#dsm-iii

[hauntedselves]

Other Personality Disorders

This post is about personality disorders that used to exist in the DSM or ICD but don’t anymore. You cannot be diagnosed with these disorders, as they’re not in any diagnostic manual; you would be diagnosed with Other Specified Personality Disorder (or the ICD-11 equivalent) instead.

Passive-Aggressive / Negativistic (PA/NegPD)

A pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.

Masochistic / Self-Defeating (Ma/SDPD)

A pervasive pattern of self-defeating behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts. The person may often avoid or undermine pleasurable experiences, be drawn to situations or relationships in which he or she will suffer, and prevent others from helping him or her.

Sadistic (SaPD)

A pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.

Depressive / Melancholic (De/MePD)

A pervasive pattern of depressive cognitions and behaviors, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.

Other Personality Disorders

Turbulent

Turbulent PD has never existed in any DSM. It’s part of Millon’s theorised personality disorder taxonomy, but doesn’t appear in any other literature.

It seems to be an alternate way of categorising and defining hypomania & cyclothymic disorder, and is similar to ADHD, NPD & HPD.

Millon classes it on a spectrum from ebullient personality type -> exuberant personality style -> turbulent personality disorder.

Haltlose

Theorised in German, Russian, and French psychiatry.

Haltlose translates to “unstable” (literally, “without footing”) and refers to a “drifting, aimless and irresponsible lifestyle: a translation might be ‘lacking a hold' on life or onto the self)”.

“Those with haltlose personality disorder have features of frontal lobe syndrome, sociopathic and histrionic personality traits”.

Someone with haltlose PD “lacks concentration and persistence”, and “lives in the present only”. They are “easily persuaded, and [are] often led astray”.

Haltlose PD is similar to AsPD as there is “an inability to learn from experience, and no sincere sense of remorse”. They are often described as ‘lovable rouges’.

(Cullivan, R, ‘‘Haltlose’ type personality disorder (ICD-10 F60.8)’, Psychiatric Bulletin, 1998, pp. 58-59).

Immature

Immature PD was mentioned in the DSM-III as a specifier for Other Specified PD, but removed in later editions.

It seems to be a combination of borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, dependent, schizoid and avoidant PDs.

Almeida et al. suggest the following criteria for Immature PD: irresponsibility; impulsivity; unreliability; easily swayed; mood swings; expect overindulgence from others; dependency on others; ability for remorse or regret but it’s “light and fleeting”; inability to manage assets; inability to follow plans; quick to lie; unable to delay gratification; quick to frustration; devaluation of others; risk-taking behaviour; unstable relationships and behaviour; feels both entitled and worthless; attention seeking; recklessness; shyness; ungrateful; over-familiar with others; unable to plan for the future; substance use.

They also suggest 3 subtypes of Immature PD: the dramatic and emotional subtype, the shy subtype, and the mixed subtype.

(Almeida et al., 'Immature Personality Disorder: Contribution to the Definition of this Personality', Clinical Neuroscience & Neurological Research, 2019, pp. 1-16).

Eccentric and Psychoneurotic

These two personality disorders existed only as ‘other specified’ PDs in the ICD-10, where no definition is given.

[untouchvbles]

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution V

[tyranno-solei-rex]

i love love love headcanoning George Newman from UHF as having undiagnosed ADHD but like. he's a white male with hyperactive symptoms, he was 100% diagnosed by like, age 6. schoolteachers and psychologists looooooove diagnosing little white boys with external symptoms with adhd.

[zer0point5ive]

me trying to go back in time to stop amanda from killing adam

[starblaster]

if you think “oppositional defiant disorder” is a real thing, you would have been saying the same about “hysteria” when people were still being diagnosed with it

[dimensionhoppr]

i could talk abt no empathy autism fujiko but the world isn't ready.

