oy Ikelman’s web page Family Pointers to Mental Illness has a list that originally appeared on the Net as a list of family pointers to bipolar disorder, which means that these are also pointers to the dysthymic, or especially, hyperthymic, personalities that would mean that these people are only mildly affected by bipolar disorder:
 
 

  • alcoholism

  • anxiety or panic attacks

  • arthritic-like symptoms (fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome)

  • Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention-Deficit Disorder

  • behavioral addictions or compulsions

  • Borderline Personality Disorder

  • child abuse or spousal abuse

  • chronic aches and pains

  • chronic digestive problems

  • chronic headaches or migraines

  • compulsive gambling (also see here)

  • compulsive shopping

  • criminal activity and/or incarcerationBorderline Personality Disorder

  • depression not related to life events

  • drug abuse or drug addiction

  • eating disorders (bulimia, binging, anorexia)

  • eccentric behavior [While the eccentric behavior that can come with mild schizophrenia tends to be of the eccentric old hermit variety, the eccentric behavior that can come with hyperthymic personalities tends to be of the flamboyant, 1960’s, Dennis Rodman variety, and/or of the 1960’s “I’m going to DV8 from the norm and no one’s going to stop me,” variety, the sort of eccentricities which had formerly been known as “petty bourgeois,” meaning upper-middle-class.]

 

 


 
 
  • explosive anger/prolonged anger

  • hyperactivity

  • hypersensitivity to light, noise, touch, crowds, etc.

  • kleptomania

  • mood swings

  • Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

  • past history of psychiatric treatment

  • pedophilia

  • reactiveness/destructiveness

  • religious addictions or religious compulsions

  • seasonal depressions

  • self mutilation (i.e. cutting, head-banging, scratching)

  • sleep disorders

  • suicides or suicide threats

  • talking continually, talking fast

  • Tourette’s disorder

  • unusual reactions to prescription medications

  • withdrawal or agoraphobic behaviors
     


We Heard the Angels of Madness, One Family’s Struggle with Manic Depression, by Diane and Lisa Berger says, in its section on cyclothymia, “Someone with this disorder may be moody, irritable, antisocial, unstable, impulsive, and volatile.  The cyclothymic sometimes abuses drugs or alcohol.  He may have marital problems or be promiscuous; start projects or jobs that he never finishes; change jobs or homes constantly; argue loudly, then feel very contrite; swing between feeling inferior and feeling grandiose and superior; or go on spending sprees.”

That list forgot to include promiscuity and histrionics, and other behavior patterns that often come with hyperthymic personalities, but if it did include these, it would include all of the dysfunctional things that celebrities often do that would make others think, “Why the %@#$! would people who have all those luxuries want to screw up their own lives by doing that?” 

This may also explain why an attraction to hyperthymic people can look like codependency.  As Emil Kraepelin wrote in 1921, in Manic-Depressive Insanity and Paranoia, hyperthymic personalities are within the “domain of the normal,” (just as chronically depressed personalities are) but are still are a “link in the long chain of manic-depressive dispositions.”  While some of the above wouldn’t qualify as “normal,” they still wouldn’t look like diluted versions of psychoses.  On the other hand, behaviors typical of someone with mild, walking-wounded, schizophrenia, would look mildly bizarre rather than mildly sociopathic, and that isn’t the sort of mild impairment that our culture tells us to accept as, “Oh, well, human nature isn’t perfect.”

We can clearly see masses of people who think that some people with behavior problems like those, are otherwise attractive.  Plenty of versions of la vida maníaca, could look excitingly free-spirited.

