Talk:Sadistic personality disorder

MeThinks...

I think this has been a bit graffitied.... Cheesypot 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Sniper personality profile

I have removed the link to the Washington sniper personality profile because the profile turned out to be wildly inaccurate ("most likely a white male in his thirties,"). This is the kind of stuff that gives psychological profiling a very bad name. The link had obviously been included because it contained a lot of clinical theory from other publications. It would be better to find a less mistaken article to link to for this. Ireneshusband 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the above change. I overreacted. I have a definite prejudice against this kind of profiling at a distance with little knowledge of the person concerned, but for all I know most of the profile is sound (apart from the age and race of course). Ireneshusband 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Everything in this is basically an exact description of me! Wow I didn't think anyone was like me! Luke Mepham 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As the son of a woman who scores 8/8 for this, and not any other psychological problem, I pity those around you unless you work really hard at tempering these traits.

If you're like my 70 year old mother, you'll end up with a) not a friend in the world (literally), b) relatives who only tolerate you because they have to, and many who will hate you with a passion. Try not to see love as 100% transactional, and try not to go "crazy" when you start to lose your control over someone (e.g. when they go off to college).

And good luck in life, you'll need more than a little. Hga 11:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of these behavioral traits seem to be present in the editors of cyberbully sites like Something Awful and Encyclopedia Dramatica. One can only wonder what these individuals would do once the thrill of tormenting random Internet users wears off... --M.Neko 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If they truly have SPD, they are already behaving in the real world like that. But it should be emphasized that SPD is about control expressed in sadistic ways. I would suspect that the lack of control that is inherent in the Internet would make it a less attractive venue for people with SPD than the normal real world. It's just too easy for e.g. someone to simply ignore a web site like Something Awful, and I think someone with SPD would find that intolerable. Hga 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Most cyberbullies seem to be "socially frustrated" teenagers. I do not believe Sadism is purely about dominance.. it also refers to a passion for "personal revenge" against those who cross you, and some level of a creative reward. Some sadists do not lie to provoke others, in staid, take great pride in their extreme (though hurtful) level of honesty, despite that, not all sadists are outwardly possessive of the majority people around them, nor is there evidence to suggest that.

76.17.99.145 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

what would i be?

I like to see ppl suffer, but only ppl i hate, not my friends, i would give my life for them, but i real realy like to see ppl i hate suffer, it brings a smile to my face, and i want them to cry, and know that i am the reason they are suffering, but it isnt sexual pleasure, just like, a realy good feeling of happiness.

No idea, but something other than SPD. With SPD, it's "nothing personal", the person with it treats everyone in their life about the same (social pressures will curb some of the worst with people at e.g. work as opposed to family).

Also, read the article again closely. SPD is not about causing people to suffer. It's about controling them, in ways that as a side effect make then suffer. Hga 13:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownmetalheadd (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides the early onset, my searches for information have found no indications of causes. Obviously something compels the person with it to seek control to the exclusion of ever other possible personal goal, including reciprocal relationships and I would dare say "love", but otherwise I haven't found anything.

Nor am I likely to. One thing I have found is that its mirror Self-defeating personality disorder that was proposed for inclusion at the same time cased some feminists such upset that they threatened a lawsuit against the American Psychiatric Association, which apparently prompted the latter to drop both from consideration, and after that little research seems to have been done.

There are some things man is not meant to know, it would seem. Hga 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say tbe mirror of SPD is Narcissism of Megalomania . . . sadists can be compelled to cruelty even when it defeats their interests. That's they get in trouble so often. Self-defeating people are more like sadists who hate themselves . . . and many sadists do project inward AND outward. Magmagoblin (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

suffers

are sensitive people more likly to suffer from this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownmetalheadd (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(Original Research Warning! :-)

I would suspect not. SPD drives someone suffering from it to acts of extreme cruelty. That would seem to be inconsistent with the person being sensitive---how would they live with themselves afterwards?

I think (again, based on direct observation plus how it's likely to work) that significant callousness is required for it. Hga 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion: victims become sensistive. They can choose to adopt the cruelty of the sadist. Need to leave home ASAP and develop their own personalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.236.218 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Direct observations: It seems to be more a matter of realizing one has unconsciously learned the patterns from the SPD parent (who pretty much by definition is the dominant parent, since he or she would not tolerate a spouse who resisted), and then choosing to do the very hard work to change oneself. The DSM says onset is "early adulthood", so while getting out ASAP is well advised, it won't happen before many years of learning by example.

In my family, at least 3 out of the 4 children learned the patterns, but none have SPD as such. Hga 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What Makes SPD Unique?

I don't see how this differs from the profile of a typical batterer or domestic abuser--whether physical, emotional, sexual, or all three. Is there some difference? If yes, explain how this is different. If not, then say that and link to topics on domestic violence and abuse. Eperotao (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SPD is a particular motivation for abuse, and it most certainly doesn't follow any of the patterns of "typical" physical or sexual abuse that I'm aware of, and there are many emotional abuse patterns and motivations that don't match it at all.

And would it not be original research to show and explain this, therefore being beyond the scope of Wikipedia? Hga (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The diagnostic requirements for SPD sound rather premature, because they do resemble a simple abusive personality. This is more of a medical research issue than a wiki article issue, and can't be helped until more information is published.

The emphasis of sadism is not on the act of abuse, but the thoughts behind it. in fact not all (if not most) sadists could even be classified as abusive in a legal sense. it is a presumptuous misrepresentation to imply such a thing at all. sadism is a state of mind, not a visible act. - it would be nice if at least that one point could be better expressed.

76.17.99.145 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why removed?

I think this article would benefit from a sentence or two explaining why this disorder was removed from the DSM. (IIRC a whole bunch were removed in the transition from DSM-III-R to DSM-IV, so it might not be anything terribly interesting; but I don't think it's enough to write "the current DSM-IV-TR does not include the category" without saying something about why.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The story for SPD is interesting and sourced if you do a bit of Googling and want to add it to the page: the mirror to it was so Politically Uncorrect that legal action was threatened against the APA, so they dropped both. There is also perhaps legitimate argument over it being unique, but I haven't found anyone saying that to be convincing.

It's sad, but the DSM has very clearly become a politicized document in many areas. Hga (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was probably removed because it has become the norm of our collective culture, and is no longer considered a disorder ;) --Redconfetti (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. But there's a big distinction between someone who's merely "sadistic" in behavior when they want to be and someone who has this personality disorder and can't turn it off. Hga (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunalyy, no science proof were given to show that sadism is a "personality disorder". Oh well...

Incorrect facts..

If personality in humans fully develops in early childhood, it is not possible for sadism to "develop in early adulthood" unless it is explicitly sexual. "It is not diagnosable until early adulthood" would be a possibility.. but sadistic people are sadistic from childhood.

Aside from that, what about severity in cases? It must vary from "self-controlled/well behaved" people to others, outwardly violent, labeled a threat to others. Perhaps sub-classifications; dominantly physical vrs mental sadism. There must be some document out there addressing details like this. 76.17.99.145 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do sadistic people have feelings

I was wondering if sadistic people feel love to their friends/partner even if they abuse them? Also, do they care about the feelings of others?

Hedron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before addressing the above question, it should be narrowed to the scope of the article's topic, which is a personality disorder with a foundation of control over other people that expresses itself in ways that deserve the label sadistic (7 out of the 8 diagnostic criteria by my count).

Sadistic personality disorder is not the only thing that causes sadistic behavior, and I have no particular experience with other causes, which could well be the majority of examples.

For the one SPD example I have, I'm not at all sure they love their spouse ... but I was only able to make good observations when I was old enough, so love might have once been there, but wilted in the crucible of SPD. Friends?!??!! I suspect SPD is a very strong bar to having them or at least retaining them. Why put up the with clearly senseless abuse, unless a relative who doesn't have much choice?

Do people with SPD "have feelings" or care about others? In the example I have, very clearly yes (e.g. she was a Nurse anesthetist; these are elite nurses who do a lot of general clinical work before specializing, no way could one do that without having compassion). A tragedy of the disorder is that it drives sufferers to hurt people they do care about. Hga (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Mattisse

With the exception of the unreferenced section, where the ultimate reference is the DSM III-R (which is implied by the section title; is more really needed?), I don't think the changes are supportable:

This personality disorder is not about sadism per se, e.g. look at the 7th criteria, "Restricts the autonomy..."; that does not I think rise to the level of sadism. So I'm not sure a reference to BDSM is called for ... but thinking about it some more, it does belong.

Just as the removed references to similar personality disorders should be put back in. If one tries to fit someone with SPD into either of those, there aren't enough matches for a diagnosis, but they are what people will first think of and examine.

Finally, simply saying "discredited diagnosis" is not accurate. "Politically discredited diagnosis" with a reference to page 52 of Evil Genes (search for "sadistic personality disorder" on Amazon and you'll get references to three pages starting with that one) would work for me, and is supported by other citable (I think, it's been a while) references you can find with Google.

It might be better to just leave it as it was rather than stating "discredited" (unless you can find a good reference to support that). The final sentence of the introduction works for me in emphasizing its status without delving into the why. Hga (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the BDSM entry with its second sentence saying "While not always overtly sexual in nature, the activities and relationships within a BDSM context are almost always eroticized by the participants in some fashion." I don't think it belongs in the See Also section. The other related entries (which reference it) will do. Hga (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)