Skip to comments.Everybody Has A Mental Disease: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5.
Posted on 08/03/2010 5:42:45 AM PDT by mattstat
Step into my parlor, and let me wave my diagnosticulator at you. OK, let me just consult the book.
Ah! Just as I suspected. Since you yelled at that IRS agent during your audit, we know you suffer from temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria. This is normally seen in children, and is what we used to call a temper tantrum. Actually, it is a mental disease.
When seen in adults such as yourself, it requires medication, if not confinement. Its for your own good.
And speaking of children, you have some, do you not? With a guardian such as yourself already known to be suffering from a mental disease, your children are at risk. In fact, Im going to write a prescription for Psychosis Risk Syndrome. You just give them these pills, OK?
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-V is on its way. Just as did DSM-II, DSM-III, and DSM-IV, the fifth entry in this best seller from the American Psychiatric Association will expand the number, kinds, and ranges of mental disease.
Thus, the APA will have fulfilled at least one of its functions: providing job advocacy for its members.
As in previous editions, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wmbriggs.com ...
Thank goodness I’m normal ;)
I have a severe aversion to leftists - I have strong desire to stomp their faces in.
Communist goals number 38 and 39 of 45 read on the house floor by A S Herlong on january 10 1963.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Virtually everything is a mental disorder according to these folks. Except homosexuality.
Let's define crazy as an inability or refusal to define and adapt to reality.
At sunrise on the Serengeti Plain, reality for the wildebeest is that he must run faster than the lioness...or he is dinner. And the lioness must run faster than the wildebeest or she cannot feed her cubs or herself.
In the wild, if you are alive...you are sane.
But human beings are able to exist at quite some distance from reality and, the more society and families coddle their members, the more such members are able to extend that distance.
Human insanity, quite incorrectly, has been historically defined by society and families as that distance from reality at which members become difficult to handle or inconvenient. That of course is a fallacy.
Because humans cannot define reality (and, for the most part, refuse to try) and because reality, even if it could be defined, is a rapidly moving target, it is difficult to calculate the distance between a person and his reality.
But knowing humans as we all do, we can be safe in presuming that such distance is, on average, significant...and that humanity is collectively and individually quite insane.
Brilliant. Like the Ukranian Criminal Code, article 54, of the Soviet Union. Everyone can be labeled a counter-revolutionary. The tyranny of ambiguity- your guilty because everyone is guilty.
Being a conservative is in itself a mental disorder.
Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339375
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
John T. Jost
University of California, Berkeley
Arie W. Kruglanski
University of Maryland at College Park
Frank J. Sulloway
University of California, Berkeley
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism,
dogmatismintolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,
regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification).
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological
variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47);
dogmatismintolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (.32); uncertainty tolerance (.27);
needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (.20); fear of threat and loss (.18);
and self-esteem (.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification
of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty
I note that those that came to this conclusion are from the leftists; meccas of Bezerkley and Stanford. Did they say anything about liberals being whack jobs?
What do they say about buggery, or the desire to commit buggery?
In other words, DSM-IV is in agreement with every poet, novelist, wit or scribe that ever lived.
Thanks for posting those. There have been many times when pointing out one or more of those goals would have been appropriate but I have been too lazy to do the necessary finding, copying and pasting.
They have accomplished most of what they intend and they are indeed down to the last, most draconian few.
Thank you for your contribution. I hope you had fun writing it. Now, for the rest of us, would you mind relating it to something real? I like to compare my reality to something real so I need an example of what you are describing. Thank you, again.
Oh, that's the only thing that is 100% genetics caused. </s>
If that is difficult to understand, simply take a look at the Democratic Party and Liberals.
Their entire movement is grounded in a fear of the uncertainties of life. They are trying, for the most part, to eliminate these uncertainties through the application of a type of human organization called socialism.
Socialism has been been proven over and over again not to work (and, in fact, creates a kind of human slavery--in which humans are slaves to the state).
Their fear of the uncertainties of life (they call it unfairness) is so great they would rather be enslaved in a zoo than to freely and bravely face and negotiate this "reality" fraught with uncertainty. BTW, this zoo has been shown to be quite ineffective at eliminating life's uncertainties...but Liberals still cling to the idea.
As you and I know, one cannot avoid life and life is uncertain...but Liberals refused to accept and adapt to this reality.
Hence, they are insane.
That's just one example! We all have fears that cause us to behave irrationally and hence we are all insane to some degree.
Does that help?
There was a thread on FR the other day in which a few Freepers were grousing about the way companies treat their employees during recessions.
Some were saying that, for example, "I stuck with that company during the bad times and it fired me without any appreciation for my commitment."
This is another example of the irrational human fear of reality (call it the "fear of uncertainty").
Corporations are, in their own ways, socialist enterprises.
Employees give up certain freedoms in exchange for the greater certainty of a collective human effort.
Corporations owe their very existence to their ability to attract employees by giving the illusion of the elimination of uncertainty.
But corporations don't eliminate uncertainty...they merely transform it into more palatable units.
Workers are permitted their illusions of safety in numbers in exchange for a certain amount of servitude. This is not alien to humans or to pack animals (belong to a pack, not carrying one) because both have for time immemorial found safety in groups.
The problem arises when humans adopt the irrational belief that they are safer than they actually are.
That is another example of insanity due to failure to accept or adapt to reality...and this is one that Conservatives are familiar with.
If it makes you feel better I suppose it does. However, as Bill Bennett used to say, you are being too smart by half.
Rational or irrational depends on your point of view, your value system, much of which was formed for you by others before the age of five. From birth we are hard-wired to fear death. That is what the primal fight or flight impulse is all about. As a result, we desire to have as much control over our environment as possible while knowing we can't have complete control. That is rational in my opinion. How we go about controlling our environment may seem rational to some but irrational to others, depending on their points of view.
Your entire argument rests on your personal view of "rational" and your opinion that those who vary from your view are insane.
Or you are too stupid by half!
As I said, it depends on your point of view. You illustrated it perfectly.
As an old professor of mine used to say,
"Stupidity is not an easy thing to come by. It takes years of hard work.
"It the the application of arrogance, laziness, and fear."
"You can even see it in yourselves when you come upon something you don't understand."
"If you dismiss it as wrong simply because you disagree with it or don't understand it (this is often accompanied with a certain amount of insult toward the person or thing not understood), you are starting down the road to stupidity.""
"Understanding a thing not at first understood or agreed with takes a little effort, but lazy folks would rather just dismiss it with insult. This applies to something as tiny as another person's perspective which is new, different, or disagreeable to what you currently hold as 'truth.'"
"And as to fear...that is the most important, particularly after you have been stupid for a period of years (and we all have in one way or another)."
"You are right to be afraid when coming upon something new or difficult to understand. Yes, it may upon examination prove to be wrong or just another persons opinion (i.e. applicable to another person and not to you or your life), but it might also hold evidence that you have embraced a huge body of misinformation. In fact, it may cause you to conclude that much of what you have done in life was a mistake...and that is a fearful thing."
"That said, it takes courage to consider (and continually consider) that new information may indeed cause you do consider your own errors."
"But wouldn't you want to know if and where you might have been wrong?"
"If your answer if no...then you are well along the road to being "stupid."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.