Discussion Main / HollywoodPersonalityDisorders

Maybe you'd have more luck if you voiced your concerns in the trope repair shop or the cut list.

Hm, I know this was posted a looong time ago, but I kind of wanted to respond to this comment, anyway, even though I'm not sure if you'll receive it. When it comes to the fictional characters that end up as examples, I not only think of them as being Hollywood's take on the P Ds, but also...the most dramatic, most severe expressions of these disorders? What I mean is, in the case of bad guys, they're going to have (atypically) violent expressions of the disorder, and in many cases, BPD is likely not to be their only mental health issue. With Anakin Skywalker, for example, he could be said to have a very severe expression of Narcissistic Personality Disorder as well (though within the Star Wars universe, his extremely self-centered behavior could also be attributed to being corrupted by the Dark Side, so it's hard to tell). Either way, it's not just the BPD that's at play. Maybe it's because one of my friends has BPD, but I never thought, upon reading this, that all people with these disorders are like the examples given. Even with APD, most people don't have nearly as extreme cases of it as the characters who end up as examples here. More run-of-the-mill thief than the Joker.

Agreed here. Even ASPD is very debatable, given that it's based on a test from the 1940s which only studiedn outward behaviours, not the internal anatomy and reasons for it. Conflating it with psychopathy and sociopathy was another one of the many mistakes DSM-5 did (never mind the huge can of worms of linking grief and major depression) . It is possible to be BPD and ASPD if the antisocial behaviour has an emotional root for example. But sociopathy and BPD cannot be comorbid, by definition. Even many serial killers weren't psychopathic- Damner was diagnosed with BPD and Schizoid, with sadistic features.

Same goes for lack of empathy. Psychopaths and narcissists both lack empathy, but the reasons for it are very different- the former has a differently wired brain meaning they *physically cannot* feel it, while the latter is more about shielding the fragile ego by any means necessary. It is possible to be have NPD and ASPD and sadism to be comorbid (we call it malignant narcissism) but it is not possible to be a 'narcissistic psychopath'- that's an invention of Holywood and 1940s psychology.

If you want a more nuanced, less "Us vs Them" images of the conditions, the research of James Fallon or the Psycho, Socio and Narc communities of Quora are good places to look and ask questions. Trying to say that 0.5-1% of the population are Complete Monsters raises a lot of unfortunate implications.

It's what I read in a book published around the turn of the century but if you want to change it then go ahead.

Basing characters off Real Life people is done all the time, including introducing new character traits like a Hollywood Personality Disorder. So I'd say this is fair game.

Thanks!

Well, the page is about the Hollywood portrayal, which is of course laden with stereotypes and inaccuracies.

It doesn't become disconcerting that the article makes no difference between how hollywood depicts something and how it actually is in real life? There is nothing here that indicates that the entire article is being purposefully stereotyping in order to be ironic about it. Compare this with the "tourettes" hollywood article, which makes clear distinctions between how hollywood and how real life are different.

The antisocial, narcissitic, obsessive compulsive, and possibly the avoidant are the only ones with pre-existing tropes that are a good match.

Narcissistic is the only one with an exact match. Antisocial is considered the same as being a sociopath by some, but others see some difference.

I don't think Obsessive-Compulsive or Avoidant even come close to already having pages, although there may be a page I don't know about or something.

I was thinking Super OCD for the obsessive compulsive since most people think OCD is OCPD, and Shrinking Violet for the avoiant.

Sheldon Cooper has more symptoms relating to Asperger Syndrome (which involves antisocial behaviour, but I digress...) Phoebe could be schizotypal though - frequently she's different because she wants to be different.

Sheldon is definitely NOT Antisocial: He has a conscience. If he had a personality disorder, Schizoid would come closest (with some Narcissistic tendencies). But I agree with Harley that an extremely bad case of Asperger's fits him best.

Yes I'm with you, Hollywood on tv.tropes most of the time means, how Hollywood gets it wrong but this page mostly just says who has personality Disorders(and at times it not even canon so it's more like guessing.)

Hollywood X pages here aren't in the best of states.

This used to be a useful notes page but per decision at the repair shop it was deemed this was offensive and poorly researched so it was moved to hollywood x.

