Based on the analysis of the provided case, one can conclude that the male suffers from antisocial disorder. The following disorder belongs to cluster B of the general personality disorders group (Phillips, First, & Pincus, 2008).
The relevant diagnosis has been provided based on the presented client’s history. Due to the shortage of the data provided, one might refer the diagnosis to the provisional type. Therefore, some extra data may be further required to prove the initial assumption and to make sure the case refers to the personality disorders but not to the psychopathology.
The provided diagnosis has been worked out based on the single-axis approach, according to which, the patient’s case belongs to the Axis II group – personality disorders and mental retardation (Phillips et al., 2008).
While indicating the diagnosis, one has applied the DSM method. Thus, according to the patient’s story, the man meets a series of the relevant symptoms that can signify the antisocial disorder. First of all, one learns that the patient tends to lead a highly reserved life. From his own words, one learns that he has been intentionally isolated for a long period of time. He cannot think of an experience of being a part of a social group that would be pleasant for him. The choice of the profession might also be connected with the general antisocial tendency as the patient has decided to work from home.
Moreover, one might point out that another symptom of the patient’s maladaptive to the social life is represented by his aggressive rhetoric while he is speaking about his former group mates. Hence, the patient is inclined to apply offensive vocabulary while speaking about the people that used to surround him.
Furthermore, according to various specialists, such kind of disorders is normally determined by an unfavorable childhood experience (Sperry, 2013). During his speech, the patient makes a series of references to his childhood and his relationships with the father in particular. One might presume that the relevant relations have had a powerful negative impact on the patient’s further life. Thus, one may presume that the patient would try to lead a social life when being a child but the experience turned out to be a failure due to his father’s intervention. The negative impressions that the patient received as a child might have become the determining factor of his current attitude towards society.
Finally, one of the most important indicators of antisocial disorder is the patient’s inclination to escape from the reality with the help of the computer game. One might easily note that the general tone of the patient’s rhetoric changes from passive and melancholic into a more excited and cheerful one when he starts describing his hobby. Therefore, one assumes that the patient uses the following game in the quality of the substitution for his true wishes and intentions that he fails to put into practice in the real life.
Therefore, one might conclude that the patient’s symptoms meet a series of the DSM criteria that describe the antisocial personality disorder. Among these criteria, one shall primarily point out the following: failure to match the social norms, failure to plan, aggressiveness, consistent irresponsibility, and social indifference. Moreover, the patient is more than 18 years old now, and one can assume that social personality disorders appeared in the period of his childhood. In the meantime, one cannot claim that the patient meets such criteria as deceitfulness or reckless disregard for safety. Some specialists note that the partial coincidence does not essentially prove the existence of a disorder and, thus, the case needs further investigation (Mezzich, 2006).
Meanwhile, as has already been mentioned above, the relevant diagnosis requires some extra data as the current evidence base is insufficient. One might suggest that to receive a complete idea of the patient’s condition one may further need examination. On the whole, it is evident that one essentially lacks the background and environmental facts. In other words, it is crucial to gather more information about the patient’s real environment and compare it with the facts that he provides.
One should necessarily note that the most efficient way to prove the provided diagnosis is to base on the DSM diagnosing principle of three “S”: subtypes, specifiers, and severity. Therefore, one should apply the “specify whether” method to collect more facts about the patient’s typical lifestyle and behavior patterns. The efficient methodic “specify if” is likely to assist one in précising the received facts. Finally, the “specify current severity” approach will be required for assessing the severity of the disorder diagnosed and, thus, assigning the appropriate treatment (Tucker, 1998). Some specialists also note that the social and cultural implications are also significant for providing a correct diagnosis in the framework of DSM (Sperry, 2013). Therefore, one might also put a particular focus on the cultural background to check whether it has any interdependency with the current state of the patient.
Reference List
Mezzich, J.E. (2006). Culture and Psychiatric Diagnosis: A DSM-IV® Perspective. London, England: American Psychiatric Pub.
Phillips, K.A., First, M.B., & Pincus, H.A. (2008). Advancing DSM: Dilemmas in Psychiatric Diagnosis. Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Pub.
Sperry, L. (2013). Handbook of Diagnosis and Treatment of DSM-IV Personality Disorders. New York, New York: Routledge.
Tucker, G.J. (1998). Putting DSM-IV in Perspective. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(2), 159-161.