I find his voice so soothing. Something about the vocal fry, the mellow tones etc just scratch my brain so nicely and puts me in a state of ease 😅 lol this is like asmr for psychology nerds (I am the psychology nerd in question 😂) I could fall asleep listening to this- in a good way!
Yes, revisit. The 2nd (3rd, 4th ,10th) time through feels very different than the first. The tension of parts like ep3 replace with melancholy. Season 1 always rewards rewatches with something new.
A note on the dolls, my personal take on them is that they give presence to the auditory hallucinations. This might not be the ONLY reason for them, but I think this is a big part of them. The auditory hallucinations are always portrayed as coming from just behind her, whispering in her ear (the greyed out ghosts are never in line of sight, always behind her, often over her shoulder), and are always demeaning and self-deprecating (Claggor is there seemingly in her awareness but he never speaks afaik, just Mylo), so I think they fit the traits outlined in that paper you briefly showed of the presentation/expression of psychotic symptoms in BPD. To that end, I think the dolls give those hallucinations a presence that can be seen and confronted or interacted with. She can shoot Mylo in the head to get him to shut up, for instance. Also, a note on the visible scratches, I think those mirror/track her perceptions toward people, as in HOW she sees them, and we even see them shift in real time as she struggles with her paranoia over someone (Caitlyn). I think they also very effectively portray how disruptive those thoughts and feelings are, and how they really shift even how someone thinks, even though they can change so rapidly.
This is interesting. And while I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, after watching this video I got thinking that the hallucinations/vision of seeing mylo and clagger (and Vi on the ship) were simply grief related. Because the hallucinations don't continue past a point in the story. And while this could likely just be a narrative choice because it didn't suit the story to continue the hallucinations after a certain climax, it just got me thinking... After the passing of my best friend I could honestly swear I saw her everywhere. She didn't even live on the same coast but for months I'd swear I heard her in the grocery store or saw her at the post office as vivid as anything. Eventually, it past but for a while there I felt nuts and I didn't tell anyone because I didn't want to seem crazy. Grief and guilt can feel really poisoning and mind reeling until it decides to just chill tf out.
@bhanesidhe Not sure what you're getting at, but auditory hallucinations can be trauma related and can go away, but still be incredibly impactful and debilitating. Her hallucinations going away as she processes her trauma, gets a better and healthier support system in Isha and even Sevika, generally gets in a healthier mindset, imo speak to them being part of BPD rather than schizophrenia. Doesn't mean she didn't still have auditory hallucinations.
I'm not seeing PTSD in her. I wouldn't say she shows hypervigilance or avoidance of situations to traumatic experiences she has had. In fact she tends to ignore dangerous situations, or possible harm to herself. BPD matches best to the description of her symptoms.
Perhaps hypervigilance is questionable. I certainly see some internal avoidance. The avoidance doesn’t have to be external. As an educated guess it would make sense to offer her some intervention around trauma (she most likely has clinically important symptoms) which wouldn’t be part of the standard DBT package for BPD. So you could probably get away with only a BPD diagnosis as long as there was some flexibility in the treating pathway.
Just out of curiousity, how are people with complex issues like these supposed to trust the professionals when it comes to these diagnoses when the professionals have 2 rivalling diagnostic methods that wont even/cant even produce the same diagnosis? I mean, a person struggling with BPD/EUPD would be rightfully horrified to know that you guys cant even come to a consensus about your own specialities. Can we really call it an 'update' to the understanding you have if its just become more complicated and is Actually contradictory or apparently in some disorders they dont even agree if they exist? That coupled with the fact that specialists will claim both the IDC11 and DSM5 are valid. If 1 states cPTSD is real, how valid science to equally believe that it doesnt. It would be like peer reviewing and approving 2 papers, 1 saying gravity is real and 1 saying it isnt, but the person who claims both things are true is a professional. Surely at least 1 of those 3 things MUST be false.
