Skip to main content

mental health mondays [rewind ++] :: personality disorders, more questions than answers

i got started on a mhm post for this week and, as sometimes happens, realised that i'd bit off a little more than i could chew in a day and a half. hopefully, i'll have that ready for you next week, but in the meantime, i thought i'd return to a subject that's received surprisingly little attention here. [and whose fault is that? -ed.] personality disorders are poorly understood even in terms of mental illness, because they seem to be linked more to learned behaviour than to brain chemistry. that's a grotesque over-simplification, because mood disorders are often treated with the same medications as conditions like depression and anxiety, and type i disorders usually require some type of behavioural therapy in conjunction with medication. plus, of course, that there's nothing saying you can't have both types of disorder going on at the same time. [brains are very evil and nasty things and it kind of sucks that you can't get by without one, although it some people do seem to manage.]

there are a lot of issues surrounding personality disorders, including how they're diagnosed [often quite differently between men and women], the perceived arbitrariness with which they're defined and accepted, the perceived stigmatization of certain character traits and their potential [ab]use in explaining socially unacceptable behaviour. the post below doesn't deal with any of that. it's just a basic introduction to the world of personality disorders, how they're [currently] defined and what makes them different from other types of disorders.

as a brief aside, one of the most controversial subjects associated with personality disorders is that they are often linked to prevailing morals of the time rather than hard science. [although, when it comes to the brain, hard science is a tricky concept in itself.] labeling people as mentally ill because they are different carries some pretty horrifying baggage. nonetheless, one of the things that treating personality disorders does [or is supposed to do] is to liberate the sufferer from the baseless anxieties that can impair their ability to function and feel happy or at ease. so to that end:

is it time to look at extreme examples of racism, sexism or homophobia as anxiety-based personality disorders? 

there's a fair amount to think about there, and i'm capable of playing devil's advocate on either side. i'm putting the question out there in case anyone else has thought about it.

oh, and for those of you who hadn't figured out the answer to last week's brain teaser [or looked it up on line], cheryl's birthday is july 16th. according to the readers of mental health mondays, however [you can see the comments on facebook], the proper answer is "cheryl is a cunt". [those aren't mutually exclusive. -ed.]


original here

much of our conception of mental disorders is wrapped up in the "biggies", things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that tend to result in dramatic deviations from "normal" behaviour [even though they sometimes don't] and reasoning. but really, that's just the top layer of the crazy tiramisu. there are many further classifications of thought and mood disorders that don't get spoken about as much, but which may affect far larger numbers of people. they also tend to be more controversial, because they are less evident. someone who refuses to eat and bathe or speaks to people who aren't there or who cuts themselves because they believe that they have bugs living under their skin is obviously in need of help. someone who is prone to wild exaggeration or who thinks only of themselves often seems more in need of a boot to the head. ultimately, the fear is that behaviour which is merely odd or eccentric can be labeled as disordered thought, which obviously raises a lot of questions about the limits of individuality. i'm not going to get into the arguments for and against, that's for another day [and should probably involve a lot more voices besides mine]. this is just a quick introduction.

generally speaking, personality disorders are a group of symptoms established over the long term in an adult personality that affects or compromises an individual's thought patterns and interactions with and beliefs about the outside world. so what the hell does that mean?


well, the crux of the matter seems to be where one draws the boundaries of normal or rational behaviour and the value of moderation. if you accept that one should be moderately social, moderately trusting, moderately emotional, moderately independent and moderately empathetic then it stands to reason that behaviour that falls outside the bounds of "moderation" is abnormal. of course, you then have to establish a standard of normalcy, which will obviously have some dependence on dominant cultural values and open a whole can of social worms that i said in the opening paragraph i was going to try to avoid. i hope this serves as an example of the complexity of the issue.

personality disorders are grouped into "clusters" both by the american psychiatric association and the world health organisation. the clusters are delineated by the perceived core elements of the disorders, although there is also a category reserved for personality disorders "not otherwise specified" [i.e., "something is wrong with you, but we don't have a name for it yet"]. furthermore, the w.h.o. has a classification for mixed personality disorders [i.e., "you have a whole lot of things wrong with you"].

the a.p.a. names their clusters [the w.h.o. doesn't] ::

a. odd or eccentric disorders [remember what i said at the beginning about stigmatising certain behaviour?]

b. dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders

c. anxious or fearful disorders

navigating the waters of these personality disorders can get very rough very quickly. for starters, the naming of the disorders themselves seems to be some sort of psychiatric trap. among the disorders in cluster "a", you have both schizotypal AND schizoid personality disorder [although the w.h.o. only lists the latter]. those are two different disorders, the first characterised by abnormal [loaded term, i know] or eccentric thought, superstitious or irrational beliefs and the second by social withdrawal, marked introversion and apathy. and both are very different from schizophrenia. of course, all three can share symptoms. and you can have both schizophrenia and a comorbid personality disorder [schizo squared?]. confused yet? no?

