerk.

Came across this article at a different psychology site than where I got the characteristic list.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html

The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). When you ask them which one they mean, they'll deny ever saying the first one, though it may literally have been only seconds since they said it -- really, how could you think they'd ever have said that? You need to have your head examined! They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they'll say you're lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you're like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it's a reality check ("who's the crazy one here?"); that you're confused by the narcissist's contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist]. NOTE: Normal people can behave irrationally under emotional stress -- be confused, deny things they know, get sort of paranoid, want to be babied when they're in pain. But normal people recover pretty much within an hour or two or a day or two, and, with normal people, your expressions of love and concern for their welfare will be taken to heart. They will be stabilized by your emotional and moral support. Not so with narcissists -- the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever. ^


If you're like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.
Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very intelligent, narcissists can't reason well. One I've worked with closely does something I characterize as "analysis by eggbeater." They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't grasp the meaning of the written word either -- because so much of the meaning of anything we say depends on context and affect, narcissists (lacking empathy and thus lacking both context and affect) hear only the words. (Discussions with narcissists can be really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of the same words means that they are following a line of conversation or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies, apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others are talking about.) And, frankly, they don't hear all the words, either. They can pay attention only to stuff that has them in it. This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency. Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really ****** off by being lied to or lied about. ^


Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though, again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others think of them may be way out of touch with reality [see remarks on John Cheever elsewhere on this page]. Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless they're afraid of you). ^


Narcissists are envious and competitive in ways that are hard to understand. For instance, one I knew once became incensed over an article published in a national magazine -- not for its content exactly, but because she could have written something just as good. Maybe she could have -- she hadn't, but that little lapse on her part was beside the point to her. They are constantly comparing themselves (and whatever they feel belongs to them, such as their children and furniture) to other people. Narcissists feel that, unless they are better than anyone else, they are worse than everybody in the whole world. ^


Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. This seems to spring, at base, from their general lack of empathy, and it comes out as (at best) a dismissive attitude towards other people's feelings, wishes, needs, concerns, standards, property, work, etc. It is also connected to their overall negative outlook on life. ^


Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and less outside influence to keep them in check. ^


Narcissists are hostile and ferocious in reaction, but they are generally passive and lacking in initiative. They don't start stuff -- they don't reach out. Remember this when they turn and rend you! They will complain about the same things for years on end, but only rarely do anything to change what dissatisfies them so badly. ^


Narcissists are naive and vulnerable, pathetic really, no matter how arrogant and forceful their words or demeanor. They have pretty good reasons for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness, prevarications. This is the one I get suckered on. They are so out of touch with other people and what goes on around them that they are very susceptible to exploitation. On the other hand, they're so inattentive, and so disconnected from what other people are up to, that they don't recognize when someone is taking advantage of them. ^


Narcissists are grandiose. They live in an artificial self invented from fantasies of absolute or perfect power, genius, beauty, etc. Normal people's fantasies of themselves, their wishful thinking, take the form of stories -- these stories often come from movies or TV, or from things they've read or that were read to them as children. They involve a plot, heroic activity or great accomplishments or adventure: normal people see themselves in action, however preposterous or even impossible that action may be -- they see themselves doing things that earn them honor, glory, love, riches, fame, and they see these fantasy selves as personal potentials, however tenuous, something they'd do if they didn't have to go to school or go to work, if they had the time and the money.
As Freud said of narcissists, these people act like they're in love with themselves. And they are in love with an ideal image of themselves -- or they want you to be in love with their pretend self, it's hard to tell just what's going on. Like anyone in love, their attention and energy are drawn to the beloved and away from everyday practicalities. Narcissists' fantasies are static -- they've fallen in love with an image in a mirror or, more accurately, in a pool of water, so that movement causes the image to dissolve into ripples; to see the adored reflection they must remain perfectly still. Narcissists' fantasies are tableaux or scenes, stage sets; narcissists are hung up on a particular picture that they think reflects their true selves (as opposed to the real self -- warts and all). Narcissists don't see themselves doing anything except being adored, and they don't see anyone else doing anything except adoring them. Moreover, they don't see these images as potentials that they may some day be able to live out, if they get lucky or everything goes right: they see these pictures as the real way they want to be seen right now (which is not the same as saying they think these pictures are the way they really are right now, but that is another story to be discussed elsewhere). Sometimes narcissistic fantasies are spectacularly grandiose -- imagining themselves as Jesus or a saint or hero or deity depicted in art -- but just as often the fantasies of narcissists are mediocre and vulgar, concocted from illustrations in popular magazines, sensational novels, comic books even. These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists' self-images don't change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies' Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth. Though narcissists like pictures rather than stories, they like still pictures, not moving ones, so they don't base their fantasies on movies or TV.
Grandiosity can take various forms -- a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc. Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too, (witness John Cheever, for instance; Almost Perfect) but are more likely than women to get hung up on their intelligence or the importance of their work -- doesn't matter what the work is, if he's doing it, by definition it's more important than anything you could possibly do. Narcissists I've known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God's special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like -- though, note, the narcissist's God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you. [Many readers have questions about narcissism and religion. Here is an interesting article on the Web: "Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship" by Monte Wilson. "Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified."]

IP: Logged

virgotaurustaurus
unregistered
posted December 10, 2006 02:17 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow Mirandee...I've read a few books and have personal experience dealing with a few narcissists, and you summed up who they are so well. Especially with these:

However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really ****** off by being lied to or lied about. ^

Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations.

narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them.

LACK OF EMPATHY is a huge thing with them.

They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..."

They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then they feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too.
-------------------------------
These are the huge defining points of a narcissist...in fact I am dealing with one right now at college, he lives next door, and even tonight he felt like he had all right to skateboard in the hallway at 1 AM, despite that it is clearly in our handbook that it's against the rules, and it's finals week so it's 24/hr quiet now, I merely asked him to please stop as it is late and he turned around and screamed at me that I'm hysterical, a psycho, and I should go live in an old folks home if I can't stand it. The severe lack of empathy for my desire for some quiet at such a LATE hour, the verbal abuse, the obvious feeling of entitlement that he should be able to do whatever he wants and not have to respect others, all signs of a narcissist. And then when I had to get an authority figure to get him to stop screaming, he disappeared and then pretended nothing happened, had no problem lying about the situation, and even looked self-satisfied. It's DISGUSTING.

