Psychosis research

[Guru Peter Jordanson]

Hi, 

I watched a video clip of a teenager who experienced psychosis. During his psychosis, he said something like his brain started to connect different unconnected stimuli togheter as though they had meaning. Like a shadow, a tree and other things made a connective sense in his brain although it was totally irrational by modern thinking. It reminded me of a part of Leos stage beige or purple video. Where a tribe or person connected random natural things in their perception. Also watched  TedTalk where a researcher had a hypothesis that the reason Schizophrenic hear voices is that humanity once thinked like that i.e. thinking by hearing voices as outside the person, but then the voices develophed into this modern thinking pattern. So some psychotic states are just a suddden experience of a personal stage of purple/beige that are deeply ingrained in the uncouscious. Maybe it is the shadow of a beige/purple state that they are experiencing inwhich the experience becomes negative. As i understand is that every stage is built upon each other, but do we re-experience an lower stage when we are adults? To much info needs to be taken in to understand this or the falsity of it. Guess, my answer is to let go and not attach to this "idea" as factual.

This sounds schizophrenic. A question might be asked on how to avoid being lurked by personal ideas and go strait to the researched facts, or maybe creativity is not a bad thing? How the heck are researched facts holding on to truth. Dwelling on the creativity can be harmful, right?

[Tyler Robinson]

 

That's what basically any psychological diagnosis is.  I wonder if most people recognize this and instead get lost believing there is actually some physical or "real" thing (or perhaps a common underlying thing) called bipolar, schizophrenia, depression, etc..   I think there's a lot of room for refining how we think of psychological diagnoses.

Yet, I would say that how people are diagnosed and labeled by a psychologist/psychiatrist, etc., is a lot more nuanced and refined than, say, your friends or even oneself reading some books or watching some videos and then feeling like they know how to use the terms properly (which I think should include knowing how the terms were devised in the first place-- the method).

Whether one can stop "being a sociopath" is the same as asking whether one is capable of dropping those behavior patterns.

I wonder about this.  Like, whether some psychological disorders can be altered simply by free will etc..  This goes into the whole "what is and isn't possible" debate, rather than the "what's really really really really really hard to do vs. what's pragmatically doable".  Or even I consider maybe some things are just "baked" into the mind.  Hardwired, and are unchangeable.  I imagine that exists, especially in things like psychopathy where they say the actual brain and nervous systems are different than the average person.  Seems like trying make a turtle turn into a bear, though, not as drastic since I have heard of tests where they deliberately train a psychopath to do empathy and they've seen parts of the brain light up associated with empathy.  Though, apparently, permanently inducing that empathy in a psychopath hasn't happened.