I believe you mean mania, not fugue.
He was suggesting more than that. The ideas about the brain somehow consisting of a “reptilian” part and other parts, each linked to different types of feeling and behavior - they are just wild theories. Show me a reputable study.
And I don’t believe that the mental health community takes David Icke seriously, as SmashTheState appears to. It’s David Icke, FFS. That’s an automatic roll d100 credibility penalty, right there.
People go off their meds because they dont know anything other than bipolar disease or depression or simply get lazy. They miss their old destructive mindset. The idea of normalizing scares them because being manic is better than any drug.
Its really unfair to turn the ravings of Ickes and Smash’s trolling into a discussion of some interesting but fringe theories. Regardless, as someone who suffers from hypomania, I hate it. Its worse than depression. Being stuck high all the time is fucking horrible and scary. People without mental illness for some reason like to romanticize those with it. Thats a really naive position. You guys are just wrong. Being balanced is so much preferable its not even debatable in my eyes.
Yes, it is.
I don’t know that I’d say “most”. I’d say “some”. Not to mention the question of whether they were schizophrenic or had another mental illness that caused delusions and/or hallucinations.
There are large bodies of research about every mental illness.
I want a cite for this, and not just any cite. It has to be an accredited researcher following proper scientific procedure and published in a peer reviewed journal.
No. If true (big if) it only tells us that current treatment protocol is wrong.
Define archetypes and prove they are more common in the artwork of schizophrenics.
No. If it were true (big if) it would only show that schizophrenics share a common perception of the worlfd.
cite or retract.
Cite that rage, lust, greed and selfishness originate in the ‘reptilian’ part of the brain.
Cite that the ‘mammalian’ parts of the brain are the source of these emotions.
I am a modern shaman and you know bupkis about the shaman business.
Please stop posting bullshit in GQ.
Really?
This is not merely a fringe claim. It is total nonsense. [modifier] mainstream anthropologists say any such thing. You can take your pick of “hardly any,” “next to no,” or “only a few benighted” as modifiers. They also know the differences between prophets, fakirs, saints, and shamans and their roles and behaviors in various societies and why you can’t smoosh them all together this way.
First, I need to see a site for this claim to know what it actually might say. I don’t dispute the existence of a paper that might say something of the sort. I will also bet you large sums of money that it involved a study group of less than a dozen. And that further research on the subject is non-existent. And that if such a paper exists, it suggests absolutely nothing of the claim that we should be allowing schizophrenics to take their rightful jobs as shamans.
There is a part of the brain that for a while became known as the “reptilian” part of the brain. That silly epithet is being discouraged because a) it’s not and b) it doesn’t function anything like what the popular reductionist view of it said.
The rest of that paragraph has no place in GQ. It’s blather of the worst kind, mere sub-conspiracy theory approbation of pseudoscience. There’s not a word of it that SmashtheState can back up with a particle of evidence.
Right, evidence. You know, that thing that we “dilettante defenders of science” keep referring to that draws blank uncomprehending looks from the spreaders of pseudoscience.
Stop slandering Foucault. Smash’s froo-froo romantic ideas about schizophrenia and the way things used to be have nothing to do Foucault. His head would have exploded before he endorsed any of that.
A bastardized version of Thomas Szasz more like.
If there is someone hear who is uncomprehending, it is neither Smash nor me. In the first place, I’d be interested in hearing your explanation as to how the question “What functions should schizophrenics play in our society” is a scientific question to begin with. This is what I mean by dilettante defenders of science: many on the board have staked out a skeptical/scientific position (more accurately, a pose) because it issues from cultural critique, not from a position of scientific expertise. This is revealed by the fact that they apparently are not able to distinguish between questions that properly belong in the realm of scientific investigation and those that lay outside it. This is not a claim about the supernatural; it is the observation that “What does it mean to be ill?” is not a science question. And so charges of pseudoscience are misbegotten.
Now as to your question regarding who in the mainstream has similar views to what could be called the Neurodiversity Thesis, Foucault has been around long enough to be accepted into the canon and Madness and Civilization and The Birth of the Clinic are among his seminal works. Thus there’s him and anyone who takes his work seriously (a not inconsiderable number).