IP: Logged

marsconjunctmercury
unregistered
posted December 10, 2006 10:37 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Those decriptions sound very accurate i the1st post. In fact it was alike a specific description of my dad! I've always thought of him as schizo-affective, but now i am adding narcassistic to the melting pot.

Good thread (if a little eerie for some)

------------------
4th December 1974 18:00GMT Southampton U.K

IP: Logged

D for Defiant
Knowflake

Posts: 588
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2006 09:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for D for Defiant     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 294
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 11, 2006 05:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wellll, I kinda agree and I kinda don't. It seems that some people sometimes confuse self-confidence and self-worth to Narcissism. if we adopt such a view then we might as well lable all self-less acts as selfish Lol!

Consider the following post made by another forumer (happens to be a good bud . ) While others may yell out "Egotistical!" I calmly say "Charismatic" .

Take it away SWP! (Street Wise Professor.)

quote:
It seems to me that many of you noobs need to learn a little of my world-class assertiveness. I assure you, before you ask, my assertiveness truely IS world class. No, I don't have to prove it! You'll take my word for it, and you'll like it! Thus, I'm going to give you a quick crash course in the art of primadonnahood. Which is a word because I SAID so. When we're done here, you'll all be able to give Borfase and I run for our self-centered money. Or you'll at least THINK so. WE'LL know the truth. Remember, I'm presenting these rules in the first person, so you can follow in my glorious footsteps. Try to keep up.


Rule# 1. I'M number one.

When you're the greatest thing on the planet, reminding yourself how awesome you are
is seldom necessary. But, I do it anyway. One of the best ways to do this is by keeping a large selection of quality pictures of myself at the ready, for my own enjoyment, and that of my millions of loyal fans. I keep similar photos in my wallet, where lesser folk keep pictures of their familiy and loved ones. Sure, I have family, but my primary function is to inform others of my awesomeness. I will not be deterred.
http://people.1up.com/media?id=2028279&type=lg
http://people.1up.com/media?id=1865359&type=lg
http://static.flickr.com/21/32169315_7b8650d4a2.jpg?v=0



Note: That last pic is an excellent example of my uniqueness and courage. No one's going to tell me the proper way to ride a plastic seahorse! You're not the boss of SwP!!

Rule #2 Use of Third Person

This is similar to the royal WE. The main distinction is that there IS NO WE. There is only ME. Deal. The premise is thus: When one speaks in third person, one maintains an appropriate distance from others, allowing one to dispense wisdom and judgement from on high.

Examples:
Random Person: "I like peanut butter."
SwP: "The SwP isn't down with that action. He DISLIKES peanut butter.."

Note: The SwP actually DOES like peanut butter. He just didn't want to allow a normal person to think that they had something in COMMON with him. It's all about image, people!

Rule #3 There's no such thing as too much positive feedback.

This rule is important. Positive feedback is how we know when we're doing a good enough job of imposing our awesomeness on others. An average day for a good prima donna involves at least four different people becoming wildly excited to see you through the course of the day. In IRC, this manifests itself in long exclamation point strings. One can measure one's importance based on the lenght of the string. I'd like to note here, taht the SwP rarely achieves fewer than 10 points for each of his strings. Uh-HUH. You heard the SwP. Aspire to be like me.

I'm going to truncate this post, so that you lot may absorb what you can, without risk of mental meltdown, or ego eruption. Remember, working to my level of greatness requires baby steps. And the ability to run away from those who can't comprehend my greatness. Because nothing hurts those closeup glamour shots like black eyes, and swollen lips. :P

SwP: out!


His aim was to instill self-worth on many of the forum members of the FD community and well... He managed to do just that (Not to mention girls always like a guy with self confidence Lol!)

IP: Logged

sue g
unregistered
posted December 12, 2006 04:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Xodian

I agree....

Some people are threatened by the confident person because it brings out feelings of their own low self worth. They confuse confidence and charisma for something else. It irks them because they dont possess the same level of esteem. They may label someone as aggressive or attention seeking, whereas in fact that person is naturally charismatic and outgoing.

SWP...... what a character!!!! I wonder what his placements are?

IP: Logged

sue g
unregistered
posted December 12, 2006 05:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"""""Examples:
Random Person: "I like peanut butter."
SwP: "The SwP isn't down with that action. He DISLIKES peanut butter.."

Note: The SwP actually DOES like peanut butter. He just didn't want to allow a normal person to think that they had something in COMMON with him. It's all about image, people!""""""


:

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 294
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 12, 2006 05:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh the FD crew all know he is a Leo for sure Lol! No doubt about that. As for his exact placements, man I need to coax his Time of bith out of him along with his hometown.

After he put that post up we all just can't stop teasing him over it .

Attention: The following link isn't recommended for minors. You have been warned.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4091020922/m/3051077805

Yep that's him . After that post it was was an all out abs of steel contest between the manly men Lol! Hey, guys will be guys .

IP: Logged

D for Defiant
Knowflake

Posts: 588
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2006 05:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D for Defiant     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maire31 said:

quote:
Information is power. We should thrive to use it wisely.


IP: Logged

D for Defiant
Knowflake

Posts: 588
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 15, 2006 08:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D for Defiant     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

D for Defiant
Knowflake

Posts: 588
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 16, 2006 01:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D for Defiant     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The following has been the evidence of how Mirandee touchingly asks for, and gathers LL knowflakes’ love, compassion and caring for her dear friend, Raibbow, in the name of love- and meanwhile, abuses that love she claims, promotes, abuses the cause for her close friend, Rainbow- as well as abusing psychiatry, under the disguise of her previous studies on "psychology", to have the guts not to share our reciprocal woes, but to speak as the authority of personality disorders- some of the most complicated, most difficult mental disorders to make a diagnosis and to treat for- as someone who does not work as a practicing psychiatrist, or as anyone else in the related field- abusing her personal hatred toward a LL Global Unity opponent of Rainbow’s, Pidaua- owing to the two individuals’ different political views- to tactfully generate hatred, character attack, disrespect for psychiatric medicine, to gravely abuse the trust of other fellow knowflakes, and spreading profound misinformation, misunderstanding, and misconception- all in the name of psychology, and in fact, which is supposed to be part of psychiatric medicine, in its strict sense- and sharing is one thing, but playing with medical diagnosis is dangerous. Hence when it comes to psychiatric medicine, matters are supposed to be handled in a strict manner, whereas in this case, clearly it has not been.
Behind all the love and well-wishes for one ill fellow knowflake is all about hatred, partially, deception, and manipulation.
Please see it for yourselves. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

mysticaldream
Knowflake
Posts: 715
From:
Registered: Jan 2006
posted December 09, 2006 09:13 AM

