In the Scars thread, Cramulus brought up schizophrenia and Asperger's as examples of "genetic personality".
In response, P3nT4gR4m said:
QuoteCan'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.
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.
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 10:49:09 PM
In the Scars thread, Cramulus brought up schizophrenia and Asperger's as examples of "genetic personality".
In response, P3nT4gR4m said:
QuoteCan'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.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 10:54:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on September 03, 2008, 11:00:15 PM
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! :p) must be maintained at all times though, if you want to remain being "you".
Quote from: Kai on September 03, 2008, 11:00:15 PM
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?
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 11:03:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 11:18:20 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 11:03:24 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 11:11:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 03, 2008, 11:00:15 PM
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?
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 11:09:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 03, 2008, 11:00:15 PM
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! :p) 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.
Quote from: Kai on September 03, 2008, 11:42:22 PM
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.
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.
Hardware/software analogy.
Yeah, what of it?
::puffs up chest::
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:39:56 PM
Yeah, what of it?
::puffs up chest::
Neurology (AKA synapse connections) is malleable.
The hardware/software analogy generally assumes it is not.
::deflates::
I make a point I always make in these kinds of discussions; if JC or any of the 'Prophets' were around today, they'd have been institutionalised a long time ago......
while some forms of insanity are bona fide social impairments, in other words sufferers cannot interact with other people, others have been incorrectly classed as such....insanity is what society decides it is, just like normality. I'm not normal and I'm proud of it, to some people I am insane but am I really?
Yes.
who are you calling insane??
I'll....I'll....I'll...I'll set my friends on you...they know where you live already :argh!:
It seems to me that separating "mental disorder" from "personality" is just a game of semantics. It seems to depend entirely on the subjective definition of 'personality'. If we make the label broad enough, it would encompass everything from genetic predispositions to infant imprinting, conscious changes to self and 'mental illness'. If we define personality as "what should be there, according to our society" then we drop Mental Illness from the group. If we define personality as "how a person acts" then we have a shell game of what root cause made a person perform X action (Are they acting that way because they have Aspergers, because they have an asshole personality or because they just read the PD and are consciously trying to be outlandish (and are they doing that because they're followers, because they're attention whores, because they're trying to break their own 'programming', because they think they've found the Truth and have a tendency to proselytize?)).
So I think we could create a model where personality included things like mental illness and we could create a model where mental illness affected/impacted and screwed with the personality. However, I'm not sure we could consider either model as better, or more/less correct. ;-)
I talked to my shrink about this a few months ago, upset that parts of myself that I'd always considered to be very me (highly temperamental, impulsive, etc) were in fact just part of the Bipolar swing. She asked me why it mattered so much that I be able to distinguish something that is essentially indistinguishable. If I've been "moody" for as long as anyone can remember, is it really important to figure out where it came from? It's part of me now, and is, for better or worse, what I consider to be a personality trait.
It seems that the pragmatic question is, "Can you change a part of your personality at will, if you so desire?"
It appears that a large amout of people considered "with a mental disorder" cannot.
Quote from: Eve on September 04, 2008, 04:17:51 PM
I talked to my shrink about this a few months ago, upset that parts of myself that I'd always considered to be very me (highly temperamental, impulsive, etc) were in fact just part of the Bipolar swing. She asked me why it mattered so much that I be able to distinguish something that is essentially indistinguishable. If I've been "moody" for as long as anyone can remember, is it really important to figure out where it came from? It's part of me now, and is, for better or worse, what I consider to be a personality trait.
While I feel for you completely Eve, this is also a perfect example of what folks have been talking about;
* someone is very particular about things VERY being tidy and in their place -> OCD (one of my exes was like this, pain the ass was what i called it)
* kids who are unruly and disruptive (most of them) at school ->i forget the acronym, maybe someone can help me?
* dim winter weather gets you down - SAD
there are more of these but see what they are doing?? All or most of them end with the word...disorder....The Man is stealing our show!! Easier to put people in boxes and have this disorder or that one, be 'inferior' and not right. My question is this, now that the iron rod of religion is becoming more a tinfoil baton is this the next form of control? Look up Bipolar DISORDER; most of us have been 'sufferers' thereof at SOME point in our lives?? Mood swings, unexplained mood peaks...talking to oneself or folk who ain't there......
