pejahanako's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.5
A comprehensive lesson on the basis of delusions, including neuroscientific and social theories. Everything was explained clearly, although there was some repetition of facts that became boring.
Lots of interesting content overall and I enjoyed the case studies interspersed throughout (although the content of the book v.s. the case studies was somewhat disjointed).
Lots of interesting content overall and I enjoyed the case studies interspersed throughout (although the content of the book v.s. the case studies was somewhat disjointed).
kaleovens's review against another edition
3.0
A deeply pleasant and considered book on a difficult and easily sensationalized topic.
Provides a summary of clinical psychology (good and bad) before a reasoned discussion of how mental illness is a concrete physical medical disorder that manifests in abstract and confusing ways.
The authors had a personal experience in how discussing symptoms of mental illness can be sensationalized by the media. They have clearly tried both to learn from it and undo some of the unwitting damage done (in their name) to the public discussion of mental health.
A worthy investment of time and thought in the broadening of compassion and understanding towards those suffering from mental illness.
Provides a summary of clinical psychology (good and bad) before a reasoned discussion of how mental illness is a concrete physical medical disorder that manifests in abstract and confusing ways.
The authors had a personal experience in how discussing symptoms of mental illness can be sensationalized by the media. They have clearly tried both to learn from it and undo some of the unwitting damage done (in their name) to the public discussion of mental health.
A worthy investment of time and thought in the broadening of compassion and understanding towards those suffering from mental illness.
val_halla's review against another edition
4.0
There's a lot of interesting information in here, but it occasionally diverges into tangents.
mesy's review against another edition
3.0
So this book is more for one who knows a little bit about psychology that is geared towards psychosis. I pretty well versed in the arena due to personal interest and at times I had to reread a section of the book to better understand it. But I still enjoyed the book. Clunky at times, yes but the case studies in the chapters were just plain pleasant to read. I would recommend this book to those that want a look into delusion and how while there is a biological component there at the same time shows cultural and environmental factors that intertwine how delusions manifest.
Reading about the Trueman show was interesting as I have heard of both the show and this delusion. It is quite impressive what the mind can do to itself to protect itself. Delusions are apart of that and it goes from little to extreme.
Reading about the Trueman show was interesting as I have heard of both the show and this delusion. It is quite impressive what the mind can do to itself to protect itself. Delusions are apart of that and it goes from little to extreme.
atschakfoert's review against another edition
3.0
The title of this book is slightly misleading. Overall, it's more a history of madness and, specifically, delusions. The authors do talk about how culture can affect madness, but they really don't delve very deep and mostly focus on what delusions are and the various ways they've been treated and categorized over the years.It was still interesting. Just not quite what I thought it would be.
blackoxford's review against another edition
3.0
The Enduring Mystery of Psychosis
As the old advert promoting advanced education used to say, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” It is frightening to consider how close we all are to the epitome of the wasted mind that is psychosis. If we are lucky enough to avoid psychosis in early life, we are still likely to have friends or family members who seem to just leave the domain of sanity and mentally inhabit some other region. And there is always that longer term threat of dementia to contend with. Whatever place those with advanced Alzheimer’s emigrate to, it represents a sort of hell to those left behind.
The central concept underlying a diagnosis of psychosis is ‘delusion.’ The psychotic, it is said, lives in a world of delusion. Psychiatry and psychology have come up with various classifications of these delusions, usually keyed on human desires and fears - power/impotence, sex/violation, reputation/disgrace, etc. The content of these delusions, researchers claim, vary by culture and epoch, but their form (a somewhat malleable term) remains constant. The most influential current theories about these delusions, according to the Golds, all centre on the social desire to belong, to be a valued member of society. Part of the rationale for such theories is that social cohesion is an evolutionary necessity. We can be driven mad by our intense personal drive to be part of a psychically as well as physically supportive community.
The authors suggest at several points that there are many more psychotics, and people on the verge of psychosis, than medical science has yet identified. One can hardly avoid referring to QAnon conspiracists, anti-vaxxers, and supporters of the Big Trump Lie of a stolen election as confirmation of the suggestion. A poll out this week shows that approximately half of all Americans believe in at least one of the various fantasies circulating on the internet - from Hillary Clinton’s sex-trade in children, to the toxicity of vapour trails and 5G, to Mike Lindell’s rants about Chinese vote-flipping. Delusion is obviously rampant. Or to put it another way, many Americans have found the home they’ve always dreamed of.
Or delusion might be rampant if only we could be sure about what psychosis (or more broadly, mental illness) signified. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a 500 page Bible for the profession. The DSM lists the detailed symptoms of almost 300 named mental disorders along with helpful hints about what ‘therapies’ (mostly drugs) might be indicated. The rub is that psychiatrists have almost no idea how and why these therapies affect brain chemistry. The DSM taxonomy has no basis in biology. It is purely a lexicon of symptoms. As the authors note, “… we still don’t have anything like a theory of mental illness that is good enough even to be wrong.”
Even more worrisome is that the idea of ‘delusion’ is fundamentally undefined. According to the DSM, “a delusion is a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.” The editors of the DSM have clearly had a defective training in philosophy to put such a statement in print without embarrassment. What constitutes proof? Who determines this? When does stubbornness become delusion? And what is this vague criterion of ‘almost everyone?’
