Psychopathy and Narcissism

[Jazzey]

:lol: Yes, exactly.

 

[white page]

I read a story a while ago about how Jung and Freud fell out with each other, i'm not sure how true it is because I've not come across any other reference for it, but they spent the night in a hotel after a conference and decided to analyse each others dreams, it didn't go down too well.

Just a story I think.

FHA - Freud and Jung: an incomplete encounter - Article Summary

Freud and Jung: an incomplete encounter.

Full Abstract
The author discusses the bases of the close, personal and professional relationship between Freud and Jung, and conjectures that the eventual schism between them was the result of the different profound psychological needs that each had for the other. Because of his identification with the psychoanalytic enquiry, particularly as it was based in large measure on his own self analysis, Freud looked to Jung as a collaborator who would not deviate from the principles at the basis of psychoanalysis, seeking psychoanalysis' acceptance within the established scientific community. From Jung's point of view, Freud fulfilled the role of a respected father figure who, Jung hoped, would grant him the autonomy and freedom to pursue his own scientific enquiry, based on Freud's ideas, but which he would revise according to his own researches. These led Jung to certain revisions and additions, such as the nature and function of the libido, the broadening of the idea of the complex (as in the Oedipus complex) to include a number of universal, archetypal themes, and the elaboration of the concept of the self. During the years of their relationship, they shared a mutual psychological support which was deeply important to each, based on reciprocal love and respect but also on a fantasy that each would be able to supply to the other a key capacity that the other lacked. Jung was able to offer important scientific verifications of a number of psychoanalytic notions via the Word Association Test, such as the concept of repression, of the complex, including the Oedipus complex, and the proof of the existence of the unconscious. However, neither could supply to the other what each looked for in the other at the psychological level. The final breakdown and rupture in their relationship was caused by their theoretical differences and by the fact that they became bitter competitors in a race to publish treatises on the nature and origins of spirituality and religion. It has left in its wake the implicit traces of discord and misapprehension which have characterized much of subsequent professional relationships between the two traditions.

 

[Simon Attwood]

Just a story I think.

Well, just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet

 

[white page]

Well, just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet

I seem to remember reading that Buddha said ," Believe only what you know to be true," I don't know whether to believe that or not

 

[David Baxter PhD]

I have not at any point suggested that I am seeking support, advice or information. Are these criteria for being a member here? I rather was thinking that I might have something to give, having been through my own hell and having worked my way out, and was also seeking discussion of ideas.

Members here both seek and offer support, advice, and/or information... nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with a discussion of ideas. However, as I said before, be mindful of the Forum Rules and the boundary between being helpful and being disruptive or pigheaded just for the sake of "debate".

?Medical Expertise? needs to be questioned and sometimes

Yes, but this may not be the best place to do this. Again, review our Forum Rules.

I always get an argument and the doctor telling me that she thinks it is viral and antibiotics won?t do any good. In this case, I know better than the medical expert and the antibiotics clear up the infection in a few days.

...which may very well have cleared up in a few days without antiobiotics: correlation and causation are two very different animals.

If we simplify things in to a dichotomy

That's usually not helpful. That often leads to oversimplified (and incorrect) conclusions.

therapy seems to have 2 opposing approaches, as I mentioned before with my analogies;

1. Is to comfort; to wrap, to make people think (outwardly) that everything is all right. It doesn?t bring out the pain, the hurt so that we can study it and so that it can be healed. For me it seems to enclose it, snuggle it. To plaster over the problem, like a crack in the wall that suggests subsidence, rather than tackling the subsidence directly. It is something not to be touched, or sometimes not to even be discussed or acknowledged.

Yet still, a segment of the therapy world promotes this ?Duvet approach? to the treatment of psychic disturbances.

2. Is to bring out the pain and hurt and find a way to get the patient to take a new and healing perspective on them. To dig to the root and expose the infection, so to speak.

It seems that all schools divide themselves in to these opposing approaches.

1. Your description of approach #1 is oversimplified and inaccurate. It has nothing to do with "plastering over" or "something not to be touched, or sometimes not to even be discussed or acknowledged". It has to do with helping the patuient to acquire coping mechanisms and symptom management skills. Without those, approach #2 is almost certain to exacerbate the crisis or retraumatize the patient, making things worse rather than better.

2. They are not "opposing approaches". They are typically used in different circumstances and/or at different times during the course of therapy.