Come on now, everyone KNOWS the reasons behind this posting. Mirandee is upset (as everyone is) over Rainbow's brain tumor. She is still very angry with Pidaua because of passed angry exchanges between Pid. and Rainbow.
She doesn't want to let it go and it trying to prove by inference that Pidaua has a psychological disorder. She is listing a set of "symptoms" she thinks fits her "condition"; therefore proving Pidaua is mentally unwell.
There are more than a couple of problems with this.
First of all, she (Pidaua) did not know Rainbow was going to face such a horrible health crisis when they were disagreeing anymore than you (Mirandee) know what lies in Pidauas future.
Second of all, your material has not convinced anyone Pidaua has a mental condition.......maybe "foot in mouth" disease from time to time; I do think, however, there is a playfulness to her sarcasm that some people take way too seriously. Obviously. Also, if she did have a psychological condition (which she obviously doesn't), would it somehow be ACCEPTABLE to mock and harrass someone for something they cannot control?
I think this all has pitiful little to do with Rainbow; I think she is being used as an excuse to be hateful and vengeful and that is the WORST crime in all of this.
As for you Gemini Nymph, whoever the hell you are, back off of Sue. She is one person on here who is consistently nice, kind and compassionate and tries to be objective.

Azalaksh
Knowflake
Posts: 3463
From: New Brighton, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
posted December 09, 2006 02:30 PM

"Jesus loved and accepted others without approving of everything they did."
.....and this is how I feel about my friendships. Perhaps my shock-threshold is higher than others.....
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone....." http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-3.html

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 10, 2006 09:42 PM

American Psychiatric Association www.psych.org
1000, Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington, VA 22209-3901
703-907-7322 or 800-368-5777
Fax: 703-907-1091
appi@psych.org

Please feel free to contact American Psychiatric Association should you feel like doing so, and in case you are truly interested and care enough to really know what the personality disorders are about, and not be satisfied with distortion and manipulation of any sort, but the truth and the truth only

Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 01:52 AM

I'm writing because I feel the need to add a few points. I'm not here to antagonize or judge anyone's motivations.
In my opinion...
1. Many of the traits listed in the original post are indeed relevant to Narcissistic Personality Disorder albeit somewhat redundant e.g., 9,16 & 23; 19,37,38,30 & 44.
2. The traits, as D for Defiant stated, do not apply to all personality disorders. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is one of four disorders in a subset of personality disorders identified as Cluster B Personality Disorders. There are two other subsets, Cluster A and Cluster C that are clinically separate from each other.
For those interested in perusing the DSM, I'd like to offer my opinions on this as well.
1. Psychiatry/Psychology is part art, part science. It is not a "hard" science like Biology, Chemistry, etc. The DSM was developed as a set of guidelines to assist clinicians/investigators in reliably diagnosing/treating/studying various mental disorders. Despite this, mental health diagnoses remain subjective to a large degree. It is rarely black and white. This being said, no diagnosis should ever be taken lightly. In the DSM's "Cautionary Statement" they clearly state the following: "The proper use of these criteria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills." The DSM is not meant to be used like a cookbook filled with recipes of mental disorders. For example, as a clinician, we're trained to consider and/or investigate variables such as cultural norms, medical conditons, family history, etc. that may be mitigating factors in any diagnostic hypothesis we may be developing. Such factors are not necessarily available within the pages of the DSM.
2. Responsible clinicians have a hard enough time qualifying serious, complicated symptomology in order to arrive at appropriate, accurate diagnoses and often seek feedback from colleagues in order to support or differentiate the more complicated diagnoses, like personality disorders.
3. Personality disorders have a very poor prognosis. You can liken it to a life sentence most of the time. Along with some other psychiatric conditions, personality disorders are highly stigmatized diagnoses to attach to an individual. As with medical diagnoses, anyone not trained in this specific discipline/area should never consider labeling another with any sort of psychiatric diagnosis.
Information is power. We should all strive to use it wisely.

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 11, 2006 03:01 AM

I greatly appreciate your further clarification, Maire31. Thank you
Thank you for the additional cautionary and the basic fine points regarding the use of DSM. I apologize for my careless mistake of trying to encourage people to read DSM by speaking of reading the clinical textbook in an overly light-hearted manner, and while doing so, I had completely forgotten that I was missing the critical fact that, DSM is a textbook for those who study and pursue the mental health care, mostly psychiatric medicine, profession(s), and also had forgotten that I was speaking from my own way-too-personal perspective as a learner of psychiatric medicine and a few other related fields but totally overlooked the probability that, for the average person, there should be a warning that, in simple terms, this is not about in which language this specific textbook is written, BUT the very fact that, under most circumstances, it is designed to serve as a reference for those in the profession(s) and certainly, NOT everyone can comprehend what is written in the pages of DSM plus what is NOT written in the pages of the book BUT which should be borne in mind at all times for the users (and besides DSM is definitely NOT the ONLY book the students of the related fields or the professionals are required to read. I am sorry that I sounded too optimistic. In any event, Maire31 is the saving grace here
But still, I could not, and still have much difficulty of, finding another way of trying to settle this by referring to American Psychiatric Association. Again, Maire31, I owe you much gratitude, and thanks again for helping us see more clearly.

Edit note:

P.S. Maire31,
I would like to ask your permission for me to quote your entire post in all my other mutiple post as part of additional editing at the bottom of each of the original posts, if better than as new messages, in light that certain individuals may feel that I'm "promoting" my threads in order to satisfy myself. Your message is essential. However, regretfully, this might not be able to wait any longer and I may quote your post before you could get to see this and get back to me. Anyway, thank you.

2nd additional editing:

I'm sorry, Maire31, but I was thinking the possible negative speculations both quoting you as new posts for my own threads and quoting you as additional editing in my original threads, and I changed my mind, thought quoting you as new posts would be more appropriate.


Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 12:16 PM

DforD
Thanks for your understanding and gratitude, I'm glad to know you thought I might have helped. I think I've read all (I may have missed some) of the posts on this topic and in general, as I stated previously, I see a lot of merit in what both you and Mirandee had to say. I also agree with some of what Sue had to say. I really hesitated to send that post. I'm very new here and have already had a row with someone that got not just the two of us out of control, but plenty of others as well. Since then I've laid very low around here, mainly reading posts to absorb things. For all the humor, insight and love around here there are lots of squabbles - I guess that's life, eh?
I'm getting a little off topic now...
I don't know all the ins and outs of etiquette on LL and this is the only forum I've ever frequented so it's kind of hit or miss for me. I do try and use my manners as much as possible, but I'll never be perfect. I don't belong to any cliques around here which is fine, however it does bother me when I see, what I perceive to be, others attacking people under the smoke screen of defending friendship. This of course is NOT the same as someone offering a conflicting opinion about an issue. Indeed everyone is entitled to express their own opinions and rebuttals.
It's one thing to defend yourself against a direct personal attack, insult, etc., but I don't understand how others justify attacking, insulting, or insinuating something about another when nothing was directed at them personally in the first place. I think it's very divisive and serves only to fuel hostility. Online communication is highly precarious even in the best of circumstances, seems we all tend to lose sight of that at times.
I, as much as anyone else, enjoy a good argument but I prefer to fight my own battles. Unless asked, I choose not to speak for others. So for the record, if any of you see me arguing with anyone around here in the future please don't attack them or me (unless I attack you first, God forbid). Whenever I argue my intention is NOT to create factions amongst others. I'm simply arguing with someone about something that is personal to me alone.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I promise you this is not directed at anyone imparticular. They are simply my feelings on a collection of thoughts/impressions I've had over the last several weeks. If anyone does take offense to this I would ask you consider why you feel offended by me if I have not directed anything at you personally. My communications are bold enough that if I have a problem with you, I wouldn't hesitate to confront you (directly) on it. This is exactly how I got into that "row" I spoke of earlier in this post.
I am not asking anyone to change their behavior in general, just as it relates to me. I'm an Aries Sun/Merc...I don't hold grudges, I am quite forgiving (to myself and others) after that conflagration dies off.
I'm willing to take the risk of putting this out there in the hopes that some of you may begin to know me a little better. I hope it doesn't backfire, but if it does, I'll have to deal with it. I'm a brave little Aries. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

mysticaldream
Knowflake
Posts: 715
From:
Registered: Jan 2006
posted December 09, 2006 09:13 AM

As for you Gemini Nymph, whoever the hell you are, back off of Sue. She is one person on here who is consistently nice, kind and compassionate and tries to be objective. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-3.html

Lialei
Knowflake
Posts: 1176
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
posted December 10, 2006 11:29 AM

Peace and compassion???
How about distortion of the truth to suit personal agendas?
Mirandee never said things like you're saying she did and you're using any opportunity you can find to twist her words, to publicly humiliate her character, because you dislike her.
Cut the phony compassion crap.
If you had any compassion or true empathy you wouldn't be sitting in such stern self-righteous judgement of someone when they are at such a fragile time of sadness over the illness of a dear friend.
Thank you, Zala, for your brave and beautiful, big heart that tries to understand and remains open to believe.

sue g
Knowflake
Posts: 7408
From: former land of the leprechaun
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 10, 2006 11:57 AM

Arent you a relative of Mirandee?

I understand your loyalty....its very touching....
But I am not phony, just honest like you and Mirandee always insisted on.....wasnt the phrase you used "brutal honesty"
And why are you so angry Lia, I am, as you are, entitled to my own opinion..
And "cut the crap" doesnt really sit well with your usual poetic nature...no need to come down to this level girl.

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002
posted December 11, 2006 02:36 PM

Sue,
Lia is a relative of Mirandee- she is her daughter.
Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1965
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 04, 2006 11:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly I do understand your defense of your wife. I admire that and would expect no less of you. It is the same as my daughter defense of me. I actually wish Lia hadn't done that because now she is taking the heat too and she does not deserve that at all.

************ I was just answering question and not putting anyone down. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.html


pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002
posted December 11, 2006 02:23 PM

Zala....
It is right here:
"Lotus, Maybe it was Pidaua's negativity and her constant remarks about Ginny having brain damage that caused her cancer. Did you ever think of that? I mean with all your talk on the power of negativity and karma and all that one would think the thought might occur to you.
Evil wishes and hate directed at others can be a powerful thing."- Mirandee http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002922-3.html

"Pid can't take back her words. It is over and done with. But hopefully she would learn from this experience what harm her words can have on others. When she personally attacks people on the computer she has no way of knowing what is going on in the life of that person on the other side of her screen. Actually for that reason Pidaua could be endangering herself. It is no safer online to attack people verbally than it would be offline face to face. People can Google a map right to your doorstep so that is another reason why it is not a good idea. " http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.html

In fact the entire second thread was a direct attack on me and then we were treated to multiple "narcissist" threads, again, directed at me. See, when you call someone a narcissist repeatedly AND you then use those same descriptors in various threads aimed at "innocently" pointing out a disorder... it is evident what the intent actually is- are we just randomly being treated to information concerning a real live disorder? There wasn't even any relevant information attached to the actual disorder itself. Now anyone that questions the intent of these mulitple threads, which are lacking evidence from the psych associations, they are called liars and enablers.
In essence, blaming ME for a tragic circumstance because of vile words exchanged between myself and another knowflake. Vile words on BOTH parts.. or as juniperb said so eloquently;
"juniperb
Knowflake
Posts: 6187
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Mar 2002
posted December 04, 2006 12:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found I have the full 5 pages as well in my history.
Pids words speak for themselves. I do not defend them as I do not Rainbows. Both blades cut sharply. Tragically, Rainbows were being propagated by a physical illness.
__________________________
A narcissist does not say sorry nor do they reach out, apologize for their actions and wish to put a stop to the negative actions that continue on thread after thread along with more attacks. Someone with those qualities would actually feed off the negativity and use it to promote their own anger.
I attribute it to grief... and I have been staying away from these episodes. But there is a time when I feel like I need to defend myself and expose the actions of those that continue to blame me for things I didn't do or threaten me with veiled violence as though I don't realize that I could anger someone online, such as here, and have them google where I live.
This is in line with that same person telling me they will go 8 Mile on me and knock me down. How many threats should I take before finally getting angry - or is it now proper to be so hypocritical that we can blame one knowflake for making stupid remarks yet not only everyone else accountable?
"Now are you really sure your are a "strong" enough woman to take me on, Pidaua? I don't think so. I think all you are is a loud mouthed trouble maker and a coward who wouldn't dare say the things or do the things to people in your offline life that you do on the internet for fear of being knocked down. Because personally lady, I come from Detroit, grew up on the 8 mile corridor, and I would have knocked you on your smart a$$ long ago if you did. I may be 60 but I am still in good shape.
If you want some more b!tch slapping just keep coming at me, Pidaua. I will gladly oblige you. But if you are half as smart as you say you are, I wouldn't recommend it. This was mild compared to what I can lay on you. " http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002922-2.html

The last post was a full week before anything happened. This was just pure Mirandee at her worst yet not taking responsibility for it. So if had been the victim of a violent crime two days after that statement- would others be able to blame Mirandee?

