Personality vs. Mental Illness

[Tempest Virago]

In the Scars thread, Cramulus brought up schizophrenia and Asperger's as examples of "genetic personality".

In response, P3nT4gR4m said:

Can't help thinking those things are more a result of faulty hardware than actual personality traits.

I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure I agree. I guess it all depends on how you define personality, but I can't figure out a way to distinguish mental illness from personality.

If somebody has had Asperger's their whole life, what would they be like without it? Would they even be the same person? Does it matter?

I think that a lot of people with mental illnesses get into a trap of thinking about "their real self". In other words, their perfect self without the problems that they have. I've been there myself (I'm bipolar), but I don't think it's a useful way of thinking.

This is relevant to other stuff, too. I don't think you can section off your personality into chunks. If you're raised in a religious family, that affects all other aspects of your personality. There's just no way to know what you would be like if you had had a different childhood. You wouldn't be you.

I might be being a bit defensive here, but I think there's a point buried in there somewhere. I'm not sure if it deserved a new thread or not, though. Oh well.

[Payne]

Having long term issues with mental illness, I feel I'm somewhat qualified to respond to this as intelligently as I respond to anything round here.

I think that in many cases, mental illness doesn't actually change your personality, it just magnifies (or whatever the opposite of magnifies is) certain aspects of it.

It also tends to affect your social interactions, which doesn't actually reflect your own personality, just other peoples perception of it.

I'm not saying that all problems that people have with people with mental illnesses can be placed squarely on the mental illness itself, but that it can exacerbate or sometimes ease social frictions.

[Kai]

In the Scars thread, Cramulus brought up schizophrenia and Asperger's as examples of "genetic personality".

In response, P3nT4gR4m said:

Can't help thinking those things are more a result of faulty hardware than actual personality traits.

I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure I agree. I guess it all depends on how you define personality, but I can't figure out a way to distinguish mental illness from personality.

If somebody has had Asperger's their whole life, what would they be like without it? Would they even be the same person? Does it matter?

I think that a lot of people with mental illnesses get into a trap of thinking about "their real self". In other words, their perfect self without the problems that they have. I've been there myself (I'm bipolar), but I don't think it's a useful way of thinking.

This is relevant to other stuff, too. I don't think you can section off your personality into chunks. If you're raised in a religious family, that affects all other aspects of your personality. There's just no way to know what you would be like if you had had a different childhood. You wouldn't be you.

I might be being a bit defensive here, but I think there's a point buried in there somewhere. I'm not sure if it deserved a new thread or not, though. Oh well.

I think a person is quite a bit more than their personality. And I somewhat have insight into the "real self" phenomenon, but for rather different reasons.

I agree that a person is the sum of their parts and I also forward that a person is emergent than that (more than the sum of the parts). You wouldn't be who you were without your mistakes, and you wouldn't be here to wonder what if, if things were different, you would be somewhere else wondering what if, or maybe not wondering at all.

Honestly, mental 'illness' is only a disorder or illness if it impairs your ability to function the way you want to, or other people decide you don't function the way society wants you to. In other words, its either self determined, in which case you have made a personal choice to deam yourself disordered and work under that assumtion day in and day out, or you are a sheeple and follow other peoples assessments of who you are and work under that assumption day in and out.

Or, there is the third option: examine your condition, whatever it is in, and deem it life, and discover the benefits and detriments. You then try to minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits. Its not a disorder if you don't make it one.

Sorry if thats off topic.

[Tempest Virago]

Having long term issues with mental illness, I feel I'm somewhat qualified to respond to this as intelligently as I respond to anything round here.

I think that in many cases, mental illness doesn't actually change your personality, it just magnifies (or whatever the opposite of magnifies is) certain aspects of it.

It also tends to affect your social interactions, which doesn't actually reflect your own personality, just other peoples perception of it.

I'm not saying that all problems that people have with people with mental illnesses can be placed squarely on the mental illness itself, but that it can exacerbate or sometimes ease social frictions.

Well, if we're dealing with personality as a purely non-genetic construct that is built through shrapnel as presented in that thread, then mental illness would be the basis on which the shrapnel is built, right?

I mean, since it's the only genetic part, it would be there before (the rest of?) the personality.

[Payne]

I think a person is quite a bit more than their personality. And I somewhat have insight into the "real self" phenomenon, but for rather different reasons.

I agree that a person is the sum of their parts and I also forward that a person is emergent than that (more than the sum of the parts). You wouldn't be who you were without your mistakes, and you wouldn't be here to wonder what if, if things were different, you would be somewhere else wondering what if, or maybe not wondering at all.