[prokopetz]

Today's aesthetic: cosmic horror tabletop RPGs from the 1980s whose creators wrote the "madness rules" by simply plagiarising a list of disorders and their descriptions from the DSM-II and turning it into a d100 lookup table, except the DSM-II still listed "homosexuality" as a mental disorder (it wasn't removed until the DSM-III), with the result that there are several published tabletop RPGs where there's a small but non-zero chance that seeing Cthulhu will make you gay.

[beguines]

As a significant "feminised" category of mental illness, however, HPD [histrionic personality disorder] was superseded in the DSM-III by the introduction of the controversial BPD, a label which has been increasingly applied to women, with around 75 per cent of all cases estimated to be female. Seen as a milder form of schizophrenia and lying on the "borderline" between neuroses and psychoses, the concept has been used in psychiatry since 1938. Like other personality disorders, BPD has a notoriously low reliability level even by the generally poor standards of the DSM, and even within the profession is considered by many as yet another "wastebasket" category (though as Bourne ruefully remarks, the ambiguity of such personality disorders makes them particularly useful in policing deviance in the new century). One member of the DSM-III task force stated at the time of constructing BPD that "in my opinion, the borderline syndrome stands for everything that is wrong with psychiatry [and] the category should be eliminated". The chair of the task force, Robert Spitzer, admitted with the publication of DSM-III that BPD was only included in the manual due to pressures from psychoanalytically oriented clinicians who found it useful in their practices. Such practices have been documented by Luhrmann who describes psychiatrists' typical view of the BPD patient as "an angry, difficult woman—almost always a woman—given to intense, unstable relationships and a tendency to make suicide attempts as a call for help.' Bearing significant similarities to the feelings of nineteenth century psychiatrists towards hysterics, Luhrmann's study reveals psychiatrists' revulsion of those they label with a personality disorder: they are "patients you don't like, don't trust, don't want . . . One of the reasons you dislike them is an expungable sense that they are morally at fault because they choose to be different." Becker reinforces this general view of the BPD label when she states that "[t]here is no other diagnosis currently in use that has the intense pejorative connotations that have been attached to the borderline personality disorder diagnosis." A bitter irony for those labelled with BPD is that many are known to have experienced sexual abuse in childhood, something they share in common with many of those Freud labelled as hysterical a century earlier; a psychiatric pattern of depoliticising sexual abuse by ignoring the (usually) male perpetrator, and instead pathologising the survival mechanisms of the victim as abnormal.

By the mid-1980s, the hysteria diagnosis had disappeared from the clinical setting while BPD had become the most commonly diagnosed personality disorder. BPD is now the most important label which psychiatric hegemony invokes to serve capital and patriarchy through monitoring and controlling the modern woman, reinforcing expected gender roles within the more fluid, neoliberal environment. Nevertheless, as Jimenez (emphasis added) reminds us, the historical continuity from hysteria to BPD is clear: "Both diagnoses delimit appropriate behavior for women, and many of the criteria are stereotypically feminine. What distinguishes borderline personality disorder from hysteria is the inclusion of anger and other aggressive characteristics, such as shoplifting, reckless driving, and substance abuse. If the hysteric was a damaged woman, the borderline woman is a dangerous one."

Bruce M.Z. Cohen, Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness

[frameacloud]

Some fact checks about plurality

The "Bible of psychiatry" is the DSM. In 1994, the DSM changed the name of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) to Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). This was in response to a moral panic where critics claimed that the condition was fake.

The original and current diagnostic criteria do not require trauma for DID (or MPD) (DSM-III, p. 259; DSM-III-R, p. 272; DSM-5-TR, p. 331).

The international counterpart of the DSM is the ICD-11. Its essential features for DID do not require trauma, either.

Both books say that not all cases of multiple personalities are a disorder or a severe impairment. Psychiatry recognizes that medicalizing them is not always appropriate.

Plurality (or multiplicity) is a community umbrella term for many ways of being more than one person in a body. Psychiatrists who know enough about DID are aware of it. Plurality includes but is not the same as DID.

The community has always included plurals who formed for reasons other than trauma. Dividing the community by excluding non-traumagenic plurals and calling them fake is new. That only started in August 2014 on Tumblr, unheard of elsewhere.