To take an extreme example, OJ Simpson’s main post-football career was as a sportscaster, which means that his audience, who found his personality attractive enough that they kept listening, were a bunch of men, including plenty of he-men.  Yet if women were attracted to him because of the same vibrant personality that the he-men found attractive, these women would seem to have a strange attraction to a violent SOB.  And his hyperthymic demeanor is very typical, a lot like my own in fact.  And you could find plenty of similar stories of men who beat their wives or girlfriends yet seem charismatic to both women who therefore seem to be self-defeating suckers, and straight men who don’t, such as Ira Einhorn, who got his first European home after becoming a fugitive from charges of murdering girlfriend he’d battered, from an Irish man who found Einhorn charismatic.  Replace such violent tendencies with some of the moderate behavior problems in the above list, and you end up with many, many men who have personalities that even he-men would find charismatic, but when women find them charismatic, the women seem to be asking for trouble.  Of course, the charismatic men would end up causing their lovers a lot more trouble than these same men would cause the he-men, but that doesn’t mean that the he-men find the charismatic men attractive for positive reasons but the women do for negative reasons.

One example of how hyperthymic behavior is so much within the normal domain that it could seem to be just slightly excessively normal human imperfection, is the commitment-phobic man.  As Steven Carter and Julia Sokol’s self-help book about how women could protect themselves from commitment-phobic men, Men Who Can’t Love, says in its first chapter:

At the beginning of the relationship, when you look at him you see a man who seems to need and want love.  His blatant pursuit and touching displays of vulnerability convince you that it is “safe” for you to respond in kind.  But as soon as you do, as soon as you are willing to give love a chance, as soon as it’s time for the relationship to move forward, something changes.  Suddenly the man begins running away, either figuratively, by withdrawing and provoking arguments, or literally, by disappearing and never calling again....

I remember many of these women and their stories vividly.  Several told me long, complicated tales of men who had pressured and pursued them into making some sort of emotional commitment.  When the women finally said yes, the guys either backed away or began to employ destructive hurtful behavior to sabotage the relationship.  Many told me of idyllic dates and weekends and long-range plans with ardent men who suddenly pulled away with no warning.  Some of these men only moved away emotionally; others actually stopped calling and disappeared so totally that several women joked about having a mock wake for all the men who certainly must have died.  They could find no other explanation for behavior that was not only bizarre and unpredictable, but downright insensitive and cruel....

All of these women basically spoke to the same issue: an abandonment and betrayal of trust that had taken place in a relationship in which they had been encouraged, by the man, to expect tender intimacy....

If you have heard as many stories as I have, you can’t help but notice that all commitmentphobic relationships have a common dynamic, and they end in ways that are eerily similar.  Typically, the man exhibits readily identifiable behavior.  His overall pattern falls into what I call the “pursuit/panic syndrome.”  All that really means is that the guy does a one-thousand-degree pursuit until he feels that the woman’s love and response leaves him no way out of the relationship—ever.  The moment that happens, he begins to perceive the relationship as a trap.  That trap provokes anxiety, if not total panic.  Before the woman knows what is happening, the man is running from the relationship, running from her, and running from love.

In these relationships, there are usually very distinct stages and very distinct patterns within each stage.  The major variable is how long each stage lasts.  Some men can go through all the stages of the pursuit/panic syndrome in the course of one night.  Others take years.

And, of course, if the man “begins to perceive the relationship as a trap,” he begins to lash out at the woman as if she’s guilty of being his captor.  As you could see in the above, this book talks about this pattern of behavior as if all of these men just happened to have chosen to do this same irrationally destructive thing.  It would seem very natural to tell women driven into depression by these men, “Just take the right medication, and that would stop your problem,” very unnatural to tell these men, “Just take the right medication, and that would stop your pursuit-panic syndrome.”

This is exactly the sort of behavior that well-adjusted women would consider “just the way that some people are,” especially men since “Boys will be boys.”  Sure, this book says that it doesn’t like how self-help books that tell women how they could protect themselves against problem men, hold the women responsible.  Under the heading, “‘I’M PROBABLY TO BLAME HERE’—HOW WOMEN HELP MAINTAIN THE MYTH,” this same first chapter says, “It seems fair to mention current popular nonfiction and the degree of responsibility that is given to women for their role in the disturbed social scene.

“Think about it: Nice, smart, good-looking women are considering analysis because they ‘love too much.’  I have seen no similar suggestions that might induce men into therapy because they ‘love too little.’”