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002
posted December 11, 2006 02:57 PM

Lotus, I would agree about most with the exception of one major thing - Kindred Spirits. I realize SOME used it in the wrong way, but others just enjoyed another online meeting place. There were several KS's that I still consider friends and I look up to them- I just realize they may not have known what other's had done.
I think the bittersweetness comes from some of the statements, vile statements, made about knowflakes and then when brought to everyone's attention here, several people actually defended the right for people to make those comments.

YET... it does nothing to bring in the negativity. I can't blame anyone here that has said something nasty or mean to me, if I became sick. My words were terrible and I meant the apology and I still think of Rainbow and her pain. I understood the anger in Mirandee because of her loss and sadness that is so incredibly strong when you have a sick or dying friend. It is only when the same thing keeps coming up and I am made to be causitive agent for something so horrendous.
I am tired of the veiled threats, the whole 'I can find out where you live... or others will' and what? Attack me? Cause me physical or emotional pain? For what? Me saying something incredibly stupid yet it was currently taking place?
If I was a narcissist I never would have apologized and posted in a thread where I knew I would get heat from some people. I never would have sat back while others took punches at me, blaming me for these things and yet still I refused to call names or say anything evil. I feel horrible about a fellow knowflake regardless of how we interacted. And I say "WE" because WE were both pretty damn mean to each other.
I pray that we can all move on and stop laying blame on anothers doorstep to mask our anger and hurt.

Let's pray and send light for the medications to work, for her strength to continue and for her full rehabilitation.

Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 03:52 PM

Regarding the subject of labeling...
Each and every one of us have a multitude of labels bestowed upon us. From the moment we are born, we are labeled.
In my opinion...
Labels, in their truest sense are necessary to define things. How else would we communicate information if not for labels?
For example, this entire forum is predicated on labels from our screenames to our astrological aspects. I think the problem with labels arises when the plasticity of the human spirit is compromised by using a label to exclusively define a person. It seems to me the world has become so much more literal (P.C. if you will) with the globalization of communications. Perhaps a necessary evil. I often find myself hesitating to "label" anything exclusively but that does not prevent me from labeling (or identifying) a set of criteria so that I may more effectively communicate concepts.
Most often people tend to use labels as a form of shorthand. Is there an easier way to convey a set of conditions someone is experiencing other than using a label? What I'm trying to illustrate here is it's not easy nor necessarily effective to identify every criterion of a situation to avoid using a label. My son's head hurts, he says his nose feels all stuffed up, he complains his throat feels itchy, his eyes appear glassy, his voice sounds gruff, he tells me he feels very tired. So hmmm, what might be going on with this kid? If I don't use the appropriate medical label none of you would definitively know what is happening to him. He has a cat allergy. That seems innocuous enough.
Problem is when people DEFINE people by a label...saying 'Jane Doe is a Narcissist' is irresponsible. She's completely self-absorbed, she has difficulty accepting and adhering to social rules, she is not always truthful, she's constantly in the mirror admiring herself, she always thinks she's right, she's preoccupied with her own needs and desires often at the expense of those she supposedly cares about, she shirks her responsibilities and is not remorseful about it. Some might say wow, classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. WRONG! Jane Doe is merely a teen experiencing narcissistic behaviors that often exist during "adolescence". Without labeling the BEHAVIORS as narcissistic (NOT her ESSENCE) how else could we define Jane's behaviors accurately?
I will admit I'm sensitive to negative generalizations of the medical arts because I work very hard to be sensitive with those I work with. I know all too well there are many, many irresponsible practitioners out there that give their professions a bad rap (just like like attorneys, etc, can as well)but those sort of generalizations aren't fair to apply globally. Funny, it's that whole labeling thing again. I just wanted to illustrate the good and bad of labeling. I certainly see both sides of the argument. A blessing and a curse http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-4.html

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 12, 2006 02:10 AM

Zala, Maire31
Regarding the use of the language to speak of and to describe madness, I highly recommend that you read Kay Redfield Jamison's memoir "An Unquiet Mind"- the chapter under the Part entitled "An Unquiet Mind", and the section is entitled "Speaking of Madness", as far as I can remember.

(Supplementary comments: After recommending Kay Redfield Jamison's books to others for a long time, I recenly realized that she should not, and her work should not, in my humble opinion, be recommended- at least not by me. Therefore, I would not omit the above recommendation, but instead, informing you that I have a change of thought)

