A Misdirection of the DSM and Psychological community in Regards to Sadism? Social Vs Sexual arousals.

[JohnSSM]

Psychology is still juggling personality disorders, as it has for the last 200 years, trying to find a model that represents them more accurately.  In regards to Sadism, sadistic behaviors and activities, it has changed quite a bit.  IN the late 80s, the described sadism, not as a paraphilic disorder, as they do now, but as a personality disorder.  They essentially erased social sadism from the DSM as a disorder at all, and now only consider sadism to be a sexually associated disorder.  

So what disorder now describes humans, who seek positions of power, or have them, and use them to hurt, intimidate, degrade, humiliate or scare others?  There isn't one.  In a way, they have created a sub category within Narcissistic Personality disorder called "Malignant Narcissism", but it isn't officially recognized as a disorder.  Just a little tweak some did to get the act of being mean back into the realm of personality disorders, and now they call it hurtful narcissism, in effect.  I see it as sadistic behavior without a sexual arousal.  And that's my point.  They had it right back in 1987 before they changed it.  Sadistic Personality disorder was not sexually based, and included all arousals. 

So, to me, it seems they simply missed the difference between a sexual and social arousal.  All sadists become aroused when they belittle others with physical or emotional pain, but he arousal is not always directly connected to a sexual arousal.  A bully is a sadist, but not driven by sexual pleasure, they get another pleasure or arousal out of bullying others.   I call it an ego-arousal or social-arousal.  Others may feel this same feeling when they compliment someone, or hug them, but the sadist feels that arousal when they are mean and domineering.  Obviously, this does lead to a paraphilic association with sadism, as many people obsess over fantasies of being domineering or mean, for sexual arousal.  However, do Bullies ever fantasize about the ways they will torment someone in the future?  It may not sexually arouse them, but if they are fantasizing over how to best humiliate someone, to me, they are a sadist, or someone using sadistic fantasies to arouse themselves, regardless of how their sexual intimacy is affected by these acts.

It seems the psychological community may have overlooked some perspectives as they removed sadism as a personality disorder, and focused only on the sexual arousals involved with being mean and enjoying it.

[iNow]

There’s more than just a hint here of argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy to be avoided. Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. 

I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite. 

One might even suggest you need to “go research it.” Fancy that. 

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/sexual-sadism-and-trauma-in-psychopathy/

Edited March 24, 2021 by iNow

[JohnSSM]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s more than just a hint here of argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy to be avoided. Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. 

I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite. 

One might even suggest you need to “go research it.” Fancy that. 

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/sexual-sadism-and-trauma-in-psychopathy/

Is the point that I need to cite the work of others on this subject?

Can you also?  For instance, psychopathy has very little to do with hurting people and enjoying it. Psychopathy can be pro-social in nature and will not enjoy hurting others.  Which brings up a good point.  Most criminal acts of sadism are called anti-social now.  

This is all common knowledge to me, but you may need citations to believe me.  

I find plenty of material to read everyday on this subject and have for ten years.  Since I made the post, maybe I need to gather up some references, instead of taking my own research time elsewhere, although I will take a look.  But I dont know why I am.  

Do you have any thoughts about sadists who may not be sexually aroused by sadistic acts?  That was the topic of my writting.

StricklandETAL_Assessment_2013.pdf (fsu.edu)

 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

psychopathy has very little to do with hurting people and enjoying it. Psychopathy can be pro-social in nature and will not enjoy hurting others

Where did I say otherwise?

5 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Do you have any thoughts about sadists who may not be sexually aroused by sadistic acts?  That was the topic of my writting.

I suspect it soothes them, a bit like scratching an itch or having a drink when thirsty. I tend to agree with your central premise that sexuality is in no way prerequisite, but I disagree with your conclusion that the DSM and entire field believes otherwise. 

[JohnSSM]

"I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite."

IF you had a more detailed explanation of the gaps from you it would help.  Since psychopathy doesn't fill any gaps, im wondering what those gaps are and you believe psychopathy to be.  The topic of the thread is sadism, and there are no established connections between the two.  In fact, official psychology doesn't even recognize psychopathy as a real illness.  So, Id perfer to use temrinology used in modern day psychology, but psychopath has never been a term in mainstream psychology as anti social.  Psychopaths may have less attention for the cares and emotions of others, but that alone does not drive someone to hurt someone else for pleasure.

Just as there are sadists, who do enjoy hurting others for sexual pleasure who are not psychopathic.  

Edited March 24, 2021 by JohnSSM

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

In fact, official psychology doesn't even recognize psychopathy as a real illness.  So, Id perfer to use temrinology used in modern day psychology, but psychopath has never been a term in mainstream psychology as anti social.

This is imprecise to the point of inaccuracy and flat out falseness.

Psychopathy is accepted in the DSM5 and also by the American Psychological Association as a specifier or type of clinical antisocial personality disorder. 

12 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Psychopaths may have less attention for the cares and emotions of others, but that alone does not drive someone to hurt someone else for pleasure.

And it’s this pleasure component that results in sadisms ties to sexuality. Since you asked about non sexual aspects of the phenomenon, I suggested the framework of psychopathy. 

Do you enjoy going around in circles with people like this? I sure don’t, and on that note... have fun with your thread. 

[JohnSSM]

In the DSM-5, under "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders", ASPD with psychopathic features is described as characterized by "a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors 

ASPD +p is what they call it.  So what is P when there is not ASPD?  I do believe you are the one who needs to take a further look, or quote a source about your DSM comment.

These articles may help you gain a better understanding of psychopathy, and it's use as a term in psychology.

Psychopath: Meaning, Signs, and vs. Sociopath (healthline.com)

Psychopathy and the DSM - PubMed (nih.gov)

"Since the term psychopath is not an official diagnosis, experts refer to the signs described under ASPD. According to Masand, some of the more common signs to be aware of include:"

I can describe the traits of a psychopath.

Always laid back, rarely excitable, although possibly very driven, will rarely show excitement.
A confidence and charm because they are not affected by the emotions of others, which doesn't mean they will be mean.
They do have the ability to charm and manipulate others, but they do not always use it to use or harm others.

That's most of it.  Anything associated with violence or criminally sexual behavior is referred to as ASPD or paraphilic in nature.


 

[iNow]

Nothing you’ve posted contradicts, negates, nor refutes what I posted, though it does strike me as interesting how recurrently aggressive and antisocial you consistently act even in threads seeking the thoughts, opinions, and inputs of others on those very behaviors. 

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Nothing you’ve posted contradicts, negates, nor refutes what I posted, though it does strike me as interesting how recurrently aggressive and antisocial you consistently act even in threads seeking the thoughts, opinions, and inputs of others on those very behaviors. 

Until you describe the gaps in my theory, that you refer to in one comment, and I ask you about in another, I cant go on talking with you.   I so dislike being rude, but that is very important information for our discussion, since it was about my theory, and you state there are gaps, without describing them at all.  As I have noted, psychopathy has nothing to do with violence, or becoming aroused by hurting others.  You also need to post a source for your comment about the DMSV and it's reference to psychopathy which connect it alone to violent or criminal behavior.  After that, we can continue to make progress on the thread topic.  And I cant understand why you avoid addressing it since i've asked a couple times.  

Im not being aggressive or anti-social at all.  Are you allowed to diagnose me with a psychological disorder?  That is a personal attack.  Instead of calling mommy to tell them that youre being mean, anti-social and aggressive, why don't you just admit it, and leave me alone.  What purpose do you want to serve in this thread?  Throwing out unproven and incorrect ideas just to ruin threads or test people?    Im seriously interested to know your motivations.  I only have theories.  

I also know, very well, that if I am as rude to you as you are being to me, they would end this thread and maybe ban me.  You are a senior member.  They have a shown bias to side with seniors members and they even describe this bias in their own posts.  I find it an amazingly interesting spectacle to witness by such intelligent people.  Biases really effect everyone, don't they?

[iNow]

Sigh. I must be a sadist for continuing to reply, but I assure you I find none of this pleasant nor sexual.

Since you asked so very nicely and with such good faith and good intention... 

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a psychopathy specifier.

That’s what I said above... it’s a specifier of ASPD... and now I’ve supported my claim and shared my source since I’m not a total douchebag. 

[JohnSSM]

Are you referring to the same text I quoted from google?  I need to know the source you are using to get that knowledge.  Lets approach this in how it applies to the topic.  You stated there were gaps in my theory that could be filled by psychopathy.

