Talk:Ideas of reference
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] Does
Does not mention that at certain times and places in world history these or similar phenomenon were not seen as insane. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:41, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Find a reference for it and put it in. The article does say, "In their strongest form, they are considered to be a sign of mental illness..." which implies that at mild levels they are considered normal. Children are happy to talk back to the TV as if it is actually speaking to them. Like auditory hallucinations which occur in normal people, it is a matter of degree and context. That's why psychiatrists train for years to make clinical judgements. However, I take your point that many phenomenon we would now regard as psychotic have been seen as signs of divinity or similar. There are studies which show that people tend to normalise odd behaviour, finding ways of interpreting it as sane.
-
- I wonder if there have ever been studies on the reverse phenomenon (Rosenhan's paper comes close to this in some respects), in which normal behaviour on the part of those who have been diagnosed psychotic or labeled insane is interpreted as insane or psychotic whereas the same behaviour wouldn't be so interpreted in a "sane" person. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I know of one recent example of an academic whom all his colleagues thought was brilliant because they couldn't understand his work. For years he had been psychotic and his work was full of thought disorder. Still, I could say the same about Revelations in the Bible and that has lasted. --CloudSurfer 07:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] synchronicity
would a mention of synchronicity and apophenia be relevant in this article? --Andymussell 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not even clear what the difference between apophenia and delusions of reference is. Should the two articles be merged? -Me, 5/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.73.116 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] alchemy
doesn't this look like alchemy?
== Ideas of reference redirects to here, even though that its mentioned in the article how Delusion of reference should not be confused with it.
[edit] WHAT?
what does solipsism have to do with ideas of reference? Can someone please explain.
- Well, if you are convinced that you are the sole entity in the universe, you might consider that the world around you is fictitious and "made" for your own personal experiences. In this sense, it relates in that you would start to consider that every stimulus you encounter was specifically designed for your view - after all, if you're the only person in existence, why would these things need to be seen by anyone else? - Xvall
- Well you said it, and thanks a lot. To continue that thought, "Ideas of reference" (although this article deals more with delusions of reference) may be a pathologized version of solipsism. I recently read an article called "Psychology as a Weapon" which hints that more than once, psychologists have used their analytical skills to denounce political or historical persons. The label "Ideas of Reference" has e.g. been used to denounce Wilhelm Reich. I wouldn't be wondering if a multitude of new mental illness descriptions would emerge from one single psychologic interview of a present day philosopher. -- Paniq 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Ideas of reference ... are an exaggerated form of self consciousness, usually driven by social anxiety."
It's true that two criteria for the diagnosis of Schizotypal Personality Disorder are ideas of reference and social anxiety; however, we cannot deduce that the former are "driven" by the latter. A citation is needed.
Scott7261 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
