Jump to content

Talk:Schizoid personality disorder/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

Disputed

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)
Schizoid personality is a trait, not a disorder. 98.96.108.230 (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2008 (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

This is not necessarily true. Not every piece of criteria must be fulfilled to be considered schizoid. KRhodesian 17:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)KRhodesian
  • 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)

Wait a minute, I'm curious how you're so convinced that there is any evidence that Schizoid IS a disorder in the first place. The burden of proof is on the claimant, which in this case are many psychiatrists who support Schizoid's status as a disorder and whoever the person is who invented it. I may not be an authority or a psychiatrist but I am a strong skeptic and I rely on logic to draw my conclusions instead of popular hear-says and gossip. In order to determine what schizoid personality disorder actually is, experiments would have to be conducted and a phenomenon in the brain would have to be testable in schizoid patients, and absent from non-schizoid patients. However, doing this to a living human being will involve permanent physical damage and even death, and so it cannot be done. Therefore, schizoid or any mental disorder will never be scientifically proven and thus not treatable.
A flu is a scientifically testable illness that is easily diagnosed and treated, because its underlying characteristics have been researched in the past and we know exactly what it is. I don't think anybody would dispute that flu is an illness because a microscope proves that its a virus which spreads and causes you physical harm. Things like schizoid, on the other hand, are highly interpretive because "diagnosing" it only involves casual observation of the patient and asking personal questions. And there is an infinite number of different conclusions you can draw from how somebody describes themselves. For example, you can interpret them to be selfish weirdoes that don't know how to go out and have a good time and that they have "problems" because you know you'd probably kill yourself if you didn't get laid for over a year. I interpret them to be intelligent people who are aware there is too much trouble outside and most of the events are vestigial, stupid traditions where half the people attending have no idea why they even go to watch the same, tired, repetitive, hundred-year-old sporting event. If they prefer solitary activities (reading, writing, drawing, video games) and neglect their sex life then to me that's more productive than the common idiot I see at a local restaurant with no personality, little or no education, who fucks left right and center and expect the rest of society to take care of his 5 children.
You may think schizoids are scum, I think they are evolution. But your opinion or mine doesn't change reality. There is no evidence to either support yours or mine. SPD is ambiguous and has no medical status. This needs to be emphasized in the article more.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But having a flu does not carry a negative social stigma like these kinds of things do.Anyway,this "disorder" is another one of those stupidities which only western consumerism type of society and its psychology and psychiatry can produce.Why there is not something like "Blind Consumerism Personality Disorder"?Or,for example,"Conformist Personality Disorder"?There is not,because psychology and psychiatry here are not in service of helping humans,instead their service is to mark different "disorders" as current commercial trends dictates it.And having this "disorder" can certainly put you in advantegeous position,where you will be able to see and understand things from original and genuine perspective.This article cries for a Criticism section. -R A V E N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.178.95 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you not just read the definition of personality disorder above? Obviously not, because then you'd know that conformist personality disorder would be an oxymoron since you'd follow the trends of your society. If you want to dispute the very definition of personality disorder, then be my guest, provided you do it somewhere other than here. But let me put it this way; Disorder means "not normal". Dis. Order. Being normal means order. Not being normal means not order. Yeah, yeah, it has a negative stigma. But I highly doubt people with SPD care about this "predicament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.145.95 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2009 (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)

True, true. The disorder is not within the self, but instead is within the society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KRhodesian (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(and I am not "conveniently" shifting blame....there is a distinction between shifting blame for accuracy, versus shifting blame so that the self avoids dealing with the self.) KRhodesian 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)KRhodesian

Interesting discussion! I thought I might add that there is no scientific evidence that Schizoid is a disorder in the first place, so the whole concept is pretty much moot and highly interpretive of what it really is or isn't. Things like "lack of desire to have any friends" or "indifferent to society's norms" sounds more like a personalized label than a medical diagnosis. I have a lack of desire to wear a red shirt and I'm indifferent to people who do. What disorder do I have?

Schizoid and most of present so-called "disorders" are society's ways to single people out, and therapist's way of making a profitable business by taking advantage of emotionally vulnerable, rejected and misunderstood people, convincing them they are insane, promising them comfort and making them dependent on him so he can continue receiving his paycheck. Many of these people are rather intelligent, ahead of their time and worth ten times more than some idiotic gossip-loving so-called "normal" person. Branding these intelligent people as suffering from a mental illness is a rather disgusting practice, and I hope to god society grows the hell up someday before I'm too senile to celebrate seeing human evolution in action.

