
"Watchmen" As a Primer on Mental Disorder - enmaku
http://codinginmysleep.com/watchmen-as-a-primer-on-mental-disorder/
======
stephengillie
This is more an exercise in how conditions as described in the DSM IV can be
applied to almost anyone as easily as a horoscope or fortune cookie.

A psychology prof once told us that the DSM isn't a diagnostic manual or any
sort of medical text -- it's just a reference book so the insurance industry
knows how to bill psychological conditions.

~~~
enmaku
Funny that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" isn't
considered a "Diagnostic Manual" given that a) those words are in the title
and b) it's commonly and constantly used by professionals as a manual for
diagnosis. It doesn't really matter what your one prof said, it matters how
the profession as a whole uses it. I also cited the ICD-10 in the article for
several of the disorders, and there absolutely is not any arguing that the
ICD-10 is a valid diagnostic tool.

Also, while I agree the mis-dignosis is common and many of the elements read
like a horoscope/fortune cookie, you can't say that Nite Owl II was a
narcissist or that Ozymandius had avoidant personality disorder.

~~~
pinchyfingers
Just because something bears a title doesn't make it so.

Perhaps his professor _was_ accurately describing how the profession as a
whole uses the manual.

You can diagnosis pretty much anyone with narcissism.

------
lukev
So this is something I've always wondered about diagnosing mental disorders.

The thing is, how strongly do the traits listed have to be manifested before
it's considered a disorder as opposed to just being that person's personality?

In the comic book, these distinct personalities are what make the characters
interesting. The same is also true of people in real life; if you take away
every trait mentioned, you end up with a pretty bland person.

So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets applied
when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on? Or is there a
qualitative difference?

~~~
tankbot
> So is it simply a matter of degree, and the "disorder" label just gets
> applied when the traits get strong enough for others to comment on?

Yes, it is the degree to which traits manifest, but it's not simply a matter
of others commenting on them. Typically the degree to which these disorders
manifest needs to interfere with living a normal, productive life. That can
mean something different to different people, but it's safe to say that if
your narcissistic rage prevents you from getting/keeping a job, that your case
is likely a certifiable disorder.

The trouble with personality disorders (which are pretty interesting, btw) is
that if you ask 10 mental health professionals you will probably get at least
8 differing opinions (these numbers are fabricated on the spot, the point is
that there is a lot of variation). Combined with the fact that personality
disorders are largely untreatable the whole thing becomes a spaghetti mess.

Studying personality disorders is really interesting and can offer a lot of
insight into normal social interactions but I would caution people about
second-year syndrome [0]. Keep in mind that, as someone else pointed out,
these disorders are extreme cases of normal behavior. Don't get all freaked
out when reading about mental disorders because you think you exhibit signs of
schizophrenia, histrionic or narcissistic disorders. You do, we all do, it's
normal - just not in the extremes that those with actual disorders exhibit.

Disclaimer: I am not a mental health professional, though I do work with them
and their clients daily. I also minored in Psychology, which is valuable for a
C.S. major when it comes to social interaction or marketing your skills/ideas
internally.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_students_disease>

~~~
j_baker
If anyone's interested in this enough to buy a book on it, I highly recommend
Millon's _Personality Disorders in Modern Life_. It touches on a lot of the
issues that the GP asked about including how to distinguish personality
disorders from traits.

[http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Disorders-Modern-
Theodore-...](http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Disorders-Modern-Theodore-
Millon/dp/0471237345)

------
kelvin0
Wow! I really enjoyed the movie, but this analysis by the author and the
seemingly cohesive picture he paints of each of the 'heroes' is quite
astounding ...

~~~
MartinCron
You know that asshole guy who always chimes in uninvited and says that the
book is better... I don't want to be that guy.

But I will say that it's absolutely worth reading if you enjoyed the movie at
all, though I think the movie has a stronger ending than the original.

~~~
enmaku
I actually liked the original squid ending better, but that's another one of
those personal opinions that some asshole guy always has to chime in with.
There were definitely some good differences that made each a unique and
worthwhile experience, but I would say that the differences more or less left
the mental disorders untouched.

------
fallous
Am I the only one that read/saw Rorschach as the only absolutely moral
character? He refused to compromise on the truth and held everyone to the same
code. His inability to accept the moral compromise offered by Ozymandius leads
directly to his death, which he welcomes rather than pervert his own morality.

------
ekianjo
I read this post with interest but, honestly speaking, if you consider that
all the characters have mental disorders, then 100% of the population have
mental disorders as well. I am not sure where you can draw a line between a
mental disorder and a personality trait !

------
dbbolton
Once again, I feel the need to point out that the term "psychopathy" is not
used clinically (and neither is 'sociopathy'). Robert Hare et al. do have a
rigorous definition that distinguishes psychopathy from ASPD, but this
definition does not appear in the latest DSM.

Also, the line between ASPD and NPD is somewhat blurry in this article,
possibly because in reality these disorders are often co-morbid. The main
difference is that narcissists usually conform to social norms and laws, and
do not generally pose a serious threat to society. A narcissist might verbally
berate someone who stands in his way, but he is unlikely to resort to violence
at the drop of a hat, for example. Confer "conduct disorder".

~~~
enmaku
I believe I did mention this in the article, but I agree that it's vitally
important to understand that the one or two times I used those terms I was
knowingly using the popular definitions, not the clinical definitions. Good
catch!

