Wow! I really enjoyed the movie, but this analysis by the author and the seemingly cohesive picture he paints of each of the 'heroes' is quite astounding ...
I actually liked the original squid ending better, but that's another one of those personal opinions that some asshole guy always has to chime in with. There were definitely some good differences that made each a unique and worthwhile experience, but I would say that the differences more or less left the mental disorders untouched.
This is more an exercise in how conditions as described in the DSM IV can be applied to almost anyone as easily as a horoscope or fortune cookie.
A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry knows how to bill psychological conditions.
Funny that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" isn't considered a "Diagnostic Manual" given that a) those words are in the title and b) it's commonly and constantly used by professionals as a manual for diagnosis. It doesn't really matter what your one prof said, it matters how the profession as a whole uses it. I also cited the ICD-10 in the article for several of the disorders, and there absolutely is not any arguing that the ICD-10 is a valid diagnostic tool.
Also, while I agree the mis-dignosis is common and many of the elements read like a horoscope/fortune cookie, you can't say that Nite Owl II was a narcissist or that Ozymandius had avoidant personality disorder.
The ICD-10 is a diagnostic manual, when used by a professional. A professional psychiatrist (by that I mean a non-pill pushing psychiatrist) and psychologists are supposed to take long-term observations of their patients to evaluate the severity of the personality traits. In all of these cases it's the severity not the presence that determines if you have the disorder or not.
For those listed in the article, here's my winning score for presence of traits that I'm known to have IRL.
The ICD-10 requires at least 4 of the following for an SPD diagnosis:
1 Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect.
2 Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others.
3 Consistent preference for solitary activities.
4 Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such.
5 Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities.
6 Indifference to social norms and conventions.
7 Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
The ICD-10 requires at least four of the following for an AvPD diagnosis:
1 Persistent and pervasive feelings of tension and apprehension.
2 Belief that one is socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others.
3 Excessive preoccupation with being criticized or rejected in social situations.
4 Unwillingness to become involved with people unless certain of being liked.
5 Restrictions in lifestyle because of need to have physical security.
The ICD-10 requires at least 3 of the following for an APSD diagnosis:
1 Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
2 Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
3 Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behaviour that has brought the person into conflict with society.
I'm 1 short on the others except histrionic personality disorder, which I'm at least satisfied I had a zero on.
Specifically, one big glaring criteria that most people don't meet is "C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
Exactly. We can all find the patterns of personality disorders in ourselves, but diagnostic criteria require WAY more than "you act this way" - your actions actually have to be severely detrimental.
Personally I'd say that if your particular behavioral patterns lead to costumed vigilante crime fighting you probably meet criteria C.
So this is something I've always wondered about diagnosing mental disorders.
The thing is, how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality?
In the comic book, these distinct personalities are what make the characters interesting. The same is also true of people in real life; if you take away every trait mentioned, you end up with a pretty bland person.
So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on? Or is there a qualitative difference?
Most mental disorders are pathological versions of normal behaviors. You can also have "traits" of certain personality disorders, which is normal. In fact, most people will have traits of one or more personality disorders.
For example, a person like Steve Jobs who is a bit self-absorbed, but can focus on good things others do when need be might be said to have narcissistic traits. It's when you simply can't accept that anyone is better that it would be considered narcissistic personality disorder.
Through diagnostic tests (each disease has tests associated to standardize the results and make it more objective) and differential diagnosis.
I don't have any names off the top of my head, but see something like the Apgar score to get an idea of what would go into evaluating a person's presented traits. For example depression has a series of question that identify a risk score and a threshold for treatment.
Arguably, it's a mental disorder when it's preventing a normal lifestyle. Normal lifestyles are rarely healthy. But you can't really say someone is abnormal unless it's causing them to lead an abnormally unhealthy lifestyle.
I think the qualitative difference is when the personality traits interfere with basic living.
To put it differently, everyone is producing brain cells. Some people are producing more brain cells. However, when they're producing so many brain cells that the brain stops functioning properly, we start calling it a tumor.
In the same way, everyone gets nervous and anxious from time to time. As a personality trait, I'm more high strung than most people. The fact that I don't like roller coasters and crowds due to that reason is just a personality trait. The fact that I once lost necessary medication because I was too nervous to speak with the cashier at the drug store made it a disorder.
