Modern psychology - a joke?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... y_disorder

wiki wrote:

Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, and impulsive and aggressive behavior.

The same definition is used in the DSM.

A psychology, a science, uses the contingent social construct of 'rights' as a basis for a diagnosis of a personality disorder. This implies that whatever the current, mainstream society regards as right and wrong, and thus bases the concept of rights on, is always correct and on the basis of this social construct certain behaviors are to be judged as having a sick, unfit biological basis.

Let's say I live in Sweden, and Sweden decides that it is the right of immigrants to rape Swedish women. So if I disregard their right to do that, and stop them, I am antisocial and have a personality disorder?
If the movie Braveheart is to be trusted as somewhat historically accurate, did not the English noblemen claim to have a similar right?

How is this definition not a total joke, when you can have a personality disorder one moment, and the next moment, when the law changes, you're suddenly all healthy? Shouldn't sciences base their diagnoses on something more resistant to change, more rigid, than simply whatever are the social norms and laws of the current society?

Aren't most psychology students/graduates female today?

Mind-Body Dualism.
Either/or.
Is the mind distinct from the body or is the mind bodily processes?

Modern social sciences are based on ideal-monism.
The mind is unaffected by physical reality, it is distinct from its body.
Therefore to measure health is to define it as following the current social laws and conventions.
The fight against traditionalism is about this severing of the mind from the body.

Traditionalism is about building on the past and the manifestation of the past is the body and its inherited potential.
To master ones' destiny, not to deny it.

Totalitarianism is about mind-control.
You are what Big Brother says you are.
No reality outside the commandments.

Yes, to a degree. All of the social sciences have been infected with the same Marxist Nihilist ethic from Sociology and Anthropology to Psychology.

Using sociality as the standard by which health is determined effectively allows emotion and cohesion to be placed above logic and reason, undermining all intellectual endeavours if they refuse to wholeheartedly engage in modern social norms. One can imagine biologists being diagnosed in this fashion for their inability to produce egalitarian, all-inclusive models.

Other major problems exist such as the democratic means by which psychological disorders are agreed upon. Not scientific, being based upon rigourous interpretation of replicable data, but rather democratic, a popular vote amongst 12 leading psychologists. The most obvious example is homosexuality, which was taken out of the DSM due to pressures of a political nature and not due to any sound evidence.

Psychologists also refer to chemical imbalances on a purely theoretical level without any way of actually measuring them. Then they prescribe medication based on these whimsical evaluations.

No coincidence that women are the majority of students/graduates in this field as is the case with almost all fields which are politically charged ('please tell me how to think..'). Basically anything which propagates and facilitates hive-minded docility and mindless functionality is exalted as science whether or not it bears any relation to observable reality.

A great example posted (by Lyssa I think?) elsewhere in the forum. Compare and contrast:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just to clarify I do believe the designations are useful as templates. But they have to be juxtaposed against reality and scanned for traces of modern communitarian trends. Another criticism is that many of the disorders have overlapping boundaries making acute distinctions very difficult to attain.

Skimming through those two takes on Group Selection, I am thinking that the group must establish and maintain itself dynamically.
What does the 'altruistic' person call his/her group?
Groups form and they also split up into sub-groups and so on. It's individuals who are participating in those processes.

Sympathy can develop just as well as resentment which becomes ressentiment if the individual isn't able to split or leave a circle for some reason (external and internal).

All besides that I don't like the term altruism because it implies some sort of selflessness, which is a strange idea to begin with because what did those people do to not be them-selves? Just because I help someone else doesn't mean that it's a selfless act. Making it into a virtue is even more confusing. Suddenly being self-less (whatever that means*) is a good thing.

*Less conscious perhaps?
Less self-aware...

Anfang wrote:

*Less conscious perhaps?
Less self-aware...

Yes it would seems so: unthinking, automatic, totally accepting of ones expendable existence for some nebulous higher principle.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Uh oh, Dr. Shlomo says masculinity is bad.

EDIT: Haha, this is just too good. A fat sheboon and two white skanks will tell us all about how masculinity is harmful.

