Are Believers in Religion and Psychic Powers Mentally ill?

[Dr B]

Well, are they? :)

[Jocky]

IMO, not necessarily.

Abstract religious beliefs which can't be proved one way or the other are not necessarily irrational, and therefore shouldn't as an indication of an unwell mind in themselves. Belief in the afterlife, for instance, could be seen as a functional way of rationalising fear of death or grief arising from bereavement.

Belief in the existence of psychic powers, and belief in divine intervention (e.g. faith healing) which I consider to be in the same category, are erroneous because they are demonstrably at odds with reality. However, people can hold erroneous beliefs for all sorts of reasons which are not related to their mental health - misinformation or lack of information, peer pressure, wishful thinking, lack of education etc.

OTOH, people who believe that they personally posess psychic powers, or the ability to channel divine power or somesuch thing, are clearly delusional to some degree. They may possibly be motivated by relatively harmless things like a desire to help others or escapism from the daily grind, but in some cases such a belief could amount to a symptom of mental malaise. One only has to peruse the threads from claimants for Randi's million to see some individuals who appear to be sad examples of this.

[kath23]

However, people can hold erroneous beliefs for all sorts of reasons which are not related to their mental health - misinformation or lack of information, peer pressure, wishful thinking, lack of education etc.


The actress Sarah Lassez has written a book describing how she was addicted to tarot phone lines.

http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Junkie-Memoir-Sarah-Lassez/dp/1416918388

She was eventually diagnosed with OCD.

People do tend to turn to these things in the most extreme manifestations due to some difficult life circumstance or illness. They give people some sense of control.

That's why I feel some of the psychics, healers etc are taking advantage of desperate people.

Love
Kath

[Jocky]

People do tend to turn to these things in the most extreme manifestations due to some difficult life circumstance or illness. They give people some sense of control.

Indeed, but life-destroying addictions of that kind are not the rule - there are plenty of ordinary, functional people who hold erroneous beliefs but do not consequently exhibit dysfunctional behaviour.

However, as you rightly point out, there is considerable potential for harm in such erroneous beliefs when they are held by someone who for whatever reason is vulnerable to exploitation. This is the main reason why woo is worth arguing about!

I don't think you can make an assumption about someone's mental health on the basis that they believe something woo. It's the manner in which the belief manifests itself which is the important thing.

[Nettles]

I'm not.

[Outsider]

Yes and no.

I think it might be a question of context.

Take two people of the same age- one is a member of a tribal community in Uganda and the other a former sports commentator from Leicester...they both suffer with a delusional illness where they hear voices of people who are not there.

Which one is mentally ill and which one is revered as a shaman?
Har har.

I think the question is when and where on the huge spectrum of disorders is the phenomena considered an illness. :D

[Admin]

I think that people who are highly superstitious, for example, are no more likely to suffer psychoses than anyone else, but people who are psychotic are more likely to be more superstitious than average.

So, there's likely to be a small correlation in any population sample but erroneous belief does not imply mental illness.

[Araneus]

The concept of "mental illness" is not well-defined anyway; it tends to mean "whatever is significantly different from the current norm".

You could argue that believers are mentally ill because they hold unsound beliefs, or mentally healthy because they are certainly not abnormal, depending on how you choose to define illness in this context.

[kath23]

Some religious groups do have a higher rate of mental illness, but I don't think anyone's done a study to see if it's true of woos.

There was a study which found it to be true of Jehovahs Witnesses. How much this is due to the stigma they face from society towards their religion it's hard to tell, but they undoubtedly face some.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw72.html

There seems to have been no control group though, and the sample size was 50 ;D ;D ;D

[ocean]

Well, some statistics of suicide and mental illness to not favour atheists vs. believers. Studies has shown that beliefs in hell and life after death has act as a protective factor for suicide.

[chillzero]

Well, some statistics of suicide and mental illness to not favour atheists vs. believers. Studies has shown that beliefs in hell and life after death has act as a protective factor for suicide.


