What other mental illness, besides DID, would cause a person to say 'we' when they me

[Mariposa Traicionera]

I spent the day with a coworker today. She obviously has mental health issues of some sort. She always feels persecuted, like people are out to get her, takes things the wrong way, etc. Today I noticed for the first time that, when referring to herself, she often uses the pronoun 'we.' She doesn't appear to have multiple personalities. Is there another mental illness that could cause people to use a plural pronoun when referring to themselves? Oh, and it's definitely not a 'royal we.' :wah:

[spot]

You'll need a specialist to get to the bottom of this one.

Nomad! Lady at the front desk's just brought in a puzzler for you.

[hoppy]

Mariposa Traicionera;1317348 wrote: I spent the day with a coworker today. She obviously has mental health issues of some sort. She always feels persecuted, like people are out to get her, takes things the wrong way, etc. Today I noticed for the first time that, when referring to herself, she often uses the pronoun 'we.' She doesn't appear to have multiple personalities. Is there another mental illness that could cause people to use a plural pronoun when referring to themselves? Oh, and it's definitely not a 'royal we.' :wah:


Why does she "has mental health issues of some sort" just because she's a bit different? We're all different. Are we all nuts?

[Ahso!]

That mental illness would be conservatism.

[hoppy]

Ahso!;1317358 wrote: That mental illness would be conservatism.


There ya go, getting personal again. I'll have you know, I ask every nut in my building how they vote. ALL of 'em said democrat. And my building is full of nuts.

[Ahso!]

hoppy;1317362 wrote: There ya go, getting personal again. I'll have you know, I ask every nut in my building how they vote. ALL of 'em said democrat. And my building is full of nuts.Didn't you promise to put me on ignore?

[Mariposa Traicionera]

hoppy;1317357 wrote: Why does she "has mental health issues of some sort" just because she's a bit different? We're all different. Are we all nuts?
It's obvious she has some sort of persecution complex; you'd have to know her to see what I mean. Of course, as a person with a mental illness myself, I would never refer to anyone as 'nuts'.

[Ahso!]

Mariposa Traicionera;1317370 wrote: It's obvious she has some sort of persecution complex; you'd have to know her to see what I mean. Of course, as a person with a mental illness myself, I would never refer to anyone as 'nuts'.What is your mental illness?

[Mariposa Traicionera]

I have Bipolar Disorder.

[hoppy]

Ahso!;1317371 wrote: What is your mental illness?


And, what's yours?

[Ahso!]

Mariposa Traicionera;1317375 wrote: I have Bipolar Disorder.Theres no such thing as a disorder. You may have some strong emotional sway, but you are not disordered.

[Ahso!]

hoppy;1317403 wrote: And, what's yours?I don't have one, nobody does.

[theia]

Ahso!;1317433 wrote: I don't have one, nobody does.


Isn't it the individual's choice as to how to define or to label a part of themself?

[Ahso!]

theia;1317447 wrote: Isn't it the individual's choice as to how to define or to label a part of themself?Why would a person wish to be labeled as 'disordered'?

I think your question assumes that the individual has ALL the facts before agreeing to such a stigmatized label.

[spot]

This is from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... y_disorder

As media coverage spiked, diagnoses climbed. There were 200 reported cases of DID as of 1980, and 20,000 from 1980 to 1990. Joan Acocella reports that 40,000 cases were diagnosed from 1985 to 1995. The majority of diagnoses are made in North America, particularly the United States

In a review, Joel Paris offered three possible causes for the sudden increase in people diagnosed with DID:The result of therapist suggestions to suggestible people, much as Charcot's hysterics acted in accordance with his expectations.Psychiatrists' past failure to recognize dissociation being redressed by new training and knowledge.Dissociative phenomena are actually increasing, but this increase only represents a new form of an old and protean entity: "hysteria".Paris believes that the first possible cause is the most likely.



That fits fairly well with people agreeing to be labelled, and behaving according to expectation once they've been told what it looks like.

[fuzzywuzzy]

I always thought "WE" was old english and it denoted the person as a representation/spokesperson of an institution, family or organisation. *shrugs*

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1317471 wrote: I always thought "WE" was old english and it denoted the person as a representation/spokesperson of an institution, family or organisation. *shrugs*


We wouldn't want you to stay quite so uninformed though, would we.

(That, by the way, is listed at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Royal_we as "the patronizing we".)

[fuzzywuzzy]

Ahhh you couldn't possibly patronise me more than I was yesterday in front of the whole town. Water off a ducks back today, couldn't get any worse.

[spot]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. So I'm told. Actually, thinking about it, that was Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the least likeable posters on the Internet. Maybe I should find another quote.

[fuzzywuzzy]

"A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy. "

:wah::wah::wah:

but one of my very favourites.

"Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isn't."