2 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite. 

So what were the gaps that you believe psychopathy fairly neatly fills?  And how does psychopathy fill those gaps?  I'm simply asking you to expound upon the knowledge you must have had when you made that statement.  

Psychopathy is not a specifier of ASPD.  Psychopathy exists on it's own.  ASPD also exists on it's own.  It's a combination of the two disorders.  As I have said, psychopaths feel less and respond less to emotions, which is no type of motivation to hurt others and enjoy it.  So ASPD might fills the gaps of my theory, since ASPD is also a disorder of it's own that does not encourage others to hurt other people for pleasure.  So Sadism is the only disorder that was ever associated with the enjoyment of hurting others.  Not ASPD and not psychopathy.  To fill the gap, you would need to find a behavior that specifically leads to the enjoyment of hurting others, and also fill the gaps left by social masochism, or a non sexual enjoyment of being humiliated.

In other words, I do not have a copy of the DSM 5.  I have the other DSM versions but never bothered to get the DSM 5.  The first mention of psychopathy in psychological manuals is the DSM 5.  But, it is not described as the traits of anti social personality disorder.  I have described psychopathic traits above. It shows the danger of what happens to people when they have both sets of traits.  ASPD and P.  But there is no evidence that P leads to ASPD or vice versa.  But, all the personality disorders will show a lack of emotional sensitivity for the needs of others.   So ASPD is only "linked" to psychopathy through that one trait, and a lack of emotional sensitivity drives all of the personality disorders in Cluster B.  I hope that helps.

Really, all I need is one sadist, who enjoys hurting others for pleasure, that does not have extreme ASPD or psychopathy,  And they are out there.  Another thing about personality disorders.  They simply represent behaviors that we all may have when we are stressed, but the disordered person uses these behaviors for a solution to all perceived stress.  SO it all exists on a scale without truly measurable components.  I love that.  

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sigh. I must be a sadist for continuing to reply, but I assure you I find none of this pleasant nor sexual.

Since you asked so very nicely and with such good faith and good intention... 

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a psychopathy specifier.

That’s what I said above... it’s a specifier of ASPD... and now I’ve supported my claim and shared my source since I’m not a total douchebag. 

The other day you proposed that I cited sources for my perspectives on Neurons.  You claimed to have perspectives on neurons that differed from mine, but you posted no sources.  IS that because you had a mainstream belief that neurons operate like little diodes?  We never got the continue that situation, and I was simply confused.   You were being as rude and such as you are now, and I followed the rules of rudeness and got in trouble.  Lets not go through that again.  At this point, with you claiming such knowledge, we really need references to verify your claims.  I am not allowed to discuss the needs of neurons anymore.  So im walking a thin line here.    Alas, in an effort to avoid past disturbances, lets just move forward with quoted knowledge when a source is requested.  Or its all just talk.

You are essentially claiming that every mean person is a psychopath.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

I also know, very well, that if I am as rude to you as you are being to me, they would end this thread and maybe ban me.  You are a senior member.  They have a shown bias to side with seniors members and they even describe this bias in their own posts.  I find it an amazingly interesting spectacle to witness by such intelligent people.  Biases really effect everyone, don't they?

For God's sake quit your whining. The world is not against you.

[JohnSSM]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For God's sake quit your whining. The world is not against you.

Quit whining about my whining.  The hypocrisy is refreshing.

Honestly though, I dont believe the world is against me.  My statement had to do with the moderators of this site claiming they have biases for certain members, and then noticing it myself.

 

For instance, I was warned never to be snide.  There is snide commentary in this thread from everyone in it, and not mostly me.  Would you consider you comment as being snide?  It seems snide to me.  Lets see if anyone pulls you aside for the snide comment discussion.  I have been warned.  If I am not flaming nice with people attacking me, I will get banned.   

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For God's sake quit your whining. The world is not against you.

Did you have anything to say about the thread or did you just come here to tell me to quit whining?  You read the entire thread and al you could think of was quit whining? 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A couple of things:

When you present a theory of your own, you own the burden of proof. It is incumbent upon you, not others, to ensure it is complete and well-supported.

It not inherently rude to be asked to clarify or support a claim. 

"I don't own/haven't read that cite" is not a rebuttal of a claim

 

7 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

For instance, I was warned never to be snide.

