Talk:Schizoid personality disorder/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Schizoid personality disorder

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aikaterinē (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 3 October 2007 (→Avoidant Personality Disorder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merging "Narcissism and Schizoid Disorders"

[I feel that the existing article on Narcissism needs editing to be even more concise and to incorporate a considerable amount of the Narcissism and schizoid disorders article, the rest to be merged into Schizoid personality disorder. There is absolutely no justification for an article that makes the link between the two.

As a precedent it could generate a neverending supply of superfluous articles, for example "Narcissism and Alcoholism", "Pregnancy and Nausea", "Fish and Chips" --Zeraeph 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

I feel this article covers the bases faily well and is not in necessary need of additional information from that article. I don't think the Narcissim article would benefit that much either, although I don't see it hurting it much either.- K-111
Hi K-111, the idea of a partial merge from Narcissism and schizoid disorders to this article is not so much make up any deficit in this article but that there are probably elements of the article that are more appropriate to this article than Narcissism. It is more about the dispersal of the "meat" of a superfluous article than any lack in Narcissism or Schizoid personality disorder. Of course, just how much "meat" that will prove to be depends entirely on how much of the Narcissism and schizoid disorders can be substantiated beyond it's existance as an original hypothesis --Zeraeph 13:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Cannot find a trace of any real substantiation for the article Narcissism and schizoid disorders at all, so I am now listing it for deletion instead, unless anybody can show otherwise --Zeraeph 12:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

SPD is not a personality disorder

SPD is not a personality disorder. Another one of the tricks to keep the gifted few, who are different, back in the heard. SPD contradicts fundamental principles of individual liberty (individualism and liberalism so cherished by our society give full freedom to an individual to maintain any lifestyle he/she desires as long as it doesnot disrupt social order.) Hence the concept of SPD as a disorder is against doctorines of social contract upon which the legal systems are based. -apurv

Good point. I've tried to represent your argument in the section about the Status of SPD as a mental disorder. Please check if it says what you mean, and feel free to improve on it, of course! Best regards, Sietse 18:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that SPD, or any other PD, is a disorder, does not contradict any principle of liberty. Flu is recognized as a disease, it does not mean that people who have the flu are compelled to take any treatment. Apokrif 22:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
SPD is most certainly a disorder, as it is currently classified as such in DSM-IV. Whether it deserves that classification is a separate matter (though I believe it does). -A schizoid, 156.34.90.214 08:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, but would it make better sense to change the article's title to "schizoid" and redirect SPD to it? It's a minor change, but perhaps a telling one? Or alternatively, to leave this article as related to the DSM category and create another, fuller Schizoid article? --Zeraeph 12:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow your line of reasoning. A schizoid is a person diagnosed with SPD. Why would this require another article, or make a better title than the name of the disorder? -A schizoid, 156.34.90.214 08:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Another schizoid, I follow the reasoning. There may be something called 'Homosexual Disorder' in a hypothetical 'The Encyclopedia of Sexual Personality Disorders', but saying something does not make it so, and others may refer to homosexuality in an entirely different way, as for instance simply saying 'Homosexual' instead of 'Homosexual Disorder'. This is like "Ceci n'est pas une pipe". It makes perfect sense to retain the object about which there are differing opinions, and not to allow one side of the issue a semantic victory that biases an article. Hopkins Disease 06:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"People who are afflicted with Asperger's syndrome often have very intense interests, while people with SPD are typically more indifferent with regard to their activities"

The article says:

While people who have SPD can also suffer from a clinical depression, this is certainly not always the case. Unlike depressed people, persons with SPD generally do not consider themselves inferior to others, although they will probably recognise that they are different. Unlike avoidant personality disorder, those affected with SPD do not avoid social interactions due to anxiety or feelings of incompetence, but because they are genuinely indifferent to social relationships.

So the "differential diagnosis" section should be more nuanced than the current black-and-white description, I think. Apokrif 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The comparison between SPD and the flu is a circular argument, since it presumes SPD is comparable to a disorder in order to show that it is a disorder. You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

The hypothesis is not that the flu is a disorder, but that the flu is recognized as a disorder. And my point is not that SPD is a disorder, but that recognizing SPD as a disorder does not contradict fundamental principles of individual liberty Apokrif 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"SPD is not a personality disorder. Another one of the tricks to keep the gifted few, who are different, back in the heard". I don't know of any evidence suggesting that being a schizoid makes you gifted, aklthough some gifted people are obviously schizoid.

