10 ms·

Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence?

the_duke 9y ago
The linked page is indeed ridiculous. Don't bother. But: Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM-5 301.81 Also mentioned but not properly defined in ICD (F60.8)
- vitaminbandit 9y ago
  I'm referring to OP's diagnosis of "Malignant Narcissism", not NPD.
lutusp 9y ago
> Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence? I knew Steve Jobs personally. He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ]. Also, what pivotal role can scientific evidence play in an unscientific field like psychology? > ... with a condition that isn't found in the DSM ... Conditions arrive at, and depart from, the DSM regularly. Why would I pay particular attention to whether a condition is listed in the DSM? If psychology were a science, two things would differ from present practice: 1. Conditions would be included in/excluded from the DSM based on evidence rather than votes. 2. A condition's inclusion in the DSM would be less obviously based on popularity and more on evidence. Recent cases in point: homosexuality, Asperger Syndrome, recovered memory therapy. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ] From that page on Wikipedia: "as a hypothetical syndrome, it would have..." And a history full of anonymous edits, and people banned for abusing single purpose accounts. You and your friends are not psychiatrists, however much you play one on the Internet, citing pages on Wikipedia that refer to this that do not exist by their own admission, and which I would be wholly unsurprised to learn if it's was shown that you had a notable role in its creation and/or content.
  - lutusp 9y ago
    > You and your friends are not psychiatrists ... Neither are psychiatrists, as the term is commonly understood: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Surely you weren't planning to invoke the nonexistent authority of a field that even its primary spokesman disavows? If I say "literally" when I actually mean "figuratively," some may object, but they won't try to invoke a nonexistent authority, since language is not science, and in any case "literally" and "figuratively" are now accepted as synonyms. But if I try to express an opinion using a term like "malignant narcissist," which has the same scientific standing as "literally," someone is likely to object. Why? Because people take psychology seriously. How could people presume to use "narcissism" and its variants from the time of classical Greece to the present, and before the term was co-opted by psychology? One more question -- in a scientific sense, what has psychology contributed to our understanding of the term?

the_duke 9y ago

The linked page is indeed ridiculous. Don't bother. But: Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM-5 301.81 Also mentioned but not properly defined in ICD (F60.8)

vitaminbandit 9y ago
I'm referring to OP's diagnosis of "Malignant Narcissism", not NPD.

lutusp 9y ago

> Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence? I knew Steve Jobs personally. He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ]. Also, what pivotal role can scientific evidence play in an unscientific field like psychology? > ... with a condition that isn't found in the DSM ... Conditions arrive at, and depart from, the DSM regularly. Why would I pay particular attention to whether a condition is listed in the DSM? If psychology were a science, two things would differ from present practice: 1. Conditions would be included in/excluded from the DSM based on evidence rather than votes. 2. A condition's inclusion in the DSM would be less obviously based on popularity and more on evidence. Recent cases in point: homosexuality, Asperger Syndrome, recovered memory therapy. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
FireBeyond 9y ago
> He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ] From that page on Wikipedia: "as a hypothetical syndrome, it would have..." And a history full of anonymous edits, and people banned for abusing single purpose accounts. You and your friends are not psychiatrists, however much you play one on the Internet, citing pages on Wikipedia that refer to this that do not exist by their own admission, and which I would be wholly unsurprised to learn if it's was shown that you had a notable role in its creation and/or content.
- lutusp 9y ago
  > You and your friends are not psychiatrists ... Neither are psychiatrists, as the term is commonly understood: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom." Surely you weren't planning to invoke the nonexistent authority of a field that even its primary spokesman disavows? If I say "literally" when I actually mean "figuratively," some may object, but they won't try to invoke a nonexistent authority, since language is not science, and in any case "literally" and "figuratively" are now accepted as synonyms. But if I try to express an opinion using a term like "malignant narcissist," which has the same scientific standing as "literally," someone is likely to object. Why? Because people take psychology seriously. How could people presume to use "narcissism" and its variants from the time of classical Greece to the present, and before the term was co-opted by psychology? One more question -- in a scientific sense, what has psychology contributed to our understanding of the term?