When that started, a trauma-caused DID system created the word "endogenic." This means plurals who formed naturally rather than from trauma. The Lunastus Collective coined it in solidarity with them.

(Similarly, the coiner of another umbrella term, "alterhuman," is a member of a traumagenic OSDD system who supports endogenic plurals. The purpose of that word is for plural systems to unite with other sorts who differ from usual definitions of human individual, valuing what we do and do not have in common, instead of in-fighting about who is more legitimate.)

Community historian LB Lee gives several good reasons why-- as trauma-surviving plurals-- they choose not to call themselves "traumagenic" or divide the community by origins. If I may briefly paraphrase a couple of these: If you see suffering as your whole foundation of who you are, then you have a more difficult time envisioning a better situation. If you want others to respect you, a losing strategy is to put down people who are seen as similar to you.

Neither psychiatry nor the greater community of plurals see trauma history as an important distinction in determining whether someone is plural.

[sage-nebula]

Little headcanons I have about Stan and Ford's childhood, and their statuses as the golden child and the scapegoat in the eyes of their father Filbrick:

I think that, prior to starting school, there is every likelihood that their positions in Filbrick's eyes were reversed: that Stan was the golden child, while Ford was the scapegoat -- the "extra Stan," if you will. I think this is likely for a couple of reasons; Stan's personality was bolder from the outside, more confident and naturally more aggressive, and therefore more traditionally "masculine." By contrast, Ford was shyer, less confident, less "manly." And then, of course, there is Ford's extra finger -- a "deformity," an "imperfection," something that could have been seen by a man as terrible as Filbrick was as an imperfection, something he was absolutely "not impressed" by.

So it is possible that, before the boys entered kindergarten, that Stan was the favored twin while Ford was the neglected one. Of course, the boys were very young for most of these years; they wouldn't remember most of them. But they would remember some of them, and then they entered school . . .

I headcanon that Stan was hit with the double whammy of learning disabilities: both dyslexia and dyscalculia. Unfortunately for Stan, he was a child in the 1960s. Research on both of these learning disabilities was still underway, to the point where a consensus on the definition of dyslexia alone wouldn't be reached until 1968. It wouldn't appear in the DSM III until the 1980s, either. And don't even get me (someone who is afflicted with it) started on dyscalculia; most people still don't even know it exists now, in 2024, much less back then when Stan would have been in school.

So the boys are in school, and Stan is struggling because his learning disabilities make reading and mathematics very difficult for him. He is playing on hard mode. But Ford, who has neither of these disabilities, is able to breeze through his work and to the top of the class. And suddenly he is able to do something that impresses the father that, heretofore, saw him as an extra, as an embarrassment, as a weakling with a "deformity." Meanwhile, the previously preferred son is the one who is now being an embarrassment by not even being able to do simple addition and subtraction, by struggling to read books that are meant for kids even younger than he is no matter how hard he tries.

And so the positions flip. Ford becomes the golden child, Stan becomes the scapegoat.

When he's little, Stan really does try with his schoolwork. He really does. But no matter how hard he tries he still can't get it to make sense in his brain, and his father and his teachers insist that he's just not trying, that he doesn't care, that he's lazy, that he's a slacker no matter what he does, so eventually he stops trying. Because if they're going to say he's not trying anyway, and if he's not going to get it even when he does try, then why bother? What's the point? So he gives up and decides to just copy Ford's homework.

