A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
researchgate.net
A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#2Needs a "(1997)" in the title.
This sort of thing happens all the time, the unusual thing here is that someone wrote it down and got it published.
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#3Needs a "(1997)" in the title. This sort of thing happens all the time, the unusual thing here is that someone wrote it down and got it published.
Fascinating — have any references?
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#4As I was reading this I immediately went for the third explanation given, or a similar variant.
One possible take on it is that the tumour made her plural/multiple. Then her new members wondered where they came from and came up with the tumour explanation, researched treatment, and communicated it back to her main self.
Read this if you haven't heard about plurality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicity_(psychology)
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#5I simply don't believe this. The implication is that some external knowledgable entity communicated with the patient. There's no way to prove what really happened, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the easiest explanations are that the entire anecdote is fabricated; that someone was communicating with the patient through normal means and due to illness she interpreted it as a hallucinatory voice; or that the patient had acquired information about the hospital facilities through normal means and due to illness the memories manifested as hallucinatory voices. In the absense of any evidence to the contrary, I'm going with the "100% BS" option.
If you click through to the actual PDF, it's not a medical paper. It's a collection of anecdotes without evidence, of lower quality than the light medical anecdotes in Discover magazine. This is neither science nor medicine.
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#6As I was reading this I immediately went for the third explanation given, or a similar variant. One possible take on it is that the tumour made her plural/multiple. Then her new members wondered where they came from and came up with the tumour explanation, researched treatment, and communicated it back to her main self. Read this if you haven't heard about plurality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicity_(psyc…
This isn't science. "Multiplicity" isn't real. The Wikipedia article on disassociative identity disorder ("multiple personality disorder") is much more extensive, and while some psychiatrists consider that to be clinically real, the majority don't. There's no evidence of any of it being anything more than an act. It's all crackpot nonsense.
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#7This reminded me of the guy who thought a third party was interfering with his life, and then realized he had CO poisoning thanks to a good person on the internet. And the third party in question was his past self.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/34m92h/update_...
So I wonder...is it possible that this person's memory (of e.g. personal health research) or consciousness was affected by the malady to the degree that she perceived her own past experiences forming into intuitions that were so foreign that she interpreted them as others' voices?
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#8I simply don't believe this. The implication is that some external knowledgable entity communicated with the patient. There's no way to prove what really happened, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the easiest explanations are that the entire anecdote is fabricated; that someone was communicating with the patient through normal means and due to illness she interpreted it as a hallucinatory voice; or…
you successfully restore your worldview and advance to the next stage. achievement unlocked. 10 points
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#9I simply don't believe this. The implication is that some external knowledgable entity communicated with the patient. There's no way to prove what really happened, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the easiest explanations are that the entire anecdote is fabricated; that someone was communicating with the patient through normal means and due to illness she interpreted it as a hallucinatory voice; or…
That's not the easiest explanation, it's just more convenient for you. Burde of proof is on the accuser, you can't prove they fabricated or hallucinated and no one can prove their experience to you. If they learned new information with no prior visits to any one capable of diagnosing them then the easiest explanation is their experience was real, especially give that this phenomena has been observed in other historical cases. Fear of the unknown is also a bias we should be aware of.
Re: A difficult case: Diagnosis made by hallucinatory voices (1997)
#10As I was reading this I immediately went for the third explanation given, or a similar variant. One possible take on it is that the tumour made her plural/multiple. Then her new members wondered where they came from and came up with the tumour explanation, researched treatment, and communicated it back to her main self. Read this if you haven't heard about plurality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicity_(psyc…
This isn't science. "Multiplicity" isn't real. The Wikipedia article on disassociative identity disorder ("multiple personality disorder") is much more extensive, and while some psychiatrists consider that to be clinically real, the majority don't. There's no evidence of any of it being anything more than an act. It's all crackpot nonsense.
calling something crackpot nonsense is unwarrantedly cruel, violates the site's guidelines, shows lack of empathy with people who might believe that and you should stop doing it. thank you
are you unacquainted with the concept of expressing your disagreement without pretending you're better than someone else? if you do that it'll make your point stronger, and should come across as less insecure , less compensating, and less triggered.
you can be right from your point of view and so can someone else, and that's okay. no need to try to trash someone else in the process is there?