I'm familiar "enough" with the DSM-* from required classes "back in the day" to know it leaves me wanting to beat someone with it. And the DSM-IV leaves me wanting to beat someone with it to the
IV power.
But then, I think that's an identifiable mental illness to start with.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not such a purist that I deny that we live in an imprecise world - I'm applied sciences. That said - we can estimate and identify the aforementioned imprecision probabilistically [or it aint science] . Not that you were disagreeing with me, I know you weren't, but I'm still coming down pretty hard on such sweeping generalizations.
There are a handful of people here that I find interesting enough to have a relationship with. The vast majority of people here (and everywhere) are born, eat, sleep, spawn, and die. They may or may not do some random stuff inbetwixt those periods. Frankly: not that interesting. Occasionally amusing, but not interesting [to me] in the general
sense of the word. So the stereotype of "interesting" fails at the micro-level where it may succeed at the macro. But I have a hard time with the stereotype that some group is "more interesting" as a blanket statement. Very untenable. I think we could apply much less flattering associations to modern smokers that would irritate a lot of people here, but would be far more tenable.
