Talk:Folie à deux

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Folie à deux.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Are the delusions transmitted or spontaneous?

I first heard of folie a deux in a film theory class - we may have been talking about one of Godard's early films, or we may have been talking about Heavenly Creatures (Peter Jackson's movie). The point was that, as portrayed in Godard and a few other places, the folie a deux didn't exist before the two characters met. The madness only strikes as a result of the relationship between the two sufferers - it's brought into being by the relationship. It's not that one person has delusions which are then spread to a second. The relationship itself is the cause.

It seems like this definition would be the reason why there's a distinction between folie a deux and the folie imposée mentioned in the article, however, the article itself doesn't make this clear. It could be that my impression is the result of what happens when liberal arts professors start dabbling in medical sciences, but on the other hand, this is probably the context in which most people would come into contact with the concept - as an element in a story.

Looking quickly around Google Scholar, I find this reference to spontaneously appearing "folie simultanee", which seems to be the thing that was described to me, and this article indicates that it's not the most common kind of folie a deux. It does seem to be the kind that pops up the most in works of fiction, though - and is implied by the literal meaning of the phrase, "the madness of two."

Anyone else think there's either room for a literary motif section OR reason for some kind of clarification in the general introduction? --grant (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I altered the definition of folie simultanee to include the spontaneous onset of delusions. But I'm still thinking about the phrasing of the introductory paragraph and the possible inclusion of a literary motif section. --grant (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folie a deux- Shared delusions, visual hallucinations

The following turned up on my talk page. I don't quite understand what the criticism is exactly, but I am recording it here in case anyone else can make it a little clearer:

I don't think you looked hard enough. Try: Medline, Telepathic Hallucinations: A New View of Ghosts-Frank Podmore, London, c1920 & Contacting Ronald K. Siegel, pscychopharamacologist, author of Whispers: Voice of Paranoia. Did you contact Dr.Oliver Sacks? I find this interesting because YOU couldn't find data on shared visual hallucinations, YOU being the EXPERT, deleted the data. How many professional clinical psychiatrists and psychotherapists did you question? How many clergymen? How many family doctors? How many hospitals? You guys kill me! You have extraordinary big heads. Have you ever examined yourself for delusions of grandeur? Put it back. Trust me on this. You only comfortably skimmed the surface. You have established boundaries on your curiosity. The idea seems uncomfortable to you? You are out of your field of expertise. Anonymous-guess why. 6/29/05

-Vaughan 30 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)

I saw this.

I am a registered nurse working outside of Pittsburgh. I saw this psychosis while in nursing school. A state hospital which has since been closed, had a set of Identical Twins, whom we were told had this dx. (Folie a deux) These women were at the time probably in their 50's or 60's and this was in 1979. They wore the characteristic heavy makeup of the psychologically disturbed, and the dominant one, spoke just slightly ahead of the other. They sounded like they were talking in tandem, but if you listened carefully, the dominant one spoke first and was followed in speech identically by the other. So, in conversation, they might come up and say, "do you like my new purse?" and the words would come out seemingly at the same time. One had the feeling that they were speaking completely in tandem and knew telepathically what to say. It was very weird and disturbing to watch. They were very pleasant, but I sometimes wonder what happened to them when the hospital closed. Great website. See: Echolalia added by user: Kazuba 10/10/2014

Famous cases?

Should there be a list of famous cases of folie á deux? Some that have led to murder include Leopold and Loeb who murdered a 14 year old boy, the two Papin sisters in Le Mans who slaughtered their employer, the Parker-Hulme murder in Christchurch, New Zealand in which the mother of one of the pair was killed, the Moors murders by Brady and Hindley. In all cases there appears to have been a sexual bond between the two criminals. Xxanthippe 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've removed the paragraph from the article. It doesn't seem that any of the people listed were diagnosed with folie á deux, let alone had a psychotic mental illness. - Vaughan 07:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan i find that a naive comment. It is blatantly obvious that Brady, West and Huntley were psychopaths and their partners were sucked into their delusional world.--Penbat (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards redirect?

Why does Shared Psychotic Disorder- the accepted and standard name for the disorder- redirect to the colloquial name of the disorder's article? With Bipolar/Manic Depression, and with Dissociate identity/Multiple personality disorders, the antiquated, colloquial name redirects to the standard, clinical name for the syndrome. Per these examples, I suggest we change what redirects where. How do I put this up to a vote? Asarkees 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence for moving article: According to a Google scholar search, [Multiple Personality Disorder] outnumbers [Dissociative Identity Disorder] 112,000 to 5940. Should we move that article back, as well, because more research was conducted on the disorder before it was officially renamed? Just because the name was previously used more in the literature doesn't mean that it is correct to use it now. Asarkees 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Folie à deux → Shared Psychotic Disorder — It is standard for articles on clinical syndromes to redirect from the obsolete name's article to the name that is used in standard practice. For example, see Multiple Personality Disorder (now Dissociative Identity Disorder). Shared Psychotic Syndrome is the classification used in the DSM-IV Asarkees 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support—Standard terminology should be a starting place for naming articles, and contemporary psychiatric practice is the best point to find standard terminology here. Dave 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-:I agreed that standard terminology should be used for naming articles. Shared Psychotic Disorder is not the standard name for this condition. It is the DSM name for this condition. As noted in the article, the ICD, which is the World Health Organisation criteria and is used more widely, uses a different term and includes the name folie à deux. The research literature tends to use the name folie à deux because of this difference in naming. Hence, the idea that Shared Psychotic Disorder is the 'standard name' is rubbish and naming the article after only one type of naming convention is confusing, especially since the actual diagnostic criteria are largely the same. - Vaughan 10:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info. I just looked up the use of these terms on PubMed. Hits for folie a deux: 164. Hits for shared psychotic disorder: 9. Hits for induced delusional disorder: 5. Folie à deux is overwhelming used by the medical community and in the research literature.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Folie à familie

