HPD or Leader

This is what the Psychiatrists say are the "symptoms" of "HPD:"

"A person with histrionic personality disorder seeks attention, talks dramatically with strong opinions, is easily influenced, has rapidly changing emotions, and thinks relationships are closer than they are."

So that's basically a leader, has natural human emotions (as in they're not just in the emotion of NUMB or ANGER, stuck there by the drugs), and they like people and are sociable.

Basically, Psychiatrists are trying to tell people that the best traits of a sane human being are "sickness" that needs to be medicated out of existence.

Know the facts before it's too late for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7NDUc5TD4

CCHRint.org


Have a fabulous day and don't fear to question "Authority"

onwardsandupwards321 wrote:This is what the Psychiatrists say are the "symptoms" of "HPD:"

"A person with histrionic personality disorder seeks attention, talks dramatically with strong opinions, is easily influenced, has rapidly changing emotions, and thinks relationships are closer than they are."

So that's basically a leader, has natural human emotions (as in they're not just in the emotion of NUMB or ANGER, stuck there by the drugs), and they like people and are sociable.

Basically, Psychiatrists are trying to tell people that the best traits of a sane human being are "sickness" that needs to be medicated out of existence.

Know the facts before it's too late for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7NDUc5TD4

CCHRint.org


Have a fabulous day and don't fear to question "Authority"

Well, here we need to be very precise: actually, the diagnosis says that HPD implies an history of unstable relationships, troubles to manage anger, troubles to discern between feelings and facts, troubles to manage emotions in general, distortion of reality, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. You extracted a very little piece of text from the actual diagnosis.

http://www.universitypsychiatry.com/cli ... _PICPs.pdf

As such, once one studies carefully how the disorder is defined - both in academic books or in material targeting the common public - one also understands that it has nothing to do with the concept of "leader".

PS: I see that you belong to the so-called "anti-psych" movement: this is interesting.
Indeed, while I agree that psychology is not "science" per sè (at least, at this point in history) - thus, some things psychologists say are very questionable (I come from a math-related field of study, so I completely see the point), psychology has the undoubted, "empirical" virtue of analyzing common patterns of thoughts/behaviours observed across specific clusters of people.

So, even if it is not a "formal", well-established science, I see huge value in it.

Hey Fr,

On a personal note I agree that psychology has not reached that rigorous level of proof demanded of some fields, but I suppose that is to be expected too. Study of ourselves is somewhat unique as compared with study of much else (i.e., I don't find it surprising that we have difficulty understanding our own behavior), but I also agree it's a valuable field. Likewise even if it's debatable, observing patterns of behavior in ourselves and others is something we people have a sort of knack for, sans the fuzziness of our ability to describe those patterns (plus human variance).

Secondarily many authors have written about the concept that extreme personality types may be successful in some areas of life due to the extremes, but as you wrote indirectly, there are usually some negatives as well (e.g., relationship issues, mis-understanding how the 'norm' perceives, emotional reactions or feelings that are extreme as compared with the norm including painful emotions, etc.) It may also be true that many people with extreme personalities do not want to change if it means giving up the positives.

A final related thought is that 'norms' may tend to evolve in societies because, on average, the norms are motivated by the benefits of getting along reasonably well with others, and cooperative settings (e.g., family, joint efforts like work, and so on). A simple example makes the point -

Most people agree in most societies that stealing is wrong. Some people do commit theft though, for the personal benefits, but even those who do steal tend to agree it is wrong if others steal from them. It's a norm then for a reason, not just arbitrary why that norm evolves.

Likewise the norms re: how we treat each other, even if not always spelled out, evolve for the same reason, and this is where the concept of a personality disorder comes into play. A few simple examples make the point:

Two people with an overwhelming need to be 'right' will eventually disagree.

Two people with an overwhelming need to be the center of attention will eventually find their desires at odds (only one can be the center).

Two people who lack empathy for others will eventually step over each others boundaries.

Where most people have roughly adopted the norms, the extreme personality types may enjoy the benefits of the extremes, but also find the extremes difficult to live with in others. Hence the wording 'disordered' thinking.