> So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on?
Yes, it is the degree to which traits manifest, but it's not simply a matter of others commenting on them. Typically the degree to which these disorders manifest needs to interfere with living a normal, productive life. That can mean something different to different people, but it's safe to say that if your narcissistic rage prevents you from getting/keeping a job, that your case is likely a certifiable disorder.
The trouble with personality disorders (which are pretty interesting, btw) is that if you ask 10 mental health professionals you will probably get at least 8 differing opinions (these numbers are fabricated on the spot, the point is that there is a lot of variation). Combined with the fact that personality disorders are largely untreatable the whole thing becomes a spaghetti mess.
Studying personality disorders is really interesting and can offer a lot of insight into normal social interactions but I would caution people about second-year syndrome [0]. Keep in mind that, as someone else pointed out, these disorders are extreme cases of normal behavior. Don't get all freaked out when reading about mental disorders because you think you exhibit signs of schizophrenia, histrionic or narcissistic disorders. You do, we all do, it's normal - just not in the extremes that those with actual disorders exhibit.
Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional, though I do work with them and their clients daily. I also minored in Psychology, which is valuable for a C.S. major when it comes to social interaction or marketing your skills/ideas internally.
If anyone's interested in this enough to buy a book on it, I highly recommend Millon's Personality Disorders in Modern Life. It touches on a lot of the issues that the GP asked about including how to distinguish personality disorders from traits.
>While it's great to understand the psychology behind the characters, this knowledge doesn't really make the movie or knowledge that much better.
Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues. I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.
Indeed, it does improve the story by not just leaving you with a niggling sense that something is wrong with each character, but instead opens the realization that each is, in fact, a textbook-perfect example of that wrongness - dissected, analyzed, quantified and classified as such. It's a great improvement for those of us hyperanalytical geeks now inclined to re-watch the 4-hour director's cut with the DSM IV list in hand and finding every instance where each defining point is exemplified. (And then go meta by wondering where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized.)
> where in the DSM IV such a hyperanalytical geek is so categorized
I think we're often put under Asperger Syndrome (AS) (also called Asperger Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, ass-burgers, and My God He's A Weirdo), which falls under either Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD).
AS is often considered to overlap with High-Functioning Autism (ASD without mental retardation) and, in fact, a change being considered for DSM-V would eliminate AS entirely and lump us in under ASD, which would be rated on a severity scale.
That said, the diagnostic criteria for all of those diagnoses are a bit more involved than 'is a hyperanalytical geek'.
Point taken. That last bit was just my personal opinion - I'd rather enjoy the suspension of disbelief than analyze every action in-depth, but that's just me. If this article gave you greater enjoyment of the movie then that makes me a very happy camper.
To me, the whole point of the movie is:
"The end doesn't justify the means and when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for fascism".
Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the stereotypes they stand for.
The problem is actually on the other side. The means produce the end. Not intentions, not the morals of the persons involved, but the means. Fascism, for example, is the result of fascist acts, no matter who does them or their reasons for doing so.
No, there's a distribution problem, but I'll play along.
> One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population.
Nope. Killing 80% of the African population will not solve the food shortage. (It also won't solve the distribution problem.) Why? Because Africa's food production is roughly proportional to its population and not limited by anything that will be helped by killing lots of people.
The "end" of killing 80% of the African population is that 80% of the population has been killed. Some "good person" might have thought that some good (less starvation) would result from killing them, but the end was a lot of dead people who got killed by said good person.
Thanks for providing an example of where "he meant well" had a horrendous result, as it typically does.
"To me, the whole point of the movie is: 'The end doesn't justify the means and when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for fascism'."
I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a pretty strong case that what Ozy does is necessary and that he's hardly either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.
Having only watched the film, I believe he could have done much better. Assuming he didn't have a better alternative, he did make the right choice: better one billion deads than total extinction by nuclear holocaust. But he most probably did have a better alternative.
First, he could have followed through on that cheap unlimited energy business. Second, he could have convinced Dr Manhattan to play the terrorist without killing so much people. Like, targeting most high-profile military installations and civilian symbols. Oh, and while we're at it, he should have financed a (Friendly) AI program as well.
I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton. But come on, it's only level 3 on the Yudkowsky ambition scale[1]. No need for such massive killing, especially when the glowing blue ape right next to you is at least at level 5.