!

Moderator Note

As far as I can see (within limits of the search function of the site), a member pointed out you were being snide ("taking a snide swipe") while discussing the clarity (or lack thereof) in your writing. I don't see where you were warned never to be snide, even without the caveat that the only real "warnings" come from staff members, whether they are modnotes or official ones issued through the forum software. While revisionist history is potentially a problem, it is also the case that an attitude that "my writing is clear and I will brook no disagreement to this" is not an attitude that will be accepted. It's not consistent with cvonversing in good faith.

A member commenting on your style is merely suggestion that you may want to polish things up a bit, just as you have made similar comments to others. Any suggestion that others must conform to your standard but you are under no obligation to conform to theirs is probably not going to serve you well, but is not, in most cases, a rules violation in and of itself. (Though it is potentially a gateway to such)

 

Please return to the discussion of the topic at hand

 

 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

You are essentially claiming that every mean person is a psychopath.

False, though I will claim that if you're not intentionally misrepresenting me then you very much are misunderstanding and failing to properly comprehend me. 

 

10 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

Psychopathy is not a specifier of ASPD.

Also false, as I've clarified for you now repeatedly. We can discuss whether or not it's valid in this context, but not whether or not it's there in this context.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Psychopathy

Quote

psychopathy has been proposed as a specifier under an alternative model for ASPD. In the DSM-5, under "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders", ASPD with psychopathic features is described as characterized by "a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors (e.g., fraudulence)." Low levels of withdrawal and high levels of attention-seeking combined with low anxiety are associated with "social potency" and "stress immunity" in psychopathy.^[19]:765 Under the specifier, affective and interpersonal characteristics are comparatively emphasized over behavioral components.^[77]

Emphasis mine. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure your style and approach will surely attract others to participate, though! 

[Area54]

15 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

Psychology is still juggling personality disorders, as it has for the last 200 years, trying to find a model that represents them more accurately.

My impression has been that it does, at best, a primitive job in this regard. You appear to have a similar suspicion. For me the key question is, why should I care? I have some thoughts on that, but since you - apparently - have examined the situation more closely I should like your answer(s) to the question. (My answers would likely be ill-informed guesses.)

[JohnSSM]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

A couple of things:

When you present a theory of your own, you own the burden of proof. It is incumbent upon you, not others, to ensure it is complete and well-supported.

It not inherently rude to be asked to clarify or support a claim. 

"I don't own/haven't read that cite" is not a rebuttal of a claim

I do appreciate that stance.  Of course, this isn't a theory of my own.  Mainstream psychology and mainstream physics are not the same.  In physics, often math if the way to tell if a theory is correct or not, thus creating a mainstream built on the realities of math.  In psychology, all the theories are based mostly on models, observations and opinions.  

So, in this case, someone else claimed that psychopathy is something that it isnt.  I have shown proof that this person is wrong.  They have shown no proof that they are right., yet, they continue to argue when I have shown the proof that they are wrong.  Doesnt this person now need to show proof, or back off of their argument?

I suggested that social sadism not longer has a place in mainstream psychology, and leaves a huge hole in disordered personality theory.  IN this topic, the only source we can use to discuss this is opinions using models.  So the question becomes, did psychology leave a hole in disordered personality types?  What proof could I present other than I presented?  I can find other people who think it's true, and I can find people who dont see it that way, but there is no proof of how to order psychology.  So, in these topics, all the proof comes through observation and how well the brain can organize these concepts.  

14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

My impression has been that it does, at best, a primitive job in this regard. You appear to have a similar suspicion. For me the key question is, why should I care? I have some thoughts on that, but since you - apparently - have examined the situation more closely I should like your answer(s) to the question. (My answers would likely be ill-informed guesses.)

Why should I care?  Why did Einstein care to figure out gravity and relativity? It's the exact same reason I care about clarifying psychology.

Thanks for that. Instead of taking any ill-informed guesses with no proof, that I must go find the proof to disprove.  

3 hours ago, iNow said:

False, though I will claim that if you're not intentionally misrepresenting me then you very much are misunderstanding and failing to properly comprehend me. 

It is you who does not comprehend.  The gap you claim my theory is trying to fill is still an unknown here.  You haven't presented any reason why I had gaps in the first place.  You have presented no info that proves psychopathy is a specifier, and there is none, because ASPD and Psychopathy are two distinct disorders.  I am glad youre done here.  BYE!

