Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

codinginmysleep.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#31

Post by brigade »

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.

One thing that a lot of people forget is the general diagnostic criteria (e.g. http://behavenet.com/personality-disorder)

Specifically, one big glaring criteria that most people don't meet is "C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#32

Post by mcguire »

Myrth wrote: post #29
mcguire wrote: post #21

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'. " 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?

They're non-fiction?

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#33

Post by enmaku »

brigade wrote: post #31
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.

One thing that a lot of people forget is the general diagnostic criteria (e.g. http://behavenet.com/personality-disorder ) Specifically, one big glaring criteria that most people don't meet is "C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Exactly. We can all find the patterns of personality disorders in ourselves, but diagnostic criteria require WAY more than "you act this way" - your actions actually have to be severely detrimental.

Personally I'd say that if your particular behavioral patterns lead to costumed vigilante crime fighting you probably meet criteria C.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#34

Post by enmaku »

dbbolton wrote: post #23

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 diffe…

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!

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#35

Post by reinhardt »

DigitalJack wrote: post #30
anamax wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#36

Post by Buzaga »

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

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

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#37

Post by ignignokt »

Buzaga wrote: post #36

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 also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISOR…

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?

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#38

Post by dbbolton »

enmaku wrote: post #34
dbbolton wrote: post #23

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 diffe…

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!

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).

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#39

Post by Karunamon »

Buzaga wrote: post #36

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 also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISOR…

  >DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them
  >pure bullshit
Line 1, meet line 4.

Re: "Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder

#40

Post by Buzaga »

ignignokt wrote: post #37
Buzaga wrote: post #36

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 also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISOR…

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?

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

Post reply on HN