This is the most common complaint of a diagnosis led model vs a formulation based model. As there is no objective test for any mental health problem there is frequent disagreement amongst diagnosing professionals. I worked with someone last year who was going through a court process where one expert witness said yes - diagnosis, and the other said nope no diagnosis. The ICD 11 has PTSD and cPTSD as distinct diagnosis. cPTSD has some additional components on top of PTSD. The DSM5 includes those additional components within the singular diagnosis of PTSD. So what you potentially end up with is 2 people with the exact same experience. One is in England and one in USA. The one in England gets a diagnosis of cPTSD and the one in USA gets a diagnosis of PTSD, so different names for the same problem. If they were to ever meet each other there might be confusion as to why one is labelled as 'complex' where the other isn't. One of the main driving factors for a diagnosis led model is offering services, pathways, and treatment. All things being equal (i.e. conceptually), the person in the UK with cPTSD is likely to be offered the same treatment as the person in USA with PTSD. It gets more difficult when you have a diagnosing clinician saying 'no diagnosis' vs one saying 'diagnosis'. And this is critique of the diagnostic model. Furthermore, the goal posts shift regularly, new diagnosis are added, some are taken away with each update. And of course whilst all this is happening the persons actual experience doesn't change - their pain and suffering doesn't change. This is why psychotherapists (like me) and psychologists tend not to use a diagnostic approach and instead use a formulation based approach based on the persons experiences as the driver for intervention, opposed to a diagnostic label. We can see this shifting in psychiatry with the ICD-11 PD diagnosis where you get a general diagnosis of PD and then the diagnosing clinician can add descriptors so it better aligns with the persons experience. The DSM 5 offers the more 'traditional' view of PD but in section 3 offers what they call the 'alternative model' where again the diagnosing clinician can choose individual traits, bringing it more in line with the persons experience. The DSM5 says in it that the reason they offer both models currently is because they understand the older model lead to too much disagreement, however as services and pathways are built around that model suddenly changing it to the new model (the alternative model) would cause problems with how services are structured so it appears they are taking more of a phased approach - which will inevitably take years.
@CtR-Movies-Shows thanks for the reply, and that all makes an upsetting amount of sense from a logistical standpoint. Will just have to hope the transition from diagnostic to formulation based model happens quicker than that to get rid off issues with contradictions and disagreements between specialists.
You have to recall that we are seeing under the hood when it comes to breaking down what the person's issues are. At the end of the day, they want us to function better. How they get from "what is the patient's chief complaints" to "how do we treat this" is the only parts we, as patients, really need to see. Because the nitty gritty details of categorization and breaking down levels of troubled behavior, severity, and risks is for their benefit, to help them get a grasp on what we have been dealing with our whole lives. So the fact that one book wants a strong label on things, and another wants to build up a list of specific challenges in place of a neat label doesn't effect anything on our side of the table, as patients. Their recommendations for treatment will likely be the same. But the person doing the work will have specific perspectives due to how each book handles the diagnosis. This doesn't mean both viewpoints have failed, or that one is right and the other is wrong, but that it's two methods with a very high chance of reaching the same conclusion. Like two different paths to the top of a mountain. Neither is right or wrong. Both reach the same goal. The only difference is how the person walking each path found it to be useful for their practice.
@DembaiVT except as OP pointed out in their reply, it's like 2 paths up a mountain climbers cant agree on the existence of. I'm not debating the intention of mental health professionals, what I'm saying is the ability of a person to treat and assist someone is hindered by contradictory 'facts' that are touted as both true while being in direct conflict. Using a different example it would be like choosing between 2 mechanics to fix your car, both have the skill to get it running again but one debates the existence of the alternator. You gonna trust the one that gets it running while not believing it's components exist? How did they fix it? Can you say for certainty it's roadworthy? What if the alternator is the problem? Claiming that as a patient you need only concern yourself with treatment is an appeal to an authority you have no intention of monitoring and I would argue is tantamount to self-neglect. Saying an accurate diagnosis doesn't affect the patient's side of things is just delusional.
Loving this, hope you keep enjoying exploring all the characters throughout this series!
Keep Up with the Arcane content💪💪
Great content, following both channels in order to keep up with everything! Can't wait for other characters!
