HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience (Group) » Personality Disorder begi...

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:04 AM

Personality Disorder begins PRIOR TO CONCEPTION!!!!

If you ever wondered why it is that some things that the "psychoanalytic tradition" pushes seem crazier than the people with mental disorders it purports to treat consider this...

Excerpts from: Borderline Personality Disorder: Profile and Process of Therapy
by Paul J. Hannig, Ph.D., MFCC, CCMHC, NCC

downloaded 19 June 2012

ABSTRACT: This paper is a narrative, exploratory, descriptive, and investigative profile of Borderline Personality Disorder (BP). Its purpose is to expand the existing description of behavioral characteristics of this disorder and to include a deeper emotional and interpersonal understanding of borderline symptomatology. The self and object-relations schools are recognized but treated as being limited to the post-birth biographical experiences. This study includes the expanded perinatal, preconception, transpersonal elements and interpersonal aspects of Borderline Personality etiology.

<much snipped>

Causes of Borderline Personality Disorder

Fetal Rejection

The male part of the Self begins its physical journey in the body of the father and the female Self comes to life in the body and egg of the mother. In the BP the father's sperm seeks connection, acceptance, and impregnation, but mother's egg does not. The egg vehemently fights to reject the sperm. If the mother does not want the pregnancy and/or rejects the father and his child the child will feel unacceptable and unwanted, and will identify with feelings of nonexistence, such as "I'm not wanted . . . I'm nothing," and so on. As such, for the borderline, conception is not an act of love.

A fetus conceived in love and passion will feel wanted and esteemed. But, for the borderline, there has never been this ideal, environmental circumstance attached to conception. The will to live and survive originates from the real self, from a soul existing in perfect being and essence, even before taking physical form. It is the will to survive that allows the infant to endure the life-threatening traumas that are imminently faced in the womb.

- - - - - - -
The previous piece of pseudo-science comes out of the International Primal Association, an off-shoot of Object-Relations and Self psychology which is based on notions of socio-psychological development.

A central concept in that area is the notion of narcissistic wounds that occur in early infancy...

Perhaps owing to the difficulty in anyone actually remembering and communicating psychic trauma from their verbally challenged infancy, this field has had to build it's theory on things other actual experience of patients. That 'theory' appears to be going deep into what might be charitably called absolute pseudo-science.

I give you as evidence: gametes of those who will become borderline personalities have spiritual being, and the ova that reject connection and implantation by sperm.

Completely genetics-free concepts of inheritance wherein male attributes of Self are transmitted only by sperm and female attributes of Self are transmitted only by ova!

But then what the heck do we really know about the laws of spiritual inheritance?!

17 replies, 4353 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 12:09 PM

1. Since that wasn't enough to provoke a single comment, here's more:

Fetal Rejection Overcome By Self-Acceptance

Danger and life threat are constant companions for the en utero borderline infant who is always on the borderline of existence and nonexistence. Even so, there may be temporary bonding and unification experiences with mother in the womb. Fortunately, this allows some little piece of the real self to develop. As an adult these events can be re-experienced through certain music, nature scenes, dance movements, and other positive-triggering experiences; thus nurturing the emergence of the real self, even as the unreal self is dismantled.

On the other hand, early emotional and environmental deficits will never be overcome by performance demands and expectations imposed by the superego. You cannot will someone to be happy and engage in activities that a severely impaired person shies away from. Because en utero acceptance never occurred, constant superego exhortations and demands will only exacerbate a sense of unacceptability just for being.

Therefore, the role of the therapist is to reflect the being/accepting self that was never allowed to be in the borderline. To the decimated self of the borderline, the world and the family represent a toxic womb. People are perceived as being toxic because of bad womb projections. Acceptance of the borderline by the therapist at the level of essence and being allows the borderline to accept her or his real self and become free of the enormous burden to perform "normally" in a symbolic, toxic womb environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 04:40 PM

2. Try waiting more than two hours before giving up a thread for dead.


Not everyone can be online at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 04:48 PM

3. This isn't a real paper.


At least in the sense that it's been submitted to a reputable and/or peer reviewed journal.

A brief search on pubmed suggests that primal integration isn't even considered a legit theory by psychology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to laconicsax (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:21 PM

4. No it actually was printed in a journal, here is the citation:

This article was originally published in Primal Renaissance: The Journal of Primal Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 54-71.

And to some extent it really doesn't matter.

This guy is a licensed, practicing, mental health care provider, who contribute to a web site of like minded (??) primal psychologists.

Promotion of pseudoscience is not a limiting factor in hanging up a shingle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:59 PM

5. I said reputable and/or peer reviewed journal.


There are journals for all sorts of bullshit pseudoscience.