"I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton."
I didn't get that, although it's been a long time since I read it (and I have a general rule against taking movies too seriously). The world in the graphic novels was hyper-'80's bleak: a high threat of nuclear holocaust and extreme stagnation in every other area. (I can't remember, did the extremely popular but hideously depressing pirate comic book make it into the movie?) My impression is that Ozy wanted to break the stalemate, altruistically. If he wanted to rule the world, he could have done that easily enough, and cheap energy, etc., would likely reinforce the status quo.
Instead, he comes up with a complete game change: He removes Doc Manhattan, who is very bad influence; who is going to want to do anything with Manhattan standing around? (IIRC, that works out the same as in the movie.) And he arranges for humanity to discover an outside enemy, one which requires humanity to pull together and work like crazed gophers to advance science, technology, and likely general society in a way that hadn't happened since WWII. The outside enemy turns out to be giant, psychic, trans-dimensional aliens, which have the advantage of not actually existing.
The death toll involved is significantly less than the movie, since he only has one of the things and uses it to destroy New York. On the other hand, I have a friend who's favorite character is Rorschach, because he's the only one who is in on the story who doesn't go along with the murder of millions of people.
(By the way, I'm humming "Sympathy for the Devil" right now.)
Please do not assume the movie is equivalent to the graphic novel. The movie's not bad, but you cannot compare it to the contents of the original work.
I couldn't disagree more, and forgive me for saying, but I believe this to be an incredibly shallow summation of what is an amazingly deep and moving piece of art and perspective from a historic time in our (US) nation (the Cold War).
I believe the ultimate theme of Watchmen is this:
"In an irrational world, only the irrational becomes rational."
This theme is pervasive throughout the novel:
_ Regular people donning masks to fight crime at little personal gain and great personal expense.
_ Horrific and violent crimes disregarded as minor indiscretions of a time past.
_ An all-powerful god, resigned to do nothing due to the ineffectiveness of doing anything.
This theme climaxes when Ozymandius, the universally recognized "most intelligent man in the world," (translated, "most rational") illustrates exactly this point when in order to save a world on the brink of irrational self-destruction, theatrically stages an alien invasion, something which simultaneously changes nothing, yet everything, in order to save it.
Even the all powerful god recognizes this seemingly illogical and horrific solution as the ultimate most perfectly rational means to save an irrational world from itself.
In the end, the story's hero, Rorschach, the consistent (and author appointed) voice of reason amidst a delusional world, is rendered ineffective and unable to make a difference, an impediment on the path to salvation to be destroyed by its god, Dr Manhattan.
Let that last point sink in for a moment, and you'll understand the implications of this theme; it's the final scene of an epic novel:
__the world's last rational man is an obstruction to the survival of an irrational world.__
The theme itself is startling in its simplicity, and the impact of watching its very real once impactful characters, heroes and anti-heroes, struggling to come to grips with their irrelevance in an irrational world can be moving and profound in its implications.
Watchmen is a postmodern thesis. Whether you share in the postmodern sentiment, understanding the context is incredibly rewarding, emotional and thought provoking.
Tragically, the movie's creators did not understand this and lost the the whole point and very soul of the novel, transforming the antihero, Ozymandius, into a lunatic and villain. Understandably, this is likely the source of your misunderstanding. Ironically, the replacement of the antihero with a villain could itself be construed as an unintended commentary on the persistence of our world's delusions.
The theme itself is metaphorically mirrored internally within the "Tales of the Black Freighter" story. The Black Freighter is a tale of a hero's lamentable decent into darkness as he loses his grip on reality to become the villain he was running from by ultimately in ignorance murdering his last tie to his world (the light), his wife. It's a commentary on the world of Watchmen itself (the world in which the heroes exist, not the heroes themselves), and the manner in which they metaphorically murdered their once heroes and only hope of salvation to descend into irrational darkness. Make no mistake too, the salvation brought about by Ozymandius is no salvation, but instead the coup de grace of a once rational world's beyond salvation ultimate embracement of the darkness, the conclusion of the novel.
The greatest tragedy of all though, is the spiritual death of its heroes. Alan Moore sums it up well with his inversion of the famous satirical quote, modernly taken as a criticism against political corruption, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?"):
"'They're watching out for us, who's watching out for them?'"[1]
In an irrational world, only the irrational is rational, and the core of who we are becomes backwards and called into question. Do we define ourselves by the changing world around us and betray who we once were, forcing us to withdrawal into ourselves, Nite Owl, or do we "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" to our ulti...
A more extreme example along the same lines as Watchmen is the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion. NGE totally rips apart mecha anime and gives its characters psychological issues to tragic effect, mirroring the creator Hideaki Anno's own struggle with depression.
While I like NGE very much, the all psychology aspect of it is mostly just nonsense, though. I have never seen anyone being able to explain it from beginning to end without contradicting themselves. That's part of the magic why people find it superb : they don't get it because there's nothing much to get :)
Superman is almost entirely about the character's psychology. The whole idea, at least of modern-ish incarnations, is that Superman is unmatched physically (granted, apart from the Kryptonite thing) but is often emotionally devastated (from not being able to save anybody, or for being unable to reason with bad guys, or from keeping secrets from his loved ones, or pondering what it means to be humans, etc.).
Yes, thank you. His modern interpretation is, I think, fascinating. While I think Kingdom Come is the best treatment of this theme, I actually think Frank Miller got it perfectly in Dark Knight Returns:
>When they battle, Oz tell them about the plan during the fight and only as a ruse to take time. In the comics it is a bit different.
As from someone the other side of the political spectrum, I think "incredibly liberal people" would take the law in their hands pretty easily if they had superpower. They (at least many of them) have a pretty self-righteous attitude and would make good villains. The difference is, the conservatives could patrol the street but would give the criminals to the police/justice system. They would not start redistributing stuff taken from others.
Anyway, superheroes are an US phenomenon and they are the epitome of individualism. They always start alone and act alone. They are individuals first, groups second. So they will prefer a society with extensive individual freedoms and negative rights.
I think these mental disorders were pretty strongly depicted in both the comic and the movie, and that was one of the points Moore was trying to make: having that kind of power corrupts and only the corrupt would want that kind of power.
Some of them had good intentions, which is not mutually exclusive with being mentally ill, but they were all horribly flawed.
Once again, I feel the need to point out that the term "psychopathy" is not used clinically (and neither is 'sociopathy'). Robert Hare et al. do have a rigorous definition that distinguishes psychopathy from ASPD, but this definition does not appear in the latest DSM.
Also, the line between ASPD and NPD is somewhat blurry in this article, possibly because in reality these disorders are often co-morbid. The main difference is that narcissists usually conform to social norms and laws, and do not generally pose a serious threat to society. A narcissist might verbally berate someone who stands in his way, but he is unlikely to resort to violence at the drop of a hat, for example. Confer "conduct disorder".
I believe I did mention this in the article, but I agree that it's vitally important to understand that the one or two times I used those terms I was knowingly using the popular definitions, not the clinical definitions. Good catch!
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, so maybe Ozymandius did show traits of Hare's definition of the psychopathy. However, the article seemed to imply that the only thing that separates a psychopath from a narcissist is empathy level:
>What makes Ozymandius the villain of the story is that, while many NPD sufferers have decreased empathy, Ozy's lack of empathy borders on full-blown psychopathy
In other words, a psychopath would just be a narcissist with even less empathy, which isn't really the case. In fact, aggressive narcissism is just one of two factors in Hare's checklist. On the second factor, socially deviant lifestyle (which includes traits like failure to plan ahead, poor self control, impulsiveness, etc.), he would probably score pretty low, and thus would be unlikely classified by Hare as a true psychopath.
The description of The Comedian as having ASPD was well-justified though, other than the term "sufferer". Most sociopaths actually consider themselves to be "free" of many of the emotional and social burdens that the people they prey on seem to carry (which ties in to their narcissism).
I really can't understand how so many people take this mental illness/disorder stuff for granted, DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them, the "diagnosis" are based on bullet points and these are decided by a committee or something...
I can't really tell if your position is "there's no such thing as mental illness" or that you just think that the current system gives anyone who wants one a label they can use (though to be honest I haven't met a psychiatrist yet who used the DSM as a reference for diagnostics). Care to elaborate?
a bit of both maybe, everything around mental illness and disorders is full of blind spots.
There's big money involved, there's big holes in the reasonings, history shows it's been misguided/abused more than once... how can it be trusted?
a lot of living beings in the world have brains, they've come a long way of evolution to get to where they are here...how come all of a sudden, ours started breaking in every possible way since like 20 years ago? and it also so complex that although it sounds like bullshit it's not and you introduce brain-shrinking toxins(that brains would never produce themselves) to get them fixed.
It's not like the DSM is the be all and end all of psychiatric diagnosing, they spend years (just like any other doctor) at university and in residency etc.
None of this has happened in the last 20 years really, before then people with serious mental illnesses were living on the streets, in prison (well, many still are in these two categories) and in psychiatric institutions (that have since be deinstitutionalised), away from the general populace.
Maybe what you're seeing is that instead of being hidden away and falling through the cracks in society people are now actually able to receive treatment and (a lot of the time) able to function properly in society, so it seems like mental illness is more prevalent.
Yeah the treatment sucks (and from what I've heard it's ridiculously expensive, though I'm in the UK so that's not really an issue), but it's very rare for people to actually be forced to take it, so I think it's safe to say that it's a net gain for a lot of people.
To be honest I think it's pretty unfair on a massive segment of society (on both sides of the fence) for you to dismiss them based on what seem to be fairly weak arguments.
Maybe the problem's that for a lot of mentally ill people you can't actually see what's wrong (compared to a physical ailment), so unless you see/experience it for yourself it's hard to be convinced that it's real?
I'm not arguing against the emotional spins you're trying to put in. I believe medication can be helpful to help people get up, in the case of depression, but it's absurd to tell people, without providing any real proof, that they need to be on medication forever and that their brains "just malfunctions"(and there's 300 'illnesses' in DSM)
and yes I've already experienced it, seen it, I assure you, and got out without medication.
If a chemical solution needs to be introduced to fix the problem, then the nature of the problem needs to be chemical related. What's the malfunction in the brain of someone with ADHD or Oppositional Defiant Disorder? I'd bet anything these brains are perfectly healthy and if there's any problem whatsoever with them the origin is environmental-psychological, not biological.
I read this post with interest but, honestly speaking, if you consider that all the characters have mental disorders, then 100% of the population have mental disorders as well. I am not sure where you can draw a line between a mental disorder and a personality trait !
Am I the only one that read/saw Rorschach as the only absolutely moral character? He refused to compromise on the truth and held everyone to the same code. His inability to accept the moral compromise offered by Ozymandius leads directly to his death, which he welcomes rather than pervert his own morality.
Very interesting read. Makes me wanna rewatch the movie, which by the way I though was great.
Just my two cents: I think pretty much everyone is "mentally ill" in his or her own way. Me, personally I've identified myself in quite a few bullet points listed there, yet I'm perfectly fine. I think it's whether those traits cause distress or not. Oh and I'm not wearing a costume, saving the world ;)
58 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 98.3 ms ] threadBut I will say that it's absolutely worth reading if you enjoyed the movie at all, though I think the movie has a stronger ending than the original.
A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry knows how to bill psychological conditions.
Also, while I agree the mis-dignosis is common and many of the elements read like a horoscope/fortune cookie, you can't say that Nite Owl II was a narcissist or that Ozymandius had avoidant personality disorder.
Perhaps his professor _was_ accurately describing how the profession as a whole uses the manual.
You can diagnosis pretty much anyone with narcissism.
For those listed in the article, here's my winning score for presence of traits that I'm known to have IRL.
The ICD-10 requires at least 4 of the following for an SPD diagnosis: 1 Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect. 2 Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others. 3 Consistent preference for solitary activities. 4 Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such. 5 Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities. 6 Indifference to social norms and conventions. 7 Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
The ICD-10 requires at least four of the following for an AvPD diagnosis: 1 Persistent and pervasive feelings of tension and apprehension. 2 Belief that one is socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others. 3 Excessive preoccupation with being criticized or rejected in social situations. 4 Unwillingness to become involved with people unless certain of being liked. 5 Restrictions in lifestyle because of need to have physical security.
The ICD-10 requires at least 3 of the following for an APSD diagnosis: 1 Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. 2 Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. 3 Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behaviour that has brought the person into conflict with society.
I'm 1 short on the others except histrionic personality disorder, which I'm at least satisfied I had a zero on.
Specifically, one big glaring criteria that most people don't meet is "C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
Personally I'd say that if your particular behavioral patterns lead to costumed vigilante crime fighting you probably meet criteria C.
The thing is, how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality?
In the comic book, these distinct personalities are what make the characters interesting. The same is also true of people in real life; if you take away every trait mentioned, you end up with a pretty bland person.
So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on? Or is there a qualitative difference?
For example, a person like Steve Jobs who is a bit self-absorbed, but can focus on good things others do when need be might be said to have narcissistic traits. It's when you simply can't accept that anyone is better that it would be considered narcissistic personality disorder.
What's the difference? Why can't they be both at the same time?
I don't have any names off the top of my head, but see something like the Apgar score to get an idea of what would go into evaluating a person's presented traits. For example depression has a series of question that identify a risk score and a threshold for treatment.
Some further reading if you are interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score
To put it differently, everyone is producing brain cells. Some people are producing more brain cells. However, when they're producing so many brain cells that the brain stops functioning properly, we start calling it a tumor.
In the same way, everyone gets nervous and anxious from time to time. As a personality trait, I'm more high strung than most people. The fact that I don't like roller coasters and crowds due to that reason is just a personality trait. The fact that I once lost necessary medication because I was too nervous to speak with the cashier at the drug store made it a disorder.
Yes, it is the degree to which traits manifest, but it's not simply a matter of others commenting on them. Typically the degree to which these disorders manifest needs to interfere with living a normal, productive life. That can mean something different to different people, but it's safe to say that if your narcissistic rage prevents you from getting/keeping a job, that your case is likely a certifiable disorder.
The trouble with personality disorders (which are pretty interesting, btw) is that if you ask 10 mental health professionals you will probably get at least 8 differing opinions (these numbers are fabricated on the spot, the point is that there is a lot of variation). Combined with the fact that personality disorders are largely untreatable the whole thing becomes a spaghetti mess.
Studying personality disorders is really interesting and can offer a lot of insight into normal social interactions but I would caution people about second-year syndrome [0]. Keep in mind that, as someone else pointed out, these disorders are extreme cases of normal behavior. Don't get all freaked out when reading about mental disorders because you think you exhibit signs of schizophrenia, histrionic or narcissistic disorders. You do, we all do, it's normal - just not in the extremes that those with actual disorders exhibit.
Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional, though I do work with them and their clients daily. I also minored in Psychology, which is valuable for a C.S. major when it comes to social interaction or marketing your skills/ideas internally.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_students_disease
http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Disorders-Modern-Theodore-...
Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues. I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.
I think we're often put under Asperger Syndrome (AS) (also called Asperger Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, ass-burgers, and My God He's A Weirdo), which falls under either Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD).
AS is often considered to overlap with High-Functioning Autism (ASD without mental retardation) and, in fact, a change being considered for DSM-V would eliminate AS entirely and lump us in under ASD, which would be rated on a severity scale.
That said, the diagnostic criteria for all of those diagnoses are a bit more involved than 'is a hyperanalytical geek'.
Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the stereotypes they stand for.
Nothing new under the sun, literary-wise.
If the ends don't justify the means, what does?
The problem is actually on the other side. The means produce the end. Not intentions, not the morals of the persons involved, but the means. Fascism, for example, is the result of fascist acts, no matter who does them or their reasons for doing so.
That fact seems to be lost on "good people".
The end (solved food shortage) does not justify the means (mass murder).
The means must be able to stand on their own.
No, there's a distribution problem, but I'll play along.
> One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population.
Nope. Killing 80% of the African population will not solve the food shortage. (It also won't solve the distribution problem.) Why? Because Africa's food production is roughly proportional to its population and not limited by anything that will be helped by killing lots of people.
The "end" of killing 80% of the African population is that 80% of the population has been killed. Some "good person" might have thought that some good (less starvation) would result from killing them, but the end was a lot of dead people who got killed by said good person.
Thanks for providing an example of where "he meant well" had a horrendous result, as it typically does.
I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a pretty strong case that what Ozy does is necessary and that he's hardly either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.
First, he could have followed through on that cheap unlimited energy business. Second, he could have convinced Dr Manhattan to play the terrorist without killing so much people. Like, targeting most high-profile military installations and civilian symbols. Oh, and while we're at it, he should have financed a (Friendly) AI program as well.
I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton. But come on, it's only level 3 on the Yudkowsky ambition scale[1]. No need for such massive killing, especially when the glowing blue ape right next to you is at least at level 5.
[1]: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ehd/the_yudkowsky_ambit...
I didn't get that, although it's been a long time since I read it (and I have a general rule against taking movies too seriously). The world in the graphic novels was hyper-'80's bleak: a high threat of nuclear holocaust and extreme stagnation in every other area. (I can't remember, did the extremely popular but hideously depressing pirate comic book make it into the movie?) My impression is that Ozy wanted to break the stalemate, altruistically. If he wanted to rule the world, he could have done that easily enough, and cheap energy, etc., would likely reinforce the status quo.
Instead, he comes up with a complete game change: He removes Doc Manhattan, who is very bad influence; who is going to want to do anything with Manhattan standing around? (IIRC, that works out the same as in the movie.) And he arranges for humanity to discover an outside enemy, one which requires humanity to pull together and work like crazed gophers to advance science, technology, and likely general society in a way that hadn't happened since WWII. The outside enemy turns out to be giant, psychic, trans-dimensional aliens, which have the advantage of not actually existing.
The death toll involved is significantly less than the movie, since he only has one of the things and uses it to destroy New York. On the other hand, I have a friend who's favorite character is Rorschach, because he's the only one who is in on the story who doesn't go along with the murder of millions of people.
(By the way, I'm humming "Sympathy for the Devil" right now.)
I believe the ultimate theme of Watchmen is this:
This theme is pervasive throughout the novel:_ Regular people donning masks to fight crime at little personal gain and great personal expense.
_ Horrific and violent crimes disregarded as minor indiscretions of a time past.
_ An all-powerful god, resigned to do nothing due to the ineffectiveness of doing anything.
This theme climaxes when Ozymandius, the universally recognized "most intelligent man in the world," (translated, "most rational") illustrates exactly this point when in order to save a world on the brink of irrational self-destruction, theatrically stages an alien invasion, something which simultaneously changes nothing, yet everything, in order to save it.
Even the all powerful god recognizes this seemingly illogical and horrific solution as the ultimate most perfectly rational means to save an irrational world from itself.
In the end, the story's hero, Rorschach, the consistent (and author appointed) voice of reason amidst a delusional world, is rendered ineffective and unable to make a difference, an impediment on the path to salvation to be destroyed by its god, Dr Manhattan.
Let that last point sink in for a moment, and you'll understand the implications of this theme; it's the final scene of an epic novel:
__the world's last rational man is an obstruction to the survival of an irrational world.__
The theme itself is startling in its simplicity, and the impact of watching its very real once impactful characters, heroes and anti-heroes, struggling to come to grips with their irrelevance in an irrational world can be moving and profound in its implications.
Watchmen is a postmodern thesis. Whether you share in the postmodern sentiment, understanding the context is incredibly rewarding, emotional and thought provoking.
Tragically, the movie's creators did not understand this and lost the the whole point and very soul of the novel, transforming the antihero, Ozymandius, into a lunatic and villain. Understandably, this is likely the source of your misunderstanding. Ironically, the replacement of the antihero with a villain could itself be construed as an unintended commentary on the persistence of our world's delusions.
The theme itself is metaphorically mirrored internally within the "Tales of the Black Freighter" story. The Black Freighter is a tale of a hero's lamentable decent into darkness as he loses his grip on reality to become the villain he was running from by ultimately in ignorance murdering his last tie to his world (the light), his wife. It's a commentary on the world of Watchmen itself (the world in which the heroes exist, not the heroes themselves), and the manner in which they metaphorically murdered their once heroes and only hope of salvation to descend into irrational darkness. Make no mistake too, the salvation brought about by Ozymandius is no salvation, but instead the coup de grace of a once rational world's beyond salvation ultimate embracement of the darkness, the conclusion of the novel.
The greatest tragedy of all though, is the spiritual death of its heroes. Alan Moore sums it up well with his inversion of the famous satirical quote, modernly taken as a criticism against political corruption, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?"):
In an irrational world, only the irrational is rational, and the core of who we are becomes backwards and called into question. Do we define ourselves by the changing world around us and betray who we once were, forcing us to withdrawal into ourselves, Nite Owl, or do we "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" to our ulti..."Twenty million die by fire... if I am weak..."
As from someone the other side of the political spectrum, I think "incredibly liberal people" would take the law in their hands pretty easily if they had superpower. They (at least many of them) have a pretty self-righteous attitude and would make good villains. The difference is, the conservatives could patrol the street but would give the criminals to the police/justice system. They would not start redistributing stuff taken from others.
Anyway, superheroes are an US phenomenon and they are the epitome of individualism. They always start alone and act alone. They are individuals first, groups second. So they will prefer a society with extensive individual freedoms and negative rights.
Some of them had good intentions, which is not mutually exclusive with being mentally ill, but they were all horribly flawed.
Also, the line between ASPD and NPD is somewhat blurry in this article, possibly because in reality these disorders are often co-morbid. The main difference is that narcissists usually conform to social norms and laws, and do not generally pose a serious threat to society. A narcissist might verbally berate someone who stands in his way, but he is unlikely to resort to violence at the drop of a hat, for example. Confer "conduct disorder".
>What makes Ozymandius the villain of the story is that, while many NPD sufferers have decreased empathy, Ozy's lack of empathy borders on full-blown psychopathy
In other words, a psychopath would just be a narcissist with even less empathy, which isn't really the case. In fact, aggressive narcissism is just one of two factors in Hare's checklist. On the second factor, socially deviant lifestyle (which includes traits like failure to plan ahead, poor self control, impulsiveness, etc.), he would probably score pretty low, and thus would be unlikely classified by Hare as a true psychopath.
The description of The Comedian as having ASPD was well-justified though, other than the term "sufferer". Most sociopaths actually consider themselves to be "free" of many of the emotional and social burdens that the people they prey on seem to carry (which ties in to their narcissism).
how about this mental illness here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's only considered a DISORDER if it's like, really really bad, you know?")
pure bullshit
a bit of both maybe, everything around mental illness and disorders is full of blind spots.
There's big money involved, there's big holes in the reasonings, history shows it's been misguided/abused more than once... how can it be trusted?
a lot of living beings in the world have brains, they've come a long way of evolution to get to where they are here...how come all of a sudden, ours started breaking in every possible way since like 20 years ago? and it also so complex that although it sounds like bullshit it's not and you introduce brain-shrinking toxins(that brains would never produce themselves) to get them fixed.
There's too much bs smell IMO
None of this has happened in the last 20 years really, before then people with serious mental illnesses were living on the streets, in prison (well, many still are in these two categories) and in psychiatric institutions (that have since be deinstitutionalised), away from the general populace.
Maybe what you're seeing is that instead of being hidden away and falling through the cracks in society people are now actually able to receive treatment and (a lot of the time) able to function properly in society, so it seems like mental illness is more prevalent.
Yeah the treatment sucks (and from what I've heard it's ridiculously expensive, though I'm in the UK so that's not really an issue), but it's very rare for people to actually be forced to take it, so I think it's safe to say that it's a net gain for a lot of people.
To be honest I think it's pretty unfair on a massive segment of society (on both sides of the fence) for you to dismiss them based on what seem to be fairly weak arguments.
Maybe the problem's that for a lot of mentally ill people you can't actually see what's wrong (compared to a physical ailment), so unless you see/experience it for yourself it's hard to be convinced that it's real?
If you ever sunk into a deep depression and then got out with perfectly working medication you would see for yourself very clearly. But such is life.
and yes I've already experienced it, seen it, I assure you, and got out without medication.
If a chemical solution needs to be introduced to fix the problem, then the nature of the problem needs to be chemical related. What's the malfunction in the brain of someone with ADHD or Oppositional Defiant Disorder? I'd bet anything these brains are perfectly healthy and if there's any problem whatsoever with them the origin is environmental-psychological, not biological.
Just my two cents: I think pretty much everyone is "mentally ill" in his or her own way. Me, personally I've identified myself in quite a few bullet points listed there, yet I'm perfectly fine. I think it's whether those traits cause distress or not. Oh and I'm not wearing a costume, saving the world ;)
oh yes, them mutants are the only real heroes