There are usually two sides of everything, and there are always those fine lines, those fine points which are often very subtle that the majority of people would either miss or take them the way that is lacking in balance. For any of us, who's dedicating their life and work to any of their specific field, it is quite likely for them to see merely the surface of those other fields which do not belong to them.
For example, just because some other people I know and I have consistently participated in the courses, conferences and other events conducted by TCDP (Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis), and certain of these individuals are the members or executives of TCDP, THAT does NOT, mean, at least here in Taiwan, that we are all blindly, rigidly and mechanically "loyal" followers/disciples of Sigmund Freud and inflexibly agree on whatever he said, or with the ideologies from other psychoanalysts, either. Why not? Because of the fine lines and fine points I have mentioned earlier on. There are only too many reasons why people, most of whom psychiatrists, end up in the psychoanalytic fields. Too many. Are all of them happy about that? NO. Do all of us hold exactly identical beliefs and theories? A firm NO. So do we all have exactly the same methods when it comes to our duty (well, in my case my duty is to study hard, observe keenly, maintain and enhance an open mind and make progress) to do our job? People may shrug off the psychoanalytic theories and assume all of us who are involved in the studies of it are "identical". Truth is of course we're not. Just like some of us may make our own presumptions of lawyers and think that none of them have ideals etc...but speaking as a layperson, I dare say that it's not true.
Now, back to the agenda of "labels and labelling"- I try very hard to improve our mutual understanding here. Do psychiatrists, and those of us who are involved in the studying of psychiatric medicine, volunteer to label excessively, abruptly, or encourage doing so? That is not true- in our circle of psychiatric residents and acquaintances who are not physicians, clinicians but share similar interests, pursuits and studies choices (for instance, I'm not a clinician...yet)- again, in our circle, as I pointed out in another post in response to this multiple post started by Mirandee, I said that as psychiatrists themselves, which means I obtain this because I happen to be within the circle from time to time (ongoing), they constantly talk about NOT labelling anybody with their relatively preliminary knowledge and experience of the field; they would do their best NOT to casually label people they know in their personal lives- friends, family members etc- that you have this or you have that, or you are this or you are that, merely because they've gone to medical school, they've studied psychiatry ( but have not "finished"! It's an ongoing, lifetime process!), or they are now doctors, psychiatrists (well, residents though Pun intended ). On the contrary. They frequently remind their close colleagues and themselves of NOT to label any individual casually, untimely, unnecessarily, or excessively.
As psychiatrists, some of them with better awareness, would remind their patients NOT to overidentify with their own diagnoses- and this has been taking place all the time; those who have maintained more consideration would gently urge certain mental patients, who are sensitive about their own illness, to NOT overidentify themselves with their conditions- because, I suppose in simple terms, if you have poor insight about your own condition, surely the outcome of your remission or recovery would not be helped by this. However, if you overidentify with your diagnosis, it is simply the other form of out-of-the-balance, AND that IS one of the things they as clinicians do try their utmost NOT to let it happen. We do encourage patients NOT to overidentify themselves, because none of us can achieve the balance we need by doing so, and in the end this is not helping anyone or any situation.
We as free individuals are all entitled to our opinion, stance, and position, and I would do everything I can to try to respect other people's views as I should; nonetheless, those fine lines, fine points, the tangling in the web...most of the time cannot be condensed down to a term, a post, or a book- we all have our own missions in this lifetime, we all contribute to society and humanity in each of our own idiosyncratic way, and all we can do is the best we can

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 14, 2006 05:50 AM

btw, Maire31
Thanks for the encouragement. I really appreciate it
*multiple-post yet again*
Right...should I be saying something like "so glad to see so many of us 'care'"?
Please, just drop it. Take Sue's words as pearls of wisdom this time round- not even those with their titles as "M.D.", let alone the rest of us- it is none of our business to lose patience and compassion as to jump to conclusions and using those "disorders" labels dangerously- it was with much reluctance that I gave contact info of American Psychiatry Association- for one thing, this may have been a more or less stimulating conversation, BUT this is NOT a website dedicating to the medical profession/theocracy people to discuss their biz, this site, albeit with our liberty to have a variety of themes or topics for us to participate in discussions, nevertheless, LL is for us to honor the spirit of Linda, and please, dear fellow knowflakes- I'm sure you all know how Linda was vehemently against things like organized religion, and as well as "medical theocracy"- so please, I really never think of this site as the right place to debate subjects like this one in-depth.
I tried to take this to a halt but I was all thumbs. Maire31 's fine quote:

quote-
Information is power. We should thrive to use it wisely.

(DforD: )Therefore, please handle your knowledge or information with much care, the way you present it may make us all fragile and vulnerable to unwanted consequences- please do NOT use the info you possess to label any individual with a "personality disorder diagnosis"- that's lethal. Even throughout the process for those clinicians to actually make diagnoses, they'd have to note many other complicated additional factors and take them all into consideration: one person's sounding "familiar" as to being "like" a certain "personality disorder" often does NOT meet the complete diagnostic criteria, and would subsuquently be noted as "with ***** traits..."; often, a real diagnosis has not been made, but instead, physicians may note that "with provisional diagnosis of ***" or "with (likely, but not 100% sure) past diagnosis of ***" and lots of medical bureaucratic language like that.
Please, all I'm trying to say is I applaud for your enthusiasm, but this is really not the place to discuss such a topic, and should you be so keen, please do this somewhere else, if you are really interested in those "medical terms". I, along with some other people, may have chosen, for now, to be on the side of the conventional medical theocracy for our own reasons (which not all of them are so merry)- but like I said, I'd really like to see us drop this, this is LindaLand. As Sue so wisely put (paraphrasing), none of us, none of us here and those of us who have chosen to stay here at LL, have the qualification to give any other of our fellow knowflakes, or say, human beings- ANY diagnosis. If you truly feel inclined to do so, please go somewhere else where such action is encouraged and where it might be their central theme. Peace. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-5.html

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 15, 2006 07:37 AM

The medical profession is neither a saint nor Satan. It cannot be entirely dismissed or idealized.
We do share each other's experiences at LL a lot, about many different aspects of life, including feeling low, or being unwell in general.
But that is one thing, and attempting to bring up a very complex subject, as in this case, personality disorders- some of the most complicated and the most difficult illnesses for psychiatrists to make a diagnosis and to treat- and the topic starter is evidently NOT a practicing psychiatrist, and a non-physician-
That is another entirely different thing.
Therefore, I would not support such threads by further exacerbating what's already been quite awful- we may, however, share- like Swerve did but we could just start another thread, just for sharing, but NOT to intend to discuss such serious matters as if one is a professional when one is NOT.
And if anyone is not happy about orthodox pharmaceutical companies and the medicines they manufacture- please start another thread of your own and let others share their experiences and have their say, instead of somewhat drifting away from the subject, but to start another debate on a topic that appears to be related to this one here, but only to be supporting this thread.
As long as one of us has started another thread intending to share rather than to "educate" others, while they are NOT psychiatrists themselves- I will do my bit to boycott such threads by not replying to those- unless there are people who continue to play with medical diagnosis. Peace.

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 15, 2006 08:11 AM

Now, I consider it not very wise for me to say this, regarding my disposition in this chaos, but-
The following has been included as one of the links provided by Pidaua, which I have quoted above: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.html
Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1965
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 04, 2006 02:12 AM
quote:
I will also say this, lay off of Lialei. Not only does she love Ginny dearly but she was also on that Mirandee thread defending her mother against the attacks because she knows me better than anyone and she knows what my intentions truly were. Anyone would defend their own mother. However what Lia said she meant from the bottom of her heart as she always does.

re-quote from the above quote:
Anyone would defend their own mother.

When debating, more than simply discussing, a very serious and complicated, even controversial matter, involvement of a family member, or a close friend, etc, would already make the scene look even more partial.