And as for Ford, well . . . he realizes at some point somewhat early on that there is something up with the way Stan processes things. Of course, as a child, he doesn't know about things like "dyslexia" or "dyscalculia" either. But he'll see Stan look at a math problem, and go to copy it down, and the numbers will be transposed. Or he'll see Stan read a word out loud and mispronounce it as if the letters are flipped. And he thinks, there's something going on here, Stan's not doing this on purpose. But he's afraid to say anything. Because what if there is something wrong, and they get it fixed, and then suddenly Stan is just as good at school as Ford is? And then Stan is their father's favorite again, and Ford is once again just the unwanted, deformed extra? He can keep Stan from flunking out of school by letting Stan copy his homework. Their father won't be impressed with him, but so long as Ford lets him copy his homework and cheat off his tests, it'll be okay. That'll be fine. Ford remembers just enough of early childhood (and sees enough of the way Filbrick treats Stan) to know that he doesn't want to be the scapegoat again. The guilt eats at him, but he feeds it the justifications that he is still helping Stanley, anyway, by helping him cheat. So he kept quiet.

Years later, when they're on the Stan-o-War II, memories of their childhood resurface. Ford thinks about Stan's difficulties doing homework, and thinks about how difficult reactivating the portal to bring him home must have been -- both the reading and the mathematical equations involved, all that Stanley pushed through for thirty years to accomplish something that, for him, should have been impossible. (And Ford feels guilty for thinking that, but it's nothing compared to how bad he feels for the nasty things he wrote about Stan's reactivating of the portal in his journal. His face burns with shame when he imagines Dipper and Mabel reading those pages, and he only hopes they didn't share them with Stanley.) He does inevitably bring it up one evening over Irish coffees.

"Stanley, did you ever get tested?" "For what, STDs? Yeah, a few times. Why, do you need to get -- " "NO, for the love of -- for a learning disability. For -- " "Whoa, time out, what're you suggestin' I'm disabled for? I know I'm not the smartest guy in the world -- hell, we all know I'm dumb as bricks -- but -- " "That's exactly -- not it. You aren't stupid. I think you have -- do you know what dyslexia is?" "Sounds like an STD for nerds." "I need more whiskey in this coffee."

[yourfuckingmomdotcom]

Yandere Butler x Autistic Reader

The autistic girlies, guys, or otherwise deserve yandere content tailored to ourselves, and I’m sick of pretending otherwise /hj.

The general idea is that this takes place in a time before an autism diagnosis even existed, like the Victorian Era, but arguably the DSM III added autism in 1980, so you could be in any of those times and still technically be timewise correct. But also you can just imagine him as a modern dude who doesn’t get what’s up.

Oh also, this is inspired a lot by @kiame-sama​ ​. Do I know what a Chrollo is? Nope. Did I love the fic she made? Fuck yea. (Accidentally tagged someone else at first, sorry you didn’t see this!) CW: Non-consentual cuddling, mild drugging, yandere, autistic reader, sensory overload mentions, general violence and murder stuff

🂡 Yandere Butler was brought on by your uncle after your parents unfortunate passing. You had been passed the helm of owning their small but thriving gunsmith operations, as well as the family house and assets. Being unwed and rather young, the butler was sent to manage the things that seriously stressed you out. He, as well as your other associates, assume you are just someone of a delicate constitution, and therefore he’s always fretting over you. Initially he didn’t get it, he did his very emotionally separated duties, but he noticed how much you struggled with specific things, and how you absolutely lit up at the things you love. He found it charming and enthralling, and he could no longer separate his duties and himself. 🂡 Yandere Butler will listen to you ramble for hours over your special interest. Now, how much he understands depends entirely on the content, but he will sit there regardless. As you excitedly go over every detail as best as you can trying to get him to understand what makes you so enthusiastic, he’ll ask leading questions and generally try and find ways to engage deeper in the things you enjoy. It’s the least he could do, since it seems to make you so happy.

🂡 Yandere Butler will overstep professional boundaries as long as you’re unaware of them. He appreciates what he sees as feign innocence and gullibleness that allows him to do things that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. With the low oversight of his position in the house, as well as the authority he holds, he uses this to sneak touches under the guise of fixing something with your garments or your posture. He’ll take what feels like decades to get you dresses in the morning as he slowly glides stockings or woolen socks over your legs, placing the garter so gently atop your thigh. The small ways you allow him to touch you are to him the highlight of his day, especially if you’re really touch adverse.