Honestly, mental 'illness' is only a disorder or illness if it impairs your ability to function the way you want to, or other people decide you don't function the way society wants you to. In other words, its either self determined, in which case you have made a personal choice to deam yourself disordered and work under that assumtion day in and day out, or you are a sheeple and follow other peoples assessments of who you are and work under that assumption day in and out.

Or, there is the third option: examine your condition, whatever it is in, and deem it life, and discover the benefits and detriments. You then try to minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits. Its not a disorder if you don't make it one.

Sorry if thats off topic.

I'd have to agree with that in principle.

Sometimes, of course, you have to accede to someone else's assessment, as I'm sure you're aware. There are some things you simply cannot fix on your own. A certain control over your own mind (or minds!  ) must be maintained at all times though, if you want to remain being "you".

[Tempest Virago]

I think a person is quite a bit more than their personality. And I somewhat have insight into the "real self" phenomenon, but for rather different reasons.

Then I think the problem must be that I have a broader definition than a lot of people. What else is a person besides their personality?

I agree that a person is the sum of their parts and I also forward that a person is emergent than that (more than the sum of the parts). You wouldn't be who you were without your mistakes, and you wouldn't be here to wonder what if, if things were different, you would be somewhere else wondering what if, or maybe not wondering at all.

Honestly, mental 'illness' is only a disorder or illness if it impairs your ability to function the way you want to, or other people decide you don't function the way society wants you to. In other words, its either self determined, in which case you have made a personal choice to deam yourself disordered and work under that assumtion day in and day out, or you are a sheeple and follow other peoples assessments of who you are and work under that assumption day in and out.

Or, there is the third option: examine your condition, whatever it is in, and deem it life, and discover the benefits and detriments. You then try to minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits. Its not a disorder if you don't make it one.

Sorry if thats off topic.

It's a little off-topic, but that's okay.

I think I have done that to a certain extent. However, it's pretty hard for me to deny that I have a harder time functioning in society than it seems other people do. Maybe it makes me a "sheeple" (I hate that term so much) that I would like it to be easier - it probably does. Part of it is that I was diagnosed by a bunch of psychiatrists/psychologists/etc. at a very young age (8 or 9ish), before I had any agency of my own, so I've grown up thinking of myself that way, which is probably not especially healthy.

But I'm not sure we disagree on my basic point, which is that mental illness, or what society terms as mental illness, is not something separate from the rest of your personality. Would you say that that's true?

[Payne]

Well, if we're dealing with personality as a purely non-genetic construct that is built through shrapnel as presented in that thread, then mental illness would be the basis on which the shrapnel is built, right?

I mean, since it's the only genetic part, it would be there before (the rest of?) the personality.

A genetic mental illness (there is conflicting evidence over whether mental illness can truly be said to be genetic) would be affected and chipped away by shrapnel, much like any other form of personality and "mind" is shaped by shrapnel.

I don't think you can ever say that the entirety of personality is shaped by shrapnel.

As a thought experiment, think of several lumps of rock, all shaped differently, the same shrapnel affecting each of them at the same frequency and in the same order will give you as many varied "personalities" as you have lumps of rock. Now if you think of a genetic mental illness as just another "protrusion" or other such feature on these variously shaped rocks, it won't affect the end result - varied personalities - but it may affect how someone views those rocks.

[Tempest Virago]

Well, if we're dealing with personality as a purely non-genetic construct that is built through shrapnel as presented in that thread, then mental illness would be the basis on which the shrapnel is built, right?

I mean, since it's the only genetic part, it would be there before (the rest of?) the personality.

A genetic mental illness (there is conflicting evidence over whether mental illness can truly be said to be genetic) would be affected and chipped away by shrapnel, much like any other form of personality and "mind" is shaped by shrapnel.

I don't think you can ever say that the entirety of personality is shaped by shrapnel.

As a thought experiment, think of several lumps of rock, all shaped differently, the same shrapnel affecting each of them at the same frequency and in the same order will give you as many varied "personalities" as you have lumps of rock. Now if you think of a genetic mental illness as just another "protrusion" or other such feature on these variously shaped rocks, it won't affect the end result - varied personalities - but it may affect how someone views those rocks.

See, this metaphor I'm totally down with. It just seemed like people were saying that the entirety of personality is shaped by shrapnel, and I just didn't see how that could be true.

[Payne]

No, I've always held the view that there has to be some raw material to begin with.

I likened it to "freeing a statue" from a lump of crude rock once, the basis of the above thought experiment.

The only problem with that is it doesn't account for being able to add to the raw material as well as chip some of it away.

[Kai]

I think a person is quite a bit more than their personality. And I somewhat have insight into the "real self" phenomenon, but for rather different reasons.

Then I think the problem must be that I have a broader definition than a lot of people. What else is a person besides their personality?