I find his voice so soothing. Something about the vocal fry, the mellow tones etc just scratch my brain so nicely and puts me in a state of ease 😅 lol this is like asmr for psychology nerds (I am the psychology nerd in question 😂) I could fall asleep listening to this- in a good way!
this is amazing, can't wait to watch for others characters!!!!! specially vi
Great content so far, excite for this
Yes, revisit. The 2nd (3rd, 4th ,10th) time through feels very different than the first. The tension of parts like ep3 replace with melancholy. Season 1 always rewards rewatches with something new.
A note on the dolls, my personal take on them is that they give presence to the auditory hallucinations. This might not be the ONLY reason for them, but I think this is a big part of them. The auditory hallucinations are always portrayed as coming from just behind her, whispering in her ear (the greyed out ghosts are never in line of sight, always behind her, often over her shoulder), and are always demeaning and self-deprecating (Claggor is there seemingly in her awareness but he never speaks afaik, just Mylo), so I think they fit the traits outlined in that paper you briefly showed of the presentation/expression of psychotic symptoms in BPD.
To that end, I think the dolls give those hallucinations a presence that can be seen and confronted or interacted with. She can shoot Mylo in the head to get him to shut up, for instance.
Also, a note on the visible scratches, I think those mirror/track her perceptions toward people, as in HOW she sees them, and we even see them shift in real time as she struggles with her paranoia over someone (Caitlyn). I think they also very effectively portray how disruptive those thoughts and feelings are, and how they really shift even how someone thinks, even though they can change so rapidly.
This is interesting. And while I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, after watching this video I got thinking that the hallucinations/vision of seeing mylo and clagger (and Vi on the ship) were simply grief related. Because the hallucinations don't continue past a point in the story. And while this could likely just be a narrative choice because it didn't suit the story to continue the hallucinations after a certain climax, it just got me thinking... After the passing of my best friend I could honestly swear I saw her everywhere. She didn't even live on the same coast but for months I'd swear I heard her in the grocery store or saw her at the post office as vivid as anything. Eventually, it past but for a while there I felt nuts and I didn't tell anyone because I didn't want to seem crazy. Grief and guilt can feel really poisoning and mind reeling until it decides to just chill tf out.
@bhanesidhe Not sure what you're getting at, but auditory hallucinations can be trauma related and can go away, but still be incredibly impactful and debilitating. Her hallucinations going away as she processes her trauma, gets a better and healthier support system in Isha and even Sevika, generally gets in a healthier mindset, imo speak to them being part of BPD rather than schizophrenia. Doesn't mean she didn't still have auditory hallucinations.
I'm not seeing PTSD in her. I wouldn't say she shows hypervigilance or avoidance of situations to traumatic experiences she has had. In fact she tends to ignore dangerous situations, or possible harm to herself. BPD matches best to the description of her symptoms.
Perhaps hypervigilance is questionable. I certainly see some internal avoidance. The avoidance doesn’t have to be external. As an educated guess it would make sense to offer her some intervention around trauma (she most likely has clinically important symptoms) which wouldn’t be part of the standard DBT package for BPD. So you could probably get away with only a BPD diagnosis as long as there was some flexibility in the treating pathway.
Yayyyy Arcane!
I instantly clicked
❤❤❤nice
Just out of curiousity, how are people with complex issues like these supposed to trust the professionals when it comes to these diagnoses when the professionals have 2 rivalling diagnostic methods that wont even/cant even produce the same diagnosis? I mean, a person struggling with BPD/EUPD would be rightfully horrified to know that you guys cant even come to a consensus about your own specialities. Can we really call it an 'update' to the understanding you have if its just become more complicated and is Actually contradictory or apparently in some disorders they dont even agree if they exist? That coupled with the fact that specialists will claim both the IDC11 and DSM5 are valid. If 1 states cPTSD is real, how valid science to equally believe that it doesnt. It would be like peer reviewing and approving 2 papers, 1 saying gravity is real and 1 saying it isnt, but the person who claims both things are true is a professional. Surely at least 1 of those 3 things MUST be false.