🂡 Though, Yandere Butler, does understand that your comfort comes first. He finds it somewhat enjoyable to find a middle ground between sensory-safe clothing, as well as clothes deemed acceptable by wider society. He makes sure that your tailor uses the specific fiber and weave to make sure you have an exceptionally predictable texture to fall back on with any garment. He also will find ways to get you the right silhouette while avoiding a lot of structure if that bothers you. If all else fails, he might resort to more homey garments.

🂡 Yandere Butler pays close attention to your nutrition as well, always making sure to get sensory safe foods as well as some you’ve never tried before to widen your horizons just a bit. If the maids and chefs cook something wrong, or in a way you find unpalatable, there will absolutely be hell to pay. Well, moreso just a very loud scolding after you’ve retired to bed for the night, but it still hurts their feelings... He keeps his more unpleasant reprimands for when you’ve fallen asleep because he understands that you feel bad for the workers in your home when he gets like this, so he just does it out of sight. If ever invited to a required formal event, god forbid, he’ll always bring a snack and a handkerchief in case you really didn’t like what was available.

🂡 Yandere Butler also manages your medications, vitamins, and any other substances you take throughout the day. Don’t even consider doing something elicit or uncouth such as smoking or drinking more than a flute of champagne, and if you do something more elicit you’ll probably give him a heart attack. But this unadulterated access to these things lets him do things that are very ungenteel. He requires you take a sleep aid, practically knocks you out, and he takes this time to cuddle you while in your sleep. He knows you’re usually not one for unprompted blunt  affection, so he only does so when you’re sleeping. He finds your resting face adorable, and he prefers to hold you in the honeymoon hug position.

🂡 Yandere Butler, who due to your “delicate constitution” is usually helping you through sensory overloads. If you would grant him the honor, he’ll hold you tenderly in his arms as you ease back into comfort, slowly rocking both of you back and forth. Or, if you’re not ok with touching, he’ll prepare your chambers with dim lights, comforting sounds, and your bed all made and smelling of fragrances you find soothing. Despite not knowing the actual root of this behavior, he’s surprisingly accommodating and has gotten your sensory needs down to a science… which is sort of the problem.

🂡 The Yandere Butler figured out that going outside into town caused you mild to a great distress. So he made your life more simple, no more going out frivolously!... You were confused, and when you asked for more information he basically put a ban on any outside activity that wasn’t business or a disaster within the house. You got really sad about that, as you needed to go out and get things frequently for your hobbies. He ignored your short pleas to go out, initially only responding with something along the lines of, “Then go out to the gardens.”, but he knew he couldn’t keep you inside forever.

🂡 So, Yandere Butler scheduled every “unnecessary” outdoor event to be a sensory nightmare. He hates to see you so distressed, but it’s the only way you’ll learn apparently. This is only made worse by the fact he’s essentially made a sensory heaven inside of your manor, so when you go out it’s a lot worse since you’re so used to being catered to that the sensory discomfort becomes full of sensory pain. And you and him both know you can’t make a scene, lest you be ousted from high society and made a mockery of, so you’re hastily rushed back home to be coddled by him once again. It’s a very negative cycle you’ve got yourself caught up in, and it’s extremely difficult to get out of that cycle. Eventually, he hopes you’ll send a maid out to collect whatever you need instead of trying to leave him again, but until that time comes he’ll do this as much as you need until you get the memo.

🂡 Yandere Butler also manages many of your social and business connections. He’ll whisper in your ear how to deal with boring things like business decisions, stocks, and all the choices he doesn’t want you fretting about. But, he also will make sure to restrict any suitors or and non-business social events. He’ll throw out letters for frivolous parties, as he doesn’t want you tainted by others. He also will throw out suitor letters, which can make some interactions at formal business dinners a bit awkward for you when many suitors come up to you to ask about if anything got through, but the butler will whisk you away and explain that the mail must just be slow. 🂡 But one day, while a maid was cleaning the butler's room in the servants quarters, a maid finds the letters thrown out in his personal rubbish bin. She reads through them all rather confused, wondering why these wouldn’t be given directly to the master of the house. She wasn’t one to interfere with others' business, but something ticked her off. But as she’s about to walk off with an engagement letter, the butler walks in with 3 more in hand. There was a panic and a struggle from both of them, as the butler made sure she’d never be able to tell her tale.

