Talk:Schizoid personality disorder/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: The citations now use the proper cite templates (i.e.,  and ), 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)
thread_title:  References style 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Relationships with others

message: † 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?
      There are schizoids who hate that they aren't emotionally connected to people. For instance, I want to 
      have social desires, because it would make me fit in better and possibly make me feel more alive.  But the idea of me 
      ever forming real, emotionally-deep relationships seems quite impossible.  The hopelessness of it has lead to major
      depression.  Not every schizoid is a happy loner/non-conformist.
      Also, schizoidism overlaps with depression in that there's a tendency for amotivation and apathy.  I have a huge
      nihilistic tendency which extends even to myself.  What does it matter that I don't live?  Nothing in this life matters 
      so what's the harm in blotting out my existence?  Depersonalization furthermore makes self-harm/suicide seem less of a 
      way of ending life and more of a way becoming reattached to it.
      Schizoids have plenty emotions; they just choose to express them in private.  And because they have a hard to 
      expressing their feelings to others, they keep them bottled up where they can fester.  In normals, general sadness might 
      be mopped up easily over cheesecake and Ben and Jerry's with a best friend.  In schizoids, who tend not to have a 
      shoulder to cry on, they end up wallowing in the pathos of their lives--some of which is stuff from years back that they 
      never got over. Thus the depression.Dead Evil Robot (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: 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)
thread_title:  mnemonics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seung-Hui Cho 

message: 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)
replies: text: AHA! the indents, and the </br> made it disappear...great section, all fixed now. --Zeraeph 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Treatment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Diagnostic criteria and profile

message: 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)
thread_title:  I Meant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Social/emotional dummies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diagnostic criteria, and article size 

message: 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)
replies: text: In my opinion, this interpretation is entirely off-track. The psychological underpinnings of SPD are feelings of grandiosity, a sense of inherent separation, and indifference to social relations (at least in higher level brain functions). AvPD, on the other hand, comes from intense feelings of inferiority, a conscious longing for intimacy, and hypersensitivity to social relations. Herding the groups together because both spend time in their rooms with the shades drawn is too simplistic a view. Try giving this article to patient with Avoidant Personality Disorder, and ask if this is how his mind works. I think you'll get a surprising response. Estemi (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the behavior you are describing is quite simply social phobia (or a variant of it), and the DSM committees need to sort out once and for all the difference between social phobia and high-functioning schizoid personalities, and then decide which one it wants to award the label Avoidant. 121.223.117.85 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidant Personality Disorder 

message: I looked it up in the dictionary and its not there. The word is in the Clinical Features Of Schizoid Personality Disorder, Go to Cognitive Style in the Covert feature and it says: autocentric use of language.
I'd actually like to know because I think I have this disorder and have absolutely no idea what this means. What I'm guessing is that I have no ability to communicate with others, which is exactly how I feel and this is confusing me enough to actually write this out and find out. I also feel horrible about someone else being in the exact same situation as me and not being able to find out what this word means, even the spell checker says this word is spelled incorrectly...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplez1k (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Autocentric apparently means "within the self" [Penguin Dictionary of Psychology]. From what I can gather from internet listings 'autocentric use of language' means "not for communication or understanding" but rather concerns a presentation of an internal dialogue concerned purely with affirming one's own perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and not those of another person/s. I'm assuming such 'me' talk does not have to be puffed-up or grandiose, and may even have a humble character. But it does not  incorporate or rely on facts communicated by other people. 124.186.83.250 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autocentric is the tendency to talk about oneself, people who are autocentric characteristically use "I" and "me" allot in their speech. Just as the person who suspects themself to have SPD demonstrated. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is autocentric? 

message: I notice under [External links] that there are several Yahoo discussion forums, and others. Apparently these are [links to be avoided]: "One should avoid... Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET".
The present links should be deleted and an acceptable DMOZ category can be posted which lists these groups. Goddessculture (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the chat board links.  External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience.  Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.  I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article.  The DMOZ idea is a good alternative.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: A "Schizoid" is an exploding enemy in the game Mercury Meltdown, should we mention this?--82.3.49.212 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At most, mention it in the article "Schizoid", if there is one (although personally I don't think it's notable enough to warrant its inclusion).  It should not be mentioned here because this article is specifically about SPD, not schizoids in general. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury Meltdown 

message: "60.231.83.80" wrote (Deleted POV. Nowhere do the cited articles mention SPD as a "schizophrenic spectrum disorder" nor an "autism spectrum disorder".)
From CNN http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00865.html
Schizoid personality disorder is considered part of the "schizophrenic spectrum" of disorders, which includes schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia.
there you go...hope there won't be any more POV negationism based edit and that we can close the edit war on the spd being part of schizophrenia spectrum disorder. It's written, black on white and it's by CNN (notable) by Wikipedia's rules, it goes in.
I can find another (notable) link that says spd is part of the autism spectrum disorder too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.211.216 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wolff hypothesis is not the mainstream one. I replaced the citation to the old primary source with a citation to a recent reliable review; as per WP:MEDRS reviews are preferred when possible. If someone wants to go to the extra work of also mentioning the Wolff hypothesis that would be fine, but as per WP:WEIGHT the mainstream view should be given more prominence. Eubulides (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia spectrum disorder 

message: This article has a lot of info, but one thing that I found it to be missing, that many other psychological articles had, was a list or theory of possible causes for this disease. Is it only the normal 'childhood trauma, etc.' type stuff, or what? And if so, then shouldn't that be on here as well?
67.60.187.161 (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The concept of SPD otherwise would just be a description of symptoms, categorized and then labeled. In order to understand and treat the 'disease', understanding of the causes would be vital.Tarvau (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SPD has symptoms in common with other personality disorders. Therefore, in order to safely distinguish it from others, one must have some knowledge on the causes of this disorder. Hope somebody adds some info ^^ --TEO64X 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes? 

message: What the hell does that mean, then? Someone who is not limited to their own culture, someone who is not racist, has Schizoid Personality Disorder? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means some who doesn't like to, or doesn't want to associate with their culture. --Uwaisis (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: But like I said, just because one isn't limited to their own kind, that makes them have a disorder?! Le Anh-Huy (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means that it is a common trait among sufferers of the disorder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.113.111 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Since psychiatry is bullshit, yes they can even say that ethnocentric crap. A survivor of psychiatry that choses meditation to improve mind and spirit. Bodinagamin (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak Ethnic Affiliation?!?!

message: Is it just me, or does parts of the table contradict the artice? I am mainly referring to the "covert" section of the social interaction (title probably wrong) section. 68.82.200.159 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Wonder if Buddah was schizoid. After all, isnt Nirvana an achievement of detachment from all need and desires? Better than being needy for relationships and the like. Whats it like to be lonely? I wouldnt know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.27.183 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a current representation of societal fads and childish practices of labeling people. Just like more than a century ago, African-Americans who didn't behave like a slave had a mental disorder.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  buddha 

message: "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 doesn't disrupt social order.) Hence the concept of SPD as a disorder is against doctrines of social contract upon which the legal systems are based."
Nicely disputed, this article and subject seems a bit of a speculative, as doctors who claims only to know how ONE type of specific vitamine affects a MOUSE, but when combinations of quality/quantity is imputed, not to mention nutrition-other vitamins, the results overtake sciences broad range of mind, their theories. Isn't the doctor who is observing a patient just as schizoid as the patient in order to understand....do i need a source to confirm this "fantasy" concept. 
Doesn't everyone ever feel lonely, so they "instinctively" group together hoping to find life, but when they find none they are considered non-schizoid? So why do people go to church if they are normal? The opposite of schizoid is irrational emotions, especially in a group, I thought that was called mob rule. 
So, if there is such a thing as schizoid disorder, covert or not, than the opposite would also be an disorder of the same extremities no? People who tend to depend on their iphone and blackberry to feel accepted by society are in fact enslaved by the society to the point they rather buy phones instead of food for their children. Does it matter if one drinks or needs drugs, what about people who have to go out on weekends to spend money in the club as this would fill their normality? Everyone picks their own poison. 
What is the point of this disorder? So normal people who act on their emotional instability could act on rage to kill, and this is somehow considered understandable and those who withdraw knowing others unrelenting bloodthirst is considered mentally challenged. 
The extremities would cancel out each other, NO? So who decided that "normal" people who decides to have irrational thoughts is living in reality, and those who have disorders but can come to rational thoughts are living in fantasy? Hitler comes to mind as someone who others would view as normal at that era, but after his actions they come to their senses and hide in shame. This is the counter disorder to schizoid challenges. The need to be irrational to the point of worshipping each other as if idols comes to mind of how society accept those who want to be herded. The best example of people, deciding to have anti-schizoid disorder of extreme irrational scale, one only has to look at sporting events where tens of thousands come to cheer a team they have no real knowledge of but feel a part of, while problems still persist in their everyday lives. They fight with each other, people laugh and say no disorder here, I am a part of the blood thirst, it feels good to be a part of all this non-sense, even though I pay to be a part of nothing, so they go back to their lives feeling temporarily relived but in actuality they feel more dead than ever.... 
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.171.150 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disorder 

message: The guntrip criteria section is pretty much lifted word for word from the book "Disorders of the Self: New Therapeutic Horizons". Yes it's cited, but it isn't in quotations and would be an excessively long quote.
:I have that book. I did a comparison and the guntrip section seems adequately paraphrased, and isnt word for word. 121.223.3.177 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guntrip Criteria

message: All reference that I read about de DSM criteria say "appears indiferent to praise or criticism", not "Indiferent to praise or criticism".
Example:
However, someone keeps removing the "appears"--83.132.102.14 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indiferent to praise..." or "Appears indiferent to praise..."?