If I had my way, any article on Wikipedia without concrete evidence to back it up would be removed. But I guess the point of an encyclopedia is to reference a notable phenomenon, whether or not it is bullshit.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (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? 

     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)Dead Evil Robot

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)

He suffered from selective mutism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.215.70 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Concerning notable criminals or crimes committed that might be associated with Schizoid, I wonder if any researcher has linked Theodore Kaczynski to the Schizoid Personality Type? 71.116.81.70 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2009 (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)

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)

Aikaterinē, I agree. The Avoidancy described of AvPD is definately akin to the schizoid personality disorder. The other type of avoidancy is associated with social phobia and can be subsumed under that rubric. Ralph Klein of the Masterson Institute recommended the following to the DSM-V working committees: "The diagnosis of avoidant schizoid disorder (DSM-IV criteria for avoidant disorder) should be used to describe the schizoid who demonstrates less withdrawnness, introversion, and loss of affect. Again, for practical, clinical purposes, the avoidant personality disorder of DSM would be treated as a milder form of schizoid pathology." [from 'Disorders of The Self' by Masterson and Klein, p.32]. As I understand it the DSM-V woking committees are leaning in this direction and are going to scrap AvPD as presently conceived. 124.177.124.225 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think this whole SPD disease doesn't really refer to anything specific and in all cases someone with SPD could probably also be categorized under another disease as well, such as AvPD or NPD, so I agree that SPD is more of a "continuum". If you have SPD, then you have something else too, depending on the nature of your SPD. SPD is a category that includes stuff like AvPD or NPD, so to speak. At least, that's the way it seems to me, and if that's not the case then they really have to do a better job of differentiating this stuff. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

What the hell is autocentric?

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

I noticed another new external link, this time one leading to some "anti DSM-IV" page. While this may or may not be an acceptable link, I think it should be placed on the Wikipedia Diagnostic and Statistical Manual page, not here. Reason being that this page is not based on the DSM, but on several sources; ICD, DSM, PDM, Object Relations, and psychodynamic descriptions.

For that reason I suggest someone removes the link or moves it over to the DSM entry. 58.165.125.175 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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 edit this page 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)

Mercury Meltdown

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)

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)


Schizophrenia spectrum disorder

"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)

Ok, the link between autism and spd seem less established. However I did found this:

http://www.aspergersyndrome.com/html/research_paper.html

In two studies (Wolff & Chick, 1980; Cull, Chick & Wolff, 1984) children diagnosed with Schizoid Personality Disorder and those diagnosed with AS were followed into adulthood. Both groups of researchers concluded that the these disorders were essentially identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.220.41 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have written ""some" have proposed that SPD and AS are essentially the same", but that's usually frowned upon on wp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.220.41 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)


Causes?

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)

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)
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)

Serious error in the LEAD

Someone needs to have a close look at the recent editing to the LEAD stating that Schizoid Personality Disorder is a kind of schizophrenia. I thought this was a completely obsolete notion from the earlier 1900's, and that if anyone still holds this view it is a non-mainstream one. My understanding is that the mainstream view is now that SPD is part of the "Schizoid spectrum" with Avoidant PD and Schizotypal PD. While I don't have sources at hand to back what I'm saying, I hope if other editors can source this point they can correct this serious error in the LEAD. 121.222.3.121 (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have found one further reference to SPD being part of a schizophrenia spectrum, though this term spectrum referred to a frequency of diagnosis amongst relatives but not to a commonality of symptoms between schizophrenia and SPD. Nevertheless, because SPD is still occasionally referred to as on a schizophrenia spectrum it can be included in the entry, though due to the controversy surrounding this point and the fact that it seems to be a minority viewpoint I moved it to the section specifically dealing with this controversy [1] instead of the LEAD. 121.222.3.121 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


SPD being in the schizophrenia spectrum disorder as, according to you, a minority view is not accurate and is POV.

There's no valid reason why it shouldn't be in the lead since it is an uncontroversial view in mainstream psychiatry. I'm not saying it is a completely and unilaterally accepted view, but it's not in the minority like you suggested.

