Ron's Jealousy of Harry

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 16331

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> 
> 
> > Her near pathologic obsession with studying can be considered a 
cry
> > for
> > attention (not to mention a potential diagnosis of
> > Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder)
> 
> I saw that Heidi addressed this already.  I agree completely that
> Hermione displays no signs of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.  Why is 
her
> desire to achieve academically a bad thing?
> 

I work for a medical group. The psychiatrist in the group is a fan. 
Anyhow,we were discussing Hermione about a month or two ago. He is of 
the opinion that Hermione is obsessive and compulsive about her 
studies. But he can't diagnose her with OCD, because her behaviors 
don't interfere with her daily functioning. However, she can be 
diagnosed with "Personality Disorder, NOS" (NOS = 'not otherwise 
specified'). It doesn't mean she's a bad person or even that she's 
mentally ill. It just means that she has a personality trait that is 
more apparent in her than in other people. Everyone has varying 
degrees of obsessive and compulsive behavior. It's only when it gets 
to either extreme that it becomes pathologic. I've got to admit, 
studying material that you know by heart over and over and over again, 
seems a little extreme.
 

> > The only way I think I can objectively dissect and analyse the
> > characters is to examine their actions within the context of the
> > chapter(s) as they take place. I think using the final outcome to
> > interpret their actions in earlier chapters (or in earlier books)
> > gives a somewhat tainted analysis of their actions 'in situ'.
> 

I briefly did medical chart reviews for extra income, so I have an 
inkling of how Demelza is analysing the characters. In medical chart 
review, ideally you're supposed to review the chart as though the 
events were unfolding in front of you in order to determine the 
appropriateness of the care delivered; meaning that 
appropriate/rational steps were taken at each step. Then you look at 
the discharge diagnosis and the determine whether or not the care was 
reasonable/appropriate. You're not supposed to look at the discharge 
diagnosis and use that to determine the appropriateness of the care 
delivered (most insurance companies and HMOs do it this way so they 
can save money, which is why I don't do med chart reviews anymore.) 
Reviewing the chart that way taints its analysis, because it doesn't 
take into consideration the alternate scenarios the care giver had to 
consider to make the diagnosis. Doing it this way, you can always make 
the case why the delivered care was inappropriate (like I said, it 
saves lots of money for the company!). But if you review it the ideal 
way, the care (unless they really, really, totally screwed up) can be 
almost always justified because you get a clearer picture of what the 
care givers were facing and why they acted accordingly (the company 
must reimburse and therefore lose money). The ideal way of reviewing, 
where the chart is examined without pre-conceived notions and as 
though the events are unfolding before you, is actually fair, because 
it takes the "maybes", "what ifs", and "supposes" into consideration 
and makes you think "was this reasonable with the information known at 
this point in time".  Like I said, this method doesn't save money.

I think this is how Demelza is analysing the characters, using the 
known information that the point in time of the chapter of an 
incidence, then looking at the conclusions being drawn from it and 
seeing if the material supports those conclusions. 

I "chart reviewed" Ginny recently and I have a completely different 
and more favorable impression of her now.

:-)Milz (who profusely apologizes for the medical examples and for 
tainting this forum with dirty words like "insurance companies", 
"HMOs", "care givers", "reimburse")