It is rather a difference in their goals. A psychopath predates for material goods, personal pleasures, and a parasitic life, while a narcissist predates for recognition, admiration, and glory, helping him establish and preserve his idealized ego.
Narcissists are profoundly lonely because 'no one can reach them' (take the example of Nietzsche).

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2024

My roommate freshman year at university majored in Histrionary. Too, if one puts their OCD before time based pedals like reverbs or delays all will be in order.

 

I have heard this strawman retort so much from people defending poor research practises in clinical psychology/psychiatry and it is bullshit. Objective measures doesn't have to mean blood tests.

Functioning can be measured objectively - eg was a severely depressed unemployed person now gainfully employed for a year.

A fundamental problem with scales is they are merely proxies. A report on a symptom scale is not the same as the experience of that symptom, no matter how often these two are treated as the same thing in scientific literature. The process of answering a scale is subject to a variety of common biases that are hard to control for without true blinding of participants (this is why genuine patient blinding is absolutely necessary in pharmacological trials - to help control for those biases). People can and do change their rating on outcome measures without actually having any underlying change in health or mood or symptoms.

 

It sounds like you are a profesional

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2024

Yes sir, That is what I am trying to convey. Illness treated by medicines where path-physiology is understood fully at cellular level shows their intended benefits in most cases without not much delay and are easy to treat in comparison unlike, which are determined on basis of objective /clinical trials are quite tough to treat.

So in later cases its harder to understand the patho-physiology and successfully treat(in comparison) with visible outcomes as neither all pathogenesis can be fully pinpointed nor all illness can be ascribed to cellular levels. But on the basis of overwhelming evidence and information, treatment protocols are devised and are used with great success

In fact as of today there are many diseases/conditions where objective /clinical trials are the only tools available to treat a patient.

 

It has been called "evidence based medicine" since the 1970s.

This is distinct from "science based medicine" where not only is there a requirement of trials to demonstrate efficacy, but also characterise a scientific mechanism of action. The latter is a higher standard of evidence which helps eliminate alt-med nonsense like homeopathy or Chiropractic manipulation.

But my primary concern was about the fact that almost all psychological therapy trials are of poor quality due to a combination of lack of blinding (which would control important biases) and objective outcome measures (that are less susceptible to such biases).

Merely conducting randomised clinical trials does not make the results reliable enough for conclusive generalisations, and clinical trials aren't necessarily "objective" evidence.

 

People experiencing anxiety, depression, obsessional thoughts, phobias, or other symptoms traditionally associated with neuroses can present with a wide range of experiences and underlying causes. A "one-size-fits-all" approach to therapy often falls short, requiring flexible and personalized treatment plans.
Often, these symptoms occur alongside other mental health conditions (depression and anxiety are highly co-occurring), substance use issues, or medical problems. Treating only the neurotic-like symptoms without addressing the broader picture can hinder progress.
Therapist competence, training, and personal biases can influence the treatment process. Therapists with limited experience in specific issues or lacking cultural sensitivity might struggle to connect effectively with and support clients.
Client motivation, commitment to change, and ability to engage in therapeutic exercises significantly impact outcomes. Individuals with high distress levels, personality traits affecting interpersonal skills, or limited access to resources might face additional hurdles.
Each therapy has its strengths and weaknesses, and what works for one person might not be effective for another. Additionally, addressing deeply ingrained patterns can be a slow and demanding process.
Measuring the effectiveness of psychotherapy can be challenging due to multiple factors influencing outcomes. This makes it difficult to compare different approaches and tailor treatments to individual needs.
Knowledge gaps remain regarding specific symptom combinations or presentations often associated with "neurosis" in older terminology.
P.S. General medicine practice is also not quite scientific, judging by the number of misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatments, sometimes resulting in crippling or even fatal outcomes.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2024