It is a controversial view in mainstream psychiatry and there is conflicting evidence regarding the link between schizoid personality disorder and schizophrenia (Kendler KS, Gardner CO (1997): The risk of psychiatric disorders in relatives of schizophrenic and control probands: A comparison of three independent studies. Psychol Med 27:411-419; "In summary, the present study indicates that schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders are part of the schizophrenia spectrum" while schizoid personality disorder merely "may" be. also- Keefe RSE, Silverman J, Mohs R, Siever L, Harvey P, Friedman L, Roitman S, Du Pre R, Smith C, Schmeidler J, Davis K (1997): Eye tracking, attention and schizotypal symptoms in nonpsychotic relatives of patients withschizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiat 54:169-176).
If you look into actual research papers, or track the history of commentary on this subject you would know that the hypothesis tying SPD with schizophrenia is redundant for many researchers. Nevertheless the subject is admittedly controversial and for that reason it should not be stated as uncontroversial fact in the lead. I returned the mention to where it belongs- in the section specifically dealing with Schizoid personality disorder and schizophrenia. 121.222.3.121 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Alright have it your way. Perhaps the DSM V will just nuke SPD and that'll be the end of the debate anyway. I will however remove the section you added:

There is also disagreement about the relationship between SPD and schizophrenia. Some argue that the two conditions are entirely unrelated except for the common etymology of their names from the Greek word “skhizein”, meaning "to split". In the case of schizoid personality disorder, the individual splits from others, while in schizophrenia, the individual splits from reality. Due to these differing usages, some psychiatrists argue that the term 'schizoid' should be changed. Kalus[43] believes that schizoids exhibit the negative symptoms that are associated with schizophrenia (affective flattening, alogia, anhedonia, and avolition), and that SPD may, in rare cases, be an indicator of the onset of the more serious disease. There is a wider consensus to link schizotypal personality disorder with schizophrenia. Although there are rare mentions of schizoid personality being a form of, or being related to schizophrenia,[44] this conceptualisation is generally viewed as an obsolete conjecture from the earlier 1900’s, with the majority view today placing schizotypal rather than the schizoid personality on the schizophrenia spectrum.[45]In the early 1900’s, according to Ralph Klein M.D., the schizoid personality initially seemed to exist as closely related to schizophrenia, but due to the work of later object relations theorists the concept evolved to denote an independent diagnosis.[46]

It uses weasel words, uses the CNN link to illustrate how "there are rare mention of". How does citing one reference shows there are "rare mentions" of something? You use links to give credence to what is basically your own POV.

I know it's an accepted practice but I notice many people tend to give only links to the author's name. Of course the fact is most people won't actually go to some national library, search for the document, read the whole thing to know if the author did indeed said or suggest it. Saying "Klein, Smith, Goldberg 1973" doesn't really help 99% of people. And then there's the whole problem of knowing whether the author really said that, or did the person just put word in his mouth? And then there's the question of why, if there are many conflicting views, why do the source you cite any more credible than another source which says the opposite? You state it is a minority view, you haven't provided real evidence for this. Anyway...the whole thing is just dishonest. So if you want to repost it after that, be my guest. Long edit wars isn't for me.

the above non-signed statement links to this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.235.205.147 -----


