Hmm, I don't have that problem but your example says it is a duplicate of http://videosift.com/video/6-Year-Old-Girl-with-Schizophrenia ...

Are you anything to block/change codes? But then I am using the latest Ad Block Plus.

^^That's the kinna juice that turns into full-blown schizophrenia later.....

Great comment! You raised many interesting points.

One important thing to note that the modern human mind is essentially like an advanced piece of software which runs on antiquated hardware (sort of like running Skyrim on an N64). As many as 7% (though I don't currently have a source for this at hand) of the general population are estimated to experience auditory hallucinations, and surprisingly enough, most of those people aren't psychotically structured. This is why auditory hallucinations are seen as a secondary, rather than primary, symptom of schizophrenia.

Rather, what is actually happening is that the antiquated hardware, for whatever reason, is showing its faults. The primitive responses which tend to stay dormant for most people are finding their way to the surface.

In other words, the truth of schizophrenia is that it isn't so much an illness as it is a regression to a more primitive version of the human mind. And as both you an Eleanor pointed out, this can have both pros and cons. Another example of a broken system which can produce contextually positive results is eidetic memory, which causes a person to be unable to forget.

And this is also something that I find to be quite interesting, because what it means is that mental illnesses are, in fact, contextual illnesses. A schizophrenic person is essentially "sick" because he/she has a bug in his/her software and as a result is unable to download patches from the rest of society. Go back 3000 years and it is entirely possible that auditory hallucination would have been the norm.

The reason for the stigma being so harmful is that it simply focuses on the wrong thing. It takes a secondary symptom, i.e. hearing voices, and makes it seem like the actual disease. In truth, the auditory hallucination is just an externalized version of a process which is actually internal. Where most of us simply have thoughts, the schizophrenic might instead hear a voice. To turn stigmatize those auditory hallucinations is to potentially cripple the sufferer's ability to perform basic maintenance on themselves.

You doth protest a bit much about schizophrenia, chungilaaeria.

Thank you for sharing this in that awful thread. I have someone very close to me that has paranoid schizophrenia and a lot of the problem was that they were born in a time where the culture just wanted to lock them up and call them crazy. Luckily now, it's much better but still not ideal. There is still a negative stigma attached to mental illnesses.

Anyway, I'm trying to avoid the thread for now as I don't want to get too personal on VS these days. I just thought I should let you know that your comments meant something to some stranger on the internet.

Have a good day!

^ Just to be clear people with Schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions do have an elevated risk of committing violent acts. It's about 20% of pre diagnosed patients and around 9% of post treatment/diagnosis patients. As opposed to around 1-2% of the "normal" population.

The only big exception to this is in hospital itself where it can rise as high as 50%, however this is pretty well understood to be a product of the environment and circumstances (i.e. you are forcibly being held against your will). It's also one of the reasons you managed to evoke such hostility from me, the idea that people should just be committed/sectioned because they appear somewhat unstable is one that causes a great deal more harm that good.
There are people that are a genuine danger to themselves and or others when in the grips of an "episode", such people are why mental health sections exist, however extreme care and attention must be applied when considering someone who has yet to commit an "index offence".

If she's attacked people (or herself) before when displaying the same symptoms fine, if she has a history of refusing reasonable treatment fine, if she goes and attacks someone fine. But you can't just go around locking people up because they behave strangely. For all we know this lady has never hurt anyone and is not likely to do so, you can't make the kind of judgements your making without fully understanding the patient and the nature of their condition.
There are people I work with you'd instantly label as crazy and possibly dangerous. One guy has a trait of sometimes staring hard at you (esp strangers) while talking intensely under his breath to himself. If you saw him doing that to you and you'd never met him you'd probably shit yourself a bit (I know I did) but the dude is about as gentle as they come! He'd only ever act violently if you cornered him while he was confused and even then probably not. (never been a problem in the 2 years I worked with him)

I'm not saying this lady definitely isn't in any way dangerous, or even that it might not be better to taker her in under a section. I'm simply saying that making assumptions like that is extremely damaging both to the sufferers and to our ability to understand and help them.

Now the whole Gay/Lesbian/Transgender thing has started to become a normal part of our culture mental health is the perhaps one of the last great bullshit taboos left.

Their not crazies, THEIR FUCKING PEOPLE!!!

And I know this because I've yet to meet a truly "sane" human in my life.

Nope, schizophrenia usually has no inferred or stated direction....

Williams James wrote about the value of religious experience. It tries to reconcile the disparity between reason and spirituality. This is the "code" that Penn is talking about. It does imply relativism over objectivism which does not gel with people of Penn's rationalistic ilk. His intuitions simply don't allow him to have these kind of contradictions whereas religious people do and also do not see them as contradictions hence their intuitions allow for a kind of dualism between the domain of the rational and the domain of religion. The people in the court are not admitting to the fallibility of their religious beliefs yet also denying the possibility of those same beliefs manifesting in such an obvious and concrete way. So they are at peace with being able to both affirm and deny the factual nature of their metaphysical beliefs without causing disharmony provided the transgression sufficiently big or small. Put it into the realm of the civic where personal gain or other self-serving and un-"virtuous" traits can be attributed and they can happily suspend their metaphysics in favour of the rational that Penn is able to apply to all situations.

It is a kind of metaphysical schizophrenia.

"Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii. The parasite will infect most genera of warm-blooded animals, including humans, but the primary host is the felid (cat) family. The parasite spreads by the ingestion of infected meat or the feces of an infected cat, or by vertical transmission from mother to fetus....Recent research has also linked toxoplasmosis with brain cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia."-WKI

"AwwwwwwwwwwWW!? Let kitty sleep on baby's faaaaace!"

The Very Hungry Caterpillar ate one strawberry, two oranges, three plums, four cyanide pills, five magic mushrooms, and forgot to take his schizophrenia meds.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I apologize if I offended any schizophrenics out there. Thanks for encouraging me to learn the difference between DID and schizophrenia.

http://www.christiansurvivors.com/didvsschizophrenia.html
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^KnivesOut:
You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?
ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.


What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?

ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^hpqp:
According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.


Well played, good sir.

>> ^hpqp:

According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.
mental illness does not take away people's constitutional rights. She exercised her freedom of speech.

According to the link @MrFisk provides this woman probably suffers from schizophrenia, which would explain a lot. I don't see why she should be testifying in that case though.