So I can understand the Golds’s central question: “Which of the myriad irrational beliefs that people have are delusional? In our view, this is the most important ignored question in the study of delusion.” I agree. But then I hit an intellectual dead end with their claim: “Our answer, in brief, is that delusions are symptoms of a disorder in a mental capacity whose function is to navigate the threats of social living. What distinguishes them from other bizarre thoughts is their origin in this mental capacity.” Come on guys. Disorder of a mental capacity? Isn’t that where we started? The term moves the quest on not an iota.
That one man’s delusion is another’s cause is obvious. The distinction is one of politics not science. This is obvious from the history of the psychiatric discipline itself. Delusion, it seems, might be the fundamental principle not only of psychosis but of the psychiatric profession as well.
As the old advert promoting advanced education used to say, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” It is frightening to consider how close we all are to the epitome of the wasted mind that is psychosis. If we are lucky enough to avoid psychosis in early life, we are still likely to have friends or family members who seem to just leave the domain of sanity and mentally inhabit some other region. And there is always that longer term threat of dementia to contend with. Whatever place those with advanced Alzheimer’s emigrate to, it represents a sort of hell to those left behind.
The central concept underlying a diagnosis of psychosis is ‘delusion.’ The psychotic, it is said, lives in a world of delusion. Psychiatry and psychology have come up with various classifications of these delusions, usually keyed on human desires and fears - power/impotence, sex/violation, reputation/disgrace, etc. The content of these delusions, researchers claim, vary by culture and epoch, but their form (a somewhat malleable term) remains constant. The most influential current theories about these delusions, according to the Golds, all centre on the social desire to belong, to be a valued member of society. Part of the rationale for such theories is that social cohesion is an evolutionary necessity. We can be driven mad by our intense personal drive to be part of a psychically as well as physically supportive community.
The authors suggest at several points that there are many more psychotics, and people on the verge of psychosis, than medical science has yet identified. One can hardly avoid referring to QAnon conspiracists, anti-vaxxers, and supporters of the Big Trump Lie of a stolen election as confirmation of the suggestion. A poll out this week shows that approximately half of all Americans believe in at least one of the various fantasies circulating on the internet - from Hillary Clinton’s sex-trade in children, to the toxicity of vapour trails and 5G, to Mike Lindell’s rants about Chinese vote-flipping. Delusion is obviously rampant. Or to put it another way, many Americans have found the home they’ve always dreamed of.
Or delusion might be rampant if only we could be sure about what psychosis (or more broadly, mental illness) signified. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a 500 page Bible for the profession. The DSM lists the detailed symptoms of almost 300 named mental disorders along with helpful hints about what ‘therapies’ (mostly drugs) might be indicated. The rub is that psychiatrists have almost no idea how and why these therapies affect brain chemistry. The DSM taxonomy has no basis in biology. It is purely a lexicon of symptoms. As the authors note, “… we still don’t have anything like a theory of mental illness that is good enough even to be wrong.”
Even more worrisome is that the idea of ‘delusion’ is fundamentally undefined. According to the DSM, “a delusion is a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.” The editors of the DSM have clearly had a defective training in philosophy to put such a statement in print without embarrassment. What constitutes proof? Who determines this? When does stubbornness become delusion? And what is this vague criterion of ‘almost everyone?’
So I can understand the Golds’s central question: “Which of the myriad irrational beliefs that people have are delusional? In our view, this is the most important ignored question in the study of delusion.” I agree. But then I hit an intellectual dead end with their claim: “Our answer, in brief, is that delusions are symptoms of a disorder in a mental capacity whose function is to navigate the threats of social living. What distinguishes them from other bizarre thoughts is their origin in this mental capacity.” Come on guys. Disorder of a mental capacity? Isn’t that where we started? The term moves the quest on not an iota.
That one man’s delusion is another’s cause is obvious. The distinction is one of politics not science. This is obvious from the history of the psychiatric discipline itself. Delusion, it seems, might be the fundamental principle not only of psychosis but of the psychiatric profession as well.
rayyyy's review against another edition
4.0
This book wasn't exactly what I was expecting, and I enjoyed that. It was about the various delusions experienced by people with mental illness, and how and why these delusions come about. It also had a lot of interesting case studies interspersed throughout the book.
hopeevey's review against another edition
4.0
I was given this book by the GoodReads First Reads program. The review is entirely my own opinion.
Ah, so refreshing to read a really good science book! This is written for a general audience without being oversimplified. The authors manage to make the evidence supporting their theory clear enough for any reader, and provides excellent resources and references for anyone interested in going into the topics even more deeply.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in psychiatry, or anyone interested in how and why people experience delusions.
Ah, so refreshing to read a really good science book! This is written for a general audience without being oversimplified. The authors manage to make the evidence supporting their theory clear enough for any reader, and provides excellent resources and references for anyone interested in going into the topics even more deeply.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in psychiatry, or anyone interested in how and why people experience delusions.
monicajosephine's review against another edition
4.0
This was a really excellent book. Presented a comprehensive theory for how and why people develop delusions that really takes into account a variety of social factors and cultural influences. I feel like this has already helped me in my work. I would recommend it to anyone who works in mental health or who has an interest in psychiatric disorders.
More...