Schizotypal personality disorder IS considered to quite possibly be somewhere along a spectrum of behaviors with schizophrenia at the far extreme of disability, but this is not verified or proven in any manner. There have been studies that indicated that the two MAY occur more often within families, though it is well verified that schizophrenia is bound to inherited factors of some unknown kind.
On the other hand, Schizoid personality disorder has nothing to do with any of the schizophrenic disabling spectrum of behaviors. A schizoid is simply one who does not need, does not miss, does not seek out and who actively avoids the company of other people.
Because of this widespread confusion and the growing sense that there is, behind the scenes these past 8 years, in the creation of the next edition of the DSM, a great deal of reassessment of just what constitutes a so-called personality disorder and what constitutes a so-called mental illness. More and more, brain structure, chemistry and neuronal activity is found to be intrinsically bound to one disorder and/or illness of the mind after another.
As yet there is no proof of what came first, the chicken or the egg, except in certain conditions. But in some of the autistic spectrum disorders, there have emerged a variety of genetic abnormalities --- but not one, but a variety. And many so-called autistics do not have, as yet, any such detected abnormality.
So what do we have? Once again, unlike the certainty found in diagnosing appendicitis, gallbladder disease, kidney failure, brain aneurysms, diabetes and Alzheimers, we have (as of yet) no laboratory or radiological or sonogram tests (absolutely NONE) that can prove a particular mental illness, nor diagnose a particular personality disorder.
In psychopaths, it has been consistently shown that the pre-frontal lobes are smaller and indicate a relative or total ability to empathize. Why have paychopaths had so much research? Becaues they cause so much cost to society in detecting, apprehending, convicting and incarcerating the same. In bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and PTSD/CPTSD, it has been found that certain brain structures are characteristically found in studies.... and it also has been found that successful treatment for PTSD/CPTSD lets these structures go from their shrunken state towards a normal size and activity. There has been a lot of money invested in research these disorders, too, as they also cause a huge cost to society in lost company productivity and income, in the dissolution of familial relationships, in a financial burden on society, et al. Too bad for all the rest.
Patty Duke drew attention and research dollars to the Bipolar Disorders. War veterans from VietNam and in this Iraq war particularly, plus survivors of extreme childhood abuse, survivors of devastating accidents & disasters and those who have been subjected to extended bullying all cause a huge financial drain on society when victims are rendered jobless, homeless, on disability, Medicaid, foodstamps, are estranged from their families and/or former social networks. When companies lose $$$ and governments have to spend $$$, THEN research dollars are found. -Spotted Owl (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
...Regarding the above: The argument was whether or not Schizoid personality disorder was considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum by standard psychiatry and not a debate over psychiatry itself. If it IS found though in the DSM V to be related to schizophrenia, autism or whatever genetic or chromosome-related disorders then I hope the debate will adapt and not cling on to older notions.

the above non-signed statement links to this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.235.205.147 -----

Truly, the argument is/was whether or not an archaic debate of the "are schizoids borderline schizophrenics" just like "schizotypals are possibly borderline schizophrenics" (an issue so far supported by many studies) was appropriate in this article. As someone else mentioned up the page, the "SCHIZO" preamble to all three descriptors creates and maintains an unfortunate confusion among the laity. It truly was important for some discussion of how psychiatry is evolving from just a sorting of symptoms into labeled piles into a true MEDICAL SCIENCE. Far better for us to focus on current reality than to meander about in the land of fuzzy logic and perpetuate the stigmatization of those who are schizoids as being hallucinating delusional out-of-touch with reality schizophrenics. Antipsychotics can alleviate the schizophrenic's symptoms, but a schizoid has no symptoms amenable to drug therapy. A schizoid is a schizoid. It is their nature, not a disease.
I note that the disputed section of conjecture has now been removed. I thank the party responsible. Spotted Owl (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Truly, the argument is/was whether or not an archaic debate of the "are schizoids borderline schizophrenics" just like "schizotypals are possibly borderline schizophrenics" (an issue so far supported by many studies) was appropriate in this article.

To the anally-retentive person above: I'm sorry but your sentences are barely... 'barely' coherent.

It truly was important for some discussion of how psychiatry is evolving from just a sorting of symptoms into labeled piles into a true MEDICAL SCIENCE. Far better for us to focus on current reality than to meander about in the land of fuzzy logic and perpetuate the stigmatization of those who are schizoids as being hallucinating delusional out-of-touch with reality schizophrenics.

Please try to focus or try to ask your psychiatrist to re-adjust your medication. You're completely gone... just...'completely gone dude...You have the usual incoherent, random and incoherent "stream of consciousness" that is typical of the schizophrenic patients. If you've been diagnosed schizoid, that might indeed suggest the two are related, although I'm in no way a psychiatrist and it would be anecdotal in any cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.206.217 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You mention that you are not a psychiatrist (tho you suggest a psychiatric diagnosis for me and suggest I ask my psychiatrist to readjust my medications), and you leave me laughing heartily. I, too, am not a psychiatrist, but I am in the mental health field, having graduate course work and post graduate seminars in psychiatry and psychology.

Anyway, here's the thing... the debate was: Is SPD (schizoid personality disorder) considered (by standard psychiatry) to be on the schizophrenia spectrum or not...Period. Not any of that meta-physical crap. Just: Is it largely considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum or not. That's it!

It is their nature, not a disease.

