Re: Re: Borderline? Exercise in logic, sorta.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill,

I understand what you have posted, and the history of the term is certainly replete with every indication that it is just as imprecise and non-well-defined and incinsistent as your post indicates.

Thank you for your kind words- I think most highly of you!

Subject: Re: Borderline? Exercise in logic, sorta.To: aspires-relationships Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 7:19 AM

I was misdiagnosed w/ BPD. Speaking of labels,...http://is.gd/ bIiF9>> This is NOT aimed at - for whom I have the highest regard - or > anyone else .> > > All of us have names. We feel our names are part of us; nowhere more > obviously than when someone besmirches our "good name". Or when it's > stolen, as in identity theft.> > Naming is an important part of *what we do*. It's an important part of > being human. We meet someone new; immediately we need to know their > name, and we offer our own in return. Why? Because it

makes us feel we > *know something* already, about the other person. Of course we don't > *really* know anything. At least not yet.> > That's what bothers me about all the mental-health labels we discuss on > this list. We know the name or the acronym, and we feel somehow we > *know something* about the thing. As often as not it's far *less* than > we *actually* know.> > But that's OK, we believe, because the labels are placed on syndromes, > diseases, "disorders" - everything - by *professionals* . Most certainly > *they* know about the syndrome, "disorder, etc.??> > I think often they do not. Not often enough anyway. For example, and > my very biggest peeve about "disorder" naming, we're given > "Borderline" -something. Not as an opinion *about* "something", but as > an actual agreed-upon Name *for* "something".> > Think

"Borderline Personality Disorder" (BPD). It's named; named by > pros. It's "in the book"; even has formal criteria. It *must be known* > and understood, mustn't it? By them, anyway?> > And it must be different from plain "Personality Disorder" (PD). > Otherwise it wouldn't have that separate, distinguishing Name.> > If it isn't actually PD, ...what? "Borderline" implies "not quite" PD.> But if it isn't "quite" PD, what needs be added to *make* it PD? > Just as interesting, what might we *take away* from PD that would make > it different? Different and *distinguishable* , from both itself and > from BPD-prime and from BPD?> If we can do that, do we then *two* legitimate BPDs? How now do we > distinguish between the two, criteria-wise? For that matter, among the > now *three* forms of PD?> > The loyal well-trained mental-health person would say

"the evidence > doesn't support" the notion of three - that's why we have only two: PD > and BPD.> > On its face that seems to answer the question, to solve the problem. > But it doesn't. Because having two, only two and *exactly two* implies > the possibility of "differential diagnosis" - a means of distinguishing.> A differential diagnosis pre-supposes, implies, that there exist > certain strict criteria which reliably *will distinguish* between and > among two or more diagnostic entities.> > As between PD and BPD, there is no such procedure.> The very concept of 'borderline' is "not quite *this*, really; but > maybe almost *that*, possibly". But *that* most certainly is undefined; > there are no criteria.> > A true separation of PB and BPD doesn't exist. Borderline is a > weasel-word, nothing more. What *does* exist then is

uncertainty about > PD itself!> > It's a Name, *just* a name, *only* a name. It's use is designed to > instill confidence in both the diagnostician and those who must deal > with the diagnosis. It allows both to *believe* they *know something*, > when in fact they do *not know* so much at all.> > *I* feel no such confidence in BPD, Borderline-Anything , PD itself, > ...and neither should anyone else.> > Heh! That's not all! IF borderline meant something, really, THEN it > can only be that *something* is "across the border", so to speak. What > would *that* be? What distinguishes *that* from BPD itself? Or from PD > itself? ...Or both?> > For the present anyway, I'm going to leave this "as an exercise for the > reader". Have fun.> > [but NB: There's even more, even worse than that...]> > - Bill, dx AS; ...to

the core> > -- > WD "Bill" Loughman - Berkeley, California USA> http://home. earthlink. net/~wdloughman/ wdl.htm>