Posted by alexandra_k on December 22, 2004, at 17:29:03
In reply to Re: 1.2 » smokeymadison, posted by alexandra_k on December 21, 2004, at 1:06:08
> (ok, I'll admit this to you in a slightly sneaky manner... I don't like the bias / deficit idea because it is implicit that delusional subjects are DEFECTIVE in some way. I don't think this helps with compassion and attempts at empathy and understanding particularly. Also, in the literature 'delusional subjects' invariably become PATIENTS (yeech, talk about 'other') or SCHIZOPHRENICS (people are not their diagnosis, didn't ya know?) If the only mark I ever make is that people with mental illness get called 'subjects' in the literature instead (thats subjects of experience - just like you or me - though maybe that favours the anomalous experience model slightly...) well, then I would consider myself to have done something very worthwhile indeed).
And the reason I have to be sneaky about admitting this??? Because it doesn't stand up to logical scruitiny (sigh). If there is a LOCALISED bias / deficit then delusions would be perfectly understandable responses GIVEN the nature of the bias / deficit.
I am not sure really why I am so resistant to the bias / deficit idea...
Actually, I am. Because I got sick of clinician's laughing in my face when I told them I was into philosophy. BPD's aren't supposed to be paradigms of logical thinking.
You can argue most anything using reason as justification. WHAT you choose to argue, however, is guided by your intuitions. Basically you have to argue something (or you may as well go home) and it is better to argue for something you find plausible than for something you find implausible. But yeah, what you choose to argue isn't the result of logic or reason as much as the average philosopher would have us believe.Crap crap crap.
Everyone at this end reckons I need to back down a bit on my attempt to make the one factor model cover everything. Perhaps they are right.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:431950
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20041210/msgs/433008.html