Yet like any self-help book, this one must tell women that they must serenely accept whatever the men do that the women can’t change, and courageously change their own survival skills, which they could change.  This requires taking these men’s commitment-phobic behavior as a given.  Therefore, it would be pretty much inevitable to end up seeing their choices as, “Just the way that some people, especially men, are,” that, “Sure, some men are that narcissistic, but expecting them to go into therapy would be an attempt to re-engineer non-idealistic human nature, while for the victims to go to therapy would strengthen them,” etc.  Even when such a woman tries to get a commitment-phobic man who’s now lashing out at her as if she’s his captor, to get therapy that would get him to stop, then unless he realizes that becoming normal would benefit him, too, she’d be labeled as having codependent tendencies to manipulate and control her man.

Given how normal such behavior therefore sounds, take a good look at what Freud, who you might think would be more likely to see people’s choices as having more volition and less determination by such things as inherited brain chemistry, wrote in Mourning and Melancholia, in 1917: “Manic-depressives show simultaneously the tendency to too-strong fixations on their love-object and to a quick withdrawal of object cathexis.  Object choice is on a narcissistic basis.”

Somehow that doesn’t sound so slightly excessively normal, anymore.  It no longer sounds as if all of these people just happened to have chosen to do this same irrationally destructive thing.   Of course, if the women involved with men who plan to victimize them with their “tendency to too-strong fixations on their love-object and to a quick withdrawal of object cathexis,” called them pathologically narcissistic in a way that’s literally a dilution of a psychotically irrational impulsivity, these women would be condemned (maybe even strongly), as trying to “repress” the men’s feelings, but of course, Freud wasn’t trying to repress anyone’s feelings....

An example of how easily such behavior could look like slightly excessively normal human imperfection, is in the following, from Ian Hamilton’s Robert Lowell: A Biography, which describes Lowell (who came from a “Boston Brahmin” family), in an overt manic episode, so what follows this would be even more true for the similar behavior from hyperthymics:

...Lowell had announced to all his Cincinnati acquaintances that he was determined to remarry, and had persuaded them to stand with him on the side of passion.  Some members of the faculty found him excitable and talkative during this period, but since the talk was always brilliant and very often flattering to them, they could see no reason to think of Lowell as “ill”; indeed, he was behaving just as some of them hoped a famous poet would behave.  They undertook to protect this unique flame against any dampening intrusions from New York.  Thus, when [his wife Elizabeth] Hardwick became convinced that Lowell was indeed sick—over a period of two weeks his telephone calls to New York became more and more confused, lengthy and abusive—she ran up against a wall of kindly meant hostility from Lowell’s campus allies.  Her version of Lowell was not theirs, even when they were discussing the same symptoms; what to her was “mad” was to them another mark of Lowell’s genius.

First off, “Lowell had announced to all his Cincinnati acquaintances that he was determined to remarry, and had persuaded them to stand with him on the side of passion,” most definitely has the quality typical to hyperthymics, that Australian Fractal calls the “romantic renegade,” that is, the persona that represents what’s cool and pro-freedom, and resolutely opposes what’s square and anti-freedom.  As John Custance, in 1952, wrote about overt mania, “I can, for example, walk about naked out of doors on quite cold nights—to throw off my clothes is incidentally a strong impulse and presumably symbolises the freedom from restraint which is a feature of the whole condition.”  As Fractal wrote on her webpage about how much “the romantic renegade” fits into the druggie culture, If a hyperthymic starts cheering for some sort of symbolic freedom from restraint, plenty of non-hyperthymics would want to stand with them on the side of independence.  It’s easy to cheer for, and get excited about, what seems pro-freedom.  It seems so pro-freedom to hate to conform, to be

When he did talk his associates into supporting him, not only was he “always brilliant and very often flattering to them,” but he probably also said what he said very confidently.  That would both add to its persuasiveness, and, at the very least, make people very reluctant to stand up against him.

