New Zealand: Dr Vallings

I just don’t know which part of my daughter’s personality is related to ME and which part is related to her being a Virgo. It is so confusing.

Especially because she was only 5, and was always very neat with the crayons.

 

It's strange how perfectionism is always seen as a negative feature. If I need cardiac surgery, I hope my surgeon would be a " perfectionist". I hope that the engineering team behind building a bridge are " perfectionists" ......

 

Before CFS, there was a general acknowledgement that ME often happened to people who were not able to rest when they were ill. This was in the context of a time when convalescence after illness was being phased out and was used as an argument that people should not be forced back to work too quickly after an infection.

It was felt that someone who was lazy and did not force themselves would not get ME. This is quite close to type A personality and perfectionism could lead to someone ignoring their health to finish a job, but not exactly. What were reasonable concerns - people not being able to recover from illness because of outside pressures and the need to prove that ME was not just another word for layabout, have been distorted into airy nonsense that has been shown for what it is by Derren Brown!

Recall bias can be distorted as well; it is too easy to read that as people with ME fooling themselves into believing they were "good" when they weren't.

The basic problem is that personality in ME is being used as a moral judgement instead of a practical issue. There is a risk of chronic ill health if the body is not allowed to recover (sickness behaviour rules!) and there are biochemical energy issues which mean we cannot function properly. These are just facts of the illness.

I can't believe that anyone is using psychoanalytical ideas from 1934 to talk about a biomedical disease in 2018.

 

yes, and you would hope that the ME 'experts' were as well, particularly the ones doing 'research'....

 

"Type A" personalities that are high achievers but also afraid of exercise and malingering and confused over normal bodily senses.

It would be great if the people involved started thinking about how this will all look once we have a research breakthrough. They're really focused on short-term obsessing about something that will be proven 100% wrong.

Just need to look at all the past research on a psychosomatic model of any other disease. It exists only in archives, failure exemplified and of no practical value whatsoever.

 

There was a more recent BPS paper which differentiated between healthy and unhealthy perfectionism:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nism_in_chronic_fatigue_syndrome_A_closer_loo

It's those old familiars Deary and Chalder.

 

I am no expert on the topic of personality types so I am likely to be displaying significant ignorance here and if so please excuse me.

Is the "science" or definition of personality types anywhere near tight enough or defined enough to be used in this way?

Take for example the "perfectionist". Surely there are different types of perfectionist?

Let's say:
1. Someone who through childhood adversity of some type became driven to succeed in their chosen field. In areas outside their focus they may not be quite so driven or may be driven out of habit.

2. Someone who doesn't feel good enough and feels that nothing they do is good enough and so they keep trying harder.

3. Someone whose job seems to depend on them to being driven and precise and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, but actually they just do what they can.

All 3 could potentially be described as perfectionists or have that attribute ascribed to them. Yet they are all very different. So, if being a perfectionist or being described as one by someone else were to include all three, would this attribute have the same effect on their bodies and physical health?

Is there any proof that being a "perfectionist" has any actual effect on someone's physical health?

Edited - spelling.

 

And I'm so pissed off by this kind of nonsense that I'm going to be cheeky and label the people who produce/spew this kind nonsense type F personality. And who's to say I'm wrong? After all, it doesn't require actual scientific fact finding. I just need to believe and voila it is so.

 

Oh @Hutan, how exasperating that must have been for you to sit and listen through that! But thank you for reporting and venting. Your venting makes a lot more sense than any of that earnest personality type babble.

And if the person who challenged that personality type babble at the meeting is reading this, thank you, too.

Even if personality type was a risk factor (and I'm skeptical), surely it would be similar to most genetic risk factors. Having the risk factor means you have a somewhat elevated risk of getting a certain disease. It doesn't mean everybody with the risk factor will actually get the disease, most will not. And someone without the risk factor can still get the disease. So really, you are no further ahead for any practical purpose.

 

I would like to suggest type FFS personality.

I don't even accept that there is an effective way to categorise personality types, or that they are fixed or particularly meaningful. I can be as lazy as anyone, on the other hand I can be very driven and hard-working for sustained long periods. Then I can be very lazy again. It all depends whether I can be arsed doing something or not. What category is that, and do I have to stay in it once I've been classified? I can be friendly and sociable. Or I can be taciturn, grumpy and hard work to have a conversation with. Depends on what mood I'm in and a host of other factors, including whether I'm being paid or not.

 

Jelstad wrote up this post, after a talk Wyller gave on ME in 2014, about among other things ME and personality types. He was introduced by Ulrik Fredrik Malt, a professor in psychiatry and strong BPS and MUS-proponent.

The post have sourced information about studies on personality studies in other illnesses. And puts the studies on personality in ME into context.

His main argument is - the studies on ME and personality, people with ME are compared to healthy people. But when you compare with results from personality studies in other illnesses, it's similar. So the studies are likely measuring the effects of beeing ill. (and the science is generally low quality)


(Painted = Malt, his surname, if the translation looks a bit wonky, and fresh = healthy)

https://debortgjemte.com/2014/10/26/finnes-det-en-me-personlighet/

https://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&refd=www.microsofttranslator.com&rr=UC&a=https://debortgjemte.com/2014/10/26/finnes-det-en-me-personlighet/

 

Couldn't agree more. How we respond to the world is fluid and situational within some broad parameter.
These assessments are a sledgehammer. No nuance as per a real person. And it's all nonsense IMO.

 

Because that is what she expects to see in her clinic.

If I said what I am really thinking I might be banned from the forum.

Me too!

 

I second this motion.

 

There is a high risk of confirmation bias. If you think something is the case, and you look for confirmation, you might often find it. That is why scientists, good ones anyway, look for disconfirmation, contradictions, etc., rather than support.

 

I used to be a perfectionist, but I learned many other ways of responding to things. I no longer consider myself a perfectionist in most things, most of the time. So if there is a personality type, what does it mean if your personality type changes?

My motto might have once been if its worth doing its worth doing right. Now my motto would be something like its OK to just do enough to get by.

 

That would make you one of the Freely Fluctuating Sort.

I presume that is what FFS stood for.

 

From memory, Wessely has commented that retrospective studies are necessarily inconclusive too...