Randy_LeJeune 10:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Randy LeJeune, If you were really schizoid, you would care less about what others (including doctors or psychologists) think about you or how they label you. We are way better than them. LOL Liz from Brazil

  • I would certainly consider SPD a personality disorder. (I myself fall in line with a number of the prerequisites for having this disorder, for the record, though it's irrelevant, it dispells the notion that I seek to somehow quarintine the schizoid segments of the population) Keep in mind that in order for it to classify as a personality disorder there are a number of prerequisites. Even if a person meets three (or even all) of the traits listed in the criteria they would only be considered to have "Schizoid Personality Disorder" if they also met the criteria for personality disorders: that the afforementioned traits are resulting in dysharmonious behavior, negatively affecting one's functioning, maladaptive to their personal or social obligations, result in personal distress (though this may not be apparent in later stages, or wish schizoid or anti-social traits), negatively affect occupational performance, etc. If you exhibit schizoid traits and manage to hold own a job competently and are content with your lifestyle you wouldn't be labeled as suffering from "Schizoid Personality Disorder", though you may most definitly have the traits. - Xvall

I think it isn't the place of anyone here, or this article to determine whether SPD is actually a disorder or not. If tomorrow, someone came out with utterly conclusive proof that SPD -isn't- a disorder, it would still be reasonable for this article to exist under this name, as a result of how it has been considered. Consider, for example, the existence of Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories. Document the contreversy regarding the status of SPD as a disorder, absolutely. But it skirts too close to original research to just say it's not a disorder, when it's commonly accepted as one. neongrey 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Schizoid Personality Disorder, An interesting "disorder" because the "sufferers" don't care...

I thought that seeing as how I recently discovered that I "suffer" from this affliction, perhaps I could share my experience with this "disorder".

"neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family almost always chooses solitary activities has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person takes pleasure in few, if any, activities lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity"

While this perfectly describes myself, and my supposed "disorder" there are several indescrepencies on the page http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/schizoid.htm. For example, I quote: "While these individuals do not particularly struggle with shame or guilt, they can be quite anxious about basic safety" this is certainly not accurate for myself, as I have a tendency to show a strong lack of interest in my own safety, much to the dismay of the people who are determined to surround me.

Also, my case of SPD is very different from the one discussed on this page for two reasons: I have excellent social skills (that I choose not to use), and I am extremely articulate when I have to be. Only over the last four years (I am now 18 years old) has this "disorder" set in. In the last few years of my life, I had many friends and had parties regularily. There were a lot of things that happened to me, mainly with a certain relationship that made me dislike attention and speaking with others. I moved from my small town to a city almost six months ago, and I do not miss any of those people I used to know at all. I'm glad that I no longer have to talk to anyone. I still don't know anyone here, and I'm glad of that. My family always suggest that I meet people, but I really don't want to. The emotion I feel when I am alone is actually strikingly similar to the love I once felt.


I also show the lack of emotional spectrum symptom. This is an interesting one. I can't say if this is bad or good, because I simply don't feel enough to care. I have had this issue almost the whole four years, steadily degrading for the first two until the most sadness I could feel was about on par with the sadness a normal person would feel if they dropped a sandwich. My happiness too, is about the same as how happy a normal person would feel if someone gave them a sandwich.


I don't really want to type anymore. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.216.178 (talk • contribs) .

Just a brief thought but, perhaps while there certainly is a Schizoid Disorder (where contact brings distress for example) I wonder if, perhaps, there is also a perfectly healthy "Schizoid Orientation"? --Zeraeph 13:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been conjectured by others as well. Some make a distinction between "higher" and "lower" schizoids, the former being the most withdrawn. -A schizoid 156.34.90.214 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, but I don't think disorder should be defined by how "withdrawn" you are, but rather but how functional you are, in the sense of being law abiding and self supporting for example. Otherwise you are tagging "withdrawal" as disorder in it's own right, and I doubt if it is.
Perhaps, in many cases, the best way to treat the disorder is to strive towards a more functional, self-supporting form of withdrawal, rather than to attempt to fight the need to withdraw? --Zeraeph 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't the superficial symptoms that make it a disorder, it's the underlying cognitive processes that result in them. -Objectivist-C 04:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That is assuming psychologists actually have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