Can you link us to those studies?

I read somewhere (and it matches my personal experience) that religion plays a high factor in making people suicidal in the first place, whereas athiests don't have quite the same mental anguish and torment. I have tried to find my source, and am struggling, I'll admit.

[ocean]

Try to google it because the ones are for professional journals. Sorry I don't have a link now.

[ocean]

But basically, it serve as a protective factor, because religious people sees life as the maximum gift from God and suicide is the denia and rejection of that tremendous gift, then it is a mortal sin that will conduct you straight to hell. In some way that act as a "stop" for suicide. This is mostly from a christian perspective.

[ocean]

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html


Here is one.

There's other studies as religious people suicide too, even masses, but generally it act as a protective factor.

[ocean]

http://www.med.uio.no/ipsy/ssff/suicidologi/2002-nr2/Bertolote.pdf

This is another.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Well, are they? :)


Are they mentally ill, well I do know,maybe some are! But they could say the same about you!

[Dr B]

They would need evidence though.....I have mine.....do they have their's? Otherwise its just meaningless statements.

[Dr B]

I thought this thread might still be relevant in light of other threads around here ;D

[Allo Allo]

I was glad when this thread faded away. I'm sorry to see it again. I would think people are brainwashed rather than "mentally ill" which has a nasty "tone" to it.

M

[Dr B]

It is a genuine question. Think about it.

If 'normal' people can hallucinate and have delusions - what does this mean for mental illness being special???? You see, the question is more elegant and far reaching than many people think......8)

[Allo Allo]

It is a genuine question. Think about it.

If 'normal' people can hallucinate and have delusions - what does this mean for mental illness being special???? You see, the question is more elegant and far reaching than many people think......8)

I have thought about it. It would put almost all the world's population in the mentally ill category. Statistically, its more likely that you and I are mentally ill - but I'm not - so it must be you! >:D

M

[Araneus]

The term "mentally ill" is ambiguous, and therefore useless. It could either mean "people who don't think like the majority", which would put most people here into the category, or it could mean "people whose mental faculties are impaired to such an extent that they have difficulty living a normal life", which probably doesn't include anybody here but certainly doesn't include everyday religious believers.

[Jocky]

The term "mentally ill" is ambiguous ... it could mean "people whose mental faculties are impaired to such an extent that they have difficulty living a normal life", which ... certainly doesn't include everyday religious believers.

Yes, that was the point I made at the beginning of the thread. Religious belief in itself does not necessarily impair normal function.

Does your argument use "mentally ill" to mean the same as "people [who] hallucinate and have delusions", Doc?

OTOH, any definition of mentally ill which is based mainly on deviation from the majority view has got to be clinically pretty useless - and like you say would probably include quite a few of us skeptics.

See you guys in the room with soft walls ... they're going to commit me 'cos I don't believe in homeopathy :cheesy:

[Dr B]

Jocky

It's all up for discussion. Some claim that there is a link, others that there is not. Others claim there is no such thing as being 'mentally ill' because the mind is not a material thing - it cannot be ill in a medical sense :-\

I am interested in what people think about this. I have compared many woo arguments and experiences to those outlined in the DSM IV and many of their experiences, particularly when repeated, share more than a passing similarity to some aspects psychoses and delusions. Is this meaningful? Is this telling us something or not?

[Dr B]

I have thought about it. It would put almost all the world's population in the mentally ill category.

What???? Why would it do that? I think not and suggest you think some more.



Statistically, its more likely that you and I are mentally ill..... <IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">


Really, who's statistics? I suggest you have just made that up. What do you base this on?

[Melanie]

Some years ago I spent an awful lot of time researching mediumship, partly by reading biographical studies, particularly of so-called trance mediums. I also found myself reading similar books about multiple personalities. I was struck by the many similarities in how these people perceived the world and reacted to it.