...is the term used in the medical literature. 'Folie en familie' isn't used. e.g. See Bryant's paper or ISBN 0340763884 - Vaughan (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in "In media" section

It makes sense to include media works that explicitly reference the concept of folie à deux. But Bridge to Terabithia? It's a stretch to consider that "shared" fantasy a folie à deux, but that's not the problem: the problem is, unless a reliable source can be found that calls it by that name, it's original research. Chick Bowen 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section is a constant source of trouble. That example, in particular, is troublesome and should go. But, just in general, vague examples should be avoided, for instance, this new album by Fall Out Boy, which is utterly irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck. My previous effort was promptly reverted without comment. Chick Bowen 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone who thought they were reverting vandalism; they should have payed closer attention. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Media

Fall Out Boy's album, coming out December 16, 2008, is named folie à deux. Maybe we should mention it in the In Media Section? ~ DyingxToxLivexAgain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.112.194 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not. The coincidence of them naming their album as they did does not elucidate the topic at all. It is not relevant.

I suggest mentioning the movie Bug, it's all about a case of folie à deux, of a couple that believes in "machines" and "bugs" and ends up comiting suicide. Worth mentioning. 84.90.209.215 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folie à deux is common not rare

I am pretty sure that Folie à deux is common not rare.

There are many obvious Folie à deux double acts involving in murder such as Rose and Fred West, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr.

But I also think that many stable non violent dysfunctional relationships are examples of Folie à deux. Typically one partner has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the other has Dependant Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder and normalises the delusions of the other partner.--Penbat (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help??? =

Okay I'm trying to get to the page about Fall Out Boy's album and it says it's a Fall Out Boy album in the preview text but when I click it it comes to this!!!! HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.76.59 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does garden variety religiosity fit the bill?

This syndrome may very well describe ordinary, everyday, garden-variety, unquestioning religious observance. Making it a MASS phenomenon; not a rare one.

To the extent relious beliefs are all founded in neuroses or psychoses ("I'm OK; you're not" underpinning all Abrahamic beliefs, for example) it might be argued all families steeped in religious traditions suffer from this affliction.

In this form it may be the most common psychiatric condition known, with several billion sufferers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.207.1 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you decided that? That's lovely, but on Wikipedia we don't do original research. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folie a Deux in Identical Twins and More

[1]Kazuba (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [2]Kazuba (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [3]Kazuba (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to exact visual hallucinations and nightmares were sometimes shared by my wife and I when I had severe clinical depression. Emotional contagion? Very strange and memorable experiences. My family doctor told me people rarely speak of having these experiences. He told me the victims do not usually accept these, perhaps once in a lifetime, experiences as visual hallucinations because they are so rare and vivid. Because of the common believe in the supernatural and an afterlife the victims rather emotionally decide these are religious and spiritual experiences. Kazuba (talk)-

Common not rare

Mental disorders are poorly understood. There is no science behind the DSM which defines them. Members vote on disorders to be included in the latest version of the DSM.

Unaware of the cause of these bizarre behaviors none of the authors of the DSM know where one disorder begins or another ends.

There have been several incidents that would qualify for Folie a deux if a simple problem capable of causing psychotic-like behavior in an otherwise normal person, Subliminal Distraction were known by psychiatrists and psychologists.

The first case of believed alien abduction, Barney and Betty Hill and the recent Randy Quaid escape to Canada fearing "star whackers" would qualify as a shared bizarre, almost psychotic belief. Without a known cause of these beliefs, psychosis is only diagnosed when the behaviors begin to effect daily living.

When two people live together they can create a set of circumstances to allow Subliminal Distraction exposure. Identical exposure and a mental break at the same time won't happen. But one person can have the full SD mental break and convince the other person who has significant but lower exposure. They communicate normally but the psychotic-like element is from SD exposure. It's only an issue of length and intensity of SD exposure.

Another example is Culture Bound Syndromes. Ethnic groups experience a mental event in terms of their cultural beliefs. But the mental events are all caused by Subliminal Distraction accidentally engaged by the design of too-small single-room living arrangements. Grisis Siknis happens to Miskito Indians in South America. An outbreak after Hurricane Fredric shows that connection. Subliminal Distraction could happen because the family members were held close together for several days so that when one engaged full mental investment that person would subliminally detect other family members moving in peripheral vision. That allows a massive number of subliminal failed attempts to startle, a Subliminal Distraction.