IMHO SPD isn't a problem for the individual who has it per se: The problem is with societies expectations and the overwhelming consensus that to conform is the norm. I'm quite happy being who I am and doing what I do, what I can't be bothered with is people telling me that to feel a certain way is wrong. So in conclusion maybe this 'disorder' and certain other personality disorders aren't disorders of the individual but of the society in which that person exists? Or is this a schizoid viewpoint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.16.114 (talk) 11:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Personality "disorder"?

Is being a "schizoid" really a personality disorder? Western, specifically American, culture places much emphasis on being seen, being heard, and just plain being noticed as it does on competition and individualism. Status is dependent on other people. After all we don't have the phrases "conspicuous consumption", "rat race", and "dress to impress" for nothing. Maybe there are others (the truly introverted and schizoid) who do not want to capitulate to such extroverted nonsense.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.190.86.53 (talk • contribs) .

I think there is a Schizoid Personality Disorder, where the condition causes distress, and/or threatens function and survival (hard to imagine how it could threaten others?), but I think there is more to that disorder than just "being Schizoid", if that makes sense?

I think it is possible to be Schizoid and function and survive as well as anybody. I think many do, and I don't think that should be called a "disorder". However, equally, I don't think those with Schizoid tendencies who are struggling to find ways to survive should be called "functional" either. --Zeraeph 13:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also those of us who are functional, but find that our issues get in the way of attaining our goals. -A schizoid 156.34.90.214 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think, maybe, being Schizoid becomes a disorder when the issues cause unreasonable distress by getting the the way of goals (I am sure everybody has a certain amount of issues that obstruct their goals to a degree). Or perhaps, when the issues and goals of the individual are in too much conflict?
I suppose it's something for the individual to determine. If you are Schizoid, self supporting, as content as anyone else and feel no need for any kind of help, then you surely can't be "disordered"? But you surely are different. --Zeraeph 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
When I say "getting in the way of goals", I mean specifically schizoid traits like the social inhibitions getting in the way of career advancement, for example. But there are other justifications for maintaining it as a disorder, as making it easier for the few desiring treatment to receive it, in some cases. -Objectivist-C 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC), formerly "A schizoid".

I think you misunderstand me, I am saying that just being Schizoid is not always a disorder, though it can be if it interferes with functionality or quality of life. I think we need to keep BOTH "healthy schizoid" AND "schizoid personality disorder as seperate conditions. --Zeraeph 23:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no personality trait, when demonstrated in excess, that is not destructive to the person that exhibits it. Schizoid behavior is no exception. The DSM IV is very specific that said traits must interfere with the function of your life, in order to be a disorder. It seems fair to classify a possibly unwanted trait causing abject pain to it's host a disorder. It seems equally fair to classify those that live happily with Schizoid behavior as relatively sane and unafflicted. -A more enlightened Schizoid

You boys are arguing about something called a Shadow Syndrome.--DashaKat 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

References style

The style used here is ungainly and ugly, could someone format it in a different way? Add the page number also. Italise book titles. Skinnyweed 09:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The citations now use the proper cite templates (i.e., {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}), and I've also converted the referencing style over to the <ref> footnote style. The citations are now more consistently formatted (and hopefully the references section looks less ugly too). — Jeff | (talk) | 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Relationships with others

The paragraph discussing sexuality has no citations. It was added by someone on a psychiatric problems discussion board, so I'm aware of their motive and that they only added it because it was their personal experience, and not something he read out of published material. I suggest that this be cleaned up and proper references added. -- Cyborg Ninja 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think you know who added this and you have no way of knowing if this was personal experience. The only thing that matters is whether this is true of Schizoids or not. Yes, these two paragraphs definitely needd proper references, but there are more apprpriate methods of dealing with this. The appropriate way of doing so is not to remove, but to post here in Talk: that you see a problem with it. Then you add the fact tag for signaling to those who are interested in the personality disorders that they should pause in their journey, pick up a textbook or two, and add those references. If they unreferenced sections are deleted, that smacks more of vandalism then helpfulness. But many newcomers make similar inexperienced leaps into misjudgement. So, keep your head up. You could learn a great deal. -I am Kiwi 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering I read the person's post myself on the message board, there is 0 doubt it was added out of personal experience, and even out of contempt. I actually had to go and fix your tag because it wasn't the correct format. And you call me a "newcomer." Yes, I could add a reference for those "facts." But it would have to be to someone's personal comments on a forum. That's not much of a reference. -- Cyborg Ninja 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not true of scizoids. Four members of my family (including me) suffer from this disorder,and even my GP said it was not trueCerebus shun 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

