DPD Is actually the natural state of many/most people - (Dependent Personality Disorder)

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
even for deep thoughts this is some low effort shit
How is it though? Can you really determine whether your opinions are your own, or something that some other person came up with?
Going down the line
Has difficulty making everyday decisions
Do you decide things based on what you want to do, or do you decide things based on what you think is most appropriate for your current situation?
Needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas
Most of modern society don't you think? Anything good/bad that happens has nothing to do with your own decision making. (e.g. some "incels" never getting laid, and blame society despite electing to stay home all day themselves)
Has difficulty expressing disagreement with others
Let's just face it, if I were to come to you right now, and start preaching about the glory of Adolf Hitler in public, you'd just nod and try to escape the situation right?
Has difficulty initiating projects
How many ideas have you had that you've been like *well someone should do __," but have never taken the steps to implement yourself?
Goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others
Would be an eternal lurker were this not true right?
Feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone
Imo this one shouldn't really be in the description, but whatever. That's what the source says, though I think that's just clearly a human thing.
Urgently seeks another relationship
Pretty much ties into the section prior to this.
Is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself
"Unrealistically" is a very broad term, but most people absolutely panic, or are afraid of losing their job, or some other institution which offers stability in their lives.




Addition:
Not even trying to argue that all people have some mental disorder, just pointing out that a lot of stuff which is thought to be settled is clearly open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
This is what's wrong with the DSM 5. The descriptors are so vague and broad that anyone could get diagnosed with something. It's that natural creeping of authority that happens outside the hard sciences (and even there you can find weirdos who think geologists should run society).
That's my issue here really. Far too much shit is open to interpretation. For instance schizotypal personality disorder literally just has "odd beliefs" as one of the criteria. Obviously, this could easily be defined by the observer as almost anything.
 

nagant 1895

kiwifarms.net
That's my issue here really. Far too much shit is open to interpretation. For instance schizotypal personality disorder literally just has "odd beliefs" as one of the criteria. Obviously, this could easily be defined by the observer as almost anything.
Well a lot of it can look very open to interpretation but somewhere in the studies used to come up with that criteria is an extreme precise definition of "odd beliefs", Ad to that the fact that a diagnosis requires multiple symptoms to present within a certain period of time and you can douse a little bit of the paranoia.
The specific problem with the DSM 5 is it took everything and put it on a spectrum. So rather than having:
1 OCD where it ruins your life
2 OCP (p for personality) where it just makes you weird and you don't like it
3 Normal
We now have a system where people who refresh a webpage frequently or clean under their fingernails 3 times a day are getting the same diagnosis as the guy who washed his hands so often the skin wore off. It's basically a tumblrites wet fantasy come true. because it's not so much that you can get diagnosed with something you don't have (patient imput it still primary), as is that people can now malinger their way to pretty much any diagnosis they want because the effort to be classed as the most mildly affected PTSD victim is zilch. But they can still march out of their consultation and apply for SSI, special work and education arrangements and most importantly say "YOU ARE ABUSING DISABLED PEOPLE BY TRIGGERING US."
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
Well a lot of it can look very open to interpretation but somewhere in the studies used to come up with that criteria is an extreme precise definition of "odd beliefs", Ad to that the fact that a diagnosis requires multiple symptoms to present within a certain period of time and you can douse a little bit of the paranoia.
The specific problem with the DSM 5 is it took everything and put it on a spectrum. So rather than having:
1 OCD where it ruins your life
2 OCP (p for personality) where it just makes you weird and you don't like it
3 Normal
We now have a system where people who refresh a webpage frequently or clean under their fingernails 3 times a day are getting the same diagnosis as the guy who washed his hands so often the skin wore off. It's basically a tumblrites wet fantasy come true. because it's not so much that you can get diagnosed with something you don't have (patient imput it still primary), as is that people can now malinger their way to pretty much any diagnosis they want because the effort to be classed as the most mildly affected PTSD victim is zilch. But they can still march out of their consultation and apply for SSI, special work and education arrangements and most importantly say "YOU ARE ABUSING DISABLED PEOPLE BY TRIGGERING US."
I can agree with this for the most part, but I think far more so than malingering, the biggest threat is just purely subjective diagnosing with the intent of neutralizing opposition. The mental health crisis keeps getting worse, and worse in the US, so presumably, the reactions to this problem, will become increasingly more drastic. To me, it feels like we could end up at some state to where anyone could be defined as mentally ill at some point, and possibly have their rights taken away.

Edit;
GD (gender dysphoria) is largely considered normal today, which would imply that any of those whom view it as abnormal could be defined as having "odd beliefs." Just a singular example, but were this kind of "culture dictates the science" trend to continue, you could very well see a situation to were the inmates, are quite literally running the asylum.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: nagant 1895

nagant 1895

kiwifarms.net
I can agree with this for the most part, but I think far more so than malingering, the biggest threat is just purely subjective diagnosing with the intent of neutralizing opposition. The mental health crisis keeps getting worse, and worse in the US, so presumably, the reactions to this problem, will become increasingly more drastic. To me, it feels like we could end up at some state to where anyone could be defined as mentally ill at some point, and possibly have their rights taken away.
As easy as it is to malinger your way to fun and profit its almost that easy to fake your way out of it. Even if you say/do something that raised a flag they go rid of the institutions (rip) so they cant lock you up anymore just for being crazy.
Anyway, the things you fear losing you ought to secure while you can. Then just accept that nothing is certain and you'll never be able to go full Mutually Assured Destruction with the system but it's not to hard to have your own form of minimum credible deterrence.
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
As easy as it is to malinger your way to fun and profit its almost that easy to fake your way out of it. Even if you say/do something that raised a flag they go rid of the institutions (rip) so they cant lock you up anymore just for being crazy.
Anyway, the things you fear losing you ought to secure while you can. Then just accept that nothing is certain and you'll never be able to go full Mutually Assured Destruction with the system but it's not to hard to have your own form of minimum credible deterrence.
For the most part I can agree, but while they got rid of the institutions, one could argue that they could still utilize current systems as a means of behavioral control. I mean, just look at the sex offender registry. While granted that system is primarily meant to protect innocents, this doesn't mean that a system similar to it could be corrupted to meet a political end.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: nagant 1895

Mewtwo_Rain

Drown in the cesspool of darkness
kiwifarms.net
That's my issue here really. Far too much shit is open to interpretation. For instance schizotypal personality disorder literally just has "odd beliefs" as one of the criteria. Obviously, this could easily be defined by the observer as almost anything.
I have to fully agree.