[spot]

fuzzywuzzy;1317485 wrote: "A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy. "


Friedrich no doubt speaks as he finds. I'm rarely taken for anything other than the Adonis of the modern age. Were Michaelangelo still sculpting and enough marble to hand he'd show you a thing or two.

[Ahso!]

spot;1317469 wrote: This is from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... disorderAs media coverage spiked, diagnoses climbed. There were 200 reported cases of DID as of 1980, and 20,000 from 1980 to 1990. Joan Acocella reports that 40,000 cases were diagnosed from 1985 to 1995. The majority of diagnoses are made in North America, particularly the United States

In a review, Joel Paris offered three possible causes for the sudden increase in people diagnosed with DID:



The result of therapist suggestions to suggestible people, much as Charcot's hysterics acted in accordance with his expectations.

Psychiatrists' past failure to recognize dissociation being redressed by new training and knowledge.

Dissociative phenomena are actually increasing, but this increase only represents a new form of an old and protean entity: "hysteria".


Paris believes that the first possible cause is the most likely.

That fits fairly well with people agreeing to be labelled, and behaving according to expectation once they've been told what it looks like.Out of those three choices I expect #1 as well. Though I would also suggest that our advancement in knowledge of differences in our mental capacities or states has given rise to a yet to be proper categorizing and explanation of those differences. We're stuck, it seems, in a condition of older language that has yet to catch up with our ever evolving knowledge of self awareness.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Mariposa Traicionera;1317370 wrote: It's obvious she has some sort of persecution complex; you'd have to know her to see what I mean. Of course, as a person with a mental illness myself, I would never refer to anyone as 'nuts'.


Is it just me?

You've come to a forum and spoken badly of a woman you believe has a persercution complex...............could it be everytime she's around you she is correct?

[theia]

Ahso!;1317462 wrote: Why would a person wish to be labeled as 'disordered'?

I think your question assumes that the individual has ALL the facts before agreeing to such a stigmatized label.


Maybe because it's a relief to them to have their condition labelled...for some this may be far less stressful than wondering and worrying what their symptoms may mean. For some, the crises of mental ill health may be so overwhelming that they have neither the energy nor the will to gather facts or to question a label; they want help, empathy and a way through their hell.

[Ahso!]

theia;1317506 wrote: Maybe because it's a relief to them to have their condition labelled...for some this may be far less stressful than wondering and worrying what their symptoms may mean. For some, the crises of mental ill health may be so overwhelming that they have neither the energy nor the will to gather facts or to question a label; they want help, empathy and a way through their hell.Undoubtedly correct. Ignorant on thee part of the diagnosed, but correct.

Perhaps, if we didn't go so far to be concerned with reducing stress by accepting perpetuated lies, we could all get better faster, which means, becoming knowledgeable.

Do you imagine Socrates meant an 'examined life' by another's examination? Not that Socrates knew it all, either, after all, he had a sexual disorder, didn't he?:)

[Mariposa Traicionera]

fuzzywuzzy;1317493 wrote: Is it just me?

You've come to a forum and spoken badly of a woman you believe has a persercution complex...............could it be everytime she's around you she is correct?


I have not spoken badly of her at all. I'm trying to understand her.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Simple .

Ask the question of her .

[theia]

Ahso!;1317515 wrote: Undoubtedly correct. Ignorant on thee part of the diagnosed, but correct.

Perhaps, if we didn't go so far to be concerned with reducing stress by accepting perpetuated lies, we could all get better faster, which means, becoming knowledgeable.

Do you imagine Socrates meant an 'examined life' by another's examination? Not that Socrates knew it all, either, after all, he had a sexual disorder, didn't he?:)


Isn't that a form of labelling too?

[Ahso!]

theia;1317605 wrote: Isn't that a form of labelling too?I see a difference in saying a person lacks proper knowledge of a subject (ignorance) as opposed to genetically and permanently defective (disordered).

I understand we now find ourselves in a time where we have the capacity to identify differences in ourselves, and its only natural for us to categorize those differences, however, I completely disagree with labeling those differences as disorders. As an example, I don't consider it a terrible thing to say a certain person has a tendency to obsess about certain things and understanding thats just part of the human condition in some of us, as opposed to labeling it a 'disorder', which puts the individual in the category of a leper or, to put it in religious terms, a reprobate sinner.

[Bill Sikes]

Mariposa Traicionera;1317348 wrote: a coworker today. She obviously has mental health issues of some sort. She always feels persecuted, like people are out to get her, takes things the wrong way, etc. Today I noticed for the first time that, when referring to herself, she often uses the pronoun 'we.' : wah:


Ignore that, and try to get on well. You may occasionally have to explain yourself or otherwise make allowances. You probably know that, if you're a manic depressive.