The fact that the guy is, as you point out, able to inflict damage on unsuspecting patients is a serious problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to laconicsax (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 01:28 AM

16. Much of our modern pseudoscience was known to ancient cultures

All of those rock paintings that look like UFO's and aliens were painted by ancient crackpots trying to explain what they saw.

Or perhaps the ancient beliefs in advanced pseudoscience were of otherworldly origin.

Some theorists believe the answer is YES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to laconicsax (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 05:14 PM

8. Scepticism of objective scientific independent peer-review

A reputable Scientific Professional Peer-Review Journal. The Scientific objectivity of Peer-Review and the eminence of Hahvard (Veritas! Veritas!) Objectivity is our great asset - Fredrick Goodwin, M.D. former NIMH director, host of Infinite Mind program on NPR radio, involved with the racist human-experimentation of the Violence Initiative.

In Psychiatry or Neuropsychopharmacology the scientific testing of upcoming breakthrough wonder drugs, (patented prescription neurodrugging chemicals) consists of conducting a number of 6 week trials, with control groups. The test group gets the drugging intervention (the independent variable) and the control group does not. Using fabricated word tests and subjective judgements of behavior (that is, psychometric testing and objective clinical observation of behavior) they view the person's behavior (the dependent variable) before the intervention and after. If they are changed, in the areas of importance, for the better after the Intervention (starting brain drugging) then the Scientific experiment proves the value of the drug. Deleterious effects are not germane and are just 'possible side effects.'

Then they look for the subgroup of most favorable test reports. Unfavorable experimental results from other tests are not used and are hidden, buried.

Statistically analyzing the tests they write a definitive pro-forma report and send it to their brethren at the FDA! (Independent review!!)

Then versions go to their prestigious Professional Journals. Peer Review!

So the Prozac Timeline has them knowing that the drug causes suicidal and homicidal ideation and action circa 1986. See, Baum Hedlund Prozac hidden documents (the law firm got documents during litigation). Their Inter-group messages stress the need for them to never use these terms outside the company group, and to suppress this. Decades later the Professional Peer-Review Journal of the ACNP, American College of Neuropsychopharmacology - NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY - publishes a Report, from many prestigious personages of many august Institutions, on the "Controversy" of Suicidality in Youth caused by SSRIs. In a bid for approval to open up this potential market further to increase the stock market share value. The independent Task Force finds that its really a non-issue that some ignore people have cooked up. (see, task force suicidality youth Neuropsychopharmacology Vera Sharav)

Meanwhile on NPR Radio, Fredrick Goodwin, M.D. (see, goodwin fenfluramine violence initiative) has 3 important guests and they discuss the "controversy." These professional mannered Harvard-types talk amongst themselves and deem that SSRIs and suicide in youth lacks validity (see, goodwin Jeanne Lenzer NPR shills OR shilling).

All the School Shootings (Virginia Tech, Columbine) have the killers being exposed to SSRIs. (See, Dr. Russell Blaylock fluorinated school shootings Virginia).

Skepticism of skepticism. Antipsychiatry (see, www.alternativementalhealth.com; and Lawrence Stevens, J.D. A Warning Psychiatric Stigma Follows You Through Life). Veritas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Dan Burdick (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

13. We all know that the peer review process is not always totally objective...

but it is preferable to the alternatives. As Winston Churchill said of democracy, the peer review process is the worst possible system except for all the others!

And it is known that psychiatric illnesses can be caused by dietary and other physical factors; that sometimes there's a tendency to label social nonconformists as mentally ill (though this happened even more commonly BEFORE modern scientific psychiatry; e.g. many early 20th century women spent their lives in mental hospitals just because they'd got pregnant out of wedlock); and that drugs are often overused because it's easier to prescribe a pill than, for example, to provide long-term counselling and social support. However, that does not mean that psychiatric illness doesn't exist, or that drugs are never necessary.

Moreoever: Russell Blaylock is NOT an acceptable source. As I posted when he was mentioned on a somewhat different topic in 2010:

It is bad enough that Blaylock is anti-vaccine and anti-modern-medicine
Edited on Sun Sep-12-10 07:38 AM by LeftishBrit
(he seems to regard orthodox medicine as some sort of conspiracy by the Rockefellers...)

but like many anti-science and anti-modern-medicine types, he is also intensely right-wing. I have pointed this out on a few occasions when he's been quoted:

Worse, he is one of those monsters of pure right-wing evil, who opposes all forms of 'socialized medicine', even to the limited degree that they exist in the USA. His opposition to vaccination programmes is just part of opposition to *any* government-run health programme.