The role that Hardwick had to play in this situation, could have very easily been labeled in codependent terms.  If Lowell hadn’t been planning on divorcing her, and her assessment of him was also along the lines of, “he was behaving just as some of them hoped a famous poet would behave,” and, “another mark of Lowell’s genius,” she’d seem to be romanticizing trouble.  If she had “undertook to protect this unique flame against any dampening intrusions,” that would have easily been labeled as “enabling.”  But since he was planning to divorce her and she considered this to be “mad,” she very easily could have (and probably was) labeled as trying to control her man, of expecting this sinful world to be as she’d have it.  It could easily seem that naturally a woman whose husband was planning on divorcing her, would want to believe that he’s mad.  At the very least, people would figure that no matter how much they may disagree with what he planned to do, they have no right to firmly pass judgment on it, to diagnose it as mentally ill, etc.

She wrote about him, “No one has the slightest idea of what I’ve been through with Cal [Lowell.]”  She then goes on to talk about how much she had to put up with in dealing with his manic depressive episodes, and having to nurse him back to health for more time than most people could see.  Yet she also wrote, “I knew the possibility of this when I married him, and have always felt that the joy of his ‘normal’ periods, the lovely time we had, all I’ve learned from him, the immeasurable things I’ve derived from our marriage made up for the bad periods.  I consider it all a gain of the most precious kind.”

This, also, could conceivably look codependent, in the same way that if you surrounded yourself with all of the celebrities who attract hordes of groupies, you sure would tend to associate with people who have artistic-temperament-style behavior problems, so you could very easily seem to have a subconscious codependent attraction to artistic-temperament-style behavior problems, yet the only groupies who are attracted to the boozing and doping are those who want to share the booze and dope.  One could say that since she found hyperthymic personalities attractive, she had this strange tendency to be attracted to men who have artistic temperaments and/or overt manic depressive episodes, and the main diagnostic sign of codependency is that someone has a tendency to keep into romantic relationships with people who tend to cause the same sort of trouble.   One could also say that maybe she enjoyed nursing him, and desires to caretake are also a symptom of codependency.  At the very least, since before Hardwick and Lowell married she knew that this could happen but chose to pay that price anyway, she’s not a helpless victim.  Either way, whatever he did would seem to constitute her choice, maybe even her symptom of codependency. 

But then again, as can be seen in all those celebrities who attract all those groupies though those romantically involved with, or married to, them would be subjected to artistic-temperament-style behavior problems, plenty of perfectly healthy people find hyperthymic personalities very attractive.   The book Manic-Depressive Illness, by Drs. Frederick K. Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison, follows that quote of Hardwick’s, by beginning the book’s section “INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR IN MANIC-DEPRESSIVE ILLNESS,” with “Moods are by nature compelling, contagious, and profoundly interpersonal.  Mood disorders alter the perceptions and behaviors not only of those who have them but also of those who are related or closely associated.”  You may notice that this doesn’t say anything along the lines of, “Anyone who’s attracted to people who are that wild and devil-may-care, is asking for trouble!”

Franz Bendel wrote about Robert Schumann, “He could be extremely lively and excited, and again quite introverted, sunk in revery and apathetic, gruff and peevish.  Then again, when he awoke from his dream world, he could be a perfectly fascinating heart-winner, full of the most devoted amiability.”

Since Bendel was a male fellow composer, he’d have pretty much the same relationship to Schumann, that Lowell’s colleagues in Cincinnati had toward him.  If they find their personalities attractive, that would seem perfectly understandable.  If Bendel found a man who required that much nursing, to be a “perfectly fascinating heart-winner, full of the most devoted amiability,” that wouldn’t seem to be codependent.  If a woman found him attractive, she very easily could seem codependent.  Yet this is the woman who married him after they were in love for a lo-o-o-ong time, Clara:

She certainly didn’t look like a masochistic wussy!  BTW, she was also a famed pianist, though she obviously didn’t have the sort of disposition that those unfamiliar with hyperthymic temperaments, would associate with “snob music”!  (Then again, since most people consider connoisseurs of poetry to be effete intellectualist elitist SNOBS, I doubt that most people would relate to how Manic-Depressive Illness,  sees the fluidity and emotional spontaneity of poetry, “Poets may benefit much more from mood and cognitive changes than do novelists, for example, because the language and rhythms of poetry are more akin to primitive thought processes and psychosis...”  At least the Beatniks had the right idea, as in Bob Kaufman!)  If Clara Schumann were alive today and her portrait appeared on the cover of a heavy metal album, that would have conveyed exactly the right sort of dynamism!:

Combining all of those tendencies to minimize the übermensch behavior problems and magnify the supposed untermensch behavior problems, which happens all too frequently (It feels so natural to cheer the übermenschen and oppose the untermenschen who seem to be willfully weak!), could lead to quite a bit of moral bankruptcy.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following, which today would be called “extreme biological determinism,” though it no doubt fit his crowd perfectly.  (Sure, this isn’t the sort of crowd that most people associate with “snob literature,” but...):

Temperament also enters fully into the system of illusions and shuts us in a prison of glass which we cannot see.  There is an optical illusion about every person we meet.  In truth they are all creatures of given temperament, which will appear in a given character, whose boundaries they will never pass; but we look at them, they seem alive, and we presume there is impulse in them.  In the moment it seems impulse; in the year, in the lifetime, it turns out to be a certain uniform tune which the revolving barrel of the music-box must play....  the individual texture holds its dominion, if not to bias the moral judgments, yet to fix the measure of activity and of enjoyment.

Unfortunately, hyperthymic temperaments often mean Hyperthymic Personality Disorder, which the GP Notebook webpage on them defines as, “tend to be rash and show poor judgement,” the sort of rashness and poor judgment that you’d expect of someone impaired by disinhibiting uppers, not the sort you’d expect from an unimpaired person.  HPD is the only personality disorder that, for the most part, could be excused away with, “Oh, well, everyone makes mistakes,” though since HPD is diluted mania, it’s actually a lot more selfishly impaired than are most personality disorders.   And, like a diluted version of Lowell’s persuading his colleagues to “stand with him on the side of passion,” those who act out their hyperthymic temperaments as if they’re not “a certain uniform tune which the revolving barrel of the music-box must play,” could very easily get others to agree with them.  The reason why I titled this webpage,

is that they could persuade others that if they did things differently, they’d be going against what’s right for them, in the name of (gasp!)  MORALISM .

 

              

 

 

For example, Freud, in Mourning and Melancholia, from 1917, associated Hyperthymic Personality Disorder with what we today think of as “commitment-phobic” people, in particular, what Steven Carter, in the modern self-help book on protecting oneself from commitment-phobic men, Men Who Can’t Love, calls the “pursuit-panic syndrome”: “Manic-depressives show simultaneously the tendency to too-strong fixations on their love-object and to a quick withdrawal of object cathexis.  Object choice is on a narcissistic basis.”

As Carter described the pursuit-panic syndrome, “All that really means is that the guy does a one-thousand-degree pursuit until he feels that the woman’s love and response leaves him no way out of the relationship—ever.  The moment that happens, he begins to perceive the relationship as a trap.”  What Freud dryly called, “too-strong fixations on their love-object,” of course means people pursuing their lovers in such a way that the relationships involve very real and intense mutual commitments.  When they had those too-strong fixations on their love-object, and therefore made all those commitments, they were perfectly sincere.  What Freud dryly called, “a quick withdrawal of object cathexis,” of course means that, once the hyperthymics suddenly stop feeling like being committed to their relationships, expectations that they remain committed would constitute moralistic “TRAPS.”  Once they’d withdrawn their object cathexis, they’d be completely helpless to turn back the clock and undo those commitments they made.  Therefore, they could seem to be the ones who are completely helpless, while their lovers could seem to be “TRAPPERS.”  And all of this would apply to every single time that anyone followed this pattern of having too-strong fixations on their love-object followed by a quick withdrawal of object cathexis.  This, in 1917 as well as now, could be seen as being as predictable as the tune on a music box.