[Peter Lake]

I'm a paranoid schizophrenic, dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac, infact, we often lie awake all night wondering if there's a dog.

[Royd Fissure]

I'm just pulling up my armchair here. Sounds like she is either bloody unhappy or she may be suffering from a disorder (for me a "disorder" is a condition that makes you feel unwell) perhaps getting towards paranoid personality disorder.

The instructions on my armchair psychiatry book I'm reading from says:

"Light the blue touch paper...stand well away".:wah:

[YZGI]

Couldn't she just be referring to her and someone else (her spouse, friends or family)?



She is not necessarily referring to her and herself.

[Ahso!]

Royd Fissure;1317719 wrote: I'm just pulling up my armchair here. Sounds like she is either bloody unhappy or she may be suffering from a disorder (for me a "disorder" is a condition that makes you feel unwell)I can accept this. A cold, flu, fever, an infection or even an itch from poison ivy would be a disorder.Royd Fissure;1317719 wrote: perhaps getting towards paranoid personality disorder.But I don't see how this fits your definition. How would a person who has had a degree of paranoia for their entire flife know they were feeling unwell? To them its how they've always felt. Also, viewing paranoia from an evolutionary standpoint, don't you agree it would be a useful tool? How could such an asset be a disorder?

Royd Fissure;1317719 wrote: The instructions on my armchair psychiatry book I'm reading from says:

"Light the blue touch paper...stand well away".:wah:Nah, its a discussion forum, right? Thats what some of us are here for, isn't it?

[Royd Fissure]

Ahso!;1317737 wrote: I can accept this. A cold, flu, fever, an infection or even an itch from poison ivy would be a disorder.But I don't see how this fits your definition. How would a person who has had a degree of paranoia for their entire flife know they were feeling unwell? To them its how they've always felt. Also, viewing paranoia from an evolutionary standpoint, don't you agree it would be a useful tool? How could such an asset be a disorder?

Nah, its a discussion forum, right? Thats what some of us are here for, isn't it?


It is indeed, but sometimes the flameproof overcoat must be located an speedily put on!

Yes, I can see the contradiction you point out. It's because I'm in two minds (okay, weak attempt at a pun) on the issue of mental illness. I'm no expert but I have had experience at it (mood disorders rather than anything more serious thankfully).

First point of several well-known generalities is that mental illness can be used as a personal and political weapon unless the legislation governing the state's management of mental illness is well constructed.

Exhibit P1 Your Honour:

Schedule 1—Certain conduct may not indicate mental illness

A person does not have a mental illness merely because of any 1 or more of the following:

(a) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular political opinion or belief;

(b) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular religious opinion or belief;

(c) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular philosophy;

(d) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular sexual preference or sexual orientation;

(e) the person engages in or refuses or fails to engage in, or has engaged in or refused or failed to engage in, a particular political activity;

(f) the person engages in or refuses or fails to engage in, or has engaged in or refused or failed to engage in, a particular religious activity;

(g) the person engages in or has engaged in a particular sexual activity or sexual

promiscuity;

(h) the person engages in or has engaged in immoral conduct;

(i) the person engages in or has engaged in illegal conduct;

(j) the person has developmental disability of mind;

(k) the person takes or has taken alcohol or any other drug;

(l) the person engages in or has engaged in anti-social behaviour;

(m) the person has a particular economic or social status or is a member of a particular

cultural or racial group.

However, nothing prevents, in relation to a person who takes or has taken alcohol or any other drug, the serious or permanent physiological, biochemical or psychological effects of drug taking from being regarded as an indication that a person is suffering from mental illness.


Mental Health legislation

Note to fellow Croweaters that may be reading - uncommenced, doesn't kick in until 1 July 2010.

Second point - I remember reading Szasz many years ago now and being singularly unimpressed at his arguments about the social construction of mental illness. Nowadays I look back at that callow youth and feel like smacking him (me) and telling him (me) to wake up, Szasz had a point.

Third point - from the second point - to me mental illness should be seen as a health condition (nothing too controversial there of course) that is a personal matter (here we go....) and unless there is danger to the person suffering or other persons then the state and its various apparatus (apparatii??) have no moral right to interfere with that person.

Fourth point - being a personal health matter then the person themselves or their loved ones are the only people, less the danger issues, who should ask for medical intervention.

Paranoia is, I agree, a subjective issue - I think my points three and four may suggest how I feel it should be dealt with.

Good point about evolution and natural selection - the really apathetic species are always in danger of dying out. Some level of fear and even hyper-awareness is necessary for any species to continue to exist. But in the individual where this stops them enjoying the fact of their existence (aka "life") then for me it becomes an issue which they or their loved ones may wish to address as a matter affecting quality of life. "Paranoia" in my subjective definition and understanding is an unreasonable fear possibly bordering on the delusional and which detracts from the lived life.