12 ms·

"Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

80 points by enmaku 14y ago

benihana 14y ago
>While it's great to understand the psychology behind the characters, this knowledge doesn't really make the movie or knowledge that much better. Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues. I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  Indeed, it does improve the story by not just leaving you with a niggling sense that something is wrong with each character, but instead opens the realization that each is, in fact, a textbook-perfect example of that wrongness - dissected, analyzed, quantified and classified as such. It's a great improvement for those of us hyperanalytical geeks now inclined to re-watch the 4-hour director's cut with the DSM IV list in hand and finding every instance where each defining point is exemplified. (And then go meta by wondering where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized.)
  - derleth 14y ago
    > where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized I think we're often put under Asperger Syndrome (AS) (also called Asperger Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, ass-burgers, and My God He's A Weirdo), which falls under either Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD). AS is often considered to overlap with High-Functioning Autism (ASD without mental retardation) and, in fact, a change being considered for DSM-V would eliminate AS entirely and lump us in under ASD, which would be rated on a severity scale. That said, the diagnostic criteria for all of those diagnoses are a bit more involved than 'is a hyperanalytical geek'.
- enmaku 14y ago
  Point taken. That last bit was just my personal opinion - I'd rather enjoy the suspension of disbelief than analyze every action in-depth, but that's just me. If this article gave you greater enjoyment of the movie then that makes me a very happy camper.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  To me, the whole point of the movie is: "The end doesn't justify the means and when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for fascism". Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the stereotypes they stand for. Nothing new under the sun, literary-wise.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > The end doesn't justify the means If the ends don't justify the means, what does? The problem is actually on the other side. The means produce the end. Not intentions, not the morals of the persons involved, but the means. Fascism, for example, is the result of fascist acts, no matter who does them or their reasons for doing so. That fact seems to be lost on "good people".
    - DigitalJack 14y ago
      There is a food shortage in Africa. One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population. The end (solved food shortage) does not justify the means (mass murder). The means must be able to stand on their own.
      - reinhardt 14y ago
        That's a poor metaphor. The end is to keep the population alive. Solving food shortage is (one) means. Failing to mass murder them is another.
      - anamax 14y ago
        > There is a food shortage in Africa. No, there's a distribution problem, but I'll play along. > One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population. Nope. Killing 80% of the African population will not solve the food shortage. (It also won't solve the distribution problem.) Why? Because Africa's food production is roughly proportional to its population and not limited by anything that will be helped by killing lots of people. The "end" of killing 80% of the African population is that 80% of the population has been killed. Some "good person" might have thought that some good (less starvation) would result from killing them, but the end was a lot of dead people who got killed by said good person. Thanks for providing an example of where "he meant well" had a horrendous result, as it typically does.
- pjin 14y ago
  A more extreme example along the same lines as Watchmen is the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion. NGE totally rips apart mecha anime and gives its characters psychological issues to tragic effect, mirroring the creator Hideaki Anno's own struggle with depression.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    While I like NGE very much, the all psychology aspect of it is mostly just nonsense, though. I have never seen anyone being able to explain it from beginning to end without contradicting themselves. That's part of the magic why people find it superb : they don't get it because there's nothing much to get :)
