Messages By: killerb255

Some people drink for recreation (be social, hang out with friends, celebrate).  Others as a coping mechanism (debt, marital problems, etc.) which ultimately throws their lives away. 

Some people shop for recreation (buying shoes and clothes to make an impression) while others get addicted to shopping, which may put them in debt in the long run. 

Some people gamble for recreation, while others use it to cope and gamble their lives away.   

Some people play video games for recreation, while others use it as a coping mechanism (escaping from reality), which, from my own observations (of myself and others), seems to detract from other activities which would have helped immensely in development of social and cognitive skills. 

I was a diehard gamer growing up.  I played video games to unhealthy levels (pulling all-nighters, neglecting my homework, etc.).  I don't do that now.  I play a little bit, maybe about six hours a week...which may still seem like much--I'm a single guy, so this isn't as alarming.  I do set limits, though.  I know when it's time to turn it off, and I know when to use the pause button when others need me.  If the game doesn't allow you to pause (most online games don't), then oh well.  It's just a game.   

When games are used as a hobby, it's okay.  If you're the man (or woman) of the house, your family comes first.  When you have spare time, then play.  If you want to play for extended periods of time (like all-nighters with online games like World of Warcraft), it's best to schedule ahead of time and make sure it doesn't conflict with other responsibilities.  

If you find that you are addicted to video games, you may want to talk to a counselor.  This especially applies if it's interfering with your family life and/or social life.  If you can't bring yourself quit playing and take care of responsibilites (or at least pause the dang game!), you're probably addicted.   

If you're using games as an escape from reality, then you may need help to find alternative ways of coping with the things you're escaping from. 

Considering that a good majority of the posts in this discussion refer to the very last topic on the show (mainly because so little time was dedicated to it and Dr. Phil wasn't as thorough), I think a whole show dedicated to this may be okay.   

Although I would add my two cents to the other two issues: the military man taking his own disciplinary beliefs to pathological levels towards his step-children and the woman sacrificing financial stability for a chance at a dream; others have summed the (lack of) appropriateness of these quite well. 

On a side note, to the individual who doesn't see gaming (as long as it's not interfering with responsibilities) as a hobby due to it not being productive, I must ask you: do all hobbies have to be productive?  Some people view productivity in general as work.  Should all people work 24 hours a day, minus sleeping time?  If you don't have time to relax, your work suffers, as you're not performing at your best.  If you want to have a hobby that involves productivity, fine.  If not, that's fine, too.  Keep in mind that even productive hobbies, when taken to pathological levels, can be harmful when it's replacing daily responsibilities.   

All people have interests and hobbies: some productive (building stuff, planting plants, etc.) some not so (collecting...just about anything, like shoes; playing any kind of game, electronic or otherwise).  Some hobbies are widely understood, some only understood by the people that engage in the hobby.  Some people may even have different definitions of what is considered "productive."  Some think playing a game is productive, some think buying 20+ pairs of shoes for one individual productive.   

We're all different.  That's what makes us human.  In a relationship, you don't look for a significant other to be an exact copy of you.  Sure, you look for things in common, but the other will end up being your polar opposite in some things...and your union is probably better off that way.  At the same time, the things that make you different should not be used as a weapon against another person, especially if that person is your lifelong partner.   

texas1968, knkansas, and devcamsie all have good points. 

Parents are a child's first teachers.  The child will learn how to cope with life based mostly on how the parent approaches the child.   

If the parent emulates childlike behavior, then it will probably teach them that this kind of behavior is acceptable (or they might rebel against it, and perhaps try to grow up too fast, but this is less likely).   

Homeschooling is not a bad thing.  If I recall one episode of Dr. Phil when he touched on this subject (I think the mother wanted the home schooling while the father didn't--he had all the stereotypical fears in addition to thinking "the child would turn gay"), Dr. Phil stated that homeschooling is not a bad thing, as long as you are willing to add in extra-curricular activities of SOME KIND to allow them to socialize--what they do not have in the homeschool environment.   

However, if what texas1968 states is true--that these mothers are overprotecting their children, then they have as selfish of motivations as Darcy did from 03/02/2006 (yesterday's) show: instead of acting on the child's best interest, they're acting on their own emotions.  In Darcy's case, it was guilt, but in these parents' case, it's anxiety: anxiety from their children being exposed to the cruelties of reality.  Sheltering children from reality actually makes them MORE VULNERABLE because they don't have the necessary coping skills it takes to handle situations like those of us that are exposed to it and come up with ways of coping (whether some of these ways we use are healthy or not is anyone's guess...) 

Although I should elaborate on Luccib's point a bit: 

It IS everyone's business what you do with your child - you are living in a town, you are part of a neighborhood, your child attends a school with other kids - it's not about outdoing your neighbor or giving the child what you never had.  Sometimes the less you give them and the more you expect from them the more successful they'll be.  Don't be afraid to say no - they love you anyway...and I speak from experience.  

Is it really everyone's business?  I would say so if their behavior is detrimental to the public eye and disrupts the lives of those around them.  Sure, we all want to be right-fighters here, but we can't save the world.   

...or maybe I've been taught that interfering in someone else's business is rude.  Perhaps that's completely false?  Perhaps there's a tactful way to do it?  The reason I ponder this is because I do know a few individuals that I question the way they raise their children.  However, I haven't raised children myself (in fact, I've just recovered from a lot of my own maturity problems!), so that fact will always be used against me, despite my good intentions.  Perhaps it's best to butt out and let the professionals (such as Dr. Phil) handle this?  Perhaps there are no professionals in these individuals' lives that could give them a wake-up call? 

From Dictionary.com: 

ad·dic·tion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-dkshn)
n.  

1. 1. Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
   2. An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.
2. 1. The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
   2. An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.

ad·dic·tion (-dkshn)
n.  

com·pul·sion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (km-plshn)
n.  

1. 1. The act of compelling.
   2. The state of being compelled.
2. 1. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation: “The compulsion to protect the powerful from the discomfort of public disclosure feeds further abuse and neglect” (Boston Globe).
   2. An act or acts performed in response to such an impulse.

com·pul·sion (km-plshn)
n.  

Are you sure Jim's behavior patterns are Borderline?  Borderlines have unstable emotional patterns and emotions that shift to extremes like a teenager flooring the gas of a porche from 0 to 60. 

He seems to be more Narcissistic or Antisocial to me.  Narcissists enjoy hurting others if it makes them feel validated, special, or god-like.  Antisocials hurt people because they can--they have no conscience (which is why they're known as psychopaths or sociopaths).  

...then again, a qualified therapist would be better off making such a diagnosis... 

Honestly, I do think that society needs to be more educated about NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).  With all the education out there now about depression, bipolar disorder, ADD, and even schizophrenia, I'm surprised there's not a whole lot of education about NPD (or other Personality Disorders, for that matter), considering how devastating narcissists can be to children, relationships, and even governments! 

The only reason I can think of as to why education about PDs are lacking is that many consider PD diagnoses a little flaky, as the descriptions are a bit ambiguous, resulting in lots of overlapping (which is why someone like Jim could end up with a diagnosis of NPD, OCPD, BPD, and maybe AsPD if he has a criminal background, but since he's a cop, that may not be likely). 

In any case, for those of you living with narcissists in your lives (including Sinden, although I don't exactly agree with some of her methods either), you may want to google "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".  

Sorry, but I think at this point you should be ashamed of yourself.  Don't get me wrong: this is a result of a lack of education, but you should be ashamed nonetheless.  You don't tell someone in a wheelchair that they can stand up and walk if they wanted to badly enough!  Therefore, you don't tell someone with bipolar disorder that they can control their ups and downs if they wanted to badly enough! 

Many people don't look at mental disorders in the same way as, say, a physical disorder.  Mental disorders aren't as transparent.  If someone's missing a leg, you can see that, and if you're good at seeing things from perspective, you can empathize with the person (you may not be able to do so to the point of emulating the exact experience that person had, but...) 

Don't get me wrong.  Some people do hyper-exaggerate their limits, making it easy to use their disorders as an excuse for their actions.  Their actions are not any more right because they have a disorder, BUT...if they were able to exercise full control of their actions, it wouldn't be a disorder, wouldn't it? 

No doubt some people do use their illnesses as an excuse for their actions.  By NO means am I implying that EVERYONE with a classified Axis I or II disorder uses their illness as an excuse for their actions.  There's a difference between the following statements: 

1) "I do X because I have Y.  Therefore, X is perfectly acceptable." 

and 

2) "I tend to do X because of Y, but I know X is wrong, and I have to do something to fix the Y, so I'm not compelled to do as many Xes."   

As far as Dr. Phil's question goes, he may have been questioning the actual fear itself.  She most likely didn't want to kill her children, but perhaps she was afraid of losing control of herself to that degree, even though that most likely wouldn't happen, and that the very fear itself is causing her pain as well.   

...although I can understand everyone's concerns, though.  The general public doesn't bother to read as deep into statements as I just did.  If you just scratch the surface of it, then yes, it may spell a misconception.   

...same with the word "psycho".  In fact, the general public is often confused about that word's meaning.  When one is psychotic, it means that they tend to have delusions and/or see hallucinations.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they're drastically violent.  However, the confusion may come from terms like "psychopath", which is a person without a conscience that hurts others without remorse (hence the reason it was replaced with the word "sociopath").   

Is he still seeing a therapist?  If not, he should.   

There may be something else there--a comorbid condition, or maybe he doesn't fully believe that what he was doing was wrong--and that his mood disorder is his new "out".