the original definition of schizophrenia was along the lines of "split mind" It was evident that polariation of the personality was present. There fore a person suffering this condition exhibited signs of what was later refrred to as a very rare "multiple personality" Often confusing the two...
Again, when the definition is changed due to better understanding of the condition, the original definition is no longer valid. The evidence you have presented is outdated and irrelevant.
It is quite reasonable to say that a person suffering such fragmented states can indeed consider himself to be effectively more than 1 and enter into self conspiracy...
If I consider my big rig truck to be a tricycle, does that make my truck a tricycle? No, someone's false interpretation of reality does not change reality. If I put on a beard and mustache and dress like a man, some people may perceive me to be a man and make the false assumption that I am a man, but the reality stands that I am not a man. I am a woman no matter how many people I fool, even if I fool myself.
Schizophrenia is not the same as Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder). Schizophrenia is more associated with hallucinations of people or things that are not there, where as the latter is an actual splintering of the mind.
Sometimes people confuse three mental disorders, only one of which could be referred to as “common” within the population — bipolar disorder (also known as manic-depression), schizophrenia, and multiple personality disorder (also known by its clinical name, dissociative identity disorder). This confusion has largely resulted from the common use of some of these names in popular media, and as short-hand by people referring to someone who is grappling with a mental health issue. The disorders, however, have little in common other than the fact that many who have them are still stigmatized by society.
....
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is less common than bipolar disorder and is usually first diagnosed in a person’s late teens or early to late 20’s. More men than women receive a diagnosis of
schizophrenia, which is characterized by having both hallucinations and delusions. Hallucinations are seeing or hearing things that aren’t there. Delusions are the belief in something that isn’t true. People who have delusions will continue with their delusions even when shown evidence that contradicts the delusion. That’s because, like hallucinations, delusions are “irrational” — the opposite of logic and reason. Since reason doesn’t apply to someone who has a schizophrenic delusion, arguing with it logically gets a person nowhere.
(emphasis my own)
....
Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder)
This disorder used to be known as
multiple personality disorder (and is still commonly referred to as such in the media), but is now known by its newer clinical name, dissociative identity disorder (DID). DID
is characterized by a set of one or more distinct identities that a person believes to exist within themselves. These identities can talk to the person, and the person can answer back. The identities often are formed to help a person cope with different parts of their life, and seem to have distinct personalities that are unique and different than the person’s core personality.
Sometimes, people with DID will lose track of time or will be unable to account for blocks of time during their day. This occurs when one of the identities within the person takes control of the
individual and engages in behaviors that the core personality would otherwise not engage in.
-
Source (the color added was my own to emphasis key points.)
Note that in the DID (multiple personality disorder) the patient is still referred to as an individual. A term synonymous with the number one. An individual is a single unit just as "one" defines a single unit. This is because the patient is still just one person regardless of what delusions he/she holds.
Just about every disordered conspiracy theoriest is suffering a similar form of this condition. [as far as I have observed any way]
Though you have the names of disorders confused at least you are willing to agree that people labeled as conspiracy theorists usually display some kind of mental illness. Why you insist that a single individual can be considered a conspirator if he plots with voices in his head is beyond me. This thread is not even supposed to be about if a conspiracy theorist is a conspirator themselves. But then you have been avoiding addressing the OP this entire thread until this post.
Your glib and saracastic, elitist attitude serves you badly....
let me remind you of the OP..
You read too much into my comments. Correcting someone when they are wrong does not automatically make someone an elitist. If it did, then every school teacher in the world would be an elitist because they correct people all the time. I have not been sarcastic at all, up to this point. I am sincerely trying to help you understand. Your refusal or inability, whichever it is, to grasp simple concepts (such as the concept of 1 )has been frustrating me. I can't help but wonder if you are playing dumb just to be difficult. Because I have seen you post very rationally and calmly before. I have seen you display the ability to be logical and reasonable. So I know you are not dumb. If you are playing dumb, the only reason for doing so that I can think of is that you carry a grudge across threads.
Glib doesn't apply on any level. I put a lot of thought into my posts which may be why I have managed to not call you any names or insult you, but have managed to only address your words rather than your character. Something you have just failed at by stating I have a
glib and sarcastic, elitist attitude.
Embarrassingly, I have to admit to having to look up the meaning of
glib and
elitist. I have seen the words used countless times but have never been able to discern what exactly they meant from context. All I had ever been able to glean from the context is that they were not flattering terms. This being the first time these words have been used to describe me (that I know of) I finally looked them up. I don't know a lot of insults. I have never felt it useful to insult people when trying to make a point so I don't have a huge list of insults in my vocabulary. Though being on this forum I am learning as I go. And you can be proud to have taught me 2 new insults in one post. Be proud of such an auspicious accomplishment and contribution to the forum. <--- Now that was sarcasm!
Also I have never lost focus of the OP. In fact, I have redirected the thread back to the OP more than once. I have avoided discussing any individual conspiracy theory, unlike yourself. I have not gone on any tangents to argue the validity of any particular conspiracy theories. Someone else brought up 9/11 and you have debated the merit of some conspiracy theory concerning the space telescope. Jan Ardena seems to have vanished from the thread they started and its a shame. I don't usually like threads by Jan Ardena nor do I like discussing anything with them. I don't have the patience.
I agree totally with this statement but wonder at what cost to society the inspiration they supply is.