- baddox 14y ago
  Superman is almost entirely about the character's psychology. The whole idea, at least of modern-ish incarnations, is that Superman is unmatched physically (granted, apart from the Kryptonite thing) but is often emotionally devastated (from not being able to save anybody, or for being unable to reason with bad guys, or from keeping secrets from his loved ones, or pondering what it means to be humans, etc.).
  - scott_s 14y ago
    Yes, thank you. His modern interpretation is, I think, fascinating. While I think Kingdom Come is the best treatment of this theme, I actually think Frank Miller got it perfectly in Dark Knight Returns: "Twenty million die by fire... if I am weak..."
- painlord2k 14y ago
  >When they battle, Oz tell them about the plan during the fight and only as a ruse to take time. In the comics it is a bit different. As from someone the other side of the political spectrum, I think "incredibly liberal people" would take the law in their hands pretty easily if they had superpower. They (at least many of them) have a pretty self-righteous attitude and would make good villains. The difference is, the conservatives could patrol the street but would give the criminals to the police/justice system. They would not start redistributing stuff taken from others. Anyway, superheroes are an US phenomenon and they are the epitome of individualism. They always start alone and act alone. They are individuals first, groups second. So they will prefer a society with extensive individual freedoms and negative rights.
kelvin0 14y ago
Wow! I really enjoyed the movie, but this analysis by the author and the seemingly cohesive picture he paints of each of the 'heroes' is quite astounding ...
- MartinCron 14y ago
  You know that asshole guy who always chimes in uninvited and says that the book is better... I don't want to be that guy. But I will say that it's absolutely worth reading if you enjoyed the movie at all, though I think the movie has a stronger ending than the original.
  - enmaku 14y ago
    I actually liked the original squid ending better, but that's another one of those personal opinions that some asshole guy always has to chime in with. There were definitely some good differences that made each a unique and worthwhile experience, but I would say that the differences more or less left the mental disorders untouched.
stephengillie 14y ago
This is more an exercise in how conditions as described in the DSM IV can be applied to almost anyone as easily as a horoscope or fortune cookie. A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry knows how to bill psychological conditions.
- enmaku 14y ago
  Funny that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" isn't considered a "Diagnostic Manual" given that a) those words are in the title and b) it's commonly and constantly used by professionals as a manual for diagnosis. It doesn't really matter what your one prof said, it matters how the profession as a whole uses it. I also cited the ICD-10 in the article for several of the disorders, and there absolutely is not any arguing that the ICD-10 is a valid diagnostic tool. Also, while I agree the mis-dignosis is common and many of the elements read like a horoscope/fortune cookie, you can't say that Nite Owl II was a narcissist or that Ozymandius had avoidant personality disorder.
  - pinchyfingers 14y ago
    Just because something bears a title doesn't make it so. Perhaps his professor _was_ accurately describing how the profession as a whole uses the manual. You can diagnosis pretty much anyone with narcissism.
  - electromagnetic 14y ago
    The ICD-10 is a diagnostic manual, when used by a professional. A professional psychiatrist (by that I mean a non-pill pushing psychiatrist) and psychologists are supposed to take long-term observations of their patients to evaluate the severity of the personality traits. In all of these cases it's the severity not the presence that determines if you have the disorder or not. For those listed in the article, here's my winning score for presence of traits that I'm known to have IRL. The ICD-10 requires at least 4 of the following for an SPD diagnosis: 1 Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect. 2 Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others. 3 Consistent preference for solitary activities. 4 Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such. 5 Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities. 6 Indifference to social norms and conventions. 