On 9/7/2026 at 10:14 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Why is that the case?

Even in the developed world, people with psychiatric disorders are still occasionally called psychos while people with type 2 diabetes don't get called "pancreatos".

I would like to suggest that at least one of the reasons is that we do not differentiate as to solutions between psychotic personalities, obsessive compulsive personalities, slow thinkers, and simple depression -- which are very different problems. In this thread, all of these and more have been mentioned implying that these problems are similar, or the same, and could possibly be resolved in the same way, which is of course nonsense. They are very different problems requiring very different resolutions.

Another reason is that some problems are accepted and some are not. I believed that my Aunt was mentally retarded for most of my life, then finally learned after she died that she was actually schizophrenic. My family told me that she was retarded because that was more acceptable than schizophrenia, but her school records that we found after she died told us that she was no where near retarded. She was very bright and valedictorian of her class. Did you know that high IQ, genius, and schizophrenia all tend to run together in families? Coincidence?

On 9/7/2026 at 11:11 AM, exchemist said:

The term "psycho" refers to a psychotic individual, that is, one who has lost contact with reality and reason to a significant degree, perhaps with delusions or hallucinations and so forth. This is quite upsetting to encounter and deal with. How are you supposed to respond if a person tells you there are voices in his head, telling him men in black are out to get him?

You respond by talking to him about the reality around him, but never scaring him. Avoid anger, fear, and argument, while pointing out the pleasant and good things in your surrounding reality. Eventually this should pull him out of the delusion long enough to get treatment/help.

On 9/7/2026 at 1:01 PM, TheVat said:

What Ex said. I had a job for a while that involved helping people with behavioral problems connect with their community so I was aware of the stigmatization.

In my work, I met one such person, and it was quite difficult - I would feel a chill of fear in their presence, some deep instinct to get away ASAP. I recall meeting a friend a short time later and she asked me why my hands were cold. I am unsure if medicine can ever heal someone who is so broken in that way, but I would like to think it's possible.

I don't think that sharing your terror with the general public is a very good way to help your patients/clients avoid stigmatization, no matter what you would like to think is possible. I'm guessing you didn't work there very long.

On 9/7/2026 at 1:11 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

@exchemist @TheVat:

Thanks for answers. I am myself of the opinion that this stigma will only disappear when psychiatry gets advanced enough that all or nearly all cases - including severe ones - get caught in childhood or adolescence and treated so successfully that the people in question never experience symptoms after that.

But that will not happen probably for the next 15-20 or even 25 years, neuroscience simply isn't advanced enough yet.

I very seriously doubt that psychiatry is going to come up with many answers. A hundred years ago, in Hellen Keller's time, they were locking people up together with TB patients, syphilis patients, mentally retarded, psychotic, deaf, and just plain willful people in institutions. Seventy years ago, they were still giving people with mental disabilities shock treatments and ice baths -- I know because my Aunt got them. I suppose I should be grateful that she wasn't given a lobotomy, although that may have been because we could not afford the surgery. In short, psychiatry has not been fixing people with mental disabilities, it has been making these people more acceptable to the general population.

Psychiatry is testing a whole new crop of medicines through our jail system, which encourages criminalizing abhorrent behavior and enriches pharmaceutical companies. I think a change of attitude of the general population is required.

Gee

12 minutes ago, Gees said:

don't think that sharing your terror with the general public is a very good way to help your patients/clients avoid stigmatization, no matter what you would like to think is possible. I'm guessing you didn't work there very long.

What a bizarre personal attack. This was a completely anonymous account of a social work job held thirty years ago (where I was considered a skilled and caring staff member) whose entire point was that psychopathy is uncommon and is notably different in affect from other mental health challenges. And, again without going into particulars of geography or identity, my discomfiture was something passing which I adjusted to in future work. The encounter described did not stigmatize, it was to elucidate that some rare forms of neurodivergence will present a challenge for the ordinary person. The takeaway is that most encounters are far less fraught than that cited and allow much greater connection.

Your comment seems typical of some of your posts where you make pronouncements based on minimal knowledge and hasty judgments outside your areas of expertise. This is not advisable on a forum where many members do have professional training and expertise in a variety of fields.