~~~
dbbolton
It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, so maybe Ozymandius did show
traits of Hare's definition of the psychopathy. However, the article seemed to
imply that the only thing that separates a psychopath from a narcissist is
empathy level:

>What makes Ozymandius the villain of the story is that, while many NPD
sufferers have decreased empathy, Ozy's lack of empathy borders on full-blown
psychopathy

In other words, a psychopath would just be a narcissist with even less
empathy, which isn't really the case. In fact, aggressive narcissism is just
one of two factors in Hare's checklist. On the second factor, socially deviant
lifestyle (which includes traits like failure to plan ahead, poor self
control, impulsiveness, etc.), he would probably score pretty low, and thus
would be unlikely classified by Hare as a true psychopath.

The description of The Comedian as having ASPD was well-justified though,
other than the term "sufferer". Most sociopaths actually consider themselves
to be "free" of many of the emotional and social burdens that the people they
prey on seem to carry (which ties in to their narcissism).

------
drivingmenuts
I think these mental disorders were pretty strongly depicted in both the comic
and the movie, and that was one of the points Moore was trying to make: having
that kind of power corrupts and only the corrupt would want that kind of
power.

Some of them had good intentions, which is not mutually exclusive with being
mentally ill, but they were all horribly flawed.

------
tsahyt
Very interesting read. Makes me wanna rewatch the movie, which by the way I
though was great.

Just my two cents: I think pretty much everyone is "mentally ill" in his or
her own way. Me, personally I've identified myself in quite a few bullet
points listed there, yet I'm perfectly fine. I think it's whether those traits
cause distress or not. Oh and I'm not wearing a costume, saving the world ;)

------
phektus
>no one sprouts claws or shoots lasers from their eyes

oh yes, them mutants are the only real heroes

------
benihana
> _While it's great to understand the psychology behind the characters, this
> knowledge doesn't really make the movie or knowledge that much better._

Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters
is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even
my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact
that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues.
I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would
fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many
incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but
for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just
a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.

~~~
johnchristopher
To me, the whole point of the movie is: "The end doesn't justify the means and
when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for fascism".

Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not
realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the
stereotypes they stand for.

Nothing new under the sun, literary-wise.

~~~
mcguire
" _To me, the whole point of the movie is: 'The end doesn't justify the means
and when someones tells you so it certainly means you are heading for
fascism'._ "

I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a
pretty strong case that what Ozy does is _necessary_ and that he's hardly
either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Having only watched the film, I believe he could have done much better.
Assuming he didn't have a better alternative, he did make the right choice:
better one billion deads than total extinction by nuclear holocaust. But he
most probably _did_ have a better alternative.

First, he could have followed through on that cheap unlimited energy business.
Second, he could have convinced Dr Manhattan to play the terrorist without
killing so much people. Like, targeting most high-profile military
installations and civilian symbols. Oh, and while we're at it, he should have
financed a (Friendly) AI program as well.

I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton. But come on, it's
only level 3 on the Yudkowsky ambition scale[1]. No need for such massive
killing, especially when the glowing blue ape right next to you is at least at
level 5.

[1]:
[http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ehd/the_yudkowsky_ambit...](http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ehd/the_yudkowsky_ambition_scale/)

~~~
mcguire
" _I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton._ "

I didn't get that, although it's been a long time since I read it (and I have
a general rule against taking movies too seriously). The world in the graphic
novels was hyper-'80's bleak: a high threat of nuclear holocaust and extreme
stagnation in every other area. (I can't remember, did the extremely popular
but hideously depressing pirate comic book make it into the movie?) My
impression is that Ozy wanted to break the stalemate, altruistically. If he
wanted to rule the world, he could have done that easily enough, and cheap
energy, etc., would likely reinforce the status quo.

Instead, he comes up with a complete game change: He removes Doc Manhattan,
who is very bad influence; who is going to want to _do_ anything with
Manhattan standing around? (IIRC, that works out the same as in the movie.)
And he arranges for humanity to discover an outside enemy, one which requires
humanity to pull together and work like crazed gophers to advance science,
technology, and likely general society in a way that hadn't happened since
WWII. The outside enemy turns out to be giant, psychic, trans-dimensional
aliens, which have the advantage of not actually existing.

The death toll involved is significantly less than the movie, since he only
has one of the things and uses it to destroy New York. On the other hand, I
have a friend who's favorite character is Rorschach, because he's the only one
who is in on the story who doesn't go along with the murder of millions of
people.

(By the way, I'm humming "Sympathy for the Devil" right now.)

------
Buzaga
I really can't understand how so many people take this mental illness/disorder
stuff for granted, DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them, the
"diagnosis" are based on bullet points and these are decided by a committee or
something...

how about this mental illness here?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania>

also, there's a mental disorder for any personality trait ever("oh but it's
only considered a DISORDER if it's like, really really bad, you know?")

pure bullshit

~~~
Karunamon

      >DSM and mental disorders have 0 science in them
      >pure bullshit
    

Line 1, meet line 4.