7 Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection. The ICD-10 requires at least four of the following for an AvPD diagnosis: 1 Persistent and pervasive feelings of tension and apprehension. 2 Belief that one is socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others. 3 Excessive preoccupation with being criticized or rejected in social situations. 4 Unwillingness to become involved with people unless certain of being liked. 5 Restrictions in lifestyle because of need to have physical security. The ICD-10 requires at least 3 of the following for an APSD diagnosis: 1 Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. 2 Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. 3 Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behaviour that has brought the person into conflict with society. I'm 1 short on the others except histrionic personality disorder, which I'm at least satisfied I had a zero on.
lukev 14y ago
So this is something I've always wondered about diagnosing mental disorders. The thing is, how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality? In the comic book, these distinct personalities are what make the characters interesting. The same is also true of people in real life; if you take away every trait mentioned, you end up with a pretty bland person. So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on? Or is there a qualitative difference?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- illuminate 14y ago
  "how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality?" What's the difference? Why can't they be both at the same time?
- j_baker 14y ago
  Most mental disorders are pathological versions of normal behaviors. You can also have "traits" of certain personality disorders, which is normal. In fact, most people will have traits of one or more personality disorders. For example, a person like Steve Jobs who is a bit self-absorbed, but can focus on good things others do when need be might be said to have narcissistic traits. It's when you simply can't accept that anyone is better that it would be considered narcissistic personality disorder.
- mey 14y ago
  Through diagnostic tests (each disease has tests associated to standardize the results and make it more objective) and differential diagnosis. I don't have any names off the top of my head, but see something like the Apgar score to get an idea of what would go into evaluating a person's presented traits. For example depression has a series of question that identify a risk score and a threshold for treatment. Some further reading if you are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score
drivingmenuts 14y ago
I think these mental disorders were pretty strongly depicted in both the comic and the movie, and that was one of the points Moore was trying to make: having that kind of power corrupts and only the corrupt would want that kind of power. Some of them had good intentions, which is not mutually exclusive with being mentally ill, but they were all horribly flawed.
dbbolton 14y ago
Once again, I feel the need to point out that the term "psychopathy" is not used clinically (and neither is 'sociopathy'). Robert Hare et al. do have a rigorous definition that distinguishes psychopathy from ASPD, but this definition does not appear in the latest DSM. Also, the line between ASPD and NPD is somewhat blurry in this article, possibly because in reality these disorders are often co-morbid. The main difference is that narcissists usually conform to social norms and laws, and do not generally pose a serious threat to society. A narcissist might verbally berate someone who stands in his way, but he is unlikely to resort to violence at the drop of a hat, for example. Confer "conduct disorder".
- enmaku 14y ago
  I believe I did mention this in the article, but I agree that it's vitally important to understand that the one or two times I used those terms I was knowingly using the popular definitions, not the clinical definitions. Good catch!
  - dbbolton 14y ago