As Men Who Can’t Love says, this is exactly the sort of behavior problem of men, that many self-help books would treat as a sign that their lovers may have gotten involved with them because these women have a codependent attraction to trouble.  Yet commitment-phobic men are probably the only people who could seem both problematic enough that women who love them might as well be loving addicts, and automatically justified in what they do.  After all, if anyone in a romantic relationship quickly withdraws his/her object cathexis, then he/she could insist that the relationship is no longer what’s right for him/her.  While it would seem perfectly understandable if someone refuses to be persuaded that someone should get a divorce in the name of “passion,” it wouldn’t seem so understandable if someone refuses to be persuaded that someone who now feels very uncomfortable with his marriage, should get a divorce.  Since hyperthymics have strong feelings, once they’d withdrawn their object cathexis, their feelings of discomfort could be very strong.  Only those who believe in a Medieval morality would say that someone who feels very uncomfortable with his marriage should stay in it, especially since he’d no doubt drive his wife, the supposed “TRAPPER,” crazy.  (Any woman who’d want to stay married to a man who’d treat her as his “TRAPPER,” could very easily seem to have a codependent masochism!)  He was perfectly sincere when he made those commitments and now he’s completely helpless to undo them, etc.

Sure, his relationship with his wife would be the functional equivalent of addicts’ relationships with their wives.  Also, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, any appearance that his too-strong fixations on his love-object and quick withdrawal of object cathexis, had the sort of volition that we tend to associate with human free will, would be just an optical illusion.  Yet necessarily and automatically, we’d assume that any sophisticated people would have to agree with all of his divorces (and he’ll probably have many, or at least many supposedly committed relationships that he unilaterally leaves).  To treat them as pathologically narcissistic would seem to be repressing his emotions, though Freud called such behavior patterns pathologically narcissistic, and he certainly wasn’t into repressing people’s emotions.

And, of course, the interactions between Hyperthymic Personality Disorder and modern Western cultural norms, can fit this pattern in interpersonal relationships other than romantic ones.  For example, the business world necessarily involves reciprocal responsibilities involving commitments.  There, you could also easily see this pattern of hyperthymics being perfectly sincere when they make commitments that they end up not keeping, and then pleading that they’re then completely helpless to turn back the clock and undo them.  In both cases, our cultural norms tend to insist that if their commitments were sincere then their intents were pure, and that we must understand that their current helplessness to turn back the clock, really is complete.  Some of the rationales for accepting this sort of perfidy in the business world (as long as the person who’s shafted doesn’t have a contract that he could enforce), are the same as when commitments in romantic relationships are broken like this, such as, “Stop being so restrictive,” and, “You absolutely can’t change the fact that he’s not even going to come close to keeping his commitment to you, so you’ll absolutely have to serenely accept this fact.  If you don’t adjust to, adapt to, function with, fit in with, and feel content with such realities, that would make you a maladjusted maladaptive and dysfunctional, misfit and malcontent.”  Some of these rationales are different, such as rather than, “One never knows how matters of the heart will develop, so you must accept whatever others do or don’t feel at any time,” you’d hear, “We must allow businesspeople to take risks.”

Sure, as Influence, Science and Practice by Robert B. Cialdini says about why a society must make sure that the reciprocal agreements made in it are reliable, “this ‘web of indebtedness’ [is] a unique adaptive mechanism of human beings, allowing for the division of labor, the exchange of diverse forms of goods and different services (making possible the development of experts), and the creation of interdependencies that bind individuals together into highly efficient units.”  Yet in our societies, it seems that such niceties are less important than are such necessities as that businesspeople not be restricted by people: holding them morally responsible for “mistakenly” making commitments that would be unreasonably difficult for them to keep, expecting them to be so careful about the commitments they make that this could restrict their “nothing ventured, nothing gained” ventures, caring more about “who’s to blame” for the consequences of the broken commitment than whether they’re taking care of themselves well enough with adequate survival skills, etc. 

