User talk:Vanlegg/Segal

Depersonalization

The depersonalization connection is somewhat tenuous. Segal herself seems to have treated it as a religious experience, though apparently she was diagnosed with depersonalization disorder [1]. It might muster a mention, but definitely a qualified one since most seem to focus on it as a religious, rather than psychological or neurological issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that point generally, but some accepted pscyhological literature identifies Segal by name, in fact as a classic example of DP. Sources required of course, working on them...Ocaasi ^c 16:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, you are partially right, the connection is part of "current research" in the domain of psychology. In fact Segal made this connection notable (worthy of notice)as per Notability . This is why there is a connection between the two, and this is also why this whole field is so interesting. People (researchers) are doing "brain scans" (RMI)on people who meditate or claim to have various "mental states". They are also doing research on people with DPD. These two studies will become connected thanks to the "scientific community" keeping an open mind, and largley thanks to Segal's "first hand experience" of both the disorder and the following joyful experience. Her brain tumour had a reverse effect on her "loss of self". You can find tons of research if you look in the right places (universities). Good luck in your research. Vanlegg (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocaasi, Thank you for the wonderful work you did. I am sorry I made such a big issue out of this, but I felt sad for the other users. My appologies for anything that was out of line for ALL concered. WLU, I wish to thank you for being civil, and even though I was a bit rough around the edges (maybe very)..I think we are all working for the common good. I will put my feathers back in place (they got ruffled) and I hope we can all sleep in peace. SilkTork, Thank you for being helpful, even though Ocaasi did all this very professional work. CHEERS.Vanlegg (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... Good story. Useful information. Variety of sources. An article we benefit from having. It still needs plenty of fixing up though, especially the references, which all need to be converted from Google Books links. Also, the spirituality section is lacking in depth and sources. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by sources, not editors. Please read the policies that you refer to, they often define the words in ways that are not equivalent to common use. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]