Talk:Psychosis

Template:Vital article

On art,"common" versus "frequent" and other cumulative synonymous options.

I make no citations here but combine my apologies, thanks and concise, respectful deference to one authority - who suffered and reverted two rather naive and experimental edits and he hadn't much time for debate - I made a mistake and have learned, but he might know people who can help us to improve the article.

For suggested improvements, neutrality, explanation, reasons and purpose, it is difficult not to write an, "essay" - that's a word via the French on trial and error - and I should apologize in advance for the length of what follows.

I believe that the choice of artwork and artist is good. The picture is a relevant and famous one, loaded with paint and subsequent meaning, it tempts some of us to replace, contrast and compare it with, "The Scream", by Eduard Munch, but there it is.

New to Wikipedia, editing, etc. one first ever, "signed up", edit, to this article, "Psychosis", was defeated and reverted by a reasonable, well qualified and busy body, perhaps a Doctor of Psychology. I accept that, gratefully, but get stuck in a rut, owing to going around in, "catatonic", circles the due, perhaps idiosyncratic notion, that subjects whose objects are, "common", generate commutable, inductive and deductive consistency of affordable, (nominal at least), useful and objective accounts, ring-fenced with common boundaries like sets in, "Venn diagrams"; and be circumspect!

Of course, and sometimes a difference of definition will arise in the English language, (US, UK or, "global", hybrids), whilst either a conservative or radical prescriptive grammar crosses and confuses what the colloquial vernaculars will merely conflate with art. Acceptance of the evolution and usage of words enables us to make sociable choices, but whenever it is written, (or hear it said), that something is, "more common", or, "less common", I become excited, pretentious perhaps, feel about the age of fifty and feel young: people born in 1969, (albeit what, when and wherever, within that year's scope), will at midnight on 31st December 2019, (either precluding or excluding a scarce, legitimate, yet ambivalent party), conclude at one of its ends that their common age is fifty, approximately. Wait a minute, that does, it makes that age more common... - (you think you live!)

Above, is an awful attempt by one editor to explain and apologize to any other for any error of protocol or etiquette made at this stage. Yet improving the, "psychosis", page of the encyclopedia was the original and quintessential purpose. (A perhaps uncommon notion of what, "common", means was a complimentary distraction). But we have our rules and I think the idea is that we all have them.

The aim was otherwise to add a non-psychological, philosophical, but neutral context in which citations complimentary to - but not involved in - contemporary professional psychology could be made, in order to enrich and soothe the public perception of the problem of psychosis.

With all due respect to the humanity of the medical models, professions present and their post-modern predicament, would they not expect some sociological criticisms of psychiatry to be similarly analytical, astute and yet wise to their own historical and potential errors? If neutrality is to be achieved here, balance is required. Within the extant article we are lent some minimal insight into one major problem: that psychosis may be a populous and cultivated social norm. It would not be helpful of a psychological perspective on psychosis to endeavour to prove itself psychotic nor to, "beg the question", and yet evasion of that potential may have generated some suspicion within artistic, cultural or sociological perspectives on psychosis and psychology, resulting in useful contributions on our subject which politely and respectfully avoid psychology.

Inspired by the Artist, would a qualified graduate in Sociology, Philosophy, Theology, all or any, assist me in providing the Psychologists with some attributes, aspects and elevations, portraying the contentious nature of the subject, "psychosis", and written in a well mannered alternative mode?

The given article is authoritative and pretty smooth so far, but it is rather one-eyed and mono-logical, and perhaps a little more or less than neutral, since that authoritative style, of well informed, "life-science", (physics-chemistry-biology), writing, may seem to be paradoxical, even contentious and adversarial, to socially and artistically motivated culture critics. The writers and prior editors of it are not naive to the limits of their own areas of experience and expertise. This editor, alongside various well meaning professionals feels naturally, (although pathologically), qualified with experience of its meaning, but too unprofessional and intrusive to write from those otherwise complimentary perspectives. Since a self-portrait, a landscape or street-scene, any of those achieved by a dead artist, will have been limited by the materials and technique available to the artist at the time, and a still-life is no less lively post-mortem; while taking nothing away from what has been written by psychologists, can we consider the social and political circumstances of the arising of the psychological terminology here? Without the artwork, the entire article lacks cultural depth and in a sense merely represents an ideal conversation between one ubiquitous Doctor and one patient or carer. That Doctor has time after time prompted us to consider here, on a rock in the middle of nowhere, (sometimes regardless of etiology), the differences between the social, the solitary, the scarce, the abundant, the isolated and statistical human, but in taciturn maintenance of one eye only. I had hopes of interacting with the experts here, simply by forging a connection to their work through any correction of simple linguistical compromise. I have since then hoped again, after finding the, "talk-page", button and exploring this question of art. I studied art in order to like what I see until I matured my sense of its evolving definition. But I think it is useful, interesting and beautiful here. Please don't think it morbid. There is a self portrait on the Van Gogh page for that!

