> Where is that definition from? I couldn't find it in DSM-5.
The term defines itself. I assume you understand what is meant by Privacy Derangement Syndrome, something like: valuing privacy above all other virtues. For example, somebody who refuses to use a mobile phone due to iOS privacy concerns, and falls out of touch with family and friends.
But I don't even really appreciate this point even as a joke. The idea that every possible mental malady is constrained and gatekept by a single book seems entirely too rigid.
The subjective view of privacy has some value, I'll grant that, but so to does a municipality preparing to lay infrastructure to support a growing population. When it comes to tangible value, the census is one of the most well-known value-adding resources I can think of.
I almost never argue against privacy, and policies and measures protecting individual privacy. But the US census is value-adding for research, policy, and individual purposes, let there be no doubt.
The term defines itself. I assume you understand what is meant by Privacy Derangement Syndrome, something like: valuing privacy above all other virtues. For example, somebody who refuses to use a mobile phone due to iOS privacy concerns, and falls out of touch with family and friends.
But I don't even really appreciate this point even as a joke. The idea that every possible mental malady is constrained and gatekept by a single book seems entirely too rigid.
The subjective view of privacy has some value, I'll grant that, but so to does a municipality preparing to lay infrastructure to support a growing population. When it comes to tangible value, the census is one of the most well-known value-adding resources I can think of.
I almost never argue against privacy, and policies and measures protecting individual privacy. But the US census is value-adding for research, policy, and individual purposes, let there be no doubt.