Talk:Ideas and delusions of reference

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)

Redirect

Ideas of reference redirects to here, even though that its mentioned in the article how Delusion of reference should not be confused with it.

Psychoanalysis Weight

This topic has far too much weight on psychoanalysis and other fringe/pseudoscience theories.

Needs longer description with mainstream sourced perspectives.. SluggishSchizophrenic (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)