Where is the TRS thread?

The TRS thread

Though there's been many changes to the page since that discussion took place. Not sure if any improvements have been made. Any ways the DSM-5 is coming out soon and it might be a good idea to take into account the changes they're making to the personality disorder section. As character types I seen nothing wrong with turning the ten personality disorders in the DSM-4 into tropes.

The narrator has no credentials. Sorry. Rainbow Dash has no trouble trusting her friends, especially point to a personality disorder; Pinkie Pie's is classified by her mood swings rather than some compulsive need for attention (which she never shows, her desire is for relationships, not drama), and Rarity's ability to view her friends as equals instantly deflates any possibility that she's narcissistic. Thanks for the insult though, I'll be sure to remember that next time you're citing random Youtube videos.

Lampshaded in Psych (season 6 episode 'Shaun interrupted" where the characters go undercover in a mental institution under the cover of 'narcissistic personality disorder', which already fits the character fairly well.

We're not following any specific diagnostic manual. We're just cataloging when certain personality types show up in media.

Evidently we are following the DSM, since we're calling the disorders as they're listed (and formerly listed, as is the case for PAPD and SPD) in the manual. For good reason, too; the point of this article is that we're identifying fictional characters with nonfictional disorders, and so it makes sense to consult a professional source about it.

Okay, maybe so. But we're not following a specific version of a specific manual. Yes, these disorders where deleted, but there are still criteria out there that we can apply to fictional characters.

They were deleted for a reason. Passive aggressive and sadistic behavior are considered problematic but not symptoms of personality disorders.

Not sure. I'd think that both represent long term deviations of normal emotions and behavior that cause problems. Anyways, we don't list the most commonly used PD diagnosis in real life, PD-NOS.

Didn't they get rid of sadistic personality disorder not because of any scientific evidence but because of legal concerns in abuse cases?

That's one of about a dozen reasons. I vote we remove the section son PAPD and SPD. The only reason to have them is so the authors can show everybody that they know trivia on the history of psychiatry. They're not valid diagnoses.

1. So instead of including trivia on past diagnosis, this page would just be trivia on current diagnosis? 2. The merit of the diagnoses would only matter if we were trying to study or treat people. We're not doing either of those. 3. Even so, the validity of the categorical approach taken by the DSM-IV to personality pathology is undergoing a radical change in the DSM-5, and for good reason. Real people can't be pigeon-holed into categories. So if that's your reason for deleting those sections, then the whole page should be nuked.

I think this page has a lot in common with the pages dealing with D&D alignment. In both cases, where using an oversimplified system created by a third party to categorize the attitudes of characters.

^ Considering shows like Neon Genesis Evangelion and Super Ego I have to agree.

1. It's not 'trivia' if we're using a professional, up-to-date source. 2. The 'merit of the diagnosis' matters because it reflects conditions that real people experience. PAPD and SPD are not valid diagnoses because they're not real conditions. 3. Go read up on what's being changed for the DSM-v. It's not a radical change.

I have read it and they were planning on getting rid of the paranoid, schizoid, histrionic, narcissitic, and dependent personality disorders. Does this mean we should get rid of those once they do?

They're not deleting those as personality disorders, though there is debate on some of the ways the symptoms are characterized. Having said that: when the DSM-v comes out, yes, we should update this page.

Here is a cross walk showing how DSM-IV personality disorders would be diagnosed under the new system. Also, the way the criteria are setup for DSM-5 disorders is different from DSM-IV disorders. But I don't think any other article on mental disorders follows DSM criteria. I guess a useful notes page would be more appropriate if you wanted to cover that type of thing.

On an OT note, is My Little Ponies supposed to be a childrens show?

That looks like they're removing the dependent, histrionic, paranoid, and schizoid to me and giving the people who have them a new diagnosis.

My Little Ponies is marketed toward children but is known for its older periphery demographic.

I got the picture from a snapshot of the music video ''High Maintenance Woman'' by Toby Keith. It might be the same actress but the characters are different.

I linked the picture to the song on youtube to prevent any future confusion. Is that the right thing to do?

Perfect. Thanks.