    It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, so maybe Ozymandius did show traits of Hare's definition of the psychopathy. However, the article seemed to imply that the only thing that separates a psychopath from a narcissist is empathy level: >What makes Ozymandius the villain of the story is that, while many NPD sufferers have decreased empathy, Ozy's lack of empathy borders on full-blown psychopathy In other words, a psychopath would just be a narcissist with even less empathy, which isn't really the case. In fact, aggressive narcissism is just one of two factors in Hare's checklist. On the second factor, socially deviant lifestyle (which includes traits like failure to plan ahead, poor self control, impulsiveness, etc.), he would probably score pretty low, and thus would be unlikely classified by Hare as a true psychopath. The description of The Comedian as having ASPD was well-justified though, other than the term "sufferer". Most sociopaths actually consider themselves to be "free" of many of the emotional and social burdens that the people they prey on seem to carry (which ties in to their narcissism).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Buzaga 14y ago
I really can't understand how so many people take this mental illness/disorder stuff for granted, DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them, the "diagnosis" are based on bullet points and these are decided by a committee or something... how about this mental illness here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISORDER if it's like, really really bad, you know?") pure bullshit
- ignignokt 14y ago
  I can't really tell if your position is "there's no such thing as mental illness" or that you just think that the current system gives anyone who wants one a label they can use (though to be honest I haven't met a psychiatrist yet who used the DSM as a reference for diagnostics). Care to elaborate?
  - Buzaga 14y ago
    what do they use then? intuition? a bit of both maybe, everything around mental illness and disorders is full of blind spots. There's big money involved, there's big holes in the reasonings, history shows it's been misguided/abused more than once... how can it be trusted? a lot of living beings in the world have brains, they've come a long way of evolution to get to where they are here...how come all of a sudden, ours started breaking in every possible way since like 20 years ago? and it also so complex that although it sounds like bullshit it's not and you introduce brain-shrinking toxins(that brains would never produce themselves) to get them fixed. There's too much bs smell IMO
    - ignignokt 14y ago
      It's not like the DSM is the be all and end all of psychiatric diagnosing, they spend years (just like any other doctor) at university and in residency etc. None of this has happened in the last 20 years really, before then people with serious mental illnesses were living on the streets, in prison (well, many still are in these two categories) and in psychiatric institutions (that have since be deinstitutionalised), away from the general populace. Maybe what you're seeing is that instead of being hidden away and falling through the cracks in society people are now actually able to receive treatment and (a lot of the time) able to function properly in society, so it seems like mental illness is more prevalent. Yeah the treatment sucks (and from what I've heard it's ridiculously expensive, though I'm in the UK so that's not really an issue), but it's very rare for people to actually be forced to take it, so I think it's safe to say that it's a net gain for a lot of people. To be honest I think it's pretty unfair on a massive segment of society (on both sides of the fence) for you to dismiss them based on what seem to be fairly weak arguments. Maybe the problem's that for a lot of mentally ill people you can't actually see what's wrong (compared to a physical ailment), so unless you see/experience it for yourself it's hard to be convinced that it's real?
ekianjo 14y ago
I read this post with interest but, honestly speaking, if you consider that all the characters have mental disorders, then 100% of the population have mental disorders as well. I am not sure where you can draw a line between a mental disorder and a personality trait !
fallous 14y ago
Am I the only one that read/saw Rorschach as the only absolutely moral character? He refused to compromise on the truth and held everyone to the same code. His inability to accept the moral compromise offered by Ozymandius leads directly to his death, which he welcomes rather than pervert his own morality.
tsahyt 14y ago
Very interesting read. Makes me wanna rewatch the movie, which by the way I though was great. Just my two cents: I think pretty much everyone is "mentally ill" in his or her own way. Me, personally I've identified myself in quite a few bullet points listed there, yet I'm perfectly fine. I think it's whether those traits cause distress or not. Oh and I'm not wearing a costume, saving the world ;)
phektus 14y ago
>no one sprouts claws or shoots lasers from their eyes oh yes, them mutants are the only real heroes

