best of schizoid forum?

It's the second paragraph where it goes off the rails.

She gives us the following to attempt to interpret:
- 'people with significant schizoid tendencies are more common than is typically thought'
- she could be using the term 'introversion', but isn't because:
- she prefers the term 'schizoid' for what it says about the 'complex intrapsychic life' of introverted people

A hundred years ago Kretschmer's 'schizoid' and Jung's 'introvert' had similar meanings, but they have significantly diverged over that time. Outside maybe a tiny community of psychoanalysts, schizoid refers to either a personality disorder or a disordered personality style, and introversion/extroversion are a considered a dimension of all personalities, including healthy ones. So is she using these terms in their modern commonplace senses, or not? She goes out of her way to keep that ambiguous, maybe trying to imply both groups are the same but plausibly not, and works her way through a number of freely selected anecdotes about introspective people she knows to reach her conclusion (point three, above) that was also her premise.

so yeah I'm not keen on it

Psychoanalysts (and, not so rarely, other types of psychologists too) are more interested in making things seem fascinating and occult and exotic than in actually helping make sense of anything in a useful way. It's like an intellectual circus act with a hint of cultist undertones. They're fiction writers who present themselves as academics.

On the one hand, the psychoanalytic tradition laid down a very dubious foundation for the science (arguably?) of psychology, which remains a shaky edifice to this day. On the other hand, it blessed us with a lot of really entertaining quacks like Wilhelm Reich in the process. So, a mixed legacy.

(Apparently I can't edit the post above any more, but I actually meant Bleuler's meaning of schizoid. Kretschmer's use of the term is more in keeping with the modern psychiatric one.)

Thank you, anathegram and emillionth.

Do you view the entire N. McWilliams essay as sensational/fiction, or are at least parts of it worthwhile?

Have you found any reliable sources about SPD? I realize this question must have been asked many times before, so I guess I am hoping to discover especially useful threads or links.

Thank you again.

Cholls wrote:Have you found any reliable sources about SPD? I realize this question must have been asked many times before, so I guess I am hoping to discover especially useful threads or links.

Thank you again.

Wikipedia. Other than that, forums like this, Reddit, books or case studies. As a Schizoid myself, even I struggle to come up with a singular notion of what a Schizoid is. Maybe that is why there is word that it will cease to exist in it's current form.

iabsurdlyexist wrote:Maybe that is why there is word that it will cease to exist in it's current form.

IIRC, it was supposed to have been eliminated from the DSM (and then the schizotypal PD definition would have been broadened a little to include the more clinically relevant cases of SPD), but in the end they couldn't agree on a new PD framework to replace the current one. So, pretty much everybody agrees that the PD framework of the DSM is antiquated (SPD being one of the worst offenders within it), but they kept it virtually unchanged anyway because they had to publish and sell a new manual eventually.

SPD just overlaps too much with too many things (avoidant PD, schizotypal PD, dysthymia, asperger's, depersonalization disorder, PTSD in some cases, maybe ADD, or even just plain introversion that gets mistaken as pathological when something else is the actual problem, or general maladjustment with social withdrawal for whatever particular reason), with nothing to clearly tell it apart from those other things, other than just "gut feeling" or arbitrary distinctions that don't reflect any objective pattern and that experts don't agree with each other on. There's no known generally effective treatment for it anyway, or even some type of consensus on what the goal of such treatment would even be to begin with.

In practice "schizoid" is still just a vague idea that can be appropriated by different people in very different ways, like a regular word in the dictionary instead of in a rigorous clinical manual. And I think it's very rare that someone will meet the criteria for SPD (including the general criteria for a personality disorder) without having some other mental health condition that's more important in practice. So it's kind of irrelevant clinically speaking. It's more of a vague theme for philosophical exploration than anything else, and it doesn't actually explain anything or anyone. It's really just a theme.

I am pretty sure the ICD11 places us with a detachment personality disorder. So, we lose the name but retain our characteristics. I think I read that the DSM has similar personality traits but a couple distinctions.

I can get behind certain aspects of ASD, Avoidant and Schizotypal but I don't fit those as cleanly as Schizoid. I can see certain traits come through but nothing that really defines who I am. To me, this notion that Schizoid is a personality that lacks personality seems to ring true to me. Who knows, maybe I am just an Avoidant subtype. One who has yet to jettison himself.

Thanks, iabsurdlyexist and emillionth.

iabsurdlyexist wrote:... To me, this notion that Schizoid is a personality that lacks personality seems to ring true to me. ...

I don't mean to pry, and you needn't answer but, what makes you say that?

My friend describes himself like that too. However, he has a unique 'feel' in his emails and posts. I can sense his moods and can differentiate his posts from that of others. Isn't that personality?

On this forum as well, many users seem to me to have recognizable personalities.

NTs often lack uniqueness and try to act like someone they admire, behave with affectations and so on. To me that seems more lacking in personality than my friend or the people here.

Cholls wrote:I don't mean to pry, and you needn't answer but, what makes you say that?

My friend describes himself like that too. However, he has a unique 'feel' in his emails and posts. I can sense his moods and can differentiate his posts from that of others. Isn't that personality?

I sort of stole that from the Millon section on Wikipedia. But yeah, we are still unique. However, I like to think I lack a strong ego and due to emotional detachment, don't have strong convictions to identify with. As I mentioned in another post, I may interact as something but I don't define myself in that role. So, I may watch football but I don't identify with any one team. As an observer, my personality is a bit fluid.

For Millon, SPD is distinguished from other personality disorders in that it is "the personality disorder that lacks a personality." He criticizes that this may be due to the current diagnostic criteria: They describe SPD only by an absence of certain traits which results in a "deficit syndrome" or "vacuum". Instead of delineating the presence of something, they mention solely what is lacking. Therefore, it is hard to describe and research such a concept.

iabsurdlyexist wrote: . . . due to emotional detachment, don't have strong convictions to identify with. As I mentioned in another post, I may interact as something but I don't define myself in that role. . .

For Millon, SPD is distinguished from other personality disorders in that it is "the personality disorder that lacks a personality." He criticizes that this may be due to the current diagnostic criteria: They describe SPD only by an absence of certain traits which results in a "deficit syndrome" or "vacuum". Instead of delineating the presence of something, they mention solely what is lacking. Therefore, it is hard to describe and research such a concept.

What?! You don't have a manifesto?! (No, really, thank you!) So what remains can't be generalized. What remains must be unique.

* * *

As a recovering BPD with a BPD mother, I hung out for several months with a woman (Barbara) my mother's age who was hardcore BPD. Barbara and my mother have never met.

I was struck by the generic nature of BPD behavior. For example, many of Barbara's remarks about her daughter and her ex-husband matched word-for-word my mother's remarks about me and my biological father. This happened so often that I wondered whether a unique Barbara or a unique mom (or a unique me ... yikes!) actually exist.

The BPDness felt like a thick layer of fat, beneath which was the sad person's shriveled personality. My SP friend is devoid of a lot of Bee Esse--no frills. My tentative impression (such as it is) is that the SP personality may simply be baseline personality without high-calorie toppings.

Thoughts?