If you are looking for a JAMA article that says “the Neurodiversity Thesis” is correct, I readily admit, you won’t find it. Because, as mentioned above, it is a question that does not belong to science.
So much is wrong with this. In the first place, if I were out to make you look like an overbearing cite-diva, I could hardly do better than put the above words in your mouth. Find me a cite! And if you do, it will suck! And nobody will have paid attention to it anyway! And it still wouldn’t prove anything!
Your indulgence if I don’t take you up on your offer. But, a question for you: Why would a scientific paper establish “higher functioning” better than the schizophrenic’s own account of which state he prefers? Is this not a very striking inversion of how we normally allow people to organize their own lives as autonomous agents?
From your own cite:
Looks like SmashtheState didn’t get the memo.
Of course, Foucault wasn’t an anthropologist, either. Maybe the two of you should get together and come up with a more coherent story.
I’ll try to make more time for this tomorrow.
I think Icke got his idea about reptilians from reading a LOT of conspiracy papers. It probably goes way back, instead of space aliens, people thought of aliens as maybe looking like reptiles (they are mysterious).
He is not mentally ill though. he writes too well, intelligently, and puts in much humor in his books.
hes not the first to think of shape shifting or reptiles, but has conglomerated most conspriracy theories into one all encompassing mutha.
A good read on a rainy day, I say.
If he’s not mentally ill, he’s managed a good imitation of it.
“In March 1990, while he was a national spokesperson for the Green Party, Icke claims he received a message from the spirit world through a medium, identified by The Guardian as Betty Shine, a medium from Brighton.[9] She told him he was a healer who had been chosen for his courage and sent to heal the earth, and that he had been directed into football to learn discipline…He began to wear only turquoise and on 27 March 1991, held a press conference to announce: “I am a channel for the Christ spirit. The title was given to me very recently by the Godhead.”…In an interview on the Terry Wogan show broadcast 29/4/1991, he announced that he was “the son of God,” and that Britain would be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes.”
There is an element of crazy like a fox in his meanderings. Without his, er, special passion, he’d be just another white-supremacist dabbling, Protocols of the Elders of Zion-spouting apocalypse-is-imminent far-right numbnuts. The shape-shifting lizard thing gives him a special zombie status in his chosen field.
Sorry if I sound crabby. I didn’t get enough time to bask in the sun today.
I’ve read that Ickes isn’t really a white supremist or anti-semite although he has followers in these groups. Both these followers and their opponents assume Ickes is using reptilians as a metaphorical code. But the evidence is he actually means it literally. When he says Queen Elizabeth is a lizard he’s not claiming she’s secretly Jewish - he really does believe she’s a lizard.
Doesn’t mean he’s not an anti-semite, though. Can’t lizards be Jewish?
No, I thought Jewish was a religion, wasn’t there a long thread about that here once?
He actually says the Jews aren’t really Jewish, its the zionists who are propagating the whole well…I don’t know exactly. But its not really the real jews fault, according to him. Go figure.
An intelligent lizard could indeed be Jewish. There might be problems with circumcising a male lizard, but other than that I don’t really see any problems.
A bit off topic there. If hes been tested and not found mentally ill, then hes probably not. Someone needs to see if there are earlier writings belieivng in ‘reptilians.’
The second sentence is meaningless. It is only ‘relatively large’ if you compare it to something that is smaller. Otherwise, it isn’t.
Not particularly. A drug addict often prefers his addiction. But he’s wrong to prefer it.
Smash said “it’s been found” that Schizophrenics who are allowed to listen to their voices are “higher functioning” than those who are treated with drugs. What we’re asking about is the “it’s been found.” It’s been found by whom? If we can’t at least know that, we have no reason to buy Smash’s claim.
Let me preface this by saying that I am extremely disappointed in the many of the responses I’ve received here. The rah-rah materialist cheerleading, the sneering derision, and – worst of all – the anti-intellectualism is disheartening. I don’t know what you believe your sneering and cat-calling is promoting, but it’s sure not science.