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:22:34 PM
It seems that the pragmatic question is, "Can you change a part of your personality at will, if you so desire?"
It appears that a large amout of people considered "with a mental disorder" cannot.
A very good point!
yes it is a good point and well made but a number of supposedly 'normal' people can't either
I can add the example of smoking ciggies....I'm a struggling to be non smoker. I should be able to edit the addictive side of my personality but find it difficult, other people cannot at all. I have no medically recognised illness, except being an 'acceptable addict'. For some people the addiction is food, or affection...the list goes on and on. Some potential disorders (tabacco dependancy disorder....neediness requirement disorder..for example) are accepted and, though not actively, encouraged by society.
But they are detrimental character traits some cannot change anymore than the insane/mental illness sufferer can.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 04, 2008, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: Eve on September 04, 2008, 04:17:51 PM
I talked to my shrink about this a few months ago, upset that parts of myself that I'd always considered to be very me (highly temperamental, impulsive, etc) were in fact just part of the Bipolar swing. She asked me why it mattered so much that I be able to distinguish something that is essentially indistinguishable. If I've been "moody" for as long as anyone can remember, is it really important to figure out where it came from? It's part of me now, and is, for better or worse, what I consider to be a personality trait.
While I feel for you completely Eve, this is also a perfect example of what folks have been talking about;
* someone is very particular about things VERY being tidy and in their place -> OCD (one of my exes was like this, pain the ass was what i called it)
* kids who are unruly and disruptive (most of them) at school ->i forget the acronym, maybe someone can help me?
* dim winter weather gets you down - SAD
there are more of these but see what they are doing?? All or most of them end with the word...disorder....The Man is stealing our show!! Easier to put people in boxes and have this disorder or that one, be 'inferior' and not right. My question is this, now that the iron rod of religion is becoming more a tinfoil baton is this the next form of control? Look up Bipolar DISORDER; most of us have been 'sufferers' thereof at SOME point in our lives?? Mood swings, unexplained mood peaks...talking to oneself or folk who ain't there......
Yes, the "But is it
really a disorder?" question is raised and debated constantly. For me, and for many people I know (but certainly not all), it comes down to this: do the afflictions--whatever they may be--impede your ability to function? If they do, then it's a problem. It's a personal decision, which leaves room for a lot of argument and skepticism. *shrug* I don't believe that every person who likes things to be clean and organized has OCD; but when a person can't do something as simple as walking through a door because they feel a particular compulsion that cannot be ignored, then yeah, I'd say that's a disorder.
Lupe, we aren't talking about physical addictions.
But if you want to, it should be fairly obvious that:
1) an addiction physically changes the brain, putting us in the latter category, and
2) addictions can be broken through force of will, putting us back in the former.
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 04, 2008, 04:37:00 PM
yes it is a good point and well made but a number of supposedly 'normal' people can't either
I can add the example of smoking ciggies....I'm a struggling to be non smoker. I should be able to edit the addictive side of my personality but find it difficult, other people cannot at all. I have no medically recognised illness, except being an 'acceptable addict'. For some people the addiction is food, or affection...the list goes on and on. Some potential disorders (tabacco dependancy disorder....neediness requirement disorder..for example) are accepted and, though not actively, encouraged by society.
But they are detrimental character traits some cannot change anymore than the insane/mental illness sufferer can.
So then perhaps "UInable to change X part of personality" is a correlation with "mental disorders" not necessarily a causation?
Changing one's personality does seem to be difficult for most humans. They have a nature and they follow that nature. Like the animals in some native american legends. Each animal has their Nature and their way of doing things... the exception usually tends to be Coyote or Raven. In other mythologies, the Gods all have their positions except for Loki, who is changing/hiding/disguising, or Prometheus who steals from the Gods, or Hermes who changes his position from dude in a cave to God.
Though I found the trickster class I took to be less than brilliant... I did like this general theme to the trickster archetype as discussed by the author of "Trickster Makes the World". The trickster is the trickster because he can change, he can change himself, he can change the opportunities available to himself, or the opportunities available to others. This in many legends is what made the trickster different than everyone/everything else. All the animals had a nature and a Way of being, except trickster... who never seemed to have his own way, but could change himself to make use of the ways of others.
I often wonder if 'trickster' isn't really a representation of humans as a species... for compared to other species... we seem to be the imitators. It is the way of the diving beetle to catch a bubble of air and breathe from it while under water. It is the human way to learn that trick and invent Scuba gear. It is the way of birds to fly, it is the way of humans to learn the trick and build airplanes.
But, humans as individuals, seem often to have their Way and its the only way they know. Only some humans exhibit the plasticity of personality to change, adapt, and mimic the Way of other people... or the way that's most useful to them at the time.
So maybe many people, mental disorder or not, are unable to change aspects of their personality, because their personality is their way.
Of course, now I'm reminded of the Just So story about "Stickly-Prickly" and "Slow-and-Solid". While neither seemed particularly tricky as part of their nature... in the quest for survival they helped each other change their way.
Quote'Son, son!' said Mother Jaguar ever so many times, graciously waving her tail, 'a Hedgehog is a Hedgehog, and can't be anything but a Hedgehog; and a Tortoise is a Tortoise, and can never be anything else.'
'But it isn't a Hedgehog, and it isn't a Tortoise. It's a little bit of both, and I don't know its proper name.'
'Nonsense!' said Mother Jaguar. 'Everything has its proper name. I should call it "Armadillo" till I found out the real one. And I should leave it alone.'
:fnord:
Think of the tricksters and you'll find you're right; Monkey, Hannumman, Anansi, Harlequin, Loki...all display human frailties and are always punished, figuratively for them but all display and ridicule the cupidity and foolishness of humans as well as embodying them.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Lupe, we aren't talking about physical addictions.
But if you want to, it should be fairly obvious that:
1) an addiction physically changes the brain, putting us in the latter category, and
2) addictions can be broken through force of will, putting us back in the former.
ah but some of us seem more open to suggestion and addiction than others; some seek dangerous and addictive situations out. Addictions can be broken but rarely alone, there are often outside factors which provide the boost of will required; a 'treatment' of sorts; the wishes or fears of a loved one, worries about health or a scare and so on. Many addicts replace their previous addiction with another one; for me it's cycling and excercise (often OTT'd)..kill the addiction yes but the cause....well....that's deeper rooted. Think of Terry Pratchett's description of Vampires who 'took the pledge'; I met him at a signing and asked him about them; he'd been giving up smoking at the time he first wrote about that and therein he got the idea.......you can beat addiction as long as you replace one addiction with another, ideally less harmful one, but you'll always have an addictive personality.....is that some form of inbalance?
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Lupe, we aren't talking about physical addictions.
But if you want to, it should be fairly obvious that:
1) an addiction physically changes the brain, putting us in the latter category, and
2) addictions can be broken through force of will, putting us back in the former.
ah but some of us seem more open to suggestion and addiction than others; some seek dangerous and addictive situations out. Addictions can be broken but rarely alone, there are often outside factors which provide the boost of will required; a 'treatment' of sorts; the wishes or fears of a loved one, worries about health or a scare and so on. Many addicts replace their previous addiction with another one; for me it's cycling and excercise (often OTT'd)..kill the addiction yes but the cause....well....that's deeper rooted. Think of Terry Pratchett's description of Vampires who 'took the pledge'; I met him at a signing and asked him about them; he'd been giving up smoking at the time he first wrote about that and therein he got the idea.......you can beat addiction as long as you replace one addiction with another, ideally less harmful one, but you'll always have an addictive personality.....is that some form of inbalance?
Actually, that reminds me. I listened to a bit on NPR (or similar) last summer about research going into finding "addiction genes." Vaguely interesting, if not [remotely] conclusive.
Reference (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2006/search-for-addiction-gene.html), etc (http://www.impactlab.com/2008/08/10/scientists-discover-nicotine-addiction-gene/).
Quote from: Eve on September 04, 2008, 04:41:57 PM
Yes, the "But is it really a disorder?" question is raised and debated constantly. For me, and for many people I know (but certainly not all), it comes down to this: do the afflictions--whatever they may be--impede your ability to function? If they do, then it's a problem. It's a personal decision, which leaves room for a lot of argument and skepticism. *shrug* I don't believe that every person who likes things to be clean and organized has OCD; but when a person can't do something as simple as walking through a door because they feel a particular compulsion that cannot be ignored, then yeah, I'd say that's a disorder.