🂡 That night, the Yandere Butler burnt the butchered maid, as well as all of the letters he’d previously thrown out to ash in the manors incinerator. He’d make sure not to make such a mistake again…

🂡 The next day, Yandere Butler makes you a special breakfast and brings it to your room. He coos, explaining that a particular maid stole from the wine cellar, and as she dropped and cracked the bottle, the red wine spilt across the floor. After that he let her go from her position, and he needed time to clean the mess himself, apologizing that your schedule was messed with and that you’re confined to the room for the day to protect your garments. Everytime you walk past the servant quarters door, you see a small red stain and remember the taste of red wine.

[hauntedselves]

Masochistic / Self-Defeating Personality Disorder (Ma/SDPD)

Note: You cannot be diagnosed with this disorder, as it's not in any diagnostic manual; you would be diagnosed with Other Specified Personality Disorder instead.

Criteria from the DSM-III-R (1987):

A. A pervasive pattern of self-defeating behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts. The person may often avoid or undermine pleasurable experiences, be drawn to situations or relationships in which he or she will suffer, and prevent others from helping him or her, as indicated by at least five of the following:

chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available

rejects or renders ineffective the attempts of others to help him or her

following positive personal events (e.g., new achievement), responds with depression, guilt, or a behavior that produces pain (e.g., an accident)

incites angry or rejecting responses from others and then feels hurt, defeated, or humiliated (e.g., makes fun of spouse in public, provoking an angry retort, then feels devastated)

rejects opportunities for pleasure, or is reluctant to acknowledge enjoying himself or herself (despite having adequate social skills and the capacity for pleasure)

fails to accomplish tasks crucial to his or her personal objectives despite demonstrated ability to do so, e.g., helps fellow students write papers, but is unable to write his or her own

is uninterested in or rejects people who consistently treat him or her well, e.g., is unattracted to caring sexual partners

engages in excessive self-sacrifice that is unsolicited by the intended recipients of the sacrifice

B. The behaviors in A do not occur exclusively in response to, or in anticipation of, being physically, sexually, or psychologically abused.

C. The behaviors in A do not occur only when the person is depressed.

Millon's subtypes:

(Millon, ed.).

About Ma/SDPD

Ma/SDPD is similar to avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, depressive / melancholic, negativistic / passive-aggressive and borderline PDs. It's part of what Millon & Bloom term the "Compliant Personality Patterns", along with OCPD, DPD & HPD.

Differential diagnoses include ongoing abuse, anxiety disorders, somatic disorders, and mood disorders.

The most common PD comorbidities with Ma/SDPD are AsPD (22.17%), Depressive / Melancholic PD (16.74%), & SzPD (12.22%). The least common was HPD (4.07%). Less than 8 percent (7.24%) had only ("pure") Ma/SDPD [much higher than those who had pure Negativistic / Passive-Aggressive, Depressive / Melancholic and Sadistic PDs] (Millon & Bloom).

Millon defines it on a spectrum from aggrieved -> masochistic (self-defeating) (Millon Personality Group); or alternatively from abused [personality type] -> aggrieved [style] -> self-defeating [disorder] (Millon). It also exists on a spectrum from self-sacrificing -> yielding -> masochistic (Millon, ed.).

Originally called masochistic PD, the name was changed to self-defeating PD in the DSM-III-R "to avoid the historic association of the term masochistic with older psychoanalytic views of female sexuality and the implication that a person with the disorder derives unconscious pleasure from suffering" (DSM-III-R). However, Millon & Bloom write that the specific name chosen is pointless, because "all personality disorders are “self-defeating.”"

Childhood trauma is a predisposing factor (DSM-III-R).

Herman argues that Ma/SDPD is a misdiagnosis of Complex PTSD, due to victim blaming and sexism (she also argues the same for Dependent and Histrionic PDs).

In the DSM-III-R it was described as being characterised by “ubiquitous self-defeating behavior such as repeatedly entering into unsatisfying and hurtful relationships, avoiding opportunities for pleasure, rejecting relationships with seemingly caring people, and repeatedly rendering ineffective reasonable efforts by others to help the person" (Coolidge & Segal).

Ma/SDPD "is a mixing or confusion of the usual pleasure-seeking drive with the pain avoidance. As a result, these individuals appear to create personal and social discomfort in their lives. Although it is often reported that they seem to feel comfortable only with guilt and shame, they are also believed to use their self-deprecation as a social strategy to gain support from others" (Millon & Bloom).

In Ma/SDPD, "the individual experiences what is emotionally painful as a means of fulfilling his or her survival aims" (Millon, ed.).

Ma/SDPD only ever appeared in the appendix of the DSM-III-R, and it was dropped because it was associated with 'feminine sexual submissiveness' (Millon, ed.).

References

Coolidge, Frederick L., & Segal, Daniel L., ‘Evolution of Personality Disorder Diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’, Clinical Psychology Review, 1998, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 585-599.

Herman, Judith Lewis, Trauma and Recovery, 2015.

Millon, Theodore, & Bloom, Caryl, The Millon Inventories, 2008.

Millon, Theodore, Disorders of Personality, 2011.

Millon, Theodore, ed., Personality Disorders in Modern Life, 2004.

'Aggrieved / Masochistic Personality', Millon Personality Group, 2015, https://www.millonpersonality.com/theory/diagnostic-taxonomy/masochistic.htm.

[untouchvbles]

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution V

[transmutationisms]

i think you do a really impressive job balancing comprehensive/concise while referencing a lot of complex frameworks(contexts? schools of thought? lol idk what to call that. big brain ideas) but if you have any readings specifically on the institution of psychiatry topic that you would recommend/think are relevant, I'd be interested. it's absolutely not a conversation that's being had enough and I want to be able to articulate myself around it

yes i have readings >:)

first of all, the anti-psychiatry bibliography and resource guide is a great place to start getting oriented in this literature. it's split by sub-topic, and there are paragraphs interspersed throughout that give summaries of major thinkers' positions and short intros to key texts.

it's from 1979, though, so here are some recs from the last 4 decades:

overview critiques

mind fixers: psychiatry's troubled search for the biology of mental illness, by anne harrington

psychiatric hegemony: a marxist theory of mental illness, by bruce m z cohen

desperate remedies: psychiatry's turbulent quest to cure mental illness, by andrew scull

psychiatry and its discontents, by andrew scull

madness is civilization: when the diagnosis was social, 1948–1980, by michael e staub

contesting psychiatry: social movements in mental health, by nick crossley

the dsm & pharmacy

dsm: a history of psychiatry's bible, by allan v horwitz

the dsm-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel, by steeves demazeux & patrick singy

pharmageddon, by david healy

pillaged: psychiatric medications and suicide risk, by ronald w maris

the making of dsm-iii: a diagnostic manual's conquest of american psychiatry, by hannah s decker

the myth of the chemical cure: a critique of psychiatric drug treatment, by joanna moncrieff

the book of woe: the dsm and the unmaking of psychiatry, by gary greenberg

prozac on the couch: prescribing gender in the era of wonder drugs, by jonathan metzl

the creation of psychopharmacology, by david healy

the bitterest pills: the troubling story of antipsychotic drugs, by joanna moncrieff

psychiatry & race

the protest psychosis: how schizophrenia became a black disease, by jonathan metzl

administrations of lunacy: racism and the haunting of american psychiatry at the milledgeville asylum, by mab segrest

the peculiar institution and the making of modern psychiatry, 1840–1880, by wendy gonaver

what's wrong with the poor? psychiatry, race, and the war on poverty, by mical raz