80 points by enmaku 14y ago

>While it's great to understand the psychology behind the characters, this knowledge doesn't really make the movie or knowledge that much better. Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues. I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.

ctdonath 14y ago
Indeed, it does improve the story by not just leaving you with a niggling sense that something is wrong with each character, but instead opens the realization that each is, in fact, a textbook-perfect example of that wrongness - dissected, analyzed, quantified and classified as such. It's a great improvement for those of us hyperanalytical geeks now inclined to re-watch the 4-hour director's cut with the DSM IV list in hand and finding every instance where each defining point is exemplified. (And then go meta by wondering where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized.)
- derleth 14y ago
  > where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized I think we're often put under Asperger Syndrome (AS) (also called Asperger Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, ass-burgers, and My God He's A Weirdo), which falls under either Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD). AS is often considered to overlap with High-Functioning Autism (ASD without mental retardation) and, in fact, a change being considered for DSM-V would eliminate AS entirely and lump us in under ASD, which would be rated on a severity scale. That said, the diagnostic criteria for all of those diagnoses are a bit more involved than 'is a hyperanalytical geek'.
enmaku 14y ago
Point taken. That last bit was just my personal opinion - I'd rather enjoy the suspension of disbelief than analyze every action in-depth, but that's just me. If this article gave you greater enjoyment of the movie then that makes me a very happy camper.
johnchristopher 14y ago
To me, the whole point of the movie is: "The end doesn't justify the means and when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for fascism". Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the stereotypes they stand for. Nothing new under the sun, literary-wise.
- anamax 14y ago
  > The end doesn't justify the means If the ends don't justify the means, what does? The problem is actually on the other side. The means produce the end. Not intentions, not the morals of the persons involved, but the means. Fascism, for example, is the result of fascist acts, no matter who does them or their reasons for doing so. That fact seems to be lost on "good people".
  - DigitalJack 14y ago
    There is a food shortage in Africa. One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population. The end (solved food shortage) does not justify the means (mass murder). The means must be able to stand on their own.
    - reinhardt 14y ago
      That's a poor metaphor. The end is to keep the population alive. Solving food shortage is (one) means. Failing to mass murder them is another.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > There is a food shortage in Africa. No, there's a distribution problem, but I'll play along. > One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population. Nope. Killing 80% of the African population will not solve the food shortage. (It also won't solve the distribution problem.) Why? Because Africa's food production is roughly proportional to its population and not limited by anything that will be helped by killing lots of people. The "end" of killing 80% of the African population is that 80% of the population has been killed. Some "good person" might have thought that some good (less starvation) would result from killing them, but the end was a lot of dead people who got killed by said good person. Thanks for providing an example of where "he meant well" had a horrendous result, as it typically does.
pjin 14y ago
A more extreme example along the same lines as Watchmen is the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion. NGE totally rips apart mecha anime and gives its characters psychological issues to tragic effect, mirroring the creator Hideaki Anno's own struggle with depression.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  While I like NGE very much, the all psychology aspect of it is mostly just nonsense, though. I have never seen anyone being able to explain it from beginning to end without contradicting themselves. That's part of the magic why people find it superb : they don't get it because there's nothing much to get :)
baddox 14y ago
Superman is almost entirely about the character's psychology. The whole idea, at least of modern-ish incarnations, is that Superman is unmatched physically (granted, apart from the Kryptonite thing) but is often emotionally devastated (from not being able to save anybody, or for being unable to reason with bad guys, or from keeping secrets from his loved ones, or pondering what it means to be humans, etc.).
- scott_s 14y ago
  Yes, thank you. His modern interpretation is, I think, fascinating. While I think Kingdom Come is the best treatment of this theme, I actually think Frank Miller got it perfectly in Dark Knight Returns: "Twenty million die by fire... if I am weak..."
painlord2k 14y ago
>When they battle, Oz tell them about the plan during the fight and only as a ruse to take time. In the comics it is a bit different. As from someone the other side of the political spectrum, I think "incredibly liberal people" would take the law in their hands pretty easily if they had superpower. They (at least many of them) have a pretty self-righteous attitude and would make good villains. The difference is, the conservatives could patrol the street but would give the criminals to the police/justice system. They would not start redistributing stuff taken from others. Anyway, superheroes are an US phenomenon and they are the epitome of individualism. They always start alone and act alone. They are individuals first, groups second. So they will prefer a society with extensive individual freedoms and negative rights.

kelvin0 14y ago

Wow! I really enjoyed the movie, but this analysis by the author and the seemingly cohesive picture he paints of each of the 'heroes' is quite astounding ...

MartinCron 14y ago
You know that asshole guy who always chimes in uninvited and says that the book is better... I don't want to be that guy. But I will say that it's absolutely worth reading if you enjoyed the movie at all, though I think the movie has a stronger ending than the original.
- enmaku 14y ago
  I actually liked the original squid ending better, but that's another one of those personal opinions that some asshole guy always has to chime in with. There were definitely some good differences that made each a unique and worthwhile experience, but I would say that the differences more or less left the mental disorders untouched.

stephengillie 14y ago

This is more an exercise in how conditions as described in the DSM IV can be applied to almost anyone as easily as a horoscope or fortune cookie. A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry knows how to bill psychological conditions.