-"Anyone would defend their own mother"- and a statement like this has come from someone who claims she has studied "psychology" (P.S. such difficult mental disorders as personality disorders, are, technically speaking, part of the field of psychiatry- why didn't the person dare use the term "psychiatry"?)- is just biased. Not that I come from a not-so-supportive family myself, so I would perceive others are the same as me, or hope they are like me- I've lived with a few hostfamilies, they functioned well, so to speak- they got along with one another and I was pleased to have known them and hung out with them, okay? But "Anyone would defend their own mother"-
That does not sound like someone who claims herself having studied "psychology" and thinks herself authoritarian enough to post a list in the name of "informing and educating", when she herself is NOT even a practicing psychiatrist, besides-

Fayte would never agree on that statement.

Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1987
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 15, 2006 10:35 AM
quote:

When debating, more than simply discussing, a very serious and comlicated, even controversial matter, involvment of a family member, or a close friend, etc, would already make the scene look even more partial.

Perhaps you should also mention that to Pidaua and her husband Leo Bear, DFD.
In a healthy, loving mother/daughter relationship it would seem quite normal for a daughter to defend her mother against distortions, lies and an outright campaign to smear her mother's character. The same thing might not apply to an unhealthy mother/daughter relationship.

I am once again going to have to post what I actually said on that thread and the omission that DFD, Pidaua and SueG keep posting which distorts the truth.
I am once again going to have to explain the context in which I said this which was in an attempt to point out to Lotus the contradiction in her thinking and reasoning. That while telling me that my "negativity" would somehow affect Rainbow's health but the same thing did not apply to Pidaua's or anyone else's negativity.
This is what I actually said and what DFD, SueG and Pidaua keep omitting is the part where I stated " I do not really believe this." And I DON'T believe that anyone has the power to give another human being an illness such as Rainbow has. This is probably at least the 10th time I have stated this.
I bolded the part that keeps getting omitted around here.
Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1956
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, CancerRegistered: Sep 2004
posted December 01, 2006 01:25 PM "TYPE=PICT;ALT=ClickHeretoSeetheProfileforMirandee"
"TYPE=PICT;ALT=Edit/DeleteMessage"
Lotus, Maybe it was Pidaua's negativity and her constant remarks about Ginny having brain damage that caused her cancer. Did you ever think of that? I mean with all your talk on the power of negativity and karma and all that one would think the thought might occur to you.
Evil wishes and hate directed at others can be a powerful thing.
Though I don't really believe that but as long you are directing just the negativity at me it is something for you think about????
However, can verbal abuse and personal attacks on a daily basis have an affect on people's health and well being? According to another article that I posted at GU on defending against verbal abuse, it can. And I think we all know that and we all know the effect that stress has on the body and certain illnesses.
This is an excerpt from that article.

About the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense (GAVSD)
Hostile language -- often called verbal abuse -- is one of the worst problems people face today. Hostile language is as dangerous to health and well-being as toxic waste, not only because of its own destructive nature but because it so often escalates into physical violence. The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense is a system developed by Suzette for establishing a language environment in which hostile language interactions almost never happen, and in which -- when they truly cannot be avoided -- they are handled efficiently, effectively, and with no loss of face on either side. Physical violence requires the intervention of law enforcement officers, medical professionals, and other outside "experts"; while violence is still verbal, every single one of us can learn to defuse it and handle it with skill. GAVSD is a simple and practical set of methods and techniques designed specifically for that purpose.
Why Verbal Self-Defense is a Skill We Need
It has undoubtedly happened to you. There you are, in the middle of a fierce argument with someone, and suddenly you realize that you not only don't particularly care about the subject of the argument but you can't understand how you got into the altercation in the first place!
This isn't trivial. Hostile language is dangerous to your health and well-being; it's toxic stuff. People who are frequently exposed to hostile language get sick more often, are injured more often, take longer to recover from illness and injury, and suffer more complications during recovery. As an obvious result, they tend to die sooner than those not so exposed. What's more, hostile language is just as dangerous to the person dishing it out (and to innocent bystanders who can't leave the scene) as it is to the person on the receiving end.
Obviously it's to your advantage to stay out of arguments in both your personal and your professional life, unless something truly important -- something about which you care profoundly -- is at stake. Even then, most of us are aware that it's possible to have intense discussions that don't turn into altercations. How is it, then, that intelligent people keep finding themselves involved in arguments almost by accident?
The answer is pretty simple, and it's a relic of the days when humankind dealt with sabertooth tigers at close range on a regular basis. One of the parts of your brain (the amygdala) is on constant duty, and one of its primary tasks is to scan for danger. When it spots an incoming perception that meets its criteria for danger, it has the ability to send a message that provokes an immediate fight-or-flight reaction, and it can do that without first going through the reasoning part of your brain. It can literally short-circuit your thinking process. In the sabertooth tiger days this was a good thing. You saw something vaguely big and furry, and you either left the scene fast or threw your club. You acted first, and then you thought about it, which increased your odds of survival a good deal.
This part of your brain can still be a good thing on those very rare occasions when you do face imminent life-threatening sudden peril from tornadoes or terrorists or mad gun-toters. The problem is that it's just as likely to kick in when the only threat you face is some klutz who wants to argue about whether his computer is more powerful than your computer. If the amygdala thinks the klutz is a threat, it bypasses your reasoning brain -- and shortly you're thinking, "I don't even CARE whether my computer has more memory than this turkey's computer! How the heck did I get INTO this?? And how the heck do I get OUT of it so I can get on with my day??" This can happen to anybody now and then; we all just lose it sometimes. But if it happens often, it's a grave threat to your well-being. It's a lot more dangerous to you than most of the risk factors you spend time and money trying to guard against. You need to know how to put an end to this nonsense.

This part of your brain can still be a good thing on those very rare occasions when you do face imminent life-threatening sudden peril from tornadoes or terrorists or mad gun-toters. The problem is that it's just as likely to kick in when the only threat you face is some klutz who wants to argue about whether his computer is more powerful than your computer. If the amygdala thinks the klutz is a threat, it bypasses your reasoning brain -- and shortly you're thinking, "I don't even CARE whether my computer has more memory than this turkey's computer! How the heck did I get INTO this?? And how the heck do I get OUT of it so I can get on with my day??" This can happen to anybody now and then; we all just lose it sometimes. But if it happens often, it's a grave threat to your well-being. It's a lot more dangerous to you than most of the risk factors you spend time and money trying to guard against. You need to know how to put an end to this nonsense.