More meta-physical stuff. Just because something is in someone's nature tell us nothing of whether or not it is a disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.206.217 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle and you will understand the concept of something being "nature". Inherited personality. I apologize for not expanding on that so as to make it comprehensible to all.
As for coherence, I am often distracted during my posting so sometimes post a sentence fragment, change tense or person, and as I seldom reread before hitting "Save page", I fully admit that I can certainly fail to be clear, but you fail to point out any of these sentences. Spotted Owl (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead contains the word "secretiveness" as something the disorder is known for. Its not one of the diagnostic criteria. It seems redundant in that its not really secretiveness, but a result of wanting to remain private and solitary which is already mentioned. Can it be replaced with anhedonia, to cover "takes pleasure in few if any activities?" When I see people debating if this is a disorder or not or whether the diagnosed suffer from it, I rarely see this aspect mentioned though I've heard many complaining of it. Theres more to the disorder than simply being an extreme introvert and maybe it should start off mentioning one of the other criteria. Wastedyouthfx0 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding signing your posts on the Talk pages

(to whoever, most of you don't sign your real names so get over this "did not sign" thing already. You have the IP. Likewise for 121,222,xxxxxx)

the above non-signed statement links to this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.235.205.147 -----

To the rude person above.
First of all, signatures are VITAL to show both the date & time of an edit as well as give the home & talk pages of a signer - so one can see how long he has been around and just what topic(s) he edits. For you, you would SEEM to be a newbie who does not know Wiki-etiquette and editing standards. Of course, there are some who DO have one or more screen names here, but who occasionally choose to go "under cover" by not logging in. It is, most assuredly, not necessary to log in in order to post - nor is it necessary to disclose your usual screen name here, but it is STILL a directive at Wiki to SIGN YOUR USER NAME (with the use of a string of four tildes ~)
Second of all, one does NOT delete the words of another simply because one does not like seeing them. There are only highly limited circumstances when a person words can edited or deleted by another on Talk pages. And this is a decision generally made by neither thee nor me.

Spotted Owl (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And concerning your rant on "signing". Get over it already. I make no attempts of hiding the ip, and I sure as hell don't have a standard account here. Just get over it, not everyone spend 12 hours a day on wikipedia, and they won't necessarily follow the exact "proper" quote "wiki-etiquette" (oh man...). If you think it's rude to delete the words of someone, then don't add words or edit the words of someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.206.217 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over it???? As you will note directly above that there are bots that continuously scan Wiki for unsigned posts
Yes, there are. 72.0.216.187 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

, adding the above information (which includes date and time, designating the poster and their (in this case, private) talk page.

As for your opinion that only those who spend considerable periods of their lives on Wiki could possibly be concerned with directives and mandates.... I spend a maximum of 2 hours a month here, checking in to my watchlist every few days to every few weeks or more.
And how exactly did I add words or edit your words? If you are referring to my "signing" your posts, it is because I am not one of the trolling bots (and how they failed to notice your earlier posts surprised me as they are often added within mere minutes). And if you are referring to my separating the discussion of signing posts into a dedicated topic, that is often done when a discussion goes significantly off-topic and would be better served by moving to its own section. This is SOP (standard operating procedure). Some people go so far as to retitle topics for easy search and reference. Spotted Owl (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Guntrip criteria

This section could use some editing perhaps. It's extensively long and looks like a cut & paste job. Maybe a shorter resume with the appropriate links given. 62.101.95.202 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The Guntrip criteria has already been vandalized several times because certain editors "disliked" his criteria. So they attempt to put new words in Guntrip's mouth. But the exact key words used in that section are the key words Guntrip himself used, even if some don't agree with him. Further, it already has an "appropriate link" to the source in Klein's Disorders Of The Self, and the material is appropriately paraphrased.124.177.101.230 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. This section should be 'removed' period.
Please people, let's stick to actual verifiable, medical source and not non medical psychoanalysis mambo-jumbo. This is a a psychiatric article, not a freudian essay and "Guntrip" has no relevance here. 205.205.248.164 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Guntrip is a key figure in the study and construction of modern SPD criteria. His criteria is still strongly relied upon by Object Relations psychiatry to this day. It should remain in the entry as an example of the Dynamic psychiatry criteria to balance the Descriptive psychiatry criteria. 121.223.98.149 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading this article as a Schizoid, if it were up to me, the Criteria would be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.47.170 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak Ethnic Affiliation?!?!

