Talk:Personality disorder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:45, 15 October 2004

From the article:

"Personality disorders are represented on Axis II of the DSM-IV, and are particularly controversial because they often seem sexist, "

Which ones are regarded as being sexist? -- The Anome 10:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think the criticisms as they currently stand are an excellent academic critique but a little abstruse. Terms like "diagnostic heterogeneity", "construct validity", and "temporal stability" could be simplified or explained like the "diagnostic heterogeneity" one is. What about replacing "temporal stability" with "consistency of symptoms over time"? I think the overall impression is fine but I suspect many a reader will not understand the basic thrust of the complaint. It might be worth saying that none of the current criticism denies the existence of PDs as such. It is also worth mentioning the clusters as being the outcome of cluster analysis studies and a recognition of the essentially blurred categories. Now I don't know enough about that to write about it.

At present there is no real antipsychiatry debate. None of the "myth of mental illness" that was based on psychopathy after all. It's been ages since I read it but I guess I could pick it up again. --CloudSurfer 10:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice this before. You're right. I tried to make it more accessible.

I doubt the claim that noone denies the existence of PD's however. In my opinion, the dimensional position is a denial of the existence of PD's (at least their existence as disorders which are qualitatively different from 'normal' functioning). Sietse 10:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I reread what Sam had written and I agree - on a dimensional basis as described. The counter argument is that ALL disorders and diseases are dimensional but someone draws a line in the sand and says on this side it is sub-clinicial and on that side it is a diseases. We could be talking about asthma or PDs. Diseases are not black/white, they are dark grey - grey - light grey. All of the criteria in DSM could be seen as dimensional. By the way, I made a comment on the project psychopathology talk page about symptoms/signs having only just seen your reply. --CloudSurfer 11:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:54, 15 October 2004 edit Sietse Snel (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 9,930 edits reply to CloudSurfer ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:45, 15 October 2004 edit undo CloudSurfer (talk \| contribs) 1,392 edits →Criticisms Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:I doubt the claim that noone denies the existence of PD's however. In my opinion, the dimensional position is a denial of the existence of PD's (at least their existence as disorders which are qualitatively different from 'normal' functioning). [[User:Sietse Snel\|Sietse]] 10:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)		:I doubt the claim that noone denies the existence of PD's however. In my opinion, the dimensional position is a denial of the existence of PD's (at least their existence as disorders which are qualitatively different from 'normal' functioning). [[User:Sietse Snel\|Sietse]] 10:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

			::Yeah, I reread what Sam had written and I agree - on a dimensional basis as described. The counter argument is that ALL disorders and diseases are dimensional but someone draws a line in the sand and says on this side it is sub-clinicial and on that side it is a diseases. We could be talking about asthma or PDs. Diseases are not black/white, they are dark grey - grey - light grey. All of the criteria in DSM could be seen as dimensional. By the way, I made a comment on the project psychopathology talk page about symptoms/signs having only just seen your reply. --[[User:CloudSurfer\|CloudSurfer]] 11:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)