Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 23:27, December 19, 2013
, 23:27, December 19, 2013Answers
So I guess terrorists would count too.
So I guess terrorists would count too.
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)
[[User:RKelly|RKelly]] 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)
:Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.
:Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.
:In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.
As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.
:However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have better look.
:As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.
:Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:
*defines who 'everyone' is
*defines the way this 'everyone' use it.
:Ad. "you name ''why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?''"
::Because:
*To name all disturbed characters in the world with make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
*Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's very nature of example that you choose one or few examples
*The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)