I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this was a small study, that all participants (both researchers and subjects) were from the same culture, and that that culture was a western, Christian, sex-negative culture. I further expect that there was no blinding, nothing like what we’d consider modern rigor to control for everything other than chromosomes that might cause that kind of measured outcome.
I don’t know what study you’re talking about. I know it doesn’t demonstrate what you are claiming it demonstrates.
This line may be useful but he’s presuming that woman are the same as cancel culture, when, for example, there are many women who are against cancel culture. We can black box the criticism of cancel culture, or at least, I think it’s best to wait on that line.
For example, you could argue that women have certain tendencies more often than men, that when they are extreme, are similar to or may include borderline personality disorder. Just as, perhaps, most men have tendencies that when extreme, are similar psychopathy.
But most men are not psychopaths.
Most women do not have borderline personality disorder.
Just as most men lose at least a few hairs when they pass 35, but most 36 year old men are not bald.
Most people who at some point restrict what they eat are not anorexic.
Collectors aren’t mostly hoarders.
Yes, in modern American culture, that behavior is understood to be unacceptable, and a person who engages in it is considered to be behaving threateningly. And in this culture, I’d expect that behavior to be relatively highly correlated with any number of mental illnesses or personality disorders: the social taboo on doing that is not subtle, and a failure to recognize and conform with it is a major failure of social cognition.
Notice how I haven’t mentioned biology.
I think it’s worth undermining that presumption. By talking about BPD, he makes an appeal to authority: Instead of saying “women are moody and so are wokes”, he’s borrowing the highfalutin airs of “Borderline Personality Disorder”, and trying to smear “most women” and “cancel culture” with the weighty condemnation of clinical jargon.
So it seems like a good place to start is to establish what we’re talking about when we say “Borderline Personality Disorder”: to what cluster of thought and behavior patterns does that term apply? He appeals to a gender imbalance, but that gender imbalance is based on diagnostic criteria like these (probably exactly these), and they don’t apply to most women, nor to cancel culture.
If he wants to rely on those findings, it’s appropriate to point out specifically what those findings are, and in particular that they are not what he’s claiming them to be.
Do you notice that you tend not to respond to what other people write, but either restate your opinions or say something about the people you are ‘responding’ to?
I can see facets of myself in most disorders, yes, but I don’t think I have those disorders. One reason for that is that having all those disorders would mean you, for example, would not be able to think well. If you actually believe you have all those disorders that should lead you to question, and not for a moment, all your reasoning, including the reasoning that led you to say most women have BPD.
Further notice that you had options to say that there are patterns in many women, if they because very extreme, would be similar to or include BPD. Notice the difference.
The moment any problem with what you assert is pointed out, suddenly a lot of assertions about us or things not directly supporting what you’ve said before becomes the contents of your posts.
This is a silent conceding the point.
Last, if you want to get away from us, there are a number of options that make this quite easy.
Once you run out of words and movies and songs and concepts and ideas…. You just want to die.
But if you understand life…. We were never born and we never die.
The technique people have been using for eons is memory wipes to stay entertained here.
They cling. If I complete my new dimension the wish that everyone gets everything they want when they want it without annoying people will be the default state until oblivion.
I never wanted to live. I was brought back here from Wiccan ceremonies. I’m not happy about having a mind again.
I’ve done the job of god before. You’ll get to do it sometime too.
I’m being asked to that job again by life and death. I just want to leave.
The hardest decision I’ve ever made in my life is to be the seat of power again. It’s an easy job but it keeps you stuck in mind
So, which part of that explains why it’s good to to label most women BPD? Is labeling them this way bringing you peace? How does having men and women think woman are mostly BPD reduce suffering? Wouldn’t this idea, if believed, actually lead to more suffering? We can dismiss most of one sex - I can’t see that helping things.
You and Carleas have presented excellent arguments, but Ecmandu ain’t buying them. A delusion is an idea which is impervious to argument or evidence to the contrary.
Now a personality disorder like BPD is relatively stable across time. But , with BPD periods of psychosis are temporary. Not so with chronic schizophrenia generally. Delusions and hallucinations may be attenuated by medication.
But, often the chronic schizophrenic does not believe himself to be ill. Attribution is externalized. The problem is located in the world. “I’m okay; you’re not okay.
Anyway, I heartily agree with your broken record assertions to Ec about women. But, I doubt you will convince Ec. He’s a textbook illustration on the limits of rational argument to persuade.
I don’t have much expectation either way. And, really, my last post isn’t an argument or a point. It demonstrates nothing about whether most women are BPD or not. At times he seems to present himself as helping things, protecting people and so on. So, I thought I’d put the issue in those terms. Can it really help anyone to call most women BPD?
Sometimes the most you can do is find yourself when faced with something chaotic (his posts). What happens in/with the other person, that’s beyond what I can do much about.
Of course, I find it rare with anyone, online, where they shift from any position they think is important.
One of my favorite things to think about is what does the entire DSM, regardless what it’s actually called and regardless who (warped wood as we all are) actually contributed to it, paint in terms of the picture of a whole person? Does it have a very high standard? Does that person exist?
It’s like the elephant and the blind men. They’re all talking about an elephant or we wouldn’t have anything to talk about. So what does that elephant look like if you put the pictures together—the men compare notes, and rule out possibilities using logic? It’s not like there’s no elephant right there. It’s not like it’s an elephant in just one person’s imagination. It’s not even like it’s an elephant in a shared delusion projected by Internet-connected nanobots.