how about defining obsessive-compulsive disorder versus obsessive compulsive personality disorder? the first is an axis i condition, where a person feels forced for reasons they can't always explain to perform certain rituals, avoid certain things, or follow certain guidelines. the personality disorder variant is extremely similar, manifesting as a strict adherence to order and process, often at the expense of flexibility and efficiency. the main difference between the two? in the axis i disorder, the subject finds their compulsions frightening or unpleasant. an individual with the personality disorder variant believes that their methods are correct. good luck figuring out where the dividing line falls on that one. if i need to get up in the morning and start my day by making a detailed list of everything i need to do, even on days when i don't want to, because i think it's the right thing to do, does that mean i have obsessive-compulsive disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder? or does it just make me well-organised?

theoretically, the difference between being charmingly eccentric and in need of help falls at the point where one's eccentricities start controlling and interfering with everyday life. if i make a to-do list every morning when i get up, that's one thing. if i wake up two hours late and still can't leave the house without taking the time to write out my list, or if i spend the entire day too anxious to do anything because i'm afraid of not knowing what i'm supposed to be doing, that's a problem. in general, then, we can say that one's level of flexibility is what's at question, but it's not always so easy to sort things into one pile or another. and that's assuming that, as a subject, i even perceive that i have a problem. most people with personality disorders actually believe quite the opposite; they think that they see things more clearly and accurately than others. which raises the question of who gets to decide when a behavioural quirk becomes problematic. if i don't think i have a problem, should that be good enough? would it be good enough if i were a drug addict? it's a very slippery slope.

in keeping with the somewhat vague criteria for defining personality disorders, their causes are likewise somewhat difficult to predict. there does seem to be some genetic predisposition, in that people with a family history of mental disorders of any kind are more likely to produce children with personality disorders, but no one has come up with a reason why. childhood experiences seem to be a major factor, whether it means some sort of abuse, neglect or general instability, which could technically mean that personality disorders are actually a long-term effect of post-traumatic stress disorder, the brain's way of orienting itself towards the world in reaction to extreme stress. and then there's the fact that personality disorders seem to disproportionately affect those who have "low socioeconomic status". so on top of all the other misery it brings into your life, being poor may make you crazy.

as tricky as they are to define, personality disorders are even trickier to treat. medications may help manage some of the acute symptoms of the disorder, but therapy, usually structured to identify the causes of disordered thought patterns and to "train" the mind to think in a different, less damaging way, is thought to be the route to a permanent recovery. i say that it is "thought to be", because the fact is that there is comparatively little research on personality disorders, so theories about a cure are still highly, well, theoretical. [this may be a side effect of those who may have disorders not admitting that they do. if i don't believe i have a problem, why would i present myself for treatment or analysis?]

if this all seems excessively complicated, it's because it probably is. and it warrants further discussion and study. but for today, we'll leave off there. more on the subject at a later time.

[you can see the full article where the chart above came from here.]


as long as you're here, why not read more?

presidenting is hard :: these people are not your friends

hello mr. president! a while back, i promised that i would periodically be giving you some advice on how to do your job, since you seem a little unclear on how everything works. i didn't mean to go so long between missives, but the fact is that i've been busy and you're administration has been in overdrive giving me things to write about. what i've realised is that many of those things are ones i can't help you with: if you or anyone in your immediate circle worked with russians to compromise the 2016 election, that shit is done. robert mueller is going to find that out, because he's the kind of person who looks like the theme from dragnet just automatically starts playing every time he enters a room. so that's your problem. i'm just here to talk to you about what you can do now that you are, by law, the president. because, while chief detective mueller is doing his thing, we all need to live with your decisions. i'm even less happy about that than…

write brain

i was talking to a friend of mine about coffee, specifically about our mutual need for coffee, yesterday and, literally as i was in the middle of a thought, an idea occurred to me that i felt like i had to note. so there i am, scribbling a note to myself that was really just a word salad of related terms, which i later transformed into a weird but more comprehensible note that i could refer to later. [i don't want another beatriz coca situation on my hands.] i feel like this idea isn't a story on its own, but something that i could incorporate into a larger project, which is good, because i have a few of those.

now, of course, i need to sit down and do research on this, because it's become terribly important to me that the details of this weird little idea that i'm planning on incorporating into a larger thing be totally plausible, even though no one but me is ever going to care. i'm increasingly convinced that the goal of every writer is to find someone who will t…

luck of the irish?

i like st. patrick's day. i like the fact that there is a holiday that celebrates celtic-ness and drunkeness at once (you could argue they were pretty close to begin with). in fact, it's probably second only to halloween as my favourite publicly recognised holiday.

so every year, i have to have my little ritual and that ritual involves visiting a pub and partaking of the cheer. i've made attempts at watching parades in various cities, but i've more recently given up that practice because a) eight out of ten times, it's freezing cold and/ or snowing in canada on march 17th and b) the parades seem to consist entirely of trucks carrying people who are as drunk as i would be, if i weren't freezing my tush off watching them. so i've backed off the parade in recent years.

however, a visit to the pub, the longer the better, is still an important thing for me.

next year, however, i'm going to have to plan things a little better.

first of all, i didn't …