Back when I was younger, doctors would diagnose you clearly specifying with whatever disorders you have or more than likely (great chance) of having.

Now days I see the medical profession on average tells kids "They likely" have a diagnosis, but they often misdiagnose these days that I question the rubric for which they are making these analysis of their patients.

I see and talk to people who are supposively diagnosed with the same disorders I suffer (or benefit from in my case) from all the time, and honestly, I see no indication they aren't just being diagnosed mistakenly with a few exceptions of people I've come across.

If it's not for an intentional purpose (if and only if) I think the medical field/diagnosing rubric should be revised to be a little more specific to stop this over diagnosis. For example often cited as an example is those who have ADHD, it's basically diagnosed to everyone and their dog, to the point it has become a joke. Make jokes, act hyper for ten minutes? You can now be diagnosed with ADHD as well!
 

nagant 1895

kiwifarms.net
For the most part I can agree, but while they got rid of the institutions, one could argue that they could still utilize current systems as a means of behavioral control. I mean, just look at the sex offender registry. While granted that system is primarily meant to protect innocents, this doesn't mean that a system similar to it could be corrupted to meet a political end.
I'm banking on the SSI checks and overall economic drain that the sick and wannabe sick create crashing the system before it comes for me. Hope is irrational though... I guess we'll see.

I initially misread this as "PDP is actually the natural state of many/most people" and thought "What does PewDiePie have to do with natural state of people?"
I read it as DSP and was thinking "oh jeeze it's a suicide bait thread, better check it out."
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
I initially misread this as "PDP is actually the natural state of many/most people" and thought "What does PewDiePie have to do with natural state of people?"
Ignoring the fact that every good person deep down, is really a Pewdiepie subscriber, I mainly made this thread just to point out how easy it is to game some of the DSM's criteria to meet whatever diagnosis you want. @Mewtwo_Rain points out how ADHD is so horribly diagnosed in his post.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Wendy_Carter
F

FA 855

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Honestly if you think about ASPD, more people would have had it in when we were running around with spears and their was no laws, I dare say most people back then would be diagnosed with ASPD if they were in a psychologists room, surely that suggests psychology is a front for pretending humans are made for a 'civil society'.
Also, I want to say that I do not believe a psychologist can accurately diagnose you after spending one hour with you, that's not enough time to truly know a person's quirks/mental issues and accurately put them into a box for the rest of their lives. Psychoanalysis is severely underrated.
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
Honestly if you think about ASPD, more people would have had it in when we were running around with spears and their was no laws, I dare say most people back then would be diagnosed with ASPD if they were in a psychologists room, surely that suggests psychology is a front for pretending humans are made for a 'civil society'.
This is a valid point to. In addition to the observer being able to massively skew a diagnosis, any diagnosis would have to consider the context of the current environment.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Uncanny Valley

Lemmingwise

Blamer
kiwifarms.net
This is what's wrong with the DSM 5. The descriptors are so vague and broad that anyone could get diagnosed with something. It's that natural creeping of authority that happens outside the hard sciences (and even there you can find weirdos who think geologists should run society).
Wasn't a bunch of DSM 3 shown to be seriously fundamentally flawed enough to threaten the whole field?

If you don't make guidelines precise, it's hard to be proven wrong.
 

eternal dog mongler

kiwifarms.net
If it's not for an intentional purpose (if and only if) I think the medical field/diagnosing rubric should be revised to be a little more specific to stop this over diagnosis. For example often cited as an example is those who have ADHD, it's basically diagnosed to everyone and their dog, to the point it has become a joke. Make jokes, act hyper for ten minutes? You can now be diagnosed with ADHD as well!
I don't really have a problem with the DSM-V but therapists leading their patients to a diagnosis is a thing.

And also the fact that I read charts before seeing a pt and like the majority of women over 50 are on SSRIs rxed by her PCP . Nope.
 

Chexxchunk

Take it off the rack, if it's wack put it back
kiwifarms.net
I have to fully agree.

Back when I was younger, doctors would diagnose you clearly specifying with whatever disorders you have or more than likely (great chance) of having.

Now days I see the medical profession on average tells kids "They likely" have a diagnosis, but they often misdiagnose these days that I question the rubric for which they are making these analysis of their patients.

I see and talk to people who are supposively diagnosed with the same disorders I suffer (or benefit from in my case) from all the time, and honestly, I see no indication they aren't just being diagnosed mistakenly with a few exceptions of people I've come across.

If it's not for an intentional purpose (if and only if) I think the medical field/diagnosing rubric should be revised to be a little more specific to stop this over diagnosis. For example often cited as an example is those who have ADHD, it's basically diagnosed to everyone and their dog, to the point it has become a joke. Make jokes, act hyper for ten minutes? You can now be diagnosed with ADHD as well!
Everyone does have ADHD though, to the extent that the drugs for it are just straight up performance enhancers, until they aren't.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino