What's the difference between being antisocial and ASPD?

I am very anti-social. I can't stand anyone hardly. I read about ASPD and it talks about criminal behavior which is not me at all. I am very responsible actually. I have worked for 20 years and pay the bills. I am not working right now however just for the last few months. I think most people I come into contact with are very hurtful to eachother and to me. That is why I don't like anyone really. I do have a husband and we get along great but that is pretty much the extent of my social life. I have worked for a long time and I don't really like anyone I work with at any place I have been to. I pretend I do and actually have gotten along with most people but inside I can't stand most people. Is that really all that uncommon? Is it really a problem when someone would rather be alone then with others? Everyone is different. Some people like social things and some don't. I see others looking forward to spending time with friends and when me and my husband get invited over to someone's house and then for some reason the plans fall through and it's cancelled I feel so much better because I really did not want to go. I just like to be in my house and away from people. I like spending time with my husband and that is it. So do I sound like someone with ASPD?

Kari, anti-social p.d. refers to the people previously refered to as psychopaths. They are often seen as impulsive, sometimes violent and callous people with little sense of moralality.

From what you say I think you are confusing anti-socail p.d. with schizoid or avoidant p.d. which are usually used to refer to people who are not very sociable.

Schizoid p.d. is the usual diagnosis for those who simply wish to be alone and have no desire for any social contact, while avoidant p.d. refers to people who want to have social contacts but often choose solitude due to the stress and anxiety social contact causes them.

Take a look at the schizoid and avoidant p.d. forums and see if they fit in with how you feel.

Kari,

I spend 98% of the time on my own. I don't like being around people, I prefer quiet. I maintain my equanimity through insularity. I have no need to apply a DSM label to my life style preference or pay some quack to tell me I have a disorder.

I am just a person that likes being on my own.

Be very careful if you decide to go down the path of consulting a shrink to get a label. Do a lot of research before hand and think of the consequences of entering the world of becoming a "mental patient". Make sure you fully understand all the legal implications associated with a "diagnosis" both now and in the future.

Not liking people is not an illness! Psychiatrists will gladly tell that it is but their agenda is profit and power.

If you're cool about not liking people, leave it at that. There's nothing wrong. It really sounds like you had an awful job with awful workers and that you didn't like. I mean, when it comes to people, what's to like???

Have you thought about changing you're lifestyle? I'd do that (even though it is difficult) first but only if you're under distress. You don't sound like your distressed at all; just curious on why your preferences are different.

Have you heard of Jungian typology? It is the most used psychological tool in organisations for identifying personal preferences. Organisations use it for team building, reducing conflict and increasing productivity et cetera.

Here's a link to a test that may shed some light on your curiosity.

http://similarminds.com/jung.html

When you get your 4-letter result (it will look something like this "INTJ") type those 4 letters into google and have a search. You'll probably find you're one of the rarer 1% types and that why socialising isn't a strength of yours. Then hopefully you can learn to focus on your strengths.

PS: When you are doing the test there are no right or wrong answers, the test is about establishing preferences.

Good luck.

Those Myers-Briggs personality type indicators have fallen out of favor in psychology. My husband is a psychologist so he tells me these things. I myself am an ENFP. There's nothing wrong with applying a type to yourself, that means there are other people out there like you. Being an introvert is not the same as the label of "antisocial personality disorder." Many of the labels we get from psychiatrists are probably less accurate than this Myers-Briggs stuff and probably even less so than a Cosmo or Seventeen quiz you took as a kid, judging from how little they know about you and your medical history before they slap you with the worst possible disorder name and give you a Rx slip and some samples.

My "diagnoses" were all different depending on who you talked to, and even though I never had an official diagnosis from my psychiatrist she wanted me on a lot of meds. Also I had some undetected physical diseases that went untreated and were probably exacerbated by the meds.

Don't think just because you are shy or introverted or hate the world so to speak that you have some strange disorder.

Even the most extroverted people like to be homebodies sometimes. You don't have to go to a club or a social gathering to have relationships.

Good luck.

Badtrip,

Hmmm that's strange, I know of 5 psychologists that use typology right now. I don't need to have a fight over the merits of a typology, who cares. I agree that it is probably more accurate than any disorder slapped on you via the DSM by a quack. For labels to be accurate we need about 6 1/2 billion of them. One each. A persons name will do me for a label.

Kari,

The main thing is if you're happy not liking people and not being social there is nothing wrong with that. People are so bloody draining. I am an introvert, the outside world sux. My inside world is what is important to me.

Paradoxically, I'm great at socialising, but I avoid it because it takes days of introspective analysis of what was said and done to get over it. I just prefer undisturbed silence.

I am a current graduate student in clinical psychology.

I'm sorry to say this, but I have been studying psychology for roughly 6 years now and I can say that I have only studied the Jungian/myers-briggs in "history of psychology" courses. I do not doubt that some psychologists still use them, but it is not recommended or considered empirically accurate.

As to the original post, I hope your question has been answered. ASPD is much different then what you are talking about. I agree with another post, in that unless you are experiencing distress do not concern yourself with it. If, in fact, you are experiencing distress there is nothing wrong with seeking counseling.

Currently there are many psychologists who do therapy without using diagnoses. If you are concerned about being "labeled", then ask the therapist if they use diagnoses. You can and should call several therapists and briefly talk with them before deciding which one to see. The diagnosis question is one that you can ask.

The truth is, that while many psychologists do recognize some value in the diagnostic system, many others do it because they have to. Many insurance companies will not pay for therapy without a diagnosis. While psychologists do not having to compromise themselves to insurance companies, they also want therapy to be affordable to those who need it.

Anyway, there is my 2 cents.

Until a lab test is developed to conclusively identify the existence of lesion's associated with mental illness; all diagnoses made under the premise that the human condition can be medicalised, should not and cannot be relied upon.

Its a disgrace that people have labels placed on them that effect their legal status for the rest of their lives just so insurance company guidelines can be met.

I always suggest to people that they avoid consulting psychologist/psychiatrists, as these fields are mere ideology with no scientific validation. The best people to consult on how to learn to cope with distress are the people that have done so. Example, psych survivors.

Most psychologist/psychiatrist's have come from privileged and sheltered families and were born with silver spoons in their mouths. They have no life experience, just unproved theories contained in textbooks.

I have also learned from people in the fields of psychology and psychiatry that the Jung/Myers-Briggs typologies are generally not considered to be useful. However, I have found them useful to a degree. They lose their usefulness when people start viewing others in terms of the four letters of their type, rather than as the unique individuals they are. But the same can be said for DSM classifications.

I have a friend who, though not a psychiatrist, casually "diagnoses" everyone he knows. So-and-so's "manic," so-and-so's "schizoid," etc. It's clear to everyone who knows this person that he only has a fascination with the various disorders. Similarly, some people are overly fascinated with Myers-Briggs.

But that doesn't mean that either construct is totally useless. It just depends on how they're used.