I agree that a person is the sum of their parts and I also forward that a person is emergent than that (more than the sum of the parts). You wouldn't be who you were without your mistakes, and you wouldn't be here to wonder what if, if things were different, you would be somewhere else wondering what if, or maybe not wondering at all.

Honestly, mental 'illness' is only a disorder or illness if it impairs your ability to function the way you want to, or other people decide you don't function the way society wants you to. In other words, its either self determined, in which case you have made a personal choice to deam yourself disordered and work under that assumtion day in and day out, or you are a sheeple and follow other peoples assessments of who you are and work under that assumption day in and out.

Or, there is the third option: examine your condition, whatever it is in, and deem it life, and discover the benefits and detriments. You then try to minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits. Its not a disorder if you don't make it one.

Sorry if thats off topic.

It's a little off-topic, but that's okay.

I think I have done that to a certain extent. However, it's pretty hard for me to deny that I have a harder time functioning in society than it seems other people do. Maybe it makes me a "sheeple" (I hate that term so much) that I would like it to be easier - it probably does. Part of it is that I was diagnosed by a bunch of psychiatrists/psychologists/etc. at a very young age (8 or 9ish), before I had any agency of my own, so I've grown up thinking of myself that way, which is probably not especially healthy.

But I'm not sure we disagree on my basic point, which is that mental illness, or what society terms as mental illness, is not something separate from the rest of your personality. Would you say that that's true?

Right, its part of who you are, it has influence your past and present and will likely influence your future actions.

Personality is malleable though. Just because you have aural and visual hallucinations doesn't mean you can't get treatment and change that. That is, of course, assuming that is what a person would /want/ to do.

[Kai]

I think a person is quite a bit more than their personality. And I somewhat have insight into the "real self" phenomenon, but for rather different reasons.

I agree that a person is the sum of their parts and I also forward that a person is emergent than that (more than the sum of the parts). You wouldn't be who you were without your mistakes, and you wouldn't be here to wonder what if, if things were different, you would be somewhere else wondering what if, or maybe not wondering at all.

Honestly, mental 'illness' is only a disorder or illness if it impairs your ability to function the way you want to, or other people decide you don't function the way society wants you to. In other words, its either self determined, in which case you have made a personal choice to deam yourself disordered and work under that assumtion day in and day out, or you are a sheeple and follow other peoples assessments of who you are and work under that assumption day in and out.

Or, there is the third option: examine your condition, whatever it is in, and deem it life, and discover the benefits and detriments. You then try to minimize the detriments and maximize the benefits. Its not a disorder if you don't make it one.

Sorry if thats off topic.

I'd have to agree with that in principle.

Sometimes, of course, you have to accede to someone else's assessment, as I'm sure you're aware. There are some things you simply cannot fix on your own. A certain control over your own mind (or minds!  ) must be maintained at all times though, if you want to remain being "you".

I don't control their minds, just my own. Its kinda a contract thing. But we don't consider it an illness, its what we prefer actually. Anyway, I'm careful about who I let delve my mind, shrinks or anyone. Everyone should be.

Okay, I'm not going to say more. Keep that potential drama out of here.

[Payne]

Right, its part of who you are, it has influence your past and present and will likely influence your future actions.

Personality is malleable though. Just because you have aural and visual hallucinations doesn't mean you can't get treatment and change that. That is, of course, assuming that is what a person would /want/ to do.

Which I think is the main crux of this conversation. It's when psychiatric "help" becomes "hindrance", where what we want becomes what they want, and we can't tall the difference, or where what they want is actually "better" for us than what we want.

There is a great big grey area right in where these different things cross over each other.

It also has something to do with the ability to cope with adversity in a personality, something which is (kind of but not deeply) investigated in the shrapnel idea.

As I take things, I do what I think is best, demand help when I think I need it, listen very carefully and weigh up the reciprocal demands of the psychs, and not worry too much about it beyond that.

Life is too short to worry about these things, and I can see that I could be a hell of a lot worse off.

[LMNO]

I have experienced mental illness second hand (close family member with Bipolar/psychotic break), and at first glance, I'd break Personality down into at least 2 components:

Genetic
Accreted


"Accreted" seems to be what we mean by being shaped by Shrapnel; that is, your experiences, good and bad (through your filters, also accreted), help determine how you behave.

"Genetic" seems to be the way your brain is wired and the natural balance of chemicals in your body.


Yes, the line between these two are pretty vague.  But I'll say it like this:

If you can change a behavior through conditioning, it's Accreted.
If you can only change a behavior through psychopharmacology or surgery, it's Genetic.

I know there are "maybe" states here, such as the "imprinting" theory, and/or serious yoga/meditation, but I'm gonna say I feel 80% confident in the above separation.

[Cain]

Hardware/software analogy.

[LMNO]

Yeah, what of it?

::puffs up chest::