|
I'm not arguing your point (there are similarities, maybe you have one instead of the other, etc.), but the following is misquoted, this is just a point of fact:
In bipolar disorder, the term refers to the marked lability and reactivity of mood defined as emotional dysregulation. The behavior is typically in response to external psychosocial and intrapsychic stressors, and may arise or subside, or both, suddenly and dramatically and last for seconds, minutes, hours or days.
This refers to BPD, not bipolar. Trust me on this -I think you need to re-read that article.
I have no problem with the premise of similarities, co-morbidity, etc. I only have a problem with the way the article is written and researched. If you read it through very carefully, there are some really bizarre things there. This is my only bone of contention --the article, not you personally. One of many examples from the article:
The instability in the biography of cyclothymics [his re-definition of BPD] is especially accentuated in those with predominantly irritable traits. These individuals are habitually dysphoric, prone to anger, hypercritical and complaining, with a penchant for ill-humored joking.
Hypocritical, complaining, ill-humored joking?? This is hardly a scientific description of any disorder. If I were BPD I'd be really offended by this, and on behalf of those with BPD, I am offended.
It's a matter of reading through this carefully (and it is very hard to get through), I think you'll find that much of it doesn't add up.
This doesn't mean that there might be a couple of things in this long harangue that makes some sense, but as a whole, I'm just flabbergasted that this was published anywhere.
I do get riled up by such things getting published. Because published often carries the implication of 'truth' or 'authoritative' and when they're not, as in this case, I think they can really mislead people, and this bothers me.
|