On 9/9/2026 at 1:39 AM, Gees said:

I wonder how many people have criminal arrest records for things like disturbing the peace, simply because other people are afraid of them. If you meet someone like this, try to remember that he may not be able to respond well to you, but you can listen and respond to him. Tell him to look around, there are no men in black, zombies, etc., in the room. He is safe. Always let him know that he is safe.

More of your amateur advice. And some of that is not well-informed on the best way to engage. For example, telling someone prone to paranoia that there are no MIB or zombies around has the potential to direct their attention to the possibility that such entities exist - and may not serve to make them feel safe. Please do not spread your unprofessional and half baked notions here - no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

I mean, there could be patients who are hypochondriacs shopping around for an illness, but I feel the writer is pretty one-sided on the verdict we should be reaching about various conditions.

I quick-skimmed the article and the impression I got was that author kind of tried to thread the needle between underdiagnosed conditions and the very prevalent self-diagnoses within online communities which are not really supportive but rather propagate conditions similar to fashion trends, which ultimately is destructive. I think at some parts it does read as if the author is conflating both a bit. This is probably just my bias, but my guess is that the author might be from the somewhat younger generation, and is more immersed in internet-culture and causing this imbalance. I think most older folks would have an opposite view, i.e. emphasizing the issue at the expert (i.e. MD) interface, and see the internet thing more as an odd phenomenon rather than the core reality. Again, it is entirely possible that my read is off, but if one is immersed in the TikTok culture where low attention span is an automatic ADHD diagnosis which needs accommodation, I kind of get where the bias in the reporting might come from.

Moreover, if the author was a fairly recent graduate from uni, they will also likely have experienced the glut of formal accommodations that profs now have to offer students for things like ADHD. And I do think that for some of these conditions, even with formal diagnosis, accommodation might not be the best way to serve the individuals.

But I should add that there is indeed a weird online culture where non-formal diagnoses are presented as quirky personality traits and where apparently whole engagement bait structures are built around them. It really feeds into my assumption that folks have lost touch with reality. The issue I do see is that there are legitimate support communities who try to help folks with chronic but undiagnosed conditions. But the lack of rigor and the immediate rush to TikTok any diffuse symptom is likely going to muddy the water more than being helpful.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What a bizarre personal attack.

That is what I thought.

Your bizarre personal attacks on me having been consistent for weeks now. How did you ever get the idea that your attacks were warranted? Is it because I didn't fight back? If I don't state that I think you are full of BS, that means that I accept your nonsense? Is that what you think? You may know about science, but when you are in the Philosophy forum, you are usually quoting someone else or talking out your backside. Do you even know the difference between science and philosophy? I will give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the "blender" you alluded to.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This was a completely anonymous account of a social work job held thirty years ago (where I was considered a skilled and caring staff member)

A job, not a profession, which you worked for a very short time? As I alluded to. Maybe they didn't know you gossiped about the clients.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The encounter described did not stigmatize, it was to elucidate that some rare forms of neurodivergence will present a challenge for the ordinary person.

Like we didn't know that already.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The takeaway is that most encounters are far less fraught than that cited and allow much greater connection.

The takeaway is that psychotic disorders can be very frightening, because psychotic people can be very frightening. Any other conclusion that you come to is bullshit. You should not lie to a person, who has spent a lifetime studying truth. Even if you are not called on it, that does not mean that your lies are accepted, even when you do not know you are lying.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Your comment seems typical of some of your posts where you make pronouncements based on minimal knowledge and hasty judgments outside your areas of expertise.

What do you know of my areas of expertise, knowledge, or judgement? I'll tell you what I know about yours. You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. You follow the accepted standard and popular truths, whether they are true or not -- because it is safer.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This is not advisable on a forum where many members do have professional training and expertise in a variety of fields.

But not you. Not in Philosophy, or in psychiatry, and definitely not in psychology.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

More of your amateur advice. And some of that is not well-informed on the best way to engage. For example, telling someone prone to paranoia that there are no MIB or zombies around has the potential to direct their attention to the possibility that such entities exist - and may not serve to make them feel safe.

Since I have decades of engaging with delusional people, I think you are wrong.

The mention of men-in-black was in response to another poster's question about a delusional person worrying about men-in-black (Exchemist). Maybe you are having a reading problem, or is it comprehension?

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Please do not spread your unprofessional and half baked notions here - no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

Good advice. Maybe you should take it.

Gee