† Just a thought I've been having, maybe we shouldn't keep talking about what we "think", and getting into what we "know". Almost no one has this as a personality disorder (a lot of people seem to come up with a ton of immediate family members who meet the requirements without being diagnosed because they DO NOT HAVE IT). The fact is, if it is actually a personality disorder, then it is causing a problem with that person's ability to function in society, as is the definition of a personality disorder. If it is not doing that to the person, then it is not a personality disorder. And it would do people wise to stop the self-diagnoses from information you got from Wikipedia.


Hello, I am just now learning about this disorder, social tendency or how ever you wish to describe it. I am dealing with an individual, who advised they had been diagnosed as a result of severe depression, so much, so suicide was contemplated. I am confused. If someone is schizoid,split or detached, how is the strong feeling generated to bring them to the state of depression?

mnemonics

I have noticed recently that a lot of the personality disorder pages have mnemonics about the diagnosis criteria of the relevant disorder. It's painful to me to see such inane crap on these pages. They aren't even clever -- they're tasteless, patronizing, and read like something a particularly unintelligent student would memorize for a psych 1 test. It took considerable restraint to keep from just deleting them without asking, but I beg you, the wikipedia psych-editing community, delete these childish things!


IDK, I think they have been pretty helpful, even if you think they are childish.


While I understand the mnemonics may be helpful for memorizing SPD traits I think it is somewhat out of place as an encyclopedic entry. For that reason I've deleted it. Of course, it can be re established if others see good reason for it to be there. Soulgany101 13:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho

RE: "It is possible that the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech Massacre, Seung-Hui Cho, suffered from this disorder."

it is possible Cho was a Schizoid Personality, but you have to be a lot more than a SP (which not a "disorder") to do what Cho did. a whole lot more.

i'm extremely disturbed by the fact that in the first paragraph of the entry to this highly misunderstood life circumstance that there is a reference to Cho. the last thing any SP would want to see is a link between their way of being in this world and the violence Cho committed. he had other issues that should have been addressed, but being a SP (if he was) did not lead him to such acts.

i'm going to use my newfound wiki powers to delete that part of this entry for the following reasons:

a) no diagnosis (to my knowledge) of Cho as a Schizoid Personality was ever professionally made

b) even if he was a Schizoid Personality, there is no established link between being a Schizoid Personality and acts of violence

c) being that no such diagnosis was made, and being that no such links have been established, it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise in this wiki entry

Jcp135 08:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Why would a schizoid hurt anybody except in self defence? Surely to be schizoid and then go out into the world and deliberately put yourself in the way of harm is a contradiction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.16.114 (talk) 11:25, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

History

I provided a brief history of the writing tradition on schizoid personality, but could not get the whole text to show up on the webpage (as I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia editing). If anyone can fix this it would be appreciated. The history would also benefit with more details of the historical contributions to the descriptive tradition, as I am not familiar with the contributers to this line. John Gunderson and Theodore Millon may be representative (?) in the descriptive tradition as they both contributed extensively to the DSM descriptions, but their bios will have to be checked to confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulgany101 (talk • contribs)

I'll see what I can do --Zeraeph 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
AHA! the indents, and the </br> made it disappear...great section, all fixed now. --Zeraeph 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zeraeph! (soulgany)

Treatment

I'm wondering if the following line sounds a little condescending, not to mention that no reference is cited: "They may benefit from social skills training..." ?? My experience of schizoid individuals is that they are adequately equipped in their knowledge of social etiquette and skills, which they may consciously choose (for good personal reasons) not to employ. If others agree I recommend someone delete this sentence. Soulgany101 09:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also this in the same section sounds condescending and patronizing (claiming that all schizoids are emotional/social dummies, which they are not) and is unreferenced: "socialization groups may help these people with SPD. They will help them start on a lower interpersonal intensity and will teach social propriety, customs, manners, and comfort. As said by Will, educational strategies also work with people who have SPD by having them identify their positive and negative emotions. They use the identification to learn about their own emotions; the emotions they draw out from others; and the feeling the common emotions with other people who they relate with. This can help people with SPD create empathy with the outside world."