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Let's add another example of psych. bigotry to the list:

  • sexism? (check)
  • homophobia? (check)
  • racism? (check)
  • ethnocentrism? (check)
  • pseudoscience? (check++) ;-)

Table

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)


buddha

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)

An excellent observation! And it is noteworthy (to me) that no one has commented on this obvious fact in more than 6 months on this talk-page frequented by people with some interest in this topic. "Indriya-nigraha" or "Indriyanigraha" or "Indriya nigraha" (Control of the Senses) (GOOGLE) has been a part of the yogic lexicon for millenia before the johnny-come-latelies with the delusion of their infallible ability to diagnose the human mind, decided to term it a disorder. I am convinced that no one with the cross-cultural knowledge of the western and eastern philosophical traditions will consider the trait, as generally described in the main article at present, a disorder. I invite the pseudo-experts to provide a single reference on this topic from someone who has some working knowledge of the eastern (Buddhist, Hindu or Jain) traditions and who has termed this trait a disorder. Provide a verifiable reference. A "Schizoid Personality Trait" (SPT - my term) would be a very productive trait if it were present in a reasonable fraction of the population which would function in a society, as dispassionate, reflective observers above the fray. Such societies and such fractions of the society, have existed for thousands of years, in the past, and still exist, to the limited extent, that the western dogma needs some time to annihilate all things to the contrary. (There is your multi-billion dollar market for psycho-counselling such a society. Do I hear a stampede of salivating jackals?) "Compassionate detachment" (GOOGLE) has been found to be a valued trait in some cultural/religious/philosophical traditions developed over thousands of years, which is obviously unknown to a large number of contributors to this page. What a pity! An obvious cure for SPD, to these pseudo-experts, would appear to be to frequent bars, to pickup sex-partners, to suffer from herpes (as a vast percentage of North Americans do http://www.globalherbalsupplies.com/herpes/stats.html), to shack up, to pay palimony or half of the worldy goods due to the marital laws, and suddenly, one would not have the SPD any more. (But, then, what they would have, would merit naming another "Disorder" in the DSM to keep the profession going.) I wonder if SPD is a term invented by the Non-Schizoid-Personality-Disorder (NSPD - my term) -suffering reprobates, described in the last sentence, with an additional Publish-or-Perish-Disorder (POPD) after some university "education" in the western hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.243.107 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

You are right. You can not POSSIBLY experiment on a rat and compare it to human behavior. How fucking retarded can you get? To prove Schizoid is a disorder, you would have to experiment on the HUMAN who is supposedly suffering from it, and discover a falsifiable phenomenon in the brain that can be tested, and proven to be absent in non-schizoids and present in schizoids. This, for obvious reasons is impossible because people have rights, and you can not just have a couple dozen expendable humans that may die while you're cutting, slicing and electrocuting their head for answers. Doing this on a rat is useless, because a rat isn't human and isn't CLOSE to resembling the complex personalities and behaviors a homo sapien manifests. In other words, I don't think a rat has the evolutionary capacity to be able to have a lack of desire for friends and be indifferent to social norms.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comment shows a profound ignorance of "fMRI". (GOOGLE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.243.107 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Brain imaging devices can only detect activity on the surface of the brain. This is useful for epilepsy or Alzheimer's which are the few neurological disorders I can name that have a scientific status. However, this is useless for complex and deeper psychological experiments. The day effective brain computer interfaces are finally developed where we can transfer thought to the screen is the day it will be possible to prove what schizoid really is. For now, it's all fad and opinion, just like the legendary Drapetomania.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Isn't the doctor who is observing a patient just as schizoid as the patient in order to understand" (excerpt from comment by 98.200.171.150 at 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

BINGO !

Re: fMRI "It can record signal from all regions of the brain, unlike EEG/MEG which are biased towards the cortical surface." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.243.107 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Guntrip Criteria

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)

"Indiferent to praise..." or "Appears indiferent to praise..."?

All reference that I read about de DSM criteria say "appears indiferent to praise or criticism", not "Indiferent to praise or criticism".

Example:[2]

However, someone keeps removing the "appears"--83.132.102.14 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schizoid_personality_disorder/Archive_1&oldid=358691088"