- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
SFB,
See, now we are making progress!
I think what the problem may have been was the way I was wording it in my ignorant medical terminology, the same was as Bruce mentioned that someone who didn't know about Infantry tactics could be trying to explain something but be using words that made him wrong by the "expert's" opinion.
Me using the term scale and mixing it with "diagnosis" may have upset you if you thought I was implying that someone could be diagnosed as having a different scale of PTSD, which I was not trying to do.
I don't want to confuse the matter anymore with analogies that obviously have missed the mark in the past.
As I understand what I have read, what I have been trying to articulate is that when I say "scale", I mean on the complete scale of where a human can be, from 0 being no symptoms or reason to suspect anything, to a worst-case scenario 100 where someone suffers from every possible unfortunate way he can.
I did not mean to imply that could someone could be diagnosed as a 40% PTSD or a 90% PTSD, which by your argument of "a diagnosis is black and white" leads me to believe you thought that is where I was going.
What I meant by "scale" and how I interpret that reference, is that a bar has to be set at some point where a diagnosis is made (I know I'm oversimplifying it with finite numbers as I understand that it is very complex), and that is where I was coming from with the "scoring" system from that reference.
I never meant to challenge your "black and white diagnosis" once it is made, but I have been trying to understand the placement of that bar in that some people still have symptoms but didn't cross the bar and get diagnosed, some people may (?) be borderline, and some are well passed it.
So to complete than handshake, is it right to say that the complete range of symptoms that make up PTSD are what the "scale" part of it is, but once a person is deemed to have enough of them that the diagnosis is finite? He "has it". And someone might have similar symptoms but perhaps not as many of them but still not enough to warrant a diagnosis.
See, now we are making progress!
I think what the problem may have been was the way I was wording it in my ignorant medical terminology, the same was as Bruce mentioned that someone who didn't know about Infantry tactics could be trying to explain something but be using words that made him wrong by the "expert's" opinion.
Me using the term scale and mixing it with "diagnosis" may have upset you if you thought I was implying that someone could be diagnosed as having a different scale of PTSD, which I was not trying to do.
I don't want to confuse the matter anymore with analogies that obviously have missed the mark in the past.
As I understand what I have read, what I have been trying to articulate is that when I say "scale", I mean on the complete scale of where a human can be, from 0 being no symptoms or reason to suspect anything, to a worst-case scenario 100 where someone suffers from every possible unfortunate way he can.
I did not mean to imply that could someone could be diagnosed as a 40% PTSD or a 90% PTSD, which by your argument of "a diagnosis is black and white" leads me to believe you thought that is where I was going.
What I meant by "scale" and how I interpret that reference, is that a bar has to be set at some point where a diagnosis is made (I know I'm oversimplifying it with finite numbers as I understand that it is very complex), and that is where I was coming from with the "scoring" system from that reference.
I never meant to challenge your "black and white diagnosis" once it is made, but I have been trying to understand the placement of that bar in that some people still have symptoms but didn't cross the bar and get diagnosed, some people may (?) be borderline, and some are well passed it.
So to complete than handshake, is it right to say that the complete range of symptoms that make up PTSD are what the "scale" part of it is, but once a person is deemed to have enough of them that the diagnosis is finite? He "has it". And someone might have similar symptoms but perhaps not as many of them but still not enough to warrant a diagnosis.