The basic tendency to minimize the übermenschen’s ethical responsibility and magnify the response-ability of the untermenschen to buck up and take care of themselves better, would remain amazingly consistent, no matter what’s the abused interpersonal relationship.  And one could see this same tendency regarding hyperthymic behavior that doesn’t involve commitments.  It’s amazing the similarities there are between how our culture sees untermensch women who try to hold their übermensch perfidious ex-lovers responsible, and untermensch middle-class workers who try to hold their übermensch perfidious would-be employers responsible, and these same similarities would apply to any other “sinfulness.”

Probably everybody’s favorite form of biological determinism, is that you’ve got to understand and accept the harm that certain übermenschen had caused, since their diseases made them do it.  The book Manic Depressive Disease,  by Dr. John D. Campbell, from 1953, says that Gregory Zilboorg wrote about pioneering biopsychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, “He thus arrived at an excellent general picture, at a unique perspective of a mental illness as a whole.  But he seems to have been almost unaware that in his careful study he lost the individual.”

Also, “This was Kraepelin’s fundamental assumption: Mental disease was predetermined.  Even the words ‘curable’ and ‘incurable’ were misnomers, for the actual attitude was that some patients naturally recover, others naturally fail to recover, and instead deteriorate.”

To “lose the individual,” as well as to lose the individual’s free will, might seem very offensive.  Especially, why would one want to lose his own individuality, his own individual free will?  He would if that would mean that he not have to take responsibility for what he did.  Chances are very good that if a hyperthymic person were held responsible for the sort of pursuit-panic narcissism that Freud described, not keeping a commitment in the business world, etc., and he accepted that this was due to his own hyperthymic impulsivity, he’d be very likely to insist, “Don’t blame me; my disease made me do it.”  He might someday naturally recover, or maybe naturally fail to recover, and maybe deteriorate.  Self-help books for women in trouble would likely insist the same thing.  “That’s just the way that he is,” his mental disease had predetermined it, it’s as if he was a music box that automatically played that tune.  If it’s understood that other hyperthymics have exactly the same symptoms, then those who think that their disease makes them absolutely not guilty by reason of insanity would have to figure that exactly the same thing would have to apply to all the other hyperthymics who follow the same pattern.  “That’s just the way that they are,” their mental disease had predetermined it, it’s as if they were all music boxes that automatically played that tune.  That certainly loses the individual and his free will, which seems perfectly fine.

 

 But wait.  There’s more...

 Go To the Next Page, which Tells of How These Impulsive Impairments Can Function Much as a “Psychopathic Personality.”

 

                                                                 


 
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

 

   Home Page

    About Us, Introduction

   About Us, the Summary

   About Us, Index

   My Story

   To The [Abuse] Survivors ♥♥♥♥♥

   Men Dying for Love

  On Doping

  “Oh, Yeah?” Upbeat Echoes from the First Great Stock Market Crash

    Victim Correction as a Panacea, the Summary

(Page 1), (Page 2), (Page 3)

     Cancer Victims Corrected Too

   Victim Correction as a Panacea

   Documentation On the Social Problem of Unnaturally Rampant Depression

   Standard Rationales for Victim Correction as a Panacea

   Schopenhauer on Predators

   Emphasis on Victim-Self-Blaming

  Darwinist Lehman Brothers’ INSIDE Sales Tips

  Darwinist Lehman Brothers’ INSIDE Introduction to Management Book

  Out of the Same Mold as the Great Crash of 2008

   Message for Intellectuals in the Islamic World

   Candace Newmaker’s Experience

  Breaking Important Confidences for Your Own Good

    A Glimpse Into the Soul of Victim Correction

   Cigarette Industry and Victim Correction

  Niebuhr’s Ideas on Our Nature and Destiny

   Herbal Experiences for Women

   Some Ideas for Rapport

   Hotlinks