Talk:Auditory hallucination

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cat.R.Leo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Internal Monologue or when used in theater: Soliloquy
Soliloquy I think in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.239.229 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A Novel Concept
I thought I'd put this here, just to see what kind of feedback I might get regarding the very strong possibility of this:

Since the brain mechanisms responsible for conscience, will to live, behavior control, etc. can be starved of oxygen by an increase in serotonin levels (From the Merriam-Webster: Serotonin: a phenolic amine neurotransmitter C10H12N2O that is a POWERFUL VASOCONSTRICTOR and is found especially in the brain, blood serum, and gastric mucous membrane of mammals), isn't it also possible that if these brain mechanisms are inhibited in this manner, a person in this state may simply NOT RECOGNIZE their own thoughts, and attribute this altered version of them to being "voices" other than their own?

I believe this may be a dynamic of the effects of antidepressant medication in some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.149.124 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 208.123.149.124! Wikipedia is not the right place for innovative thoughts. We describe accepted knowledge. The talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing the subject of the article. I'm sure there are other places on the internet where you can discuss your ideas. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute
New message 5 Jun 24: Not sure where to put this, the guys below suggest its some sort of "fringe" research, it's not, its a real thing that skilled R&D teams can use to make people think they have gone mad and that is frequently ignored by police and stigmatised by people who use the technology.

There are a clear string of patents for the development of devices that use the Radio Hearing Effect, devices for aiming the beams, some devices for reading thoughts and even thought communications systems, but significantly, for creating the sensation of hearing voices with the Radio Hearing Effect.

https://interestingoldpatents.com/category/devices-that-cause-and-use-the-sensation-of-a-voice-in-someones-head

I would suggest that seeing as patents have to explain to someone skilled in the area how to make the technology, that they have to work to be legal patents, and that the patents are beyond the 15 year mark and anyone can make these devices, its not fringe its a serious concern.

Take note of:

So, for a patent to be issued, your invention must meet four conditions:

1) Able to be used (the invention must work and cannot just be a theory),

2) A clear description of how to make and use the invention,

3) New, or “novel” (something not done before),

4) “Not obvious,” as related to a change to something already invented

on the site https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/essentials and that the patents would clearly be removed if they were false.

Really quite angry at everyone letting this abuse occur just because they are wrong or offended and because they "feel" its nonsense. This area is incredibly corrupt and people who experience these symptoms, and are ignored when asking about real things that could be causing them often go on to kill themselves from not being believed.

There are many other categories on the interesting old patents website that could be relevant such as LRADs which are commonly used in theft prevention and can make people think they have heard a disembodied voice, and devices that induce brain states such as arousal or make people feel bugs on their skin using Electrical, Air or Magnetic Pulses such as from CRT TVs and monitors. Get your facts straight the lot of you.

This isn't even all the techniques for inducing voices, its excluding all the areas where suggestion (things like music lyrics/propaganda/adverts) cause the brain to verbalise. Think about how when you learned to read there was a voice reading the story to you when you looked at the page, or how when someone stops a song half way though your brain often completes the lyrics.

Felix - 5 Jun 24

'Auditory hallucinations should not be confused with the microwave auditory effect, which does involve auditory stimulus, although is potentially indistinguishable from auditory hallucinations according to a declassified Pentagon report, which notes: "Microwave energy can be applied at a distance, and the appropriate technology can be adapted from existing radar units. Aiming devices likewise are available but for special circumstances which require extreme specificity, there may be a need for additional development. Extreme directional specificity would be required to transmit a message to a single hostage surrounded by his captors. Signals can be transmitted long distances (hundreds of meters) using current technology." Despite technological advancements in microwave hearing technology, contemporary psychiatric diagnosis does not consider the microwave auditory effect as a potential cause for people reportedly hearing voices in their head.'

GDallimore, I think you shouldn't just remove the above paragraph which is supported by a reliable source. Otherwise please justify your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is all the justification I need. (a) the start of the paragraph says MAE and hallucinations are not the same thing, so it doesn't belong in this article (b) the source doesn't mention auditory hallucinations, so it doesn't belong in the article (c) the end of the paragraph says psychiatry doesn't consider MAE to be a source of hallucinations, so it doesn't belong in the article (d) the entire paragraph is POV-pushing a fringe view, so it doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia. End of discussion. Stop adding nonsense to wikipedia or I will seek to have you blocked from editing for disruption. GDallimore (Talk) 01:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph discusses the similarity between auditory hallucination and MAE and supports it with a reliable source therefore it does belong to the article. If you think that the paragraph does not meet your expectation, please improve it constructively or leave it alone instead of just removing it as IMHO it provides an interesting POV which deserves inclusion in the article. By the way, I didn't add the paragraph to the article. Someone else did. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From this point on, the discussion revolves around the paragraph below.

"Auditory hallucination in the form of "someone seemed to be keeping up a running commentary on your thoughts and behavior", which mimics the symptoms of schizophrenia, may be attributed to mind invasive technology."

- Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This material should be kept out of the article. The supposedly reliable source is just a fringe researcher who has no support from her mainstream colleagues. The researcher says that satellite technology is used "not only for surveillance and communication systems but also to lock on to human beings, manipulating brain frequencies by directing laser beams, neural-particle beams, electro-magnetic radiation, sonar waves, radiofrequency radiation (RFR), soliton waves, torsion fields and by use of these or other energy fields which form the areas of study for astro-physics." Whoa. "What The Fuck" is my first response to that nonsense. The researcher's laundry list of possible technologies is ridiculously scattered, and the paper fails to document hard evidence for any one of the technologies causing auditory hallucinations, or any other mind control. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is that a laundry list, but two of the items in it don't even exist. Torsion fields are pseudoscience, and "neural-particle beams" is either a  jumble-hash of  words or a typo.  Cardamon (talk)
 * Let me repeat: I am not responsible for the content of the article cited and my writing didn't even mention the text quoted by Binksternet. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would consider the researcher's article a reliable source, because it was published by Journal of Psycho-Social Studies. As for the content of the article, it's not up to me or you to verify or peer-review. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Journal of Psycho-Social Studies is unfortunately wide open to publication of just about anything, as can be seen here in their publication policy. The say they are "inclusive rather than exclusive", and they clearly don't carry out any sort of fact-checking or peer review. This bit of nonsense must not be put into the article again, or ever. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to what Binksternet said, the Journal of Psycho-Social Studies's statement that "All submissions will be read anonymously by a minimum of two members of the editorial panel, and as such are subject to academic peer review" seem to imply that it does not in fact have external peer review. This counts against it.  A small editorial board cannot have the expertise within it to review all the papers a journal might receive. Cardamon (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. If possible please cite relevant Wikipedia guidelines or policies for your argument. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * review this shit 103.212.52.206 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What part is unclear? (a) It's not a reliable source, it can't be used, see WP:RS or (b) it gives undue weight to a fringe view see WP:NPOV. These are core content policies and the first thing posted on your talk page when you started editing was a welcome message with links to them. Since then, you have had 10s of other editors bringing your attention to the policies on reliable sourcing and original research and trying to explain why EVERY edit you have made is inappropriate. Not listening to anyone will get you ignored, then blocked. Playing innocent now and giving the appearance of trying to follow guidelines will also not help you. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have made all the assertions without backing them up. For example, what makes you think that "It's not a reