I probably should have clarified in my comment that I wasn't making any attempt to support or justify the other commenter as he obviously didn't know what the hell he was talking about either and, even if he had, he was far more interested and being smug and dismissive than he was in having any kind of actual discussion. My comment was really just meant as a direct response to yours about why one person's comment should be more believable than another's and I just jumped in to explain exactly why for this particular instance, mostly forgetting about the larger context and the fact that your point was more about the semantics of truth in internet discussions rather than actually asking about the disorders. You're like the teacher who tries to make a point using a rhetorical question and I'm the annoying kid in the back with his hand up going "oh! oh! oh!"

I just tend to get real bad tunnel vision when it comes to discussions about psychology on Reddit, especially commonly misunderstood disorders and other concepts, because of when all the armchair psychologists, who seem to show up in every comment section regardless if its about psychology or not, inevitably show up and start dropping their half baked opinions and then act like their cold takes takes are certifiable facts. And then no matter how you go about trying to explain certain concepts, or to tell them they're actually just flat out wrong about some of the actual facts, they just double down with more opinions they think are facts to support the other opinions they thought were facts, until you're just sitting there staring blankly at your undergraduate degree, knowing it doesn't make you an expert by any means, but still wanting to jump through the screen and start beating them with it while screaming about The Dunning-Kruger Effect and how no, they don't actually know what that means.

Sorry, what were we talking about?