enmaku 14y ago
Funny that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" isn't considered a "Diagnostic Manual" given that a) those words are in the title and b) it's commonly and constantly used by professionals as a manual for diagnosis. It doesn't really matter what your one prof said, it matters how the profession as a whole uses it. I also cited the ICD-10 in the article for several of the disorders, and there absolutely is not any arguing that the ICD-10 is a valid diagnostic tool. Also, while I agree the mis-dignosis is common and many of the elements read like a horoscope/fortune cookie, you can't say that Nite Owl II was a narcissist or that Ozymandius had avoidant personality disorder.
- pinchyfingers 14y ago
  Just because something bears a title doesn't make it so. Perhaps his professor _was_ accurately describing how the profession as a whole uses the manual. You can diagnosis pretty much anyone with narcissism.
- electromagnetic 14y ago
  The ICD-10 is a diagnostic manual, when used by a professional. A professional psychiatrist (by that I mean a non-pill pushing psychiatrist) and psychologists are supposed to take long-term observations of their patients to evaluate the severity of the personality traits. In all of these cases it's the severity not the presence that determines if you have the disorder or not. For those listed in the article, here's my winning score for presence of traits that I'm known to have IRL. The ICD-10 requires at least 4 of the following for an SPD diagnosis: 1 Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect. 2 Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others. 3 Consistent preference for solitary activities. 4 Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such. 5 Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities. 6 Indifference to social norms and conventions. 7 Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection. The ICD-10 requires at least four of the following for an AvPD diagnosis: 1 Persistent and pervasive feelings of tension and apprehension. 2 Belief that one is socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others. 3 Excessive preoccupation with being criticized or rejected in social situations. 4 Unwillingness to become involved with people unless certain of being liked. 5 Restrictions in lifestyle because of need to have physical security. The ICD-10 requires at least 3 of the following for an APSD diagnosis: 1 Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. 2 Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. 3 Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behaviour that has brought the person into conflict with society. I'm 1 short on the others except histrionic personality disorder, which I'm at least satisfied I had a zero on.

lukev 14y ago

So this is something I've always wondered about diagnosing mental disorders. The thing is, how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality? In the comic book, these distinct personalities are what make the characters interesting. The same is also true of people in real life; if you take away every trait mentioned, you end up with a pretty bland person. So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on? Or is there a qualitative difference?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
illuminate 14y ago
"how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality?" What's the difference? Why can't they be both at the same time?
j_baker 14y ago
Most mental disorders are pathological versions of normal behaviors. You can also have "traits" of certain personality disorders, which is normal. In fact, most people will have traits of one or more personality disorders. For example, a person like Steve Jobs who is a bit self-absorbed, but can focus on good things others do when need be might be said to have narcissistic traits. It's when you simply can't accept that anyone is better that it would be considered narcissistic personality disorder.
mey 14y ago
Through diagnostic tests (each disease has tests associated to standardize the results and make it more objective) and differential diagnosis. I don't have any names off the top of my head, but see something like the Apgar score to get an idea of what would go into evaluating a person's presented traits. For example depression has a series of question that identify a risk score and a threshold for treatment. Some further reading if you are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score

drivingmenuts 14y ago

I think these mental disorders were pretty strongly depicted in both the comic and the movie, and that was one of the points Moore was trying to make: having that kind of power corrupts and only the corrupt would want that kind of power. Some of them had good intentions, which is not mutually exclusive with being mentally ill, but they were all horribly flawed.

dbbolton 14y ago

Once again, I feel the need to point out that the term "psychopathy" is not used clinically (and neither is 'sociopathy'). Robert Hare et al. do have a rigorous definition that distinguishes psychopathy from ASPD, but this definition does not appear in the latest DSM. Also, the line between ASPD and NPD is somewhat blurry in this article, possibly because in reality these disorders are often co-morbid. The main difference is that narcissists usually conform to social norms and laws, and do not generally pose a serious threat to society. A narcissist might verbally berate someone who stands in his way, but he is unlikely to resort to violence at the drop of a hat, for example. Confer "conduct disorder".

