Talk:Schizophrenia (disambiguation)

Untitled

The use of the term 'schizophrenia,' in common parlance, to refer to an apparent and/or habitual 'split of the mind,' e.g., in terms of goals and/or intentions, can surely not simply be ignored as 'incorrect' on the say-so of a scientific élite who seem to fail to notice/document it? --londheart 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction is mentioned in Schizophrenia with appropriate links to the with dissociative identity disorder, what are you suggesting we do? (John User:Jwy talk) 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep our cool, for the time being. But are the purveyors of common parlance really thinking specifically about something as clinical as a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, or just making an observation, e.g., of deep-seated, personal inconsistency, which may or may not amount to something pathological? --londheart 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of me are cool :-) (-: I'm mainly looking at this page from the "disambiguation" standpoint, so I would be interested in whether we are missing an entry:

in common parlance, Split Personality

which redirects to the clinical article mentioned. Maybe create an article Split of the mind and mention it here? Frankly, I've only heard is used either as it is described in Schizophrenia or as a split personality (a la Sybil). (John User:Jwy talk) 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not familiar with the common situation where someone becomes frustrated with the apparent contradictions of a colleague or loved one to the extent of calling them 'schizophrenic,' without necessarily pretending to deep or clinical diagnosis? The implication can be quasi-medical, as you're suggesting, or merely an expression of frustration with apparent contradiction, especially where there are consequences for the accuser. I moot a new article entitled something like

'Schizophrenia: common parlance/usage'

attempting to unwrap what is meant in these situations, and drawing attention to the importance of common parlance here and its divergence from the clinical, supercilious(?) way the existing article attempts to wrap it up. --londheart 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, its almost a dictionary or word usage thing - less precise than what someone would look up in an encyclopedia, but its an interesting idea. Maybe a broader section in the Schizophrenia article titled "popular usage" or something, but I imagine you might find some resistance there. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it's a somewhat different, rival usage which challenges and falls foul of the official scientific one in an unusually viable way.

I know what you mean about it being 'a dictionary or word usage thing,' but at the same time it seems to tap into a bigger issue - the interface between scientific terminology and popular reasoning. There sees to be some sort of clash, here, where the popular usage has diverged and gone its own way, in a way which makes perfect clinical sense, and yet which seems largely ignored/repudiated by the diagnosticians, who, in their own way, had already diverged from the mainstream by approaching mental health diagnosis in such a clinical, élitist, obscurantist way. It seems to highlight a shared, social 'schizophrenia' (in my sense), a splitting between science, with its attempt at objectivity (see also Schrödinger's cat) and mainsteam understanding. (I can just imagine Bleuler getting it from his missus: 'You're so schizophrenic! - you're not so clinical about people when you're at home!').

I feel we have to include this definition somewhere in the main article because it has clear(?) ramifications for schizoprenia's stigma, which, incidently, deserves a section of its own. --londheart 08:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other item it sounds like you nee to be careful of is no new research. Whatever you add, they will be looking for citations from existing sources. It can't just be your observations. . . Good luck. (John User:Jwy talk) 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --londheart 13:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Continueddonations 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions

A user has been revert-warring to include the following entry on the dab page:

A state characterised by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements, generally with problematic consequences either for the sufferer or others.

Entries on disambiguation pages exist for the sole purpose of referring users to other Wikipedia pages. This entry is a dictionary definition; it doesn't link to another Wikipedia article so it's not appropriate for a dab page. --Muchness 08:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]