This part of your brain can still be a good thing on those very rare occasions when you do face imminent life-threatening sudden peril from tornadoes or terrorists or mad gun-toters.

If the amygdala thinks the klutz is a threat, it bypasses your reasoning brain -- and shortly you're thinking, "I don't even CARE whether my computer has more memory than this turkey's computer! How the heck did I get INTO this?? And how the heck do I get OUT of it so I can get on with my day??" This can happen to anybody now and then

But if it happens often, it's a grave threat to your well-being. It's a lot more dangerous to you than most of the risk factors you spend time and money trying to guard against. You need to know how to put an end to this nonsense.
I am once again going to have to post what I actually said on that thread and the omission that DFD, Pidaua and SueG keep posting which distorts the truth.

quote:

When debating, more than simply discussing, a very serious and comlicated, even controversial matter, involvement of a family member, or a close friend, etc, would already make the scene look even more partial.

Perhaps you should also mention that to Pidaua and her husband Leo Bear, DFD.
In a healthy, loving mother/daughter relationship it would seem quite normal for a daughter to defend her mother against distortions, lies and an outright campaign to smear her mother's character. The same thing might not apply to an unhealthy mother/daughter relationship.

Answers from D for Defiant:

Mirandee, I think I owe you many thanks upon several aspects-

Thank you for reminding me of, and suggest that I mention Pidaua and her husband. I was not 100 percent sure your honorable claims of informing the public and being helpful regarding severe mental disorders such as personality disorders, has anything whatsoever to do with Pidaua, until now. Thank you for letting me know better- so this does have to do with Pidaua? I sincerely appreiciate the timely reminder.

Thank you, too, to point out to me that there are two types of mother-daughter relationships, according to you, Mirandee- the healthy type and the unhealthy type. I did not know, but until now, that there are these two types of mother-daughter relationships, which can be defined simply as healthy and unhealthy, just like black and white- and we still haven’t been provided a verification as to who is the one here to judge what is healthy and what is not healthy; furthermore, even in a not-totally-harmonious mother daughter relationship, it still depends on the individuals concerned here, whether the daughter would go to the extent of blaming her mother for what the latter has never done. The daughter may not be close to her own mother, or may have disagreements with the latter, but it is the daughter’s decision whether she wants to accuse her mother of something the latter has never done, or not to do so but remain distant or unfriendly toward her own mother; for a daughter to not like her mother is one thing, whether the daughter would deliberately distort any fact about her own mother is another.

Likewise, even in a loving mother-daughter relationship, the daughter is perfectly entitled to her own belief system and her own actions- notwithstanding her love toward her mother, it is up to the daughter whether to stand by her mother at all times, or to express her disagreements with her own mother should the daughter chooses to do so. Therefore, I would not perceive these matters as black and white and rigid guidelines.

And thank you, too, Mirandee, for caring deeply about the truth. Thank you for inspiring me to think about whose truth we as people at LindaLand have been paying so much attention to and showing concerns for.

Thank you for reminding me of pondering more on what we call the truth, whose truth we are talking about, who categorize what is the truth and what is not here, and what the truth really is. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

Azalaksh
Knowflake
Posts: 3463
From: New Brighton, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
posted December 09, 2006 02:30 PM

"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone....." http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

mysticaldream
Knowflake
Posts: 715
From:
Registered: Jan 2006
posted December 09, 2006 09:13 AM

Come on now, everyone KNOWS the reasons behind this posting. Mirandee is upset (as everyone is) over Rainbow's brain tumor. She is still very angry with Pidaua because of passed angry exchanges between Pid. and Rainbow.
She doesn't want to let it go and it trying to prove by inference that Pidaua has a psychological disorder. She is listing a set of "symptoms" she thinks fits her "condition"; therefore proving Pidaua is mentally unwell.
There are more than a couple of problems with this.
First of all, she (Pidaua) did not know Rainbow was going to face such a horrible health crisis when they were disagreeing anymore than you (Mirandee) know what lies in Pidauas future.
Second of all, your material has not convinced anyone Pidaua has a mental condition.......maybe "foot in mouth" disease from time to time; I do think, however, there is a playfulness to her sarcasm that some people take way too seriously. Obviously. Also, if she did have a psychological condition (which she obviously doesn't), would it somehow be ACCEPTABLE to mock and harrass someone for something they cannot control?
I think this all has pitiful little to do with Rainbow; I think she is being used as an excuse to be hateful and vengeful and that is the WORST crime in all of this.

Comments from D for Defiant: I apologize for my manner, however, I have been trying to refine my manner. I apologize once again for making people feel uncomfortable.
Mirandee, I truly admire your determination for your own beliefs, there is a great deal of extraordinary strength in such determination. Thank you for your statements of so enthusiastically and altruistically informing the rest of us. And I am also absolutely impressed with your knowledge- I seriously consider whether it would be a good idea to encourage you to contact American Psychiatric Association, for all your abilities we have witnessed here, perhaps you would be very competent working for American Psychiatry Association- however, you are perfectly entitled to your decision. Nevertheless, I am deeply touched by your spirit and your intelligence. With all due respect, I am going to quietly boycott all your threads, and those of your beloved daughter, Lialei, from now on- once again, thank you, Mirandee, for having contributed enormously to my information gathering and provided such food for thought.

I shall not participate in any of Mirandee’s, or Lialei’s threads from this moment on, because I cannot tolerate such honor as unknowingly becoming an associate of either of these two mother and daughter. Unless any individual at LL continues to seek quarrels upon such issues as psychiatric diagnosis, the psychiatric medical profession, and, or any related topics in attempts to not share but to argue for- I shall quietly decline to participate in any thread authored by Mirandee, or Lialei.

D for Defiant

IP: Logged

firecracker
Knowflake

Posts: 554
From: all places
Registered: Nov 2010

posted December 12, 2010 10:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for firecracker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
interesting reading. bump.

IP: Logged

StarrofVenusGirl
Moderator

Posts: 1314
From: Down the Rabbit Hole
Registered: Jun 2009

posted December 12, 2010 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for StarrofVenusGirl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Excellent bump. Thanks.

IP: Logged

charmainec
Moderator

Posts: 1998
From: on the other side of the rainbow
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 16, 2011 07:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for charmainec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
bump

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a