Poor old Vincent Van Gogh lived for a while and he and his work can be seen to be boldly indifferent to much of what hindsight has learned of his circumstances. Although perhaps unintentional of the artist it is gathered to be suggestive of a sense of place, yet one which extends beyond the scope of its subject matter in video, through the resultant economy of expression and raw materials and its removal from his minute and withered estate; to the effect that it is, nowadays, almost sublime and symbolic. Don MacLean's post-modern, popular song about the painter and the painting raised awareness of the disparate beauties of art and artist, and having taken the available picture to the listeners of the late twentieth century it compels our millennial attention to the longevity of his expression in contrast with the bare bones of mortality. But that disposition is similar with regard to so many other profound works and contemporary cases, none of which can account for them all. The art of that time develops in us a sense of aspect, and entrance or exit, at the edge, or on the face of, a vaguely familiar but fledgling state of our current affairs. So it may prove important here to rigorously, vigorously and vaguely, citing its creed and critics, identify a contemporary, "paradigm shift". For example, one might say that at some historical time - having identified various works and authors of published scientific papers with titles at particular places and appropriate dates: modernity, during the European Enlightenment, late modernity, afterwards - a conscientious transition is made from what was called, "clinical judgement", (which rested seasonably in the zodiac), to, "medical science", (the last word there being the operative term), which could leave neither ill nor well alone at that. Yet, if professionally possible, one might add that both pharmacological psychiatry and psychoses seem to occupy the same modern temporal space or bridge as post-modern neurology and psychology as a whole, and that in a perpetual feedback phase of ambivalence toward both the scientific method and the former clinical judgement, enduring which each neutrality envies its adversary's specious metaphor, day in day out. It is commonly there that we find ourselves metaphysical, psychological and even psychotic; but most naturally apt to comment, reply, query and edit all accounts.

This is not an expression of opinion but, within the confines of the article's encyclopedic purpose, after paraphrasing it potentially digresses and neatly spirals, like Van Gogh's sky, pulling the rough edges of the concept of psychosis into the wider context.

Sorry for butting in again. I believe this is a marginally better way to proceed. I might try to add something of use to the articulated bones of contention but that's about the size of it.

Ah well and bereft, thank you Doctors, patients and time.

Jonathan Colkett 03:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Colkett (talk • contribs)

Okay what reference are you proposing to use to improve what text?

Psychosis is not a symptoms of "social conditions" or at least not per the ref in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential literary references from outwith the accepted and essential psychological domain:

"...drawing on the lives and ideas of some of Europe's most celebrated writers, from Auden to Zola with stop-offs at the likes of Darwin, Kafka, Orwell, Proust and Weil along the way." - I'm on it! - Notice that the Wikipedia/Microsoft (don't know which) spellchecker, so far recognizes all of those writers' names apart from the woman! Jonathan Colkett 12:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I regarded "social conditions" as implicit to the source material but better explicit in the Wikipedia context. Jonathan Colkett 12:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"...abnormal condition..."

These two words seemed to me at first to be in the wrong place. Psychosis itself is not in fact abnormal. Where psychoses are abnormal they are symptoms of the nominal conditions given in the appropriate positions further down the Psychosis page. The use of "abnormal" in the first sentence is perhaps innocent: the phrasing and choice of words rubs well and we are in no doubt as to what the abnormality may be attributed. But, (and it's a big but), prudence warns that it really doesn't belong top-left of the page because a great many readers will look no further before scrolling.Jonathan Colkett 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes psychosis is abnormal... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Psychosis is a psychological, psychiatric term, as are symptoms and abnormal. Don't delete the term's definition or make up your own definition. Changing the related vernacular is not up to any of us. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I will not delete anything because I am mot "edit-warring", I promise. I am just new to all of the mechanics of Wikipedia. You are aware, no doubt, that the necessity of citation of sources is particularly relevant here in line with aspects of what we know nominally as the "Scientific Method". Although that is a bit grandiose, it is perhaps because it is popular and reliable. I know what you mean. But I am not sure that psychiatry, (which sustains clinical judgement and is not, we hope, commonly thought nor statistically proven to be medical science) is our best source. (I am not trying to avoid NPOV here), but without the broader psychology, (thank you), it has a latent tendency to promote paraphrasing presentations of its references and to be used by readers, (where the encyclopedia is apt to inform debate), merely to "beg the question".

What do you think of this question of the "usage" definition of "common" in this tight and global context? - Jonathan Colkett 22:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Yes psychosis is abnormal..." I suspect that here a question of belief arises, I don't mean to turn the thing on its head but I find your affirmative statement unproven and contentious. Where I sit it is commonly thought to be a little too early to say, but okay, I will leave it alone and respect that, for now. - Jonathan Colkett 05:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy

That's my name. I apologize for the confusion, but nowhere in the Wikipedia rules or forum is there a statement which insists that ontological sources be exclusively or intrinsically inferior or superior to epistemology. "Welcome the new guy", however, it is not correct to react to an ontological statement made on the talk page only in the manner which a dependency upon epistemology, (falsifiable, cited sources), often exclusive and vital to medical sections of any main page, might seem to license or permit. I am aware that this is not a social networking site and also that it is necessary to think carefully about what we are saying here. You will be busy but perhaps then a bit hasty. I have plenty of time. For falsifiable accounts to be falsified the vernacular must be sustained, point taken, and again I apologize. - Jonathan Colkett 23:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

These two are often confused and conflated, even in some of our potential medical source material. Although the two words are given as a pair in a heading in the main article here, the subsequent material does little to discern the one from the other. Symptoms would be those aspects of any condition which are impressed in a manner which requires that the patient informs of the effect. Signs would be other attributes which are expressed, self-evident and present on the face of things. I say, "would", because that is an over-simplification: a, "polymorphous light eruption (PLE)", as distinct from a, "heat rash", can be discerned by the trained eye of a doctor or nurse and its appearance may be recorded both as a sign and as a symptom; strictly speaking, however, the red spots on the skin constitute a sign, common symptoms are the itch and the urge to scratch. Discerning signs from symptoms is going to be important. "Inappropriate behavior", may be a sign of psychosis but can occur alongside other signs for a vast number of other reasons, and it certainly is not a, "symptom". One problem is that our cited sources in psychiatry, (clinical judgement), have formed a disorderly queue for ratification or corroboration by broader psychology and medical science. Sorry for my lacking quoted source material here on the talk page, the abundance of material necessitates that we refine our search. It is with regard to this that I think there is room for improvement to the good work already achieved on the main page. It is possible that the result will be more concise allowing room for anthropological, sociological and cultural perspectives. - Jonathan Colkett 04:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis

The NIMH says currently "Psychosis may be a symptom of a mental illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but there are other causes, as well. Sleep deprivation, some general medical conditions, certain prescription medications, and the abuse of alcohol or other drugs, such as marijuana, can cause psychotic symptoms."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really appropriate

The last bit here

"Psychosis has many different causes artificially concluded by psychiatrists and neurologists"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, the former version is what DSM-5 mentioned. Please refer to DSM-5 page on 823 - 824.--Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait... the reference book should be Arciniegas, David (2018). "24 Psychosis". The American Psychiatric Association Publishing textbook of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing. p. 823-824. ISBN 978-1-58562-487-4. OCLC 1029092449. Clinical tradition in psychiatry and neurology generally divides the psychoses into two broad categories: primary and secondary...Primary psychoses define the schizophrenia spectrum disorders (e.g., delusional disorder, schizotypal disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder) and arise in mood disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder) and other idiopathic psychiatric disorders. Secondary psychoses , in contrast, are associated with developmental, degenerative, and acquired neurological conditions such as adrenoleukodystrophy, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body diseases, stroke, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and autoimmune encephalidities, among others...that division of psychoses into primary and secondary types is artificial,... I was misled by the wording DSM-5 on the cover. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Were did this text "artificially concluded by psychiatrists and neurologists" come from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

that division of psychoses into primary and secondary types is artificial,.--Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

But that does not equal "Psychosis has many different causes artificially concluded by psychiatrists and neurologists"?

The exhaustive list also belongs in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You sound reasoable. I agree that my paraphrase that attempted to simplify the referenced paragraph can lead to misunderstanding. And I will expand it in the body of the article. What I inferred from the reference was that one psychosis can have different interpretation between psychiatry and neurology. Perhaps both specialty need more communication with each other IMO. Thanks for the concern, Doc James. :) --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)