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/russell-l-blay... /

Here are just a few excerpts from the article:

National Health Insurance: The Socialist Nightmare
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

'I find it ironic that no one asks these socialists, who is that mysterious single payer? Should the public consider this for even a moment, they would quickly realize that the single payer is the taxpayer and the administrator of the system is the government via an army of bureaucrats. The socialist has, over the years, become quite adept at selling his wares. It was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsi and earlier the Fabian socialists, who understood that most of the West would never bring about socialism (communism) by violent revolution as had Russia. Rather, they would be more successful by a piecemeal implementation of socialist programs disguised as social reform or as they termed it “change” (this term had been used by the socialist long before Obama)...

This is why the corrupted Nancy Pelosi boldly states that people are to do what she says and becomes angry when citizens reject the socialist health care plan. They just do not understand, in her mind, their role as her subjects and as the vassals of the collectivist system.

How Socialized Medicine Arose in Western Societies: Building the Foundation

All of this activity was setting the stage for an eventual acceptance by the public of their ideas concerning the social engineering of man, the core of which was eugenics. This would require intense, massive educational efforts. Through his General Education Board, Rockefeller was able to design the education of the population from cradle to grave. John Dewey’s new ideas on education were heavily supported by foundation money, all from the shadows. ...

(Then a somewhat garbled account of the history of eugenics)...

The people in the Obama administration, and those operating this government from the shadows, are driven by equally dangerous ideas, which to them, as with the early eugenicists, seem reasonable and logical. They truly believe that reducing human populations worldwide is critical and is an emergency. This means that the elite must decide who lives and who dies, but unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao, they will do it, in their mind, in a more compassionate, subtle way. Yet, the victims will be just as dead as those placed in gas chambers, executed in Stalin’s gulags or slaughtered by Mao’s cultural revolutionary gangs.


Edmund Burke has said wisely-”The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion”. People in England were sold the disastrous National Health Service based on the illusion that they would receive their health care free, just as we are hearing today. Of course, nothing in this world is free-someone must pay. The delusion is that the wealthy will be the ones to pay-which is a tried and true prescription of the left. Of course two things eventually happen-the “rich” run out of money and two, they find ways to evade the taxes and shift them below.

Another delusion is that this health care proposal can actually reduce overall medical cost by streamlining administrative methods and cutting the fat out of actual care. After all, who knows more about fat than the government? One would have to be one of Dr. Howe’s feebleminded to believe that the government can do anything at a lower cost than a free market.

Examine any government program, no matter how small or large, and you will observe an exponential growth in cost over time. Medicare and Medicaid cost have increased exponentially since they were originally created and the cost continues to escalate. And in every case the proponents swore that cost would not increase. Those who expressed warnings concerning these programs were attacked viciously-as are those at the townhall meetings. Cecil Plamer, in his book examining the history of British Socialism-The British Socialist Ill-fare State, notes:

The written or printed word is quite another story. The critical condition of contemporary British socialism can be measured by the socialist government’s intemperate disapproval of criticism from any quarter whatsoever.

....The lesson, as F.A Hayek has stated repeatedly, is that every time the government planner tampers with the market, it causes a number of disruptions that can increase cost or result in problems of supply. This, in the mind of the collectivist, demands more intervention, which again creates more misallocation of resources. Soon we have system that looks like a diagram of the New York subway system.
In the United States, we view the individual as important and attempt to provide everyone with the best medical care we can deliver.
Under socialism, the individual doesn’t matter-what matters is the plan and society as a whole-the masses. Under such a system, individuals are mistreated, abused, frustrated and forgotten-they just don’t matter.


If one studies how we came to this dangerous idea of social control and human engineering, he will find that it is based on the Gnostic idea that some men are born far wiser than the common rabble and they are destined to rule. It is a paternalistic view that the populace (the masses in Marxist jargon) have no idea of the great questions that face mankind and that the wise of society must force them to obey to save society as a whole. They are viewed as small children, that is, ones not privy to the wisdom of their parents.

One of the other prime ideas of socialism is egalitarianism as an article of faith. Remember in school when a child was caught chewing gum, and the teacher would scold them by saying-”I hope you bought gum for everyone in the class.” -I think the socialist never got over this.

....With each election, decisions are going to be based on who will provide even greater funds and coverage for the various plans and who are its enemies. This is why England cannot get rid of its fraudulent and inefficient health care system-that, and the fact that it is supported by 1.4 million health-care bureaucrats-the third largest employer in the world.
This is also why those who say we have to do something about the 45 million (the number keep growing in their mind) uninsured. Even though many of these include the 18 million who do not want health insurance, 8.4 million youth who feel they are invulnerable, 12.6 million illegals who shouldn’t even be here, 8 million children whose parent have not signed them up and 3.5 million eligible for Medicare who have just not bothered to sign up, a total of 42.5 million who should be of no concern to the government.