Check out the first page of the document, too. It's precious.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

when whites do it its toxic masculinity, when niggers do it its mystic primality
OK, BOSS

Notice also how instead of identifying these various made-up genders and orientations as mental disorders, they accept them as reality.

Instead of curing these diseases, they perpetuate them while working on exterminating the last bits of healthy masculine behavior in society.

It'll get worse.
We haven't hit rock-bottom yet.
The end will come when this dis-ese begins showing symptoms so that even a moron, a retard, finally sees.
It will be right before the collapse of the system that birthed it.

The virus cycle ends when the infected host dies, and the virus returns to its original crystalline state....awaiting a new host.

This memetic virus, carried by a specific parasite, will return to its original form: as words on a page, tucked away in some library....awaiting a vulnerable, desperate weakling to come along and read the text....beginning the cycle.

Satyr wrote:

The virus cycle ends when the infected host dies, and the virus returns to its original crystalline state....awaiting a new host.

This memetic virus, carried by a specific parasite, will return to its original form: as words on a page, tucked away in some library....awaiting a vulnerable, desperate weakling to come along and read the text....beginning the cycle.

Many such stories; Pandora's box, reading 'forbidden literature', 'speaking and thus unleashing a great evil'.

Yes...the metaphors refer to real phenomena.
But not always directly and clearly.

Satyr wrote:

This memetic virus, carried by a specific parasite, will return to its original form: as words on a page, tucked away in some library....awaiting a vulnerable, desperate weakling to come along and read the text....beginning the cycle

The virus is genetic though.

Even if you destroy all memes containing the virus, instead of tucking them away in a library, a weakling would eventually create almost the same memes.

The only solution is eternal vigilance.

True.

Agon....life is war.

There is no ability to disconnect the possible confusion of the ideal and real unless one wants to nihilistically disconnect the ideal from everything real, or everything real from the ideal (making it a spandrel of evolution that, when utilized with reason, would otherwise give some competitive benefit).

The system creates an environment in which healthy expressions of masculinity are outlawed and socially stigmatized, especially in specific environments. As a result, some men get depressed and start having psychological issues. Instead of pointing out the problems at the systematic level which are causing this and attempting to fix them, psychologists just give these men drugs to turn them into apathetic pussies. They don't solve the problem, they drug the men into accepting their situation or even try to brainwash them to start liking it. Getting to the actual cause and addressing it would require questioning the system itself and thinking outside of the box, and they're not interested in doing that because their goal isn't to help anybody. Their goal is to preserve the system which they are a part of. Most of the "psychologist" clowns barely possess a higher level of awareness than their patients.

Accusations, accusations...

"You are a psychopath/sociopath" = "I am not able to emotionally manipulate you or read you easily. I am only capable of immediate emotional reactions and incapable of taking into consideration a broader range of factors and long-term consequences of things, and you are outside of my comfort zone."

"You are a narcissist" = "You have an abundance of self-love and confidence which I lack, and I would prefer you stop displaying it because it makes my own lack seem inferior in comparison - start glorifying others, or at least stop glorifying yourself, regardless of who actually deserves the glory. Parity and self-lessness is the name of my game"

Sociopath is not only about not getting along with people, or with a group. I don't think modern psychology uses the term any more - like they no longer consider homosexuality a psychosis, either.
A sociopath can't get along with others. Choice is the factor - will.
It's not that he chooses not to, for whatever reason, but that he is unable, and then uses reasons to excuse his own ineptness.  

