BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Identiopathic Personality Disorder

 
 
Rage
08:38 / 25.06.02
"Enclosed please find a supplemental addition to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)....."

"301.75 Identiopathic Personality Disorder

Diagnostic Features

The essential feature of Identiopathic Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of acute, inflexible mimetic attachment to an exaggerated and overly demonstrative identification of oneself with perceived subversive ideology. This pattern typically begins in early adulthood (though increasing reports of onset as early as age 10 are becoming significant) and persists well into the 30s and beyond, and is present in a variety of contexts.

This pattern has also been referred to as Identiopathy, Subsociopathy, and Inverted Self-Aggrandizing Psychosis.

Individuals with Identiopathic Personality Disorder can only perceive, relate to, or think about their environment or themselves through the filter of a perceived collective truth, specifically one which is—or appears to be—at odds with, or subversive of, received dominant cultural truths (Criterion 1). In a parody of Paranoid Personality Disorder, with which it is often mistaken, their attraction to oversimplified formulations of the world tend to make them wary and dismissive of ambiguous situations. This tendency resembles Paranoid Personality Disorder, as these individuals often behave as fanatics and form tightly knit groups with others who share "their" belief system. Unlike individuals with Paranoid Personality disorder, their understanding about the nature of the world is not in the least abstract or fantastical, but is extremely concrete and literal (Criterion 2).

Individuals with this disorder experience severe subjective distress regarding an overly rigid certainty on issues relating to identity, including long-term goals, lifestyle, friendship patterns, moral values, and group loyalty. They have a pattern of immediate demonstrative and intense relationships based predominantly on the notion of shared vision and struggle (e.g., social, political, personal). These relationships, though believed to be enduring, tend to be unstable over time. Beneath the sense of camaraderie lies a thinly veiled hierarchy based on a competitive mastering of the group identity (e.g., A exuberantly tells B, "I too once thought that until C called me on it..."). They demand consistency from themselves, others, and their environment, and are unable to accept or reconcile conflicting beliefs and desires. These relationships also tend to have an undercurrent of distrust which grows out of a fear that the individuals involved will prove inadequate to the demands of the group identity. As a result, these individuals often experience low-grade feelings of trepidation and one-up-myn-ship (Criterion 3).

Individuals with Identiopathic Personality Disorder cling to their identities in order to authenticate their existence in a manner that can be readily observed and taken note of by others. In doing so, the individual solemnifies his sense of self (Criterion 4). Identiopathic Personality disorder is often initially misdiagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder, since in both we see a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and a chronic feeling of emptiness. However, whereas individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder suffer from a markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self, in the Identiopathic Personality Disorder the sense of self is, although deeply flawed, unfortunately quite stable. Individuals with this disorder may perceive themselves as possessing superior intellectual powers and a vast capacity for empathy, causing them to have an unreasonable expectation of deference or automatic compliance with their values and beliefs (Criterion 5); they often appear haughty and arrogant, and believe they can only be understood by, or should only associate with, other "special people" (e.g., individuals believed to be like-minded, more knowledgeable and unique, or relevant to "the cause"). These individuals may interpret a lack of deference or directed difference of opinion to be a personal attack, and may quickly assume a combative and defensive stance. This is because their sense of self is inextricable from a rigid belief system. Because this enduring personality trait, which is exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts, deviates markedly from the expectations of dominant culture, individuals with this disorder tend to suffer distress and/or impairment in social and occupational settings."

more here
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:38 / 25.06.02
Moderator hat; Ragel, could you PM one of the moderators with a topic abstract for this thread, so they can load it in, and/or edit your post to include a little more content on the Head Shop relevance of this link as you understand it.
 
 
Ganesh
10:01 / 25.06.02
I think I'd have named it 'Apocaloid Personality Disorder'...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:30 / 25.06.02
I appear not to have explained myself very well. The Conversation is an excellent place to have amusing or interesting quotations and web sites. The Head Shop is a place where things are thought about, discussed, examined, criticised and all that gay stuff.

Just cutting and pasting is not participatory. What do *you* think about this? What would you like *us* to think about it? Are you interested in whether this pathology is recognisable to us? Whether it explains certain forms of our behaviour? Is there a question over the credibility of analysis when a psych major with a free lunch hour can cobble together a superficially convincing personality disorder, or is that falling into the same trap as the scientist who wrote a bad article about science for a theory study, then claimed that he had demonstrated the stupidity of theory? Does this "personality disorder" show a disturbing trend towards making illnesses of attitudes? Are any of these questions relevant ro interesting?
 
 
Rage
19:07 / 25.06.02
I was trying to start a "head shop esque" discussion on this, and I figured that posting this link would spring one. I figured the link would speak for itself. I was curious as to what you guys thought about it and what your reactions would be. I have nothing to contribute to this discussion that wouldn't be better said by someone else. Yet. Maybe as this post moves along that will change.