The government will always prey on, and attempt control over, the weak, the ill-informed, the conceited, the greedy, the oblivious, the distracted, the sick, the hungry, and the “dependent” …
They cannot win over a well-informed, the free and creative thinkers, and an assertive public; a public that makes its stand and loudly says,
“NO – We are not doing this, and we will fight back.”

We must make the stand and make the difference !!!!!

Is this really the sort of person who should be quoted approvingly on a progressive board??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to laconicsax (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 01:53 PM

14. Primal integration would not be considered legit by most of those whose publications would show up

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

on PubMed (experimental psychologists and medical scientists). But there are plenty of influential places where such things get published.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:05 PM

6. Woo-woo BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Odin2005 (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:12 PM

7. Seriously! Everyone knows that it's caused by the MMR vaccine.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:09 AM

9. While I haven't come across this particular person before...

there are certainly some psychoanalysts, especially followers of Wilfred Bion, who believe that a lot of psychological conflicts occur prenatally. Some believe in 'cellular memory' going back to the time of conception, or possibly earlier.

Here's an example:


'I propose that the anguishing “feelings” experienced when one finds oneself lost in a crowd, the anguish of anonymity, of lack of acknowledgement, of not being noticed or perceived, of not standing out, of not being the chosen one; the experienced feelings of death, castration, engulfment, desintegration or feeling threatened of being “devoured”, sucked up, spoliated or exploited by “somebody else”, are situations in which the mind relives identificatory moments with fragments of its own past experienced by this branch of ours: partial experience — pertaining to our spermatozoid´s branch — which is thus evoked and re- edited...

(The egg) is much larger than the sperm<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]-->. Its wait is also an anguishing one. Anguish referring to life or death, related with “the right time”: if it misses that proper moment, the encounter will become a mis- encounter. It will be dissolved and eliminated.

All this is registered by the cellular memory.

There is a variety of ways in which eggs accept mating. We know nowadays that some, “generously and tenderly”, hold out their “arms”, making the spermatozoid slide in. This will be a mating that will establish a pattern for heterosexual gentle, passionate relationships, of unconditional love. Others may be reluctant: they “know” – through genetically transmitted information – that as it is a foreigner whose genetic code is quite different from its own, “the shock of cultures” will be greater. They might then resist a bit [some resist more], they might try not to be disturbed in their immutability, fearing to accept that “foreigner”. '

(And a lot more in that vein)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 12:23 PM

10. Yes, I know. And I think it is wildly speculative rationalization without evidence.

It appears to me to follow as a consequence of committing to a belief system and then inventing psychiatric rationalizations sans empirical evidence or even suggested mechanism logically derived from empirical evidence.

The notion that a human egg has both consciousness of anguish and creates operable memory of anguish that controls gametic, zygotic, embryonic, fetal and post natal development of self far exceeds any reasonable stretch to which one might incorporate contemporary understanding of neuroscience. At first glance we might suspect such an explanation as it answers far too much, but on inspection it's much worse. These descriptions are based on beliefs in the existence of as yet undemonstrated molecular mechanisms for emotional awareness and emotional memory in gametes.

This stuff is simply devoid of evidence and as such it is frankly unacceptable.

Walk through the biological requirements for such phenomena...there is no demonstrated evidence for the cellular and or molecular mechanisms that must be involved for unicellular haploid individuals to acquire emotional memory (honestly there is not even evidence that human or other gametes have emotional memory). Nor is there evidence that such emotional memory is propagated forward via cell divisions from gamete to zygote and on into the millions of cells of a post-natal brain to contribute to a 'narcissistic lesion' in the functioning of neural tissues that cause the individual to seek narcissistic supply. To believe it you must accept a remarkably Lamarkian view of the acquisition and inheritance of memory.

Apologetic adherents of this stuff find fault not in their theory but in people who examine it. The psychoanalytic proponents of this stuff explain that what seems a lack of evidence is a consequence of the complex and difficult language with which it is discussed

Hardly. This stuff is just dreamwork. Accepting it simply requires the same skills as reading a book of fantasy or science fiction--the willful suspension of belief in the goodness of evidence and the existing understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 12:41 PM

11. I entirely agree

There is NO evidence that memory can exist on a single-cell level. Even in the simplest animals, memory involves the formation of connections between neurons.

This is just fantasyland, but unfortunately it has some influence and is taken seriously in some quarters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:41 AM

12. Very nice analysis.

I guess weaving together a belief system is easier than understanding biochemistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:19 AM

15. What a load of bunkum!

What a load of bunkum! And people actually believe this and practice it! LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HereSince1628 (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 01:36 AM

17. Well if THAT won't make you feel guilty about jerking off, nothing will

If sperm get all worked up about feeling out off by an ovum, I shudder to think of what soul crushing agony they must feel to find out you were just jerking off.

By the time I was 17, I must have had the agony of millions of sperm on my hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread