Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: the silver medallists of the psycho olympics

once again, i'm reaching back into the past to start a "crazy miniseries" about an issue that i feel like i've not covered properly here on mhm. i felt that way before, which is why i did the original post, but i haven't done anything more in detail than this piece because, frankly, the whole subject intimidates me.

there. i said it.

writing about personality disorders, with their fuzzy definitions and complex treatment options, is a lot more challenging for me than writing about drugs, or statistics, or anything that feels science-y. i really like the sensation that science and research have my back. there's a lot less research on personality disorders and therefore, i feel like i'm on much softer ground.

but this space is supposed to be for all mental health issues, so my comfort be damned. for the next few weeks, we're going to be all about axis ii. but let's start by looking at some basics...

*

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?

I PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT THERE'S MORE TO READ...



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.]

Comments

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

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …