--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geez, does this ever end? > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj > > <vajranatha@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I was talking to a psychiatrist friend last night > > and asked him > > > about diagnoses of people you knew online for a > > couple of years > > > and if it would be possible to diagnose someone, > > roughly, based > > > on their interactions with others, their > > responses, etc. He said > > > not only would you be able to do so, it would be > > very easy to do > > > so. In fact he said the DSM was designed to allow > > a relative > > > novice to achieve a "high reliability at > > diagnosis". > > > > Hm. But Peter finally admitted he didn't know > > whether Richard was psychotic. > > Of course not, it was a joke from the git go.
Yes, Peter. I was addressing Vaj here, you see. Perhaps if you take in the context, you'll understand what I was getting at. > > In any case: > > > > Did you ask your psychiatrist friend whether it > > would be OK to announce this at-a-distance diagnosis > > to a group of the person's nonprofessional peers? > > I didn't make a diagnosis. Calling someone psychotic > IS NOT A DIAGNOSIS. There is not a DSM diagnosis > called "psychotic". Psychosis refers to a group of > symptoms. That's a semantic quibble in the context of a forum of nonprofessionals, and you know it. As far as the layperson is concerned, you made a diagnosis of mental illness, type unspecified. > > Did you ask him whether it would be OK to *make up* > > a diagnosis purely out of spite and announce it to > > a group of the person's nonprofessional peers? > > Make-up a diagnosis ?????? Out of spite??? I have no > spite towards Richard. Sure I think his posts are > whacky at times but spite? Here's what I was referring to, from one of your posts: "Nasty? Yes. He got me bothered with his inane post about Muktananda and Marshy." Spite: "petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart" (Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.) I'll stand by that characterization. (We can omit "hatred" and probably "thwart" from the definition.) Judy, you continue to cast > me in some villainous role in your own psyche. The > evil doctor who beats-up the poor unwashed on FFL. > Watch out, I'll commit you. I have big bad ju-ju!! I don't think you're villainous, Peter, just ethically vacuous and casually intellectually dishonest. Your inability to grasp the points I've been making is appalling in someone who supposedly listens to other people and helps them get their thinking straightened out for a living. You literally cannot hear what I've said. There may well be a coherent argument in your favor, but if so, you haven't been able to even begin to make it. If nothing else, that demonstrates to me a serious lack of intellectual curiosity, plus a deficiency in analytical ability. But I think there's more to it than that. I think you're unwilling to acknowledge, even to yourself, that you made a blunder. Just one very concrete example: You said at one point that Richard got that you were kidding because he responded with humor of his own. I pointed out that he didn't respond until after the discussion had been going on for quite a while, and you had said several times that you had been joking. You ignored this entirely and said *again* in a later post that Richard knew you were kidding because he responded humorously. That's what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Peter, what if I hadn't spoken up, and your initial post had been all he'd seen? Maybe he'd have known you were joking--despite your efforts to indicate you were dead serious-- but MAYBE HE WOULDN'T HAVE. You don't know for sure. You don't know for sure others wouldn't have taken you seriously if there had been just your initial post. This isn't rocket science, Peter, it's a pretty straightforward situation. Why are you unable to deal with it straightforwardly? Why can't you just say, "Yeah, I really shouldn't have said that. Thanks for calling my attention to it. I'll be careful not to do it again"?