enmaku 14y ago
I believe I did mention this in the article, but I agree that it's vitally important to understand that the one or two times I used those terms I was knowingly using the popular definitions, not the clinical definitions. Good catch!
- dbbolton 14y ago
  It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, so maybe Ozymandius did show traits of Hare's definition of the psychopathy. However, the article seemed to imply that the only thing that separates a psychopath from a narcissist is empathy level: >What makes Ozymandius the villain of the story is that, while many NPD sufferers have decreased empathy, Ozy's lack of empathy borders on full-blown psychopathy In other words, a psychopath would just be a narcissist with even less empathy, which isn't really the case. In fact, aggressive narcissism is just one of two factors in Hare's checklist. On the second factor, socially deviant lifestyle (which includes traits like failure to plan ahead, poor self control, impulsiveness, etc.), he would probably score pretty low, and thus would be unlikely classified by Hare as a true psychopath. The description of The Comedian as having ASPD was well-justified though, other than the term "sufferer". Most sociopaths actually consider themselves to be "free" of many of the emotional and social burdens that the people they prey on seem to carry (which ties in to their narcissism).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Buzaga 14y ago

I really can't understand how so many people take this mental illness/disorder stuff for granted, DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them, the "diagnosis" are based on bullet points and these are decided by a committee or something... how about this mental illness here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISORDER if it's like, really really bad, you know?") pure bullshit

ignignokt 14y ago
I can't really tell if your position is "there's no such thing as mental illness" or that you just think that the current system gives anyone who wants one a label they can use (though to be honest I haven't met a psychiatrist yet who used the DSM as a reference for diagnostics). Care to elaborate?
- Buzaga 14y ago
  what do they use then? intuition? a bit of both maybe, everything around mental illness and disorders is full of blind spots. There's big money involved, there's big holes in the reasonings, history shows it's been misguided/abused more than once... how can it be trusted? a lot of living beings in the world have brains, they've come a long way of evolution to get to where they are here...how come all of a sudden, ours started breaking in every possible way since like 20 years ago? and it also so complex that although it sounds like bullshit it's not and you introduce brain-shrinking toxins(that brains would never produce themselves) to get them fixed. There's too much bs smell IMO
  - ignignokt 14y ago
    It's not like the DSM is the be all and end all of psychiatric diagnosing, they spend years (just like any other doctor) at university and in residency etc. None of this has happened in the last 20 years really, before then people with serious mental illnesses were living on the streets, in prison (well, many still are in these two categories) and in psychiatric institutions (that have since be deinstitutionalised), away from the general populace. Maybe what you're seeing is that instead of being hidden away and falling through the cracks in society people are now actually able to receive treatment and (a lot of the time) able to function properly in society, so it seems like mental illness is more prevalent. Yeah the treatment sucks (and from what I've heard it's ridiculously expensive, though I'm in the UK so that's not really an issue), but it's very rare for people to actually be forced to take it, so I think it's safe to say that it's a net gain for a lot of people. To be honest I think it's pretty unfair on a massive segment of society (on both sides of the fence) for you to dismiss them based on what seem to be fairly weak arguments. Maybe the problem's that for a lot of mentally ill people you can't actually see what's wrong (compared to a physical ailment), so unless you see/experience it for yourself it's hard to be convinced that it's real?

ekianjo 14y ago

I read this post with interest but, honestly speaking, if you consider that all the characters have mental disorders, then 100% of the population have mental disorders as well. I am not sure where you can draw a line between a mental disorder and a personality trait !

fallous 14y ago

Am I the only one that read/saw Rorschach as the only absolutely moral character? He refused to compromise on the truth and held everyone to the same code. His inability to accept the moral compromise offered by Ozymandius leads directly to his death, which he welcomes rather than pervert his own morality.

tsahyt 14y ago

Very interesting read. Makes me wanna rewatch the movie, which by the way I though was great. Just my two cents: I think pretty much everyone is "mentally ill" in his or her own way. Me, personally I've identified myself in quite a few bullet points listed there, yet I'm perfectly fine. I think it's whether those traits cause distress or not. Oh and I'm not wearing a costume, saving the world ;)

phektus 14y ago

>no one sprouts claws or shoots lasers from their eyes oh yes, them mutants are the only real heroes