I think you’ll find that if you read the DSM-IV casebook, they make very clear that what we regard as “mental illness” is relative to our culture. For example, in Latin American culture, it is expected that if a close family member dies, the family will see and talk to the person’s spirit. While in our culture this would be regarded as a hallucination, not encountering a loved one’s ghost might well be correctly regarded as mentally unwell in theirs. There is no objective standard for mental illness. Even among Western psychiatrists, a condition is not regarded as mental illnes unless it causes distress or interferes with a person’s desired activities.
The majority of Western culture, of which you, presumably, are a part, believes that there is a kindly, invisible, white-bearded old Jewish man who watches their every act to make sure they aren’t masturbating. They talk directly to this invisible man, and often hear responses from him. Since these people are the majority, they define what is “normal.” If you do not talk to the invisible Jewish man, and he does not talk back to you, then you are a sick man and I pity you.
The “crippling neurological disease” which is the vague set of symptoms we call schizophrenia has, until the rise of materialism in the 19th century, been regarded traditionally as a gift. Those affected by it have often been celebrated as saints and prophets, holy men and women who had greater connection to the spirits than those of us not so blessed. I don’t believe shitting yourself to death or beating up your spouse has ever been celebrated as a blessing from the gods. I may be mistaken, however, and await citations to the contrary.
You don’t seem to understand what a “model” is. You were rather certain that my reference to the r-brain was manufactured from whole cloth, so I pointed you in the direction of the model from which is was obtained.
As I believe I previously indicated, schizophrenics perceive directly the archetypes which the rest of us must perceive through a glass, darkly. We manufacture a representative reality from the archetypal symbols, and must resort to psychoactive drugs when we wish to see deeper, past the representations, and into the “self-constructing elf machines” which underly what we call reality.
Soul-making to Soul Retrieval: Creative Bridges Between Shamanism and Psychotherapy. Roberts, Maureen B., Ph.D., Darknight Publications, 1997.
Divine Madness: Schizophrenia, Cultural Healing & Psychiatry’s Loss of Soul. Roberts, Maureen B., Ph.D., Darknight Publications, 2001.
Man and His Symbols. Jung, C. G., Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.
The Undiscovered Self (Present and Future), Jung, C. G., New York: American Library, 1959.
Psychology and Religion: The Terry Lectures. Jung, C. G., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.
Shamans and Acute Schizophrenia. Silverman, Julian, American Anthropologist 69(1):21-31, 1967.
Schizophrenia: the Inward journey. Campbell, Joseph, Penguin Books, 1972.
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes, Julian, Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
Those are just off the top of my head, as I’m familiar with them personally. I could probably find you hundreds, perhaps even thousands of similar citations. As Kimmy_Gibbler has pointed out, my view is shared by at least a large minority and perhaps a majority of psychologists and anthropologists.
What would a “reputable study” of a psychological model look like to you?
I cite… the entire field of psychiatry for the last 100 years. Seriously, I can’t believe this is even an issue. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the psychiatric literature around schizophrenia is aware of this. As I previously states, I could produce at least hundreds and possibly thousands of citations, but a good place to start is to go to Google and type in “schizophrenia shamanism” and see what pops up.
Read anything – literally anything – about art therapy. It takes you ten seconds to shriek “CITE! CITE!” at anything which pricks your preconceptions. It then takes me hours to go through my library and try to find which of the thousands of books over the years have the stuff you want. So no, I’m not going to do your research for you, especially since in this particular case you could crack open any one of literally thousands of texts on the subject and get what you want. The link between schizophrenia and shamanism, and the link between schizophenic artwork and archetypes is not even slightly controversial.
You first.
This is slightly more controversial, so I will try to track down some citations for you. I’ve read so much on the subject that it’s difficult to remember which books contain which claims, so it may take me some time to hunt through them all, and may have to go down to the library for the ones I no longer own. Off the top of my head, I seem to remember the claim about the higher functioning coming from a book by a Freudian psychoanalyst who had spent his career in a mental institution working with schizophrenics, but I’ll have to search for it.
To get back on-topic here, from the Wikipedia article:
So apparently, the series V was a possible inspiration, in addition to the stuff in toadspittle’s link.