Both groups are capable of saying and doing things they would never have said while in their 'right mind' - often have no memory of what they have said when the phase is over - can speak in different languages or use phraseology common to the opposite sex - claim that the voices speak to them as well as manifest externally - and believe that the alternate personalities they exhibit are external entities and not part of themselves.

I know some here would say, well, that's it then, they're all mad.

Interestingly, the whole phenomena of multiple personality syndrome seems to have faded away since the 80's. MPs usually had a history of childhood abuse - perhaps the syndrome has faded away because such abuse is more openly talked about these days (witness the whole new genre of 'Misery' books on the bestseller lists).

Notwithstanding the fact that mediums rarely have appalling childhoods, I think both MPs and trance mediums were exhibiting an ability of the mind to invent sub-personalities, often as some kind of coping mechanism.

Are they all mad? Or simply evidence that the mind can sometimes be cleverer than we think?

[Allo Allo]

What???? Why would it do that? I think not and suggest you think some more.

Really, who's statistics? I suggest you have just made that up. What do you base this on?
It seems that 16% of the worlds 6716286032 people are “non-religious”. The question you put was “Are Believers in Religion and Psychic Powers Mentally ill?” and having thought about it, I say that the answer has to be “no” because statistically it would mean that only 16% of the worlds population are sane. I don’t “make things up”! If this is what you meant then “mental illness” should be called “sanity” and vice versa.

However! Had you phrased this question in a different fashion, I might have agreed with you.

My crack at you about either you or me being mentally ill was me teasing you :tongue: and came from a musical called “Brigadoone” in which two guys are sitting at the bar. One complains to the other “The whole world is mad ‘cept thee and me.” Pause “And even thee’s a little mad!”

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

All sorts of other religions (not major) count extra to this….

If you have better sources (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) – show your hand…

M

[Araneus]

Interestingly, the whole phenomena of multiple personality syndrome seems to have faded away since the 80's. MPs usually had a history of childhood abuse - perhaps the syndrome has faded away because such abuse is more openly talked about these days (witness the whole new genre of 'Misery' books on the bestseller lists).

An alternative hypothesis is that the syndrome never actually existed -- a line of argument I have seen several times. The view seems to be that "Multiple Personality Disorder" was a popular fad, which mainly involved young women trying to please their psychiatrists by manifesting the "symptoms" they believed were expected.

I don't know how true this is, but it certainly seems plausible.

[Melanie]

I'd agree with that - similarly the fad for uncovering 'suppressed memories'.

[Dr B]

It seems that 16% of the worlds 6716286032 people are “non-religious”. The question you put was “Are Believers in Religion and Psychic Powers Mentally ill?” and having thought about it, I say that the answer has to be “no” because statistically it would mean that only 16% of the worlds population are sane. I don’t “make things up”! If this is what you meant then “mental illness” should be called “sanity” and vice versa.

Not true - the question was more subtle than that. Are you saying that there is a clear cut off point for someone being mentally ill? If not, then your statistics and the use of them is fallacious. How can a mind (a non-physical thing) be ill?



Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand


These estimates are only generic but to be honest - they are irrelevant to the question.

[Allo Allo]

the question was more subtle than that. True, but could have been phrased differently!
Are you saying that there is a clear cut off point for someone being mentally ill? No, not me

........- they are irrelevant to the question. The answer to the OP has to be “no” If you took “religious believers = mentally ill” to be a deviance from the majority because most of the world’s population are believers – and YOU said I just made it up - it wasn't irrelevant. I simply provided numbers.

I have not missed “subtle” – and no – I never suggested or implied there is a clear cut off point for mental illness. I don’t think there is one - except being able to function/not function in a normal life. Even that is arguable - what is normal ? - some ordinary people AND religious groups have practices and lives that I would not consider normal (basing normal on majority).

Why has the brain the capacity for NDE’s, OBE’s, hearing voices, delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, transcendent experiences, pre-knowing, inspiration, meditation – whatever – in perfectly “normal” people? As you said in the discussion on consciousness – “The mind is what the brain does”. The brain makes the mind do “more” than just what is required for us to function as a species?

Are Believers in Religion and Psychic Powers prone to those kinds of experiences?

Quite likely I think!


Are they “mentally ill”? Mmmmm….

M

:knitter:

[Araneus]

Why has the brain the capacity for NDE’s, OBE’s, hearing voices, delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, transcendent experiences, pre-knowing, inspiration, meditation – whatever – in perfectly “normal” people? As you said in the discussion on consciousness – “The mind is what the brain does”. The brain makes the mind do “more” than just what is required for us to function as a species?

Maybe it is because I am a software engineer that I find such thinking absurd. The brain is a very complex organ, and it is inevitable that something which works in a complex way can also go wrong in a complex way.

Asking the "evolutionary use" of an NDE is like asking the "purpose" of a television's display of funny colours when you hold a magnet up to the screen. There is no such purpose, it is just a consequence of the way the thing is made that it exhibits such behaviour under abnormal conditions.

[Allo Allo]

Maybe it is because I am a software engineer that I find such thinking absurd. The brain is a very complex organ, and it is inevitable that something which works in a complex way can also go wrong in a complex way.

Asking the "evolutionary use" of an NDE is like asking the "purpose" of a television's display of funny colours when you hold a magnet up to the screen. There is no such purpose, it is just a consequence of the way the thing is made that it exhibits such behaviour under abnormal conditions.
What is absurd?

I think the idea that the brain has gone “wrong” at such times is the question. Why should an NDE experience be the brain working “wrongly”? An altered state of awareness (as in meditation) is not the brain working wrongly. Psychosis might be a mechanism for the brain to re-organise the mind. etc

I am not suggesting we have been programmed. Sneezing is useful – it just happened that way. The brain happens to do things at certain times, which, like sneezing, is not “wrong” but just what happens.

I have never once suggested the things our minds experience have some evolutionary “purpose” – rather that it might be useful to us – like sneezing!

M

Well, that's the best I can do in a hurry...:smiley:

[Araneus]

I think the idea that the brain has gone “wrong” at such times is the question. Why should an NDE experience be the brain working “wrongly”? An altered state of awareness (as in meditation) is not the brain working wrongly. Psychosis might be a mechanism for the brain to re-organise the mind. etc

I think both NDEs and psychosis would fit most definitions of "wrong", since they involve the brain operating a very abnormal way with greatly impaired cognitive function (and possibly permanent damage, in the case of psychosis). I agree that this does not apply to meditation.


I have never once suggested the things our minds experience have some evolutionary “purpose” – rather that it might be useful to us – like sneezing! Purpose and utility are identical from the perspective of evolution -- traits which are useful are selected over traits which are detrimental. The point I am trying to make is that altered states of consciousness are very likely an epiphenomenon -- a consequence -- of the way the brain has evolved. They may not necessarily perform a useful function in themselves.

[Dr B]

True, but could have been phrased differently!

Or you could think more about it :-\



No, not me
8)



The answer to the OP has to be “no”

Why? First you would need to think about what mental illness and psychic experiences really are. Then you need to ask yourself can a mind really be ill? The mind itself has no organs. Of course, a brain can malfunction in pathology - but you dont need a pathology for mental illness. You see, if you think about it - to what extent can a 'mind' really be ill (in the sense of the medical model which pertains to organs and physical matter)? There are a hundred of ways to come at a question like that and you seem to have missed 99 of them. :cheesy::cheesy: (only kidding)


If you took “religious believers = mentally ill” to be a deviance from the majority because most of the world’s population are believers

Mental illness is not just a deviation from the normal - think about it.



– and YOU said I just made it up - it wasn't irrelevant. I simply provided numbers.


The numbers were irrelevant to the question and debate and they are nonsense in this context.




I have not missed “subtle” – and no –

yes, you have (see above).



I never suggested or implied there is a clear cut off point for mental illness.

Your answers above directly imply it.


As you said in the discussion on consciousness – “The mind is what the brain does”. The brain makes the mind do “more” than just what is required for us to function as a species?

You are getting confused between mind and brain. Can the mind be ill - in the absence of a brain correlate of that illness? According to many quarters of Psychiatry - it can.

[Jocky]

Does your argument use "mentally ill" to mean the same as "people [who] hallucinate and have delusions", Doc?

It's all up for discussion. Some claim that there is a link, others that there is not. Others claim there is no such thing as being 'mentally ill' because the mind is not a material thing - it cannot be ill in a medical sense :-\


The answer to the OP has to be “no”

Why? First you would need to think about what mental illness and psychic experiences really are.

Hang on a minute, who put up the OP? Aha, 'twas Dr B!

We have been circling round the question "Are Believers ... Mentally ill?", and several posters have tried to come up with an answer. Every answer so far has been met with the riposte "Ah, but what does 'mentally ill' actually mean".

Now, it seems to me that you posted the question, and it is reasonable to ask you to define your terms before proceeding to an answer. When you posted the OP, what did you mean by "mentally ill"?

Or maybe the OP was actually an oblique way of approaching the question "Is there any such thing as mental illness", or "is the term 'mentally ill' a valid one" ... :ponder:

[Dr B]

I disagree. I only need to give a definition if I am making a claim or argument. As I asked a question (check the punctuation) - it is entirely open to debate. Pick a definition you want, justify it, and run with it.

However, a yes or no response is clearly insufficient. Which i think is quite revealling.

[Jocky]

OK then.

The definition of "mentally ill" which leapt to my mind when I read the OP and first posted in this thread was something like:

"A condition where the sufferer exhibits a level of behavioural dysfunction which frequently inhibits them from being able to function effectively in everyday life, but where no apparent physiological condition exists which could explain that dysfunction."

[DISCLAIMER: One may or may not like using the phrase "mentally ill" to refer to this state, for instance because the word "ill" normally refers to a physical condition which can be diagnosed by conventional medicine: but for the purposes of this discussion "mentally ill" is a label which can be freely defined, and therefore such sophistry is irrelevant. I have no intention of justifying or defending this definition further, it is intended merely an explicit statement of what it meant to me when I read the OP, promulgated solely for the purposes of clarifying the argument.]

By that definition, believers are not necessarily mentally ill. However, if the belief led them to become delusional to a level which significantly impaired normal function, then they might become so.

I'm taking "function effectively" to mean something quite mundane here - get up on time, eat, go to the toilet, get the bus to work, do shopping, have a bath, that kind of thing. However, if you take "function effectively" to mean "behave in a way which seems rational to a majority of observers" then this changes things quite a bit. For instance, David Icke would not be "mentally ill" in the first meaning, but arguably might be under the second one.

Does this help to move the discussion on at all? I felt it was going nowhere.

[Allo Allo]

Or you could think more about it :-\

8)

Why? First you would need to think about what mental illness and psychic experiences really are. Then you need to ask yourself can a mind really be ill? The mind itself has no organs. Of course, a brain can malfunction in pathology - but you dont need a pathology for mental illness. You see, if you think about it - to what extent can a 'mind' really be ill (in the sense of the medical model which pertains to organs and physical matter)? There are a hundred of ways to come at a question like that and you seem to have missed 99 of them. :cheesy::cheesy: (only kidding)

Mental illness is not just a deviation from the normal - think about it.

The numbers were irrelevant to the question and debate and they are nonsense in this context.
yes, you have (see above).
Your answers above directly imply it.
You are getting confused between mind and brain. Can the mind be ill - in the absence of a brain correlate of that illness? According to many quarters of Psychiatry - it can.

Grrrrrrrrr! You must be the MOST frustrating person I have met in a long time! You put words into my mouth - you allege I'm thinking what I'm not! You get my brains in a tangle, and my blood-pressure rises! I could scream! And I haven't got time or skill to phrase arguments in the sophisticated ways I see in other people's posts....

When are you coming up to Lancaster/Muncaster/whatever ? I shall meet you somewhere....armed with my rolling pin!

M
:knitter:

[Melanie]

M

Many have tried and failed...

M

[Dr B]

One may or may not like using the phrase "mentally ill" to refer to this state, for instance because the word "ill" normally refers to a physical condition which can be diagnosed by conventional medicine: but for the purposes of this discussion "mentally ill" is a label which can be freely defined, and therefore such sophistry is irrelevant.

Actually - its not irrelevant. There is a serious question underlying whether a mind can be ill and whether thinking about a mind in medical ways actually helps. I would stronly recommend the work of Thomas Szasz on this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz.). It is hardly a small point as it deals with a fundamental concept in the question. Now, i accept it is reasonable to produce a definition for the sake of discussion - but i do not accept that the above is irrelevant - it is a whole debate in itself. It also points immediately to a yes or no answer being insufficient. 8)



I'm taking "function effectively" to mean something quite mundane here - get up on time, eat, go to the toilet, get the bus to work, do shopping, have a bath, that kind of thing. However, if you take "function effectively" to mean "behave in a way which seems rational to a majority of observers" then this changes things quite a bit. For instance, David Icke would not be "mentally ill" in the first meaning, but arguably might be under the second one.

I take your point - but David Icke does hold views that would be classed (by psychiatrists - not me) as delusional and possibly indicative of illness, psychosis, (and possibly some underlying pathology). This actually gets at one of the nubs of the problem. If one can display 70 - 80&#37; of the thought processes regarded by many as delusional, to what extent is their mind ill? Can one be delusional and well? If so, how?


"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#_note-The_Second_Sin) (Szasz)

Think about it.......


PS - ignore the links to scientology - its the issue of definitions and how they come about we need to stay focused on

[Dr B]

Moving on there are other issues (leaving aside the issue of the existence of mental illness).

For example, let us say "no - people who believe they are psychic are not mentally ill"

Now we are faced with explaining how people can have impressions, hear voices, see images and yet - do so without being on drugs, without having a pathology, disease, illness, or condition. I actually endorse this position and approach.

However, around 80-90&#37; (my estimate) of psychic experiences are listed in the DSM as being characteristic of various forms of mental illness, pathology, condition, and disease. How should we view this? What does it mean for these DSM definitions and what does it mean for psychic experiences? Should we concentrate on these similarities or on the differences?

Now consider the other approach - let us say "yes - people who report psychic experiences and strongly believe in psychic phenomena are mentally ill - or at least close to it"

What justifies this position (one I have read many times)? Well, it seems to be based on the similarities of the experiences in both circumstances. Although strange experiences can happen in the absence of mental illness - they are commonly associated with it. Should we ignore this? Is this telling us something?

Maybe, pathology, illness, disease, etc just aggrevates the brain in similar ways to produce these experiences. There are some suggestions of 'cortical irritability' in line with this. If so, what irritates the cortex in the absence of these factors to produce these experiences in otherwise known to be normal people. I have my own ideas - but I am interested in what others here think.

There are no major claims being made here - just fleshing out the issues and problems associated with taking different perspectives. Think of it as a critical thinking exercise and no more. O0

[Dr B]

When are you coming up to Lancaster/Muncaster/whatever ? I shall meet you somewhere....armed with my rolling pin!

M
:knitter:


;D:spank::spank:

[Jocky]

One may or may not like using the phrase "mentally ill" to refer to this state, for instance because the word "ill" normally refers to a physical condition which can be diagnosed by conventional medicine: but for the purposes of this discussion "mentally ill" is a label which can be freely defined, and therefore such sophistry is irrelevant.
Actually - its not irrelevant. There is a serious question underlying whether a mind can be ill and whether thinking about a mind in medical ways actually helps ... i do not accept that the above is irrelevant - it is a whole debate in itself.

It is a whole debate in itself, and of course a valid and important one - and incidentally not one on which I'd venture to disagree with you without doing a lot of reading first, I know where you're coming from :eek3:

However, it is a different debate to that raised by the OP, and irrelevant in that strict sense. As I pondered earlier:


maybe the OP was actually an oblique way of approaching the question "Is there any such thing as mental illness"

You did say:


Pick a definition you want, justify it, and run with it.

So I did. Given that in this context it is a free definition term, I think I'm allowed to venture an answer and then have it addressed in its own terms. You did this by picking up the ambiguity in my David Icke example - perhaps that kind of person is a good case in point, as he would seem to represent the interesting grey area


It also points immediately to a yes or no answer being insufficient. 8)

Absolutely. My response is neither yes nor no, it's "not necessarily".


Can one be delusional and well? If so, how?

That depends on the intended meaning of "delusional", and the extent to which it is synonymous with "mistaken".


"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."
Think about it.......

Interesting ... I will.


Moving on there are other issues ... consider the other approach - let us say "yes - people who report psychic experiences and strongly believe in psychic phenomena are mentally ill - or at least close to it"

To my mind, if they are still functional and law-abiding members of society then there are ethical and political dangers in labelling them as mentally ill. Many terrible infringements against personal freedoms have been justified on the grounds of "he's mad".

However, I now realise that this point is tangential to the more theoretical and academic question you are asking. I'll ponder and post again another day. In the meantime, I'll move over and give someone else a chance!

[Dr B]

I agree with most of what you say - however, the points above are not tangential to the main debate - as you have to be clear on them first before progressing in it. :cheesy: All arguments would then build from those premises and definitions adopted.

Seems odd to me that we are many posts into this and only now is it being acknowledged........ah well......:-\

[Cuddles]

However, around 80-90% (my estimate) of psychic experiences are listed in the DSM as being characteristic of various forms of mental illness, pathology, condition, and disease. How should we view this? What does it mean for these DSM definitions and what does it mean for psychic experiences? Should we concentrate on these similarities or on the differences?

As I understand it, having one, or even a few, symptoms from the DSM does not make one mentally ill. Virtually every person on the planet will experience some kind of hallucination at some point, even if it is something as mundane as mistaking a coat for a person while half asleep. The DSM exists so that people who experience specific groupings of symptoms can be identified as probably suffering from a certain condition. I don't think your point means anything for either psychics or the DSM, since at least 80-90% of people will fit this whether they think they have had a psychic experience or not.

[Dr B]

That is not strickly true.

Mainstream psychological research is now showing how common these experiences are - but the DSM would still suggest a more psychiatric interpretation if an individual displayed many of these attributes.

Obviously one or two would not be a worry - but i have never met a psychic that does not claim all manner of sensations and perceptions including, but not restricted to, night visitations, voices, sensed presence, derealisation, visions, possessions (:cheesy:), etc.

Your suggestion that psychics displaying one or two of these attributes would not be classed as ill is true - but i never said one or two attributes and have never met a psychic that only claims one or two.

The whole point is - if people are going to make the argument that there is more than a similarity between what is classed as mental illness and psychic experience then they need to be clear on what those concepts are and what definitions they are using. They need to be clear on the similarities and the differences. Note - i do not make that argument - i merely think it is a very interesting one to ponder......:-\

[Cuddles]

Your suggestion that psychics displaying one or two of these attributes would not be classed as ill is true - but i never said one or two attributes and have never met a psychic that only claims one or two.

But we're not talking about psychics, we're talking about believers in psychics. There are far more people that believe in this sort of thing than actually think they can do it themselves. There is a huge difference between believing that someone else can talk to ghosts and hearing voices in your own head, the former shows a lack of critical thinking but not any mental illness, while the latter could quite possibly be genuinely ill. Call me cynical, but I tend to believe that even those who report things that are listed in the DSM are either exaggerating or just plain lying. Sylvia Browne might report all kinds of things, but do you really think she believes she is talking to dead people and isn't just making it up?

[Dr B]

Thats an interesting tangential question - whether psychics are just making it up or really hearing / experiencing something. I have to say i do not think all psychics are chalatans - some do genuinely believe in their abilities.

They are, of course, deluded - but not necessarily ill which links back to the OP.

[Dr B]

I still think this thread is interesting - particularly in light of recent discussions elsewhere around here.....

:scared:

[Admin]

Ah yes, this was an interesting thread.

I think the controversy lies between deciding where something is simply an anomalous experience or an indication of psychopathology.

I think it's reasonable to say that perfectly normal* people can have hallucinatory experiences etc., especially when they are suffering stress, without it being a sign of mental illness.

And, those who are definitely suffering from mental illness*, and experiencing hallucinations etc., their anomalous experience (hearing voices or whatever) is often used as a guide to diagnosing their condition.

The difficult task is drawing the line between the two. A person who sees a dead relative's ghost soon after they've died could be explained by the stress they're under due to grief but what about people who see a lot of ghosts but live otherwise normal lives?

One of the defining characteristics of mental illness is that it not just about experiencing non-normal things* but that these things cause harm or an inability to function in some way. What if people see ghosts but feel that it enriches their lives?

What about psychics who often claim all sorts of non-normal powers (receiving messages from dead people, for example)? They usually enjoy their 'powers' and even make a living from them so are they mentally ill?

As we've seen on here recently, they (or at least some of them) are clearly delusional but is that down to underlying psychopathology?

It tends to come down to how 'normal' is defined and how 'psychopathology' is defined.



* which is culturally as well as medically defined

[Zaira]

kath23,

"People do tend to turn to these things in the most extreme manifestations due to some difficult life circumstance or illness. They give people some sense of control."


I would go along with that.

This thread might explain why.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1098


"That's why I feel some of the psychics, healers etc are taking advantage of desperate people."


They could have taken awful advantage of me - thank God for skepticism!

[dalriada]

Utterly Shameless cut 'n' paste from Wikipedia:

"The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers) states that a person cannot be diagnosed as being delusional if the belief in question is one "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture". It is not clear at what point a belief considered to be delusional escapes from the folie à deux diagnostic category and becomes legitimate because of the number of people holding it. When a large number of people may come to believe obviously false and potentially distressing things based purely on hearsay, these beliefs are not considered to be clinical delusions by the psychiatric profession and are labelled instead as mass hysteria"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

[brianp]

"The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers) states that a person cannot be diagnosed as being delusional if the belief in question is one "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture".
To my mind if something would be delusional if believed by one person, then it remains delusional even if believed by millions.

[dalriada]

Indeed. But the difference is, that in that case when labels get handed out majority rules and it's you who'd be the mad one.

And I find that worrying.

That's one of the reasons why I feel the whole paranormal-believing subculture ought to be more of a minority sport than it is at present. It's particularly grieving that there has recently been such a growth in "psychic development and awareness courses". So now we have substantial numbers of people actually prepared spend time, money and effort in trying to achieve some significant signs of psychiatric morbidity...

But the diet industry makes a fortune from persuading healthy people that it's a good idea to look like a famine victim... so maybe there's a parallel. Is this the intellectual equivalent? Is this just about fashion??

Strange days...

:cheesy:

[Zaira]

I read somewhere that hospitals discourage full body scans because even on a healthy person something will be found, something we might have lived quite happily not knowing about. I believe it is the same for the mind, examine any one of us close enough and you'll find a little psychoses and plenty of neurosis.

It isn’t just psychics that are making a fortune out of us.