I love characterological! I think it's much less offensive/insulting than to talk about personality disorder. which might be silly there you go
Cocktail is very common in medical literature, as well.
Well, if the patient states he's hearing voices, he's psychotic. But, if he is wildly gesticulating to step around the dead bodies and puddles of blood, he's florid. It's like the French "dejeuner" for lunch, and "petit dejeuner" for breakfast. The "floridly" is a super-qualifier.
Tea is a weird one. When I first moved to Virginia tea by default meant sweetened (which I learned going to a Wendy's and ordering iced tea). Maybe it's because of where I moved to within Virginia since then, but now people seem to specify sweetened or unsweetened, and the default assumption if not specified seems to be unsweetened. I bet you could do a positive correlation with our connotation of tea moving toward unsweetened and our presidential voting record moving toward Democrats.
not necessarily depends on your definition. in the psychological literature people aren't regarded as psychotic if they recognize they are hallucinating. It is the lack of insight into their perceptual experiences that makes one psychotic.
everyone knows what you mean when you say someone is floridly psychotic. personally, i prefer the phrase "mad as a box of frogs".
But, I thought that, by definition, you can't "feel psychotic", because, by definition, the hallucinations appear real. You can't recognize that you are hallucinating, because you don't know what is real and what isn't. Isn't that it? Now, mind you, I am just a dumb ER doc, and just a ghetto psychiatrist (in other words, about 5 cents more than the average guy).
no people often recognize they are hallucinating. This is particularly the case in organic disease (for example large proportion of PD/LBD patients with visual hallucinations recognize the visual hallucinations are not real but they see them. Similarly patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome typically recognize they are hallucinating. In these groups of pts it is only if there is significant cognitive impairment or the "jumping to conclusions" reasoning bias where they have a particular cognitive style of making assumptions with little evidence that they are experienced as real. Even patients with psychiatric disorders like chronic schizophrenia who know they have psychotic illness may hear voices and recognize these as part of their illness. Psychologists will often not regard these individuals as psychotic though psychiatrists typically regard patients experience perceptual distortions/anomalous experiences as psychotic even when insight is preserved.
Does this imply that the end mechanisms by which the brain perceives sound is different in hallucinations than when the cause of hearing is acoustic?
Since mental ******ation is now wrong, I have a suggestion that doesn’t focus on the lack of IQ like cognitive deficit or intellectually limited. How about “genius challenged”, or “doesn’t suffer from fits of brilliance”. Perhaps, “voted least likely to say something profound”. Take that you PC police.
Does anyone in psychiatry actually use this term? It seems to me the only people who use it are anti-psychiatry people accusing psychiatrists of (wrongly) claiming mental illness is the result of a "chemical imbalance."
Even before questioning if they have insight is just asking if they really are hallucinations. Children, malingerers, and frankly people who just don't understand the question get misdiagnosed as psychotic all the time. Sometimes they're mislabeling thoughts as voices, because no one asked a follow-up question. Asking if they hear it with their ears, as well as other phenomenological questions can help discriminate in some cases.
Same as psychiatrists who describe themselves as "psychopharmacologists." As if we all don't do that.
They have done brain scans during hallucinations, and I believe that the areas that light up are the areas involved in hearing and also the areas involved in speaking, but I could be wrong. This doesn't quite answer what you're asking, but hopefully it gets you what you want: when someone has an auditory hallucination, they experience it just as if they were hearing a real sound generated from outsider their head.
I had a depressed kid recently and her father was very against medications. In trying to convince him that what his daughter was experiencing was depression and not just being upset at a breakup, and that therefore medication was reasonable, my attending claimed that the patient had a chemical imbalance in her brain. It made me so sad. I don't know if my attending actually believes it or just didn't know how else to explain the situation.
'
Maybe I'm just a little more, but, I ask the patients, "are you hearing voices?" If they are being cute, or dopey, and say that they hear my voice, I become more specific. But, then, if they say "yes", I first ask if the voices are talking about them, or to them. Then, I ask if they can understand what the voices are saying. As the fellow above said, the MRIs show that their auditory centers ARE hearing something.
I'll add 'He/She is so Schizophrenic' to that list, as in 'Omg my friend can never make up her mind about anything, she's so schizophrenic sometimes' or 'My brother gets so moody it's like he's a completely different person, he can be so Schizophrenic'.
I don't completely disbelieve in it. But my index of suspicion is veeeeeerrrrryyyyy high. There is usually some sort of questionable provider somewhere. I knew one once who honestly believed that Bipolar disorder and ADHD were just "misdiagnosed DID." See the switching of affective states in bipolar were the different alters and when people couldn't focus, they were dissociating.
I also don't like it when patients use their supposed PTSD as a reason people need to treat them differently. "So and so should know I'm post-tramautic and not do X thing I find fault with."
I mean yeah, you shouldn't sneak up on someone with PTSD and clap your hands loudly behind their head just to be a dick. And being considerate is super nice in general. But thinking you can go through life expecting people to treat you with kid gloves just because you have a diagnosis grates on me. And oftentimes, I think the people who do that don't actually have the diagnosis anyway. They just like being treated like snowflakes and talking about "trigger warnings".
Wow. I am G-R-U-M-P-Y this morning. Stupid credentialing paperwork.
I've used this one myself, with heavy lashings of sarcasm.