Suffice to say I believe every human is suffering this condition in some form and various degrees of severity. It is only when societal dysfunction occurs that alarm bells go of.
And this is the first time you directly addressed the OP as far as I can remember. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
If you "seagypsy" wish to confine your thinking to your own paradigm with out input of others then by all means be critical [as is your right] of those who wish to see something more expansive.
Is there some special meaning implied by putting my id in quotes? Just curious. I haven't been critical. I have only been trying to help you understand the definition the terms we are discussing. You have taken it upon yourself to go into a campaign against anyone in the thread that agrees to the definition as I and others have described it.
Actually it is not my
own paradigm. My own paradigm would be to consider the terms "conspiracy theorist" to be an oxymoron. Balerion, someone who I usually disagree with quite vehemently, corrected me and pointed out that for the purpose of the thread we should stick to the accepted common usage of the expression rather than give in to petty semantics. I agreed to comply with that suggestion for the remainder of the thread and have not attempted to return to my personal interpretation of the words.
I don't have a problem with being corrected if it is reasonably founded but you obviously do...
See above. I was corrected by Balerion and graciously accepted that correction, without any resistance. You have pretended to accept correction then attempted, again, to redefine the parameters of the conversation in order to go back and convince us that you are indeed right even though you "accepted correction".
[watches this space for your reaction]
Lol wow, are you seething in anticipation? Are you expecting me to cry and say... "Woe is me, I have been defeated by the great Quantam Quack!"? Sorry to disappoint you but you have not achieved your goal, unless it was to further display vitriolic stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the accepted commonly usage meaning of the expression "conspiracy theorist".
and he wins a nobel...
even after enduring Insulin coma therapy... which is utterly amazing ...
and he was a C' ter...
No one has asserted that Conspiracy theorists are not capable of accomplishing great things. So I don't see what your point is. No one has said that CTers should be locked up or otherwise removed from society.
I will say this much, he achieved this high honor in spite of his condition, not because of it. Had he not had his mental illness he likely would have achieved much more.
A Beautiful Mind is a 2001 American biographical drama film based on the life of John Nash, a Nobel Laureate in Economics. The film was directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva Goldsman. It was inspired by a bestselling, Pulitzer Prize-nominated 1998 book of the same name by Sylvia Nasar. The film stars Russell Crowe, along with Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany and Christopher Plummer.
The story begins in the early years of a young prodigy named John Nash. Early in the film, Nash begins developing paranoid schizophrenia and endures delusional episodes while
painfully watching the loss and burden his condition brings on his wife and friends....
source
His condition caused harm to himself and his family and friends. His condition gave way to being a conspiracy theorist and as a result he alienated those he loved and obsessed over proving his suspicions to be substantiated. I have seen the movie. He was miserable most of the time and I am certain he would have given his right arm to just make the delusions go away so he could know what reality was.
Is your sensitivity to this topic due to the fact some members on this forum have expressed the opinion that YOU are a conspiracy theorist and you simply do not want such negative definitions to apply to yourself?
I'm sorry if this is hitting a sore spot for you. I read what you said about your brother in the other thread. I have had my own unpleasant interactions with psychologists and mental illness. So I do empathize with you.
There is a common theme I see on this forum. When someone behaves badly, and they finally come to realize it, or one of their supporters realizes it, someone, if not the individual themselves, makes an argument that their behavior should be excused because they have had bad things happen to them. Boo hoo. Everyone has unpleasant experiences in life. Some people have horrifying experiences. None of that is an excuse to behave badly. My life has been a nightmare most of my adult life. People have asked me to let them write a book about my life. I have been told I should sell my story to Hollywood. But no matter how bad my life has been, I do not feel any of it gives me permission to behave badly.
If someone is abused as a child that does not permit them to abuse their own children. Sure people take note of the fact that the abuser was once the abused, this helps understand what led to the abuse, but it in no way excuses it. Knowing the triggers for bad behavior and source of unpleasant feelings does nothing more than help us understand how to prevent such things.
I feel sorry for you that you have carried that pain with you for so long. But you must understand, until you let it go and accept what happened as something out of your control, you will continue to let it affect your behavior in the present. Would your brother want this pain to haunt you and prevent you from getting along with others for the rest of your life? That you can answer to yourself. Any response would benefit only yourself.
Unless you can stop taking correction personally, I will not discuss this thread with you any further. IMO, you do not appear to want to understand simple things, you appear to want validation for yourself. If you are worried that the label given to you by some makes you a bad person, rest assured it does not. But you owe it to yourself to get outside help in determining if the opinions of those who call you a CT are substantiated and whether or not there are any other issues that need to be addressed so that you can have confidence in yourself, that you know yourself, that you can trust yourself. There is nothing wrong with questioning your own sanity and getting evaluated just to be on the safe side. I have done it and I am a better person than I was for having done it.
This will be my last post to you in this thread because to say any more than i have said in this post would be redundant and annoying to other posters. I hope you take the time to really think about what I have said and accept my sincere apologies if I hurt your feelings in anyway. It has never been my intention to do so. I do not dislike you. But you don't have to dislike someone to disagree with them. And I would feel disrespectful towards you if I did not correct your misunderstanding of something that draws your attention so strongly. To leave you in the dark would be to call you stupid and incapable of learning or unworthy of knowledge. I simply will not treat you with that level of disrespect.