Ok, fine. I'll contribute, though I know that whatever I say is just gonna get deconstructed maximus. In a world of "he who laughs last laughs loudest," my time is limited to the point where explaining myself and what I meant by a specific comment is not currently possible. (and you've got a lot of explaining to do if you post here) I was trying to avoid this by taking the "sit back and watch" token. I fancied the show would be an interesting on.

My contribution: It's falling into the same trap.

Personality disorders are bullshit. They're the most ridiculous thing around. Personality disorders pigeonhole similar behavior patters (that aren't socially acceptable) displayed by varios individuals into diagnostic dil. I found this new "disorder" especially intersting, especially familiar, and especially hilarious. I figured some of you would have similar reactions.

I expect that I will now be asked what exactly I mean by "ridiculous" and what exactly I mean by "socially acceptable" and what exactly is "especially hilarious" about all this. (ooh! you're sure calling me on my shit!)

I didn't want that. I wanted to watch you guys go at it yourselves.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:33 / 25.06.02
I wanted to watch you guys go at it yourselves.

The trouble with that approach, my chemically-enhanced collegue, is that by-and-large people won't bother; folk want the wool cast on before they can get knitting, debatewise. Anyhow the article is very interesting, v.g., v.g., thankyou for bringing it to my attention etc.

What struck me most was that a number of traits which to my mind seem, if not entirely healthy in themselves, at least to be part of the normal spectrum of human cognitive behavior are being presented as a syndrome. I realise that the writers were probably thinking about the most extreme manifestations of said traits, but to my uneducated mind this smacks somewhat of the pathologizing of the human condition.

(On the other hand... apocaloid syndrome. Yes, I see the point...)
 
 
Ganesh
21:34 / 25.06.02
Welllll... yes, personality disorders are, at best, controversial. And yes, the 'disorder' part arises, generally speaking, from the degree of exaggeration or skew towards one particular trait at the apparent expense of all others.

It's worth categorising some extremes of personality, however, because they can be risk factors for more 'defined' disorders (schizophrenia, for example, is statistically more likely to develop in someone whose 'premorbid personality' could be described as schizoid). And some are worth recording because the behaviours involved frequently bring the individual in contact with medical/psychiatric services (repeated self-harming in borderline personality disorder), may be confused with other disorders which present similarly (schizotypal personalities can present as identical to schizophrenia) and have certain treatment implications. Finally, certain personality types present certain risks to all involved (antisocial personality disorder tends toward violence).

There is a point to identifying clusters of personality traits. As with much of psychiatry (and medicine in general), the Big Questions are whether or not the usefulness of categorising 'types' outweighs the potential stigma inherent in pathologising what is essentially extreme behaviour - and where we draw the 'normal' line.
 
 
gravitybitch
05:28 / 26.06.02
I understand what they're getting at (kinda), can point at a couple of folks I know: "Do you mean like that?" but I hate how this appears to be another way of pathologizing/marginalizing subcultures and dissenting viewpoints.

I have a real problem with the automatic assumption of binary opposition. It's absolute bullshit to claim that if you don't fit in with/aren't happy with the current ruling culture, that there's something wrong with you. Binary opposition doesn't work for gender/gender roles, doesn't work for sexual preferences, and must not work for the dominant culture structure. There has to be room for dissent without those voices being declared abnormal.
 
 
Ganesh
05:40 / 26.06.02
Again, the reasoning behind the classification isn't simply to pathologise for the sake of it (like, we need more psychiatric disorders, particularly untreatable ones...) but for various of the reasons I've given above. Trouble is, diagnostic labels don't exist in a vacuum and, once created, are as open as anything else to misuse/abuse by agencies and individuals with their own agendas...
 
 
gravitybitch
15:05 / 26.06.02
I do understand that definitions and classifications are necessary and useful. I'm just really suspicious of this one.

In my admittedly very quick read, it looked like the main point was to differentiate this "disorder" from the very similar "paranoid" disorder, without discussing what differences in treatment/analysis might be helpful, what differences/consequences for mainstream society there might be, or why these differences might be important to the person being so labeled.

In this post-September 11 atmosphere of black&white and "if you're not with us you must be against us!" I'm deeply suspicious of further marginalization of dissent and "subversive subcultures." I don't trust that agenda of misuse/abuse, especially where the FBI is checking out bookstores and asking diving instruction schools for names and addresses of students in the last two years.
 
 
Ganesh
17:01 / 26.06.02
Take your point, for sure, but as far as I can tell it's a proposed supplement to the DSMIV - which doesn't really do "differences/consequences to mainstream society", etc. I'm also uncertain to what degree the inclusion of such a diagnosis in the DSM - assuming it is eventually formally accepted - is likely to 'marginalise': if anything, I'd expect it to make conspiracy theorists look less dangerous - and also less likely to be seen as having a treatable 'illness' (personality disorders, on the whole, being seen as generally resistant to medication and the like). Okay, conspiracy theorists are likely to be dismissed as 'nuts', harmless or otherwise, but doesn't that happen anyway?
 
 
Ganesh
23:56 / 26.06.02
(Just started a sort of side-thread in the Head Shop, 'Beyond Anti-Psychiatry', which addresses some of these issues...)
 
  
Add Your Reply