A narcissist is not simply someone who loves himself unconditionally, exhibiting a healthy ego.
It's someone who uses 'love' as a defensive measure against a secret self-doubt, self-denial.
The equivalent would be erotic pathos - for the one 'in love', the loved one is 'perfect'; everything he or she does or says and is, is divine. There is nothing he lacks, there is no flaw, no fault. The loved one is the most beautiful, the smartest, the best....he/she is perfect ni every way.
It's a kind of hormonally induced madness, enabling sexual coupling, but then gradually dissipates over time - approximately 5-7 years, for females, but it can be quicker if no child is born of the coupling.
For males it depends on many factors, one is their relationship with their own mothers - but that's another story.  
When the hormonal effects decrease then suddenly the 'loved one' has flaws, things that annoy, imperfections that were not, at first, in the throws of erotic passion, perceived. Sometimes the other extreme grows, as a reaction - eros is replaces with hatred. The 'ex-loved-one' is now the representation of everything despicable; the individuals projecting personal flaws upon what was once loved completely, absolutely; the mind tries to justify its previous state of madness by unloading his/her own responsibilities, his own flaws, upon the one who was loved, but dissapointed - excusing himself and his error in judgment.  
This is why, for the ancient-Greeks agape is superior to eros.

How does this apply to narcissism.
It's similar, except for the object of his erotic pathos. Instead of a 'perfect' other, there is the 'perfect self'.
The narcissist can do no wrong, is perfect in his own eyes, his own estimations. He is 'lost' in his own 'perfection' - ego inflates to engulf him, like a protective shield, a warm protective womb - he is reborn a 'god-like' entity.  
He doesn't simply love himself, he is mad in love with himself - it's a form of madness.
Thinking he has no flaws means he can never compensate or correct them.
Whatever happens and is negative to his interests, is the fault of some other: an external will, or force or factor.
It's never his judgements and beliefs and choices that are at fault but it is always someone or something else.
He is never responsible for his own situation.  
This is part of victim-psychology; the belief in absolute no free-will is part of it.

Such a mind does not truly trust itself.....but to hide it he accuses someone or something else for his own faults. He can do no wrong, for whatever reason...either because he is impotent or because he is omnipotent.
In the first case his responsibility is non-existent...he simply tolerates and endures what is done to him (fatalism); in the second case everything that happens to him was planned, he willed it, he made it happen, he chose it to happen...he is in control of his own destiny, he is the puppet-master; no matter what happens, it was expected, and willed.
Both perspectives are defensive.
The mind is the organ that evolved to deal with organic needs/desires and one is its survival. It protects the organism from ideas, from possibilities, it intuitively feels will hurt it.
So, in fact at the core of a narcissist is a sense of hidden vulnerability, compensating with hyperbole - inflating the ego, like a puffer fish, to intimidate the unseen external forces, all otherness.

Someone who 'loves himself' unconditionally, describes an individual who loves himself 'despite' his flaws, not to stagnate but to compensate or simply accept as what he can do nothing about.
Recognizing what you can and cannot do something about is how you find your balance....like a surfer on his board, riding the waves of causality.  It's not absolute either/or, but degrees. What you can do something about, and to what degree.  

There are three ways to deal with a weakness:
You recognize it, accept it, and move on.
You recognize it, appreciate it, and then compensate by cultivating other traits.
You recognize it, appreciate it, and correct it, as much as you can.

A narcissist can only choose the first, applies the second, intuitively, and cannot do the third, because that would involve evaluating his own responsibilities in the creation of his own flaws.
He stagnates, unable to truly and honestly know himself, before he dies. He becomes accusatory, defensive, vengeful against others, who are always, for him, the source of his calamities.

For example: he doesn't simply appreciate the difference between males and females, but he must make the delineation extreme, absolute: females become the antithesis of males; he unloads upon them everything he hates about himself, and his own feminine side.
It's not only that females are less creative, less innovative than males, but that they are absolutely worthless as both creators and innovators.
Such a mind cannot formulate degrees and percentages but must make the categories perfect precise boxes of either/or, with no fluidity, no cross-over, no fading one into the other.
Everything is precise, perfect; a noetic line separating one from other.
Hype-Masculine.
Such males make poor leaders and, more importantly, make poor untrustworthy comrades. They can never play with others, can never cooperate; they are difficult to deal with, unable to compromise to sacrifice, to self-repress, to accommodate, or to empathize...they are a disruptive element - sociopaths - and because they cannot accept their own faults, their own culpability in the failed outcome, they cannot cultivate themselves, correct themselves: adapt and adjust.
The feminine is part of socialization, and it is usually through the mother that a child learns to socialize.