"Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder • Hacker News Board

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#21

Post by mcguire » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 9:23 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #13

benihana wrote: post #6

> 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 pro…

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.

"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'."

I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a pretty strong case that what Ozy does is necessary and that he's hardly either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#22

Post by drivingmenuts » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 9:26 PM UTC

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.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#23

Post by dbbolton » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 9:27 PM UTC

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".

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#24

Post by pinchyfingers » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 9:30 PM UTC

enmaku wrote: post #11

stephengillie wrote: post #3

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.

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 abs…

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.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#25

Post by j_baker » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 9:56 PM UTC

tankbot wrote: post #20

lukev wrote: post #4

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…

> 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? Yes, it is the degree to which traits manifest, but it's not simply a matter of others commenting on them. Typically the degree to which these disorders manifest needs to interfere with living a normal, productive life. That can mean something different to different people, but…

If anyone's interested in this enough to buy a book on it, I highly recommend Millon's Personality Disorders in Modern Life. It touches on a lot of the issues that the GP asked about including how to distinguish personality disorders from traits.

http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Disorders-Modern-Theodore-...

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#26

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 10:03 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#27

Post by pjin » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 10:10 PM UTC

benihana wrote: post #6

> 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 pro…

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.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#28

Post by baddox » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 10:16 PM UTC

benihana wrote: post #6

> 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 pro…

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.).

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#29

Post by Myrth » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 10:50 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #21

johnchristopher wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

" 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'. " I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a pretty strong case that what Ozy does is necessary and that he's hardly either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.

What do you think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#30

Post by DigitalJack » Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #19

johnchristopher wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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".

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.