Talk:Clanging

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Clanging is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Association with bipolar?

Are you sure it's associated with bipolar disorder?

Why did I read that it's one manifestation of schizophrenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybooboo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on this... editing the article now to present clanging as symptomatic of general psychosis. Newsmare 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUBTLE LOGIC ERROR

In psychology and psychiatry, clanging or clang association refers to a mode of speech and logical association to two or more words primarily based upon word sounds when no logical association between the words exists.

Trouble is, it is practically impossible, on the one hand, to construct any kind of sufficiently logical argument based on reasonable interpretations of the laws of physics and various reasonable facts in such as way that you don't bump into unrealistically difficult intractable problems!

Yes: there is no logical association that you can think of (and in many cases, are capable of coming up with.)

Problem is that a sufficiently creative mathematical logician with enough time on his hands, enough of a grasp of the fundamentals of basic science, given nothing else better to do, most likely can come up with a very large number of clever, complicated and insightful logical connections to any reasonable level of rigour that is acceptable in mainstream science. In practice they have better things to do, but 'in practice' arguments are hard to fit into classical logical arguments in the kind mentioned here.

This is a very subtle difference from 'no logical association', but people who deal with this sort of thing need to be aware of such things when dealing with something as complicated as human behaviour, since in the case of human behaviour, little things like this can matter if the person who is having the 'clang associations' is actually aware of the issues that this sort of thinking can bring up.

(p.s. I did do my PhD research in pure maths and mathematical logic and finding interesting ways of playing around with them ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allsup (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote the second paragraph is kind of an elitist asshole.

Please remember to be polite, avoid personal attacks, and sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). DemonicPartyHat ^{TALK TO ME!} 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Sources. None.

No sources are cited for any of this information. A cursory Googling of "clanging psychology", "clanging psychiatry", "clang pscychology" and "clang psychiatry" doesn't result in anything to boost confidence. Or even to lend credence. So, is this a real, recognized pathological behavior, or is there another explanation for this entry? --Son of Somebody (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

There's a "citation needed" following the passage:

An example of a clang association, as spoken by a person experiencing a hypomanic or manic bipolar episode could be "he raged at the hypocrisy of the aristocracy democracy." While the sentence masquerades as a sort of sharp criticism of a democracy which has gone aristocratic and the hypocrisy of such a change to a democracy, the sentence itself, is patently absurd.

What is a citation needed here for? The example is given as a hypothetical case, not a quote. In any case, if the citation is supposed to justify the aptness of the example, the CN should probably be moved to earlier in the sentence. 174.113.192.217 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the CN should be removed. I'd additionally argue that the sentence would in fact be praised if it came from a poet, not a psychotic person; it does not seem, as the author states, "patently absurd." DemonicPartyHat ^{TALK TO ME!} 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve this page

The context of the page and the page itself could use revision and also more information on the topic. Also you could list the resources you used.--Brendan2131 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on how to improve this page.

My revision to how to improve this page was adding how it could use revision. So I added the part where the revision could use more information on the topic. --Btblick (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-hop?

The description of this thought disorder seems to imply hip-hop and poetry in general are the product of people with extensive cases of clanging. 173.88.229.241 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word.199.64.0.253 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.253 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligible Wording

The section "Explanations for Clanging as an FTD" contains sentences that range from awkwardly worded to utterly unintelligible. My guess is that they were written by someone not fluent in English. Sadly, I cannot correct them myself, as the journals cited after the sentences in question require a paid subsctiption.FTDEdit DestroyerOfSense (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steuber?

This article references Steuber multiple times but does not explain who/what Steuber is, and the reference [2] at the bottom links to this article, not to an external source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.178.167.185 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]