The mental breaks that happen after a three day ten hour per day seminar from Landmark Education shows that classroom type circumstances will allow Subliminal Distraction to cause mental breaks. There have been psychology investigations since the 1970's trying to find out why LGATS cause mental breaks. There have been three psychotic break suicides connected to LGATS in Australia. (Google Rebekah Lawrence suicide Australia.) (LGATS = Large Group Awareness Training Seminar)

There have been 18 suicides at Foxconn in China and 60 at France Telecom. Political groups blame management and poor working conditions but pictures and video taken by TV news crews show Subliminal Distraction.

I am the copyright holder for VisionAndPsychosis.Net a nine year investigation of Subliminal Distraction. A normal feature in everyone's physiology of sight, it is explained in first semester psychology under the physiology of sight, subliminal sight, and peripheral vision reflexes. Discovered as a problem and solved forty years ago when it caused mental breaks for office workers it is a believed to be a harmless nuisance in the design of crowded close-spaced offices.

Folie a deux is a defined disorder but it's not mental illness.

L K Tucker 24.96.50.245 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Creatures?

I am aware that the Parker-Hulme murder has not been professionally diagnosed as a case of Folie a deux, but the (somewhat fictionalized) account of it by Peter Jackson clearly presents it as that. I understand that the page once had an examples section that was troublesome, but I think pointing out this example in film would do the reader of the article a favor by giving them a link (the old fashioned non-hyperlink kind) to a clear example of Folie a deux protrayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.1.200 (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd buy that. Do you think you can find some published criticism of the film that mentions the folie-a-deux link? -grant (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folie des Foule

"Folie des Foule" translates to "Madness of Crowds" and I believe I am the first person to identify it. There is a form of mental illness called Folie à deux, in which two people share the same delusion. When the entire population shares the same delusion, it can be called Folie des foule. This translates as "Madness of Crowds" How frightening! It can easily be transmitted to an entire population, and frequently is. It is also surprisingly easy to suggest things to an hypnotized mob. This is what has been happening. Some of you will never wake up. There is no key word to do it. You’ll just continue to buy those products and vote for those politicians and take those pills the doctor gives you, and you’ll think what a good citizen you are, as you ignore the consequences of your actions, the people who die as a result of your programmed votes. Interestingly, "Folie des Foule" could also be translated as "Madness of Fools" although accurate, but not nice enough for publication. It can easily be seen in lynch mobs and large groups of sports fans, also in financial circles such as the beginning of the great depression. Once you get the idea, you can see how often it does happen, can't you?24.49.208.107 (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See: The classic study Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay User:Kazuba 12 Oct 2014

24.49.208.107 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathrynTombaughWeber (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

Religion/cults

As mentioned above, presumably this is related to the phenomenon of charismatic religious/cult leaders, public miracles etc. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I should add relevant material to the article. Ben Finn (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folie à deux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Shared delusional disorder

The new article is on the same subject, but there is useful new material with WP:Reliable sources worth merging. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term for shared non-psychotic disorders and relationship to echophenomena

Sometimes the term "folie a deux" is used in the literature to describe case reports where non-psychotic mental/neuropsychiatric disorders get "transmitted" from one person to another. E.g. couples who simultaneously have depression, OCD/tic disorder with the same compulsions/tics, psychopathic traits or the like, and where it is clearly evident that originally only one of the two had the disorder (once they get separated the other person quickly loses these symptoms).

Can such a thing like shared compulsive behaviors be called "folie a deux" when it striktly is no "madness" (folie) by means of psychosis? (You should be able to find examples of such reports by typing combinations of "folie a deux" with terms like OCD, depression, hoarding... in your search engine. This at least was successful for me.)

And, especially when it comes to tics and compulsions, the term "folie a deux" also comes close to a different neuropsychiatric disorder called echophenomenon, which means that one person unintentionally imitates words or movements of another person. If the term folie a deux is generalized to non-psychotic mental illnesses, how is it related to echophenomena (which can be complex as well, e.g. imitating someone's entire body posture and movement "style" or imitating entire phrases that have been spoken, including the tone of voice), and how can the two be distinguished? --2003:E7:7704:B732:804:608C:6076:D8D2 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost very...

The article says:

As with most psychological disorders, the extent and type of delusion varies, however it usually mimics the delusion of the inducer and is almost very similar to it.

I have two problems with that.

Prior to this passage, the delusions have been classified as either imposed or simultaneous; the second part of the passage clearly applies to imposed type, but that should be made clearer.
"almost very"?!? Perhaps a word is missing, e.g. "almost always very"?

--Nø (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it no longer in the DSM?

The article briefly mentions that it's not in the DSM-5 and then never brings that up again. Is there a known reason why it's not in the DSM-5 (given that it was in the DSM-4)? Does the American Psychiatric Association believe it's not real, or it's the same as another named disorder, or that it should be distributed over several other named disorders, or what? David Marjanović (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Allophrenia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Allophrenia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 13#Allophrenia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the delusions *transmitted* or *spontaneous*?