[Area54]

8 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Why should I care?  Why did Einstein care to figure out gravity and relativity?

Well, I was asking why should I care, not why should you care. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can understand why Einstein cared to figure out gravity and relativity. I am no Einstein, so such a care on my part would be offensively arrogant. So, in regard to psychology why should I - a member of Joe Public as far as psychology goes - care about the specifics you raised in your OP?

16 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Thanks for that. Instead of taking any ill-informed guesses with no proof, that I must go find the proof to disprove. 

I have no idea what this means. Specifically, I don't no if the thanks is a genuine thanks for engaging in the thread, or a sarcastic thanks for ...something. The second sentence does not parse. Perhaps you could rephrase.

[JohnSSM]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

False, though I will claim that if you're not intentionally misrepresenting me then you very much are misunderstanding and failing to properly comprehend me. 

 

Also false, as I've clarified for you now repeatedly. We can discuss whether or not it's valid in this context, but not whether or not it's there in this context.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Psychopathy

Emphasis mine. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure your style and approach will surely attract others to participate, though! 

I will be done when I prove that you came in here just to start an argument based on having a lack of knowledge in psychology, just to interupt this thread.  Youve done it many times before.  Its sucks that the moderators refuse to see the obviousness of your anti-social and anti-truth plans.

Here are all the quote from the wikipedia that include the words specifier.

"In addition to this differentiation, the DSM-5 provides a specifier for a callous and unemotional interpersonal style, which reflects characteristics seen in psychopathy and are believed to be a childhood precursor to this disorder."

NOT PROOF that P is a speciifer for ASPD.  Narcissists may also have a callous unemotional style.  It has nothing to do with ASPD or P.

"Nonetheless, psychopathy has been proposed as a specifier under an alternative model for ASPD. In the DSM-5, under "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders", ASPD with psychopathic features is described as characterized by "a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors (e.g., fraudulence)." Low levels of withdrawal and high levels of attention-seeking combined with low anxiety are associated with "social potency" and "stress immunity" in psychopathy.^[19]:765 Under the specifier, affective and interpersonal characteristics are comparatively emphasized over behavioral components.^[77]"

Nothing in this quote says that P is a specifier of ASPD.  Sorry.  What you thought was proof, wasnt proof at all.  The truth is, psychopathy could be a specifier for many personality disorders, so we could just get rid of them all and call them an extension of psychopathy.  

 

Just now, Area54 said:

Well, I was asking why should I care, not why should you care. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can understand why Einstein cared to figure out gravity and relativity. I am no Einstein, so such a care on my part would be offensively arrogant. So, in regard to psychology why should I - a member of Joe Public as far as psychology goes - care about the specifics you raised in your OP?

I have a huge interest in physics.  I care about what physics comes up with.  I need no connection besides interest.

There are models and systems humans use to approach mental illness.  If they are bad, they are bad,  IF they dont make sense, they dont make sense.  IF they leave huge gaps in disorders, they leave huge gaps in disorders.  I want to make them good, make sense and not leave gaps in disorders.

I dont know why you would care.  Why would you ask, why would you care? 

6 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I have no idea what this means. Specifically, I don't no if the thanks is a genuine thanks for engaging in the thread, or a sarcastic thanks for ...something. The second sentence does not parse. Perhaps you could rephrase.

The thanks is genuine.  You could have said "Sadism is not a disorder".  And then I would have to present a bunch of proof that sadism is a disorder.  That's what a lack of knowledge can do to advanced subject matter where every person is not an expert.  I had to argue with another guy that ASPD and P arent the same thing.  Then he held onto his uninformed argument as I presented proof against it.  It totally hijacks the thread and is typically done on purpose.

[Area54]

6 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I dont know why you would care.  Why would you ask, why would you care? 

I have an interest in Earth Science. I can tell people why they should care about Earth Science. I think my grasp of Earth Science could be seen as compromised if I were unable to do so. I had hoped you might be able to offer something comparable. There are some apparent reasons implicit in your second paragraph that provide that, but an explicit expression would have been helpful.

11 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I have a huge interest in physics.  I care about what physics comes up with.  I need no connection besides interest.