national and cross-national contexts

mad by the millions: mental disorders and the early years of the world health organization, by harry yi-jui wu

psychiatry and empire, by sloan mahone & megan vaughan

ʿaṣfūriyyeh: a history of madness, modernity, and war in the middle east, by joelle m abi-rached

surfacing up: psychiatry and social order in colonial zimbabwe, 1908–1968, by lynette jackson

the british anti-psychiatrists: from institutional psychiatry to the counter-culture, 1960–1971, by oisín wall

crime, madness, and politics in modern france: the medical concept of national decline, by robert a nye

reasoning against madness: psychiatry and the state in rio de janeiro, 1830–1944, by manuella meyer

colonial madness: psychiatry in french north africa, by richard keller

madhouse: psychiatry and politics in cuban history, by jennifer lynn lambe

depression in japan: psychiatric cures for a society in distress, by junko kitanaka

inheriting madness: professionalization and psychiatric knowledge in 19th century france, by ian r dowbiggin

mad in america: bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill, by robert whitaker

[sophieinwonderland]

Quick reminder: MPD was a "multiple personality" disorder. Not a multiple "personality disorder."

MPD was always in the category of dissociative disorders since it was first introduced in the DSM-III.

The name change in the DSM-IV merely put DID's name more in-line with how it was already categorized.

So if you see someone rambling about how they won't trust old sources that call it MPD because doctors didn't know DID isn't a personality disorder, remember the person saying that is a fool who has no idea what they're talking about.

DID, even when it was called MPD, was always categorized as a dissociative disorder.

Learn. Your. Facts.

Learn your history.

Don't use a name change to disregard research that came before.

[cripplecharacters]

This might be kind of a weird question, but would someone who has had nystagmus since birth be able to have schizoaffective disorder, and if so, would they experience visual hallucinations?

Don't worry about questions being weird!

This answer is gonna be long, I apologize in advance!

Small disclaimer that we don't currently have blind mods, but this answer is based on research.

So, a 2011 research study seems to suggest that being born congenitally blind or going blind very early in life 'protects' against developing schizophrenia later in life. I know you mentioned schizoaffective disorder, but it is closely related to schizophrenia that it is relevant to this discussion; the treatment for both is very similar, as well. If you've ever seen the claim "No blind person has ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia," this is probably where it comes from.

The study itself has a 2012 commentary (which is what I linked above) that mentions that it might not be definitive, and that what might be happening is that both conditions are uncommon enough that a joint occurrence is therefore much rarer; especially because it specifically refers to congenital or early blindness, as opposed to blindness that can happen later in life. It also refers specifically to blindness as opposed to low vision/visual impairment, which may or may not be what your character has.

From it, I quote:

"[I]t is remarkable that in over 60 years, and with several investigations [including several before DSM-III (1980) when criteria for schizophrenia were broader than at present], not a single case of a C/E blind schizophrenia patient has been reported."

As well as:

"These data suggest a unique relationship between C/E blindness and schizophrenia. However, we acknowledge that the absence of evidence (of people with both conditions) is not evidence of absence."

Now, from what I know of nystagmus, it often causes visual impairment/low vision as opposed to exclusively blindness, which is a significantly lower visual acuity. The study speaks specifically of congenital blindness, which is often the lowest visual acuity or maybe just light perception or similar.

Doing elaborate research study math, if your character is visually impaired rather than legally or totally blind, this means your character is more likely to be able to develop schizoaffective disorder than a character who is legally or totally blind. The chances might still be low, but I feel it's an existing possibility, taking into account the information I have about all of these.

Additionally, whether they're able to experience visual hallucination will likely depends on whether they've ever experienced visual information. Someone who never has experienced visual information due to being born totally blind will not experience visual hallucinations, because that part of their brain isn't "turned on," so to speak, and wouldn't have anything to go off of. But they could experience auditory hallucinations, or tactile ones.

Anyway, I know this doesn't give you a definitive answer because I could not find one, but I hope this helps!

– mod sparrow