This is what I consider the difference to be.. Somebody who is moody and temperamental, but it doesn't impede their ability to function, may or may not have low level Bipolar Disorder, but it isn't really all that important. When it
does impede their ability to function, however, having a label for it can help in finding ways to deal with it, and that's when the label becomes relevant.
And regarding addictions, I agree that while an addiction is probably not a personality trait, being susceptible to addictions might well be.
I think an article I submitted on this site might clear up my position on this better than I can with being at work and all...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976856954
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Lupe, we aren't talking about physical addictions.
But if you want to, it should be fairly obvious that:
1) an addiction physically changes the brain, putting us in the latter category, and
2) addictions can be broken through force of will, putting us back in the former.
ah but some of us seem more open to suggestion and addiction than others; some seek dangerous and addictive situations out. Addictions can be broken but rarely alone, there are often outside factors which provide the boost of will required; a 'treatment' of sorts; the wishes or fears of a loved one, worries about health or a scare and so on. Many addicts replace their previous addiction with another one; for me it's cycling and excercise (often OTT'd)..kill the addiction yes but the cause....well....that's deeper rooted. Think of Terry Pratchett's description of Vampires who 'took the pledge'; I met him at a signing and asked him about them; he'd been giving up smoking at the time he first wrote about that and therein he got the idea.......you can beat addiction as long as you replace one addiction with another, ideally less harmful one, but you'll always have an addictive personality.....is that some form of inbalance?
You're implying that an "addictive personality" is
genetic?
Sorry, I've got a bit too much Crowley in my system to go there... Keep in mind that I never, ever said that breaking a
habit, let alone an
addiction, was anything less than very, very, very hard work.
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
Quote from: LMNO on September 05, 2008, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Lupernikes_shadowbark on September 05, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 05:00:10 PM
Lupe, we aren't talking about physical addictions.
But if you want to, it should be fairly obvious that:
1) an addiction physically changes the brain, putting us in the latter category, and
2) addictions can be broken through force of will, putting us back in the former.
ah but some of us seem more open to suggestion and addiction than others; some seek dangerous and addictive situations out. Addictions can be broken but rarely alone, there are often outside factors which provide the boost of will required; a 'treatment' of sorts; the wishes or fears of a loved one, worries about health or a scare and so on. Many addicts replace their previous addiction with another one; for me it's cycling and excercise (often OTT'd)..kill the addiction yes but the cause....well....that's deeper rooted. Think of Terry Pratchett's description of Vampires who 'took the pledge'; I met him at a signing and asked him about them; he'd been giving up smoking at the time he first wrote about that and therein he got the idea.......you can beat addiction as long as you replace one addiction with another, ideally less harmful one, but you'll always have an addictive personality.....is that some form of inbalance?
You're implying that an "addictive personality" is genetic?
Sorry, I've got a bit too much Crowley in my system to go there... Keep in mind that I never, ever said that breaking a habit, let alone an addiction, was anything less than very, very, very hard work.
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
Agreed... just like Prickley Stickly and Slow and Steady... some times you need help to change...
(or like the Ethiopian and his friend the Leopard who had to help each other change in order to find the game).
maybe not genetic but perhaps learned...children of addicts often become addicts themselves...but let's not get onto the whole nature vs nurture thing here, just programming of one form or another...
even if it is genetic, there is nothing stopping someone with enough will from reprogramming themselves....I don't believe in using genetics as either a reason or an excuse, just a consideration in this case
Forgive me for not reading the rest of the pages in the thread before I give my two cents.
I say it's a spectrum, and it's a highly volitile and self-perpetuating and self-muddling spectrum at that. Mental illness contributes to personality, and vice versa, and environment and sex drive and preferred soft drink are all in there somewhere too.
Perhaps I'm being too much of a canon discordian in questioning the use of Damning Damned Things needlessly to Thud. I happen to have Asperger's Syndrome, and my girlfriend has so many things that nobody has been able to count them yet. Both of us can improve by adapting to what we have and making it work better for us, but we are verbs, not nouns; we are a process in motion, and our minds are never ever still, so it will continue to influence us probably even after our deaths, in the memories of our fans :P.