I have an interest in psychology. I have almost no interest in what I perceive as an incompetent, questionably supported attempt to classify aspects of human behaviour. I gave you an opportunity to persuade me my position was flawed. Perhaps educating the masses holds no appeal for you.

[JohnSSM]

Just now, Area54 said:

I have an interest in Earth Science. I can tell people why they should care about Earth Science. I think my grasp of Earth Science could be seen as compromised if I were unable to do so. I had hoped you might be able to offer something comparable. There are some apparent reasons implicit in your second paragraph that provide that, but an explicit expression would have been helpful.

YOU can tell me why to care about earth science and I still dont have to care.  I could tell you why I care about psychology, even though I see it as an earth science, and you would not have to care.  Do you care if psychologists give accurate diagnosis and treatment plans?  You should, probably.  But you dont have to.  I care because I want to understand humans like you wanted to understand gravity, I suppose.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

I have an interest in psychology. I have almost no interest in what I perceive as an incompetent, questionably supported attempt to classify aspects of human behaviour. I gave you an opportunity to persuade me my position was flawed. Perhaps educating the masses holds no appeal for you.

From the sidelines I agree, +1 for being brave enough to point this out.

Again from the sidelines much of this seems to be arguments over definitions and semantics.

It may be that this link will help with some of these definitions.

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/psychological-therapies/differences-between-psychology-psychiatry-and-psychotherapy

 

@JohnSSM

Science is not about proof, it is about weighing the preponderance of the (technical) evidence and, if possible, coming to a conclusion.

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

YOU can tell me why to care about earth science and I still dont have to care.  I could tell you why I care about psychology, even though I see it as an earth science, and you would not have to care.  Do you care if psychologists give accurate diagnosis and treatment plans?  You should, probably.  But you dont have to.  I care because I want to understand humans like you wanted to understand gravity, I suppose.

Fair enough. I accept that I have failed, so far, to express myself in such a way that you answer what I am asking, rather than what I appear to ask. I'll just move on.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Area54

[JohnSSM]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I have an interest in psychology. I have almost no interest in what I perceive as an incompetent, questionably supported attempt to classify aspects of human behaviour. I gave you an opportunity to persuade me my position was flawed. Perhaps educating the masses holds no appeal for you.

What position was up for discussion?  Why you should care about personality disorders?  LOL..I have no idea what you are referring to!  WHat position was I supposed to pursuade?  IS this just another attempt to hijack my thread?   YOU came into my thread on psychology and demanded that I answer the question "Why should you care about psychology?"   Can you go make your own topic called "Why should I Care about psychology?" instead of forcing me to address it here?

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Again from the sidelines much of this seems to be arguments over definitions and semantics.

It may be that this link will help with some of these definitions.

I know all the definitions and semantics needed for this discussion.  One person has denied my definitions so far, and I proved them wrong in all the possible ways.  So, IM not sure why I would need to go research anything.  Where are the arguments that my theory is wrong based on what is said in the OP? 
 

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Fair enough. I accept that I have failed, so far, to express myself in such a way that you answer what I am asking, rather than what I want to ask. I'll just move on.

I still dont even know the question.  And right now, im going to every physics thread to ask why I could care about physics.  I want to be like you.  I want to have the power to ruin other people's threads with nonsense questions about caring.  You are a role model.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

What position was up for discussion?  Why you should care about personality disorders?  LOL..I have no idea what you are referring to!  WHat position was I supposed to pursuade?  IS this just another attempt to hijack my thread?   YOU came into my thread on psychology and demanded that I answer the question "Why should you care about psychology?"   Can you go make your own topic called "Why should I Care about psychology?" instead of forcing me to address it here?

FFS. This is a discussion forum. The wrangle over DSM definitions has caught my attention on several occassions on several forums over several years. If I can come to better understand why these disputes arise then I can - potentially - make a contribution to your thread. That's the background to my earlier posts. That and just hoping to learn something new.

Please also note, my query was not "Why should I care about psychology", but rather "Why should I care about the specifics you mention in your OP". It's that flaming context again, but mea culpa on the ambiguity.

So, no, I have no interest in hi-jacking your thread. I had an interest in the matters you raised in it and wanted to learn more. Since you don't like the approach I took to having that discussion on this discussion forum I'll leave you discuss amongst yourself.