HOW’S YOUR HOSTILITY? by Steve Nadis
If you experience frequent angry outbursts to the point that it adversely affects your performance on the job or at school or your relationships with friends–particularly overly-sensitive friends who don’t like the occasional sucker punch or head butt–you just might have the latest psychiatric ailment, “Intermittent Explosive Disorder.” The scientists who study this condition consider it a distinct, neurophysiological ailment and say the label can lead to better treatment. If this reduces the odds of my getting killed from road rage, I’d have to regard that as a step forward.
Yet the reactionary side of my has to wonder: Are psychiatric conditions such as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, so-called “Sexual Addiction,” Gambling Addiction, and the like merely covers for bad behavior? I’m all for helping people get better, especially people who might otherwise be inclined to do me in. But I don’t want to give license for individuals to act out in inappropriate and violent ways simply because some new psychiatric diagnosis now “explains” their substandard behavior.
I don’t know if this makes sense. I’m just thinking out loud, here. Maybe I’ve got a condition too, call it Online Processing of Half-Baked Ideas.
Posted by in 18:17:01
My previous Doctor accused me of having this very condition, but after I beat the crap out him he told me I was cured.
Well that’s one way to work through it. Not "according to Hoyle," necessarily, but still effective.
Interesting that you put "so called" before Sexual Addiction. Is it because you think there’s no such thing? Or is it because, as a science writer, you know that humans are kind of programmed to seek out sex, so the line between instinct and addiction is vague?
If the former, I think you might want to read up on the subject a little. If the latter, I would say that it’s no more vague than an eating disorder. Hunger is an instinct, but when one over-eats to the point of endangering one’s health, relationships and livelihood, then it’s pretty clearly an addiction. The same can happen with sex.
Also, there’s a third possibility–you’re just tired of the "fad" of sexual addiction among sports stars and celebrities and wish they’d shutup and get back to doing whatever it is they do when they’re not acting badly. In which case, I’m in your camp…
Wow, a serious conversation on "CMS!" I make a distinction between behavior (e.g. addictive behavior) that, while it may hurt other people, is not primarily intended to do so; and malicious, nasty behavior that is meant to hurt other. The latter I would call bad behavior, or maybe T.A.D. (Total Asshole Disorder)
Some interesting comments. That is an important distinction, TB, and I like your contribution to the latest DSM — TAD. You raised some valid points, too, Gatemouth. I agree that these behaviors can be genuinely addictive and destructive, but sometimes I do think — as in the case of "sexual addiction" — that they can be used as a cover. I.e., "it’s not my fault–I’m a sex addict."
I agree. The current "sexual addiction" claims of many celebrities smack of the "childhood sexual abuse" fad of the 80s or the "ADD" claims of the 90s.
Let me state outright that I am NOT trying to discount or trivialize the effect of any kind of abuse or disorder, or to imply that anyone who claims they have these problems does not deserve help or compassion.
However, in the 80s and 90s it sometimes seemed de rigeur for celebrities to discover they had been abused as children (i.e. they couldn’t be geniuses/stars/artists unless they had been abused) or to have some kind of subtle cognitive disorder. In many case, these histories or conditions seemed intended to serve as excuses for what was generally just bad behavior (or TAD).
Some of them were probably being honest about their problems. But there does seem to have been several waves of what I call "PDFs" (Psychological Disorder Fads) in the past few decades and it seems likely that some of the current "sexual addiction" claims are part of the same.
Which leads to an interesting question: what does it say about a society that is so fascinated with psychological issues that the issues can actually increase a person’s status and notoriety, rather than decrease them? (It’s not a new phenomenon, by the way. Look at the fascination with Lord Byron in Victorian England.)
That is an interesting ? & I’m not sure I have any insights off the top of my head. The issue I’ve thought more about has to do with personal responsibility or the lack thereof. It seems to be the trend to blame our problems on others or on one condition or another–the "junk food defense" being an obvious example. I’m all for helping people with real problems. But I’d also like people to take more responsibility for their actions.