4 ms·

Any psychologist will tell you that most people can't objectively evaluate such criteria for themselves. This is something that is best left to professionals wh

Any psychologist will tell you that most people can't objectively evaluate such criteria for themselves. This is something that is best left to professionals who have experience with people that DEFINITELY have such disorders. I'm also in the non-believer camp, nor can I fathom why "Satoshi" would initially choose to remain anonymous but then decide to come out. What purpose does that serve? Whatever the case, all of this drama is really, really bad news for bitcoin as a currency in the future.

arcticfox 11y ago
Why bad news? Is basically irrelevant, now that he has turned out to not be Satoshi. The only way it would be relevant is if one of those early coins does indeed move, because that would drastically affect the number of coins on the market.
- bduerst 11y ago
  While some will disagree, appearances are important. Wright was [probably] trying to claim to be Satoshi to use Satoshi's bitcoins as collateral for something else. Bitcoin already has a reputation for being used in scams and illegal dealings. This con man being able to convince some major news organizations and bitcoin celebrities doesn't help improve that image.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    That demonstrates a flaw of non-technological news organisations, not Bitcoin. The two Bitcoin celebrities had been widely discredited from Bitcoin ages ago. Gavin has not committed in a year, started his own fork of Bitcoin with 3% adoption. Jon has disappeared after starting a bankrupt for-profit "foundation".
    - DonHopkins 11y ago
      I haven't been following the parade of Bitcoin celebrities very closely, but what ever happened with the Digital Entertainment Network Executive VP [1] guy, Brock Pierce? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Oh I'm sure those are relevant, but in terms of appearances, a con man exploited those and duped many people across the globe using bitcoins.
andrewvc 11y ago
Not to derail too much but this is the reason people are so overdiagnosed these days. All the criteria are vague, even psychiatrists overdiagnose all the time. Even the guy who chaired the DSM-IV thinks so: http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265 http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalizati... Modern psychiatry is 50% science 50% tarot cards if you ask me.
- bduerst 11y ago
  It's pattern recognition, like the other diagnostic fields, but more qualitative due to the human behavior inputs. This leads to larger margins of error, and equating it with tarot reading isn't an apt analogy.
Aelinsaar 11y ago
It's also a matter of needing access to someone's patient history, legal history, family history, etc. A snapshot of someone at one point in time (unless they're torturing someone to death for kicks, or something else really obvious) rarely gives the information needed for an axis II diagnosis.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nibs 11y ago
This is very true. I have an armchair level interest in psychiatry and psychology. I spoke to someone who deals with real criminals all day. They said that in their 30 year career counselling criminals and assessing them, they only met one true sociopath. The kid came from a family with $100M+ and was about 20. They said that this person could convince you of anything to the extent that everyone who had exposure to them had to do so in small chunks so as to not empathize. This person could cut to the heart of someone's identity very quickly and learn how to manipulate and engineer your response. Apparently it is one of those things where you are like "Maybe I am on this spectrum..." but if you were, you would either know for sure, or be pathologically immune to the critism. And if you met someone who truly was on it, they would be capable of things beyond most normal people's imaginations.

arcticfox 11y ago

Why bad news? Is basically irrelevant, now that he has turned out to not be Satoshi. The only way it would be relevant is if one of those early coins does indeed move, because that would drastically affect the number of coins on the market.

bduerst 11y ago
While some will disagree, appearances are important. Wright was [probably] trying to claim to be Satoshi to use Satoshi's bitcoins as collateral for something else. Bitcoin already has a reputation for being used in scams and illegal dealings. This con man being able to convince some major news organizations and bitcoin celebrities doesn't help improve that image.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  That demonstrates a flaw of non-technological news organisations, not Bitcoin. The two Bitcoin celebrities had been widely discredited from Bitcoin ages ago. Gavin has not committed in a year, started his own fork of Bitcoin with 3% adoption. Jon has disappeared after starting a bankrupt for-profit "foundation".
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    I haven't been following the parade of Bitcoin celebrities very closely, but what ever happened with the Digital Entertainment Network Executive VP [1] guy, Brock Pierce? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Oh I'm sure those are relevant, but in terms of appearances, a con man exploited those and duped many people across the globe using bitcoins.

andrewvc 11y ago

Not to derail too much but this is the reason people are so overdiagnosed these days. All the criteria are vague, even psychiatrists overdiagnose all the time. Even the guy who chaired the DSM-IV thinks so: http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265 http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalizati... Modern psychiatry is 50% science 50% tarot cards if you ask me.

bduerst 11y ago
It's pattern recognition, like the other diagnostic fields, but more qualitative due to the human behavior inputs. This leads to larger margins of error, and equating it with tarot reading isn't an apt analogy.

Aelinsaar 11y ago

It's also a matter of needing access to someone's patient history, legal history, family history, etc. A snapshot of someone at one point in time (unless they're torturing someone to death for kicks, or something else really obvious) rarely gives the information needed for an axis II diagnosis.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nibs 11y ago

This is very true. I have an armchair level interest in psychiatry and psychology. I spoke to someone who deals with real criminals all day. They said that in their 30 year career counselling criminals and assessing them, they only met one true sociopath. The kid came from a family with $100M+ and was about 20. They said that this person could convince you of anything to the extent that everyone who had exposure to them had to do so in small chunks so as to not empathize. This person could cut to the heart of someone's identity very quickly and learn how to manipulate and engineer your response. Apparently it is one of those things where you are like "Maybe I am on this spectrum..." but if you were, you would either know for sure, or be pathologically immune to the critism. And if you met someone who truly was on it, they would be capable of things beyond most normal people's imaginations.