Firstly, I think I'll do a check on this 'Will' reference, and see who he/she is.

Is it really true that schizoids are emotional dummies? I really have trouble with these glib pseudo-psychological proscriptions for becoming 'socialized'. This needs to be discussed regarding whether it should stay in the entry. Anyone? 124.177.90.233 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok had a quick look for the name 'Will' on Google and on Amazon in relation to Schizoid PD, and found nothing. I'll leave it a week and if no one chimes in to validate this passage, or give reasons for why they think the above sentences should stay, I'll delete them.

Diagnostic criteria and profile

This section now includes two entries from the descriptive psychiatry (ICD-10 & DSM-IV-TR) and two from dynamic psychiatry line (Guntrip, & Akhtar). This should provide an balanced representation of both traditions.Soulgany101 01:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reservations about the new layout of the Guntrip and Akhtar criteria created on 6 June 2007 by 68.148.164.134 , which although now easy to read I don't think make good use of the page space (one long thin line of info on the left of the page). It also makes the contents table unwieldy. Is the new change necessary? I recommend it be reverted, what do others think? . 124.177.168.84 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Per reply to your question, I agree there is a better solution: tabulation. This should work temperiloliy. But you can't claim that the TOC is unwieldy, as that is an opinion, & not a fYes, act.68.148.164.134 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, tabulation sounds like a useful solution. I've just had a look, and the table is definitely an aesthetic improvement on earlier versions. 124.177.168.84 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I Meant

Please help me, I tried to get 'Features' to cover 'Overt' & 'Cover'. I don't know how to get rid of the grey cell.199.126.28.20 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Social/emotional dummies

My experience of schizoid individuals is that they are adequately equipped in their knowledge of social etiquette and skills, which they may consciously choose (for good personal reasons) not to employ. Soulgany101 09:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm no "expert" but my feeling is that schizoid individuals are indeed more than adequately equipped in their knowledge of social etiquette and skills. dummies they are not. i believe they just can't be bothered about whether or not others think so.

i'm left wondering to what extent the corpus of knowledge on "treatment" defines the very "problem". maybe some sp's do benefit from "social skills training". but then were they sp's in the first place if they seek and hope to reap benefits from such treatment? i don't know. quite frankly i'm not troubled by the psychological establishment thinking as much. --Jcp135 07:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jcp, I agree with what you are saying, and for those reasons I deleted the condescending/offensive sentences some time ago. Regarding the psychological establishment thinking this way about schizoids, I doub't that all of them think so condescendingly, rather its just the emotional dummies in their ranks who call schizoids emotional dummies! Anyways, those references have been weeded out of the page. 124.187.121.128 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria, and article size

Added the Psychodynamic Diagnostic (PDM) Criteria as representative of the dynamic psychiatry tradition. This section now has two entries from the descriptive tradition (ie. DSM and ICD entries), two from the dynamic psychiatry tradition (PDM and Guntrip criteria), and the psychological profile by Akhter to finish off. Soulgany101 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Aikaterinē== Avoidant Personality Disorder ==

SPD and AVD seem to have many traits in common. I think the section that discusses the differences between the disorders should be expanded. Aikaterinē 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AvPD is a very unstable diagnostic entity and the varying points of view should probably be argued out on the WP AvPD entry. For instance, object relations psychology tends to view AvPD as on continuum with SPD (ie. "high level" or "low level" SPD). The DSM treats it as a distinct entity from SPD (Millon's cute cuts and cubbyholes). The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual treats it as social phobia/anxiety. And so on. This is a long way from being resolved and to select just one of these disparate entries would violate NPOV. With any luck the forthcoming DSM-V will correct this mess. Soulgany101 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In my opinion, AvPD is probably on a continuum of SPD.Aikaterinē 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schizoid_personality_disorder/Archive_1&oldid=162107792"