 

[Simon Attwood]

...which may very well have cleared up in a few days without antiobiotics:

No, I usually let it go on for at least a month just to prove that it isn't a viral infection, it doesn't get better, and I was, initially in a situation where it went on for 6 months and the doctors kept trying me with everything but antibiotics and I was diagnosed with everything from asthma to bronchitis and put on a cocktail of inhalers. 5 days of antibiotics and it cleared up.

That's usually not helpful. That often leads to oversimplified (and incorrect) conclusions.

I know, that was my point in doing it

 

[white page]

Originally Posted by Simon Attwood
If we simplify things in to a dichotomy

Originally Posted by Dr Baxter That's usually not helpful. That often leads to oversimplified (and incorrect) conclusions.

Originally Posted by Simon Attwood I know, that was my point in doing it

May I ask what the point of that is? This is similar to Trolling, is this your intention? Should we stop feeding you right now?

 

[white page]

Simon,
I apologise if I am being unfair to you, if you have issues of your own to disscuss here then we are more than ready to enter into a disscussion with you.
With all due respect to your opinions, this forum exists fundementally as a safe and secure venue for members who need caring compassionate support and advice on how to find resources relating to their particular difficulties.
There are many disscusion forum which thrive on debates and deliberate contradiction, this is not one of them.
We do not offer frivolous diagnosis or pseudo therapy. We do not trash the medical proffession.
Please feel free to ask for any support for any personal issues you may have.
Deliberate contradiction playing the devils advocate just for the fun of it, is non productive on this forum .

 

[David Baxter PhD]

May I ask what the point of that is? This is similar to Trolling, is this your intention? Should we stop feeding you right now?

That would be my question, too.

Please try to understand this, Simon:

People typically come here looking for sensible advice, information, and support because they are distressed or in crisis. It's not a game to them, or some interesting mental exercise. It's a quality of life issue.

What we require from you and all members is sensitivity to that fact and to other members. If what you seek is some sort of philosophical or semantic debate, I suggest you continue your search. That's not why this forum was launched.

 

[Simon Attwood]

May I ask what the point of that is?

I had made an earlier remark about how we have a habit of taxonomising complex subjects in an earlier post. I felt it required an example. Sometimes in discussion, just like in therapy, the direct approach isn't always the best and we have to negotiate slowly around belief defences in order to make forward movements. My point was to provide an instance to how dichotomising can lead to "incorrect conclusions".

The contention is (and it is not just my own) that the history of psychology has been hampered by the need to taxonomise types of mental illness. This began over a century ago with Emil Kraepelin (hence the term Kraepelinian that I used in an earlier post) and still has influence today on the way we categorise mental illness. It has influenced the APA in their publishing of the various revisions of the DSM series (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). But ironically, with each revision the categories and sub categories have grown. It is estimated that by the time DSM V comes out it will have 1800 diagnostic criteria (and generate an income of $80 million for the APA), (information comes from a paper written by Professor Roger Blashfield). Blashfield also predicted that the colour of the cover would be brown. The suggested reason for the ever growing number of categories and sub categories is that it is to react to and cover the increasing evidence that there is no clear and linear division in mental illnesses. New categories are created to fill the gaps between the range of psychosis and neurosis and where they overlap because the overlapping challenges the Kraepelinian idea of divisible categories. This paradigm has hampered advancements in our understanding of mental illness. Once again, my suggestion is that we categorise the division of mental illnesses, not so much to provide a guide of mental illnesses, but to provide a definition that enables us to define ?Us? and ?Them?. i.e. a division the defines the sane and the not sane. In essence, it is to establish our sanity, rather than to establish categories of madness.

The other effect of creating categories to fit people, is that people often like to fit themselves and others in to categories. Giving people a name for their symptoms gives them something to hold on to, something to identify with. This could lead to a stubbornness in letting go of their category because it becomes part of their identity. As I said in another thread; when I had a problem with an ex that became abusive, it was easy for me to label her as suffering DNP. It wasn?t until much later, after analysis and a period with a therapist, that I was able to see how cause and effect had played a part in influencing her behaviour and that my own behaviour had been a contributor towards her behaviour. Not that I had treated her badly in any way, but that without realising it, taking some things for granted and not being as aware of her feelings as I could have been had released past trauma, and the emotions and fears and feelings from that past trauma exploded in to her present and became aimed at me. Without too much warning, this woman went from a loving, passionate woman who described me as ?perfect?, in to something evil and would regularly threaten to destroy my life and murder me, accused me of trying to poison her and would go out and pick up other men to sleep with, stay out all night and then throw it in my face the next day. I walked out the house we shared the day her attacks changed from verbal and emotional in to physical.

This is similar to Trolling, is this your intention? Should we stop feeding you right now?

I've been in and around internet fora for many years and I have often come across the use of the word "Troll" (not usually aimed at me, though). It has always interested me in the way it is used and the irony in the fact that its meaning appears to have been turned on its head.

The classical troll was a creature that established themselves at a point of access (being a bridge) and waited to pounce on visitors.

An internet troll is invariably a derogatory term aimed at a visitor that poses a challenge to the established egos of a given fora.

I've been meaning to write a short piece on it

I?ve also noticed another phenomenon; Egos seem to be made up of a perversion that has evolved from our animal survival instincts, and that the psychic defence mechanisms that they exhibit can be traced back to those same physical defence instincts. This leads to an effect on fora that has a pattern similar to the packing instinct of dogs. There is an alpha male, and some of the members follow the alpha male similarly to the behaviour that dogs will follow and protect the pack leader. Whereas dogs will bark and bite, these members will support their alpha male with words. Invariably the most common weapon used in these exchanges, is the cry of troll.

I?ve been meaning to write a piece on this too ..

I?m really feeling quite hounded right now you know ...

 

[David Baxter PhD]

The contention is (and it is not just my own) that the history of psychology has been hampered by the need to taxonomise types of mental illness. This began over a century ago with Emil Kraepelin (hence the term Kraepelinian that I used in an earlier post) and still has influence today on the way we categorise mental illness. It has influenced the APA in their publishing of the various revisions of the DSM series (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). But ironically, with each revision the categories and sub categories have grown. It is estimated that by the time DSM V comes out it will have 1800 diagnostic criteria (and generate an income of $80 million for the APA), (information comes from a paper written by Professor Roger Blashfield). Blashfield also predicted that the colour of the cover would be brown. The suggested reason for the ever growing number of categories and sub categories is that it is to react to and cover the increasing evidence that there is no clear and linear division in mental illnesses. New categories are created to fill the gaps between the range of psychosis and neurosis and where they overlap because the overlapping challenges the Kraepelinian idea of divisible categories. This paradigm has hampered advancements in our understanding of mental illness. Once again, my suggestion is that we categorise the division of mental illnesses, not so much to provide a guide of mental illnesses, but to provide a definition that enables us to define ?Us? and ?Them?. i.e. a division the defines the sane and the not sane. In essence, it is to establish our sanity, rather than to establish categories of madness.

Most of what you say here betrays a lack of understanding of the process and purposes of diagnosis.

1. Taxonomy is part of every science. I'm not at all convinced that categorizing aspects of a science has ever hampered its progress.

2. "Sanity", "insanity, "madness", and similar terms are legal and/or colloquial terms. They have little or nothing to do with the practice of psychiatryor psychology. The purpose of diagnosis is to transmit information to other mental health professions when the patient is referred, and to a lesser extent to patients. Typically, a diagnosis starts as a provisional or working diagnosis and is modified over time as more information about the patient's history and symptoms becomes available. The art or science of differential diagnosis further refines this process.

3. The mutiaxial system introduced in DSM-III allows for multiple diagnoses on Axis I and II as well as "mixed" or "atypical" diagnoses (NOS diagnoses). This was an advance since it made it clear that patients may have coexisting (comorbid) condiitons and/or show symptoms that overlap two or more diagnoses.

4. The suggestion that new categories are added as a money-making tool for APA is rubbish. They are added as our understanding of diagnosis and differential diagnosis is advanced by new research. As we learn more about certain disorders, there is sometimes a need to create subcategories (see ADHD as an example). It is a process of refinement. And it doesn't always involve adding new diagnoses; it has also involved the collapsing of two or more diagnoses into one (again see the example of ADHD).

I've been in and around internet fora for many years and I have often come across the use of the word "Troll" (not usually aimed at me, though). It has always interested me in the way it is used and the irony in the fact that its meaning appears to have been turned on its head.

The classical troll was a creature that established themselves at a point of access (being a bridge) and waited to pounce on visitors.

An internet troll is invariably a derogatory term aimed at a visitor that poses a challenge to the established egos of a given fora.

I've been meaning to write a short piece on it

When you do, I hope your research is a bit more thorough than it has been into the issue of diagnosis. The origin of the term "troll" on the net comes from the fishing term "trolling" and has nothing to do with the children's fable.

 

[Simon Attwood]

When you do, I hope your research is a bit more thorough than it has been into the issue of diagnosis. The origin of the term "troll" on the net comes from the fishing term "trolling" and has nothing to do with the children's fable.

Thanks for pointing that out.

it spurred me to look up the etymology, although it wasn't conclusive