This is the most common complaint of a diagnosis led model vs a formulation based model. As there is no objective test for any mental health problem there is frequent disagreement amongst diagnosing professionals. I worked with someone last year who was going through a court process where one expert witness said yes - diagnosis, and the other said nope no diagnosis.
The ICD 11 has PTSD and cPTSD as distinct diagnosis. cPTSD has some additional components on top of PTSD. The DSM5 includes those additional components within the singular diagnosis of PTSD. So what you potentially end up with is 2 people with the exact same experience. One is in England and one in USA. The one in England gets a diagnosis of cPTSD and the one in USA gets a diagnosis of PTSD, so different names for the same problem. If they were to ever meet each other there might be confusion as to why one is labelled as 'complex' where the other isn't.
One of the main driving factors for a diagnosis led model is offering services, pathways, and treatment. All things being equal (i.e. conceptually), the person in the UK with cPTSD is likely to be offered the same treatment as the person in USA with PTSD. It gets more difficult when you have a diagnosing clinician saying 'no diagnosis' vs one saying 'diagnosis'. And this is critique of the diagnostic model. Furthermore, the goal posts shift regularly, new diagnosis are added, some are taken away with each update. And of course whilst all this is happening the persons actual experience doesn't change - their pain and suffering doesn't change. This is why psychotherapists (like me) and psychologists tend not to use a diagnostic approach and instead use a formulation based approach based on the persons experiences as the driver for intervention, opposed to a diagnostic label. We can see this shifting in psychiatry with the ICD-11 PD diagnosis where you get a general diagnosis of PD and then the diagnosing clinician can add descriptors so it better aligns with the persons experience. The DSM 5 offers the more 'traditional' view of PD but in section 3 offers what they call the 'alternative model' where again the diagnosing clinician can choose individual traits, bringing it more in line with the persons experience. The DSM5 says in it that the reason they offer both models currently is because they understand the older model lead to too much disagreement, however as services and pathways are built around that model suddenly changing it to the new model (the alternative model) would cause problems with how services are structured so it appears they are taking more of a phased approach - which will inevitably take years.
@CtR-Movies-Shows thanks for the reply, and that all makes an upsetting amount of sense from a logistical standpoint. Will just have to hope the transition from diagnostic to formulation based model happens quicker than that to get rid off issues with contradictions and disagreements between specialists.
You have to recall that we are seeing under the hood when it comes to breaking down what the person's issues are.
At the end of the day, they want us to function better.
How they get from "what is the patient's chief complaints" to "how do we treat this" is the only parts we, as patients, really need to see.
Because the nitty gritty details of categorization and breaking down levels of troubled behavior, severity, and risks is for their benefit, to help them get a grasp on what we have been dealing with our whole lives.
So the fact that one book wants a strong label on things, and another wants to build up a list of specific challenges in place of a neat label doesn't effect anything on our side of the table, as patients.
Their recommendations for treatment will likely be the same. But the person doing the work will have specific perspectives due to how each book handles the diagnosis.
This doesn't mean both viewpoints have failed, or that one is right and the other is wrong, but that it's two methods with a very high chance of reaching the same conclusion. Like two different paths to the top of a mountain. Neither is right or wrong. Both reach the same goal. The only difference is how the person walking each path found it to be useful for their practice.
@DembaiVT except as OP pointed out in their reply, it's like 2 paths up a mountain climbers cant agree on the existence of. I'm not debating the intention of mental health professionals, what I'm saying is the ability of a person to treat and assist someone is hindered by contradictory 'facts' that are touted as both true while being in direct conflict.
Using a different example it would be like choosing between 2 mechanics to fix your car, both have the skill to get it running again but one debates the existence of the alternator. You gonna trust the one that gets it running while not believing it's components exist?
How did they fix it? Can you say for certainty it's roadworthy? What if the alternator is the problem?
Claiming that as a patient you need only concern yourself with treatment is an appeal to an authority you have no intention of monitoring and I would argue is tantamount to self-neglect. Saying an accurate diagnosis doesn't affect the patient's side of things is just delusional.