Talk:Disturbed character

Problems

This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence

"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."

This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also

"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."

might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

SamHB 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. PeterKa 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Still problems

I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:

• Lee Oswald
• Sirhan Sirhan
• James Earl Ray
• Charles Manson
• Timothy McVeigh
• John Hinckley
• Charles Whitman
• Seung-Hui Cho
• Eric Harris
• Dylan Klebold
• James Holmes
• Adam Lanza
• Karl Pierson

I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?

• If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
• If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis? to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's Origin of Species. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [1], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

SamHB 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too. 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 a 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. "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 would 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 the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
• 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 these 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, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.

I hope this helps.--AK 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

I suggest that you read the books in sources first

No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read In Sheep's Clothing or Character Disturbances, though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to In Sheep's Clothing, does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a tag search for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

You however claim these details are not important

What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is

No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic

Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only one such person?

you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena

Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...

There is no description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.

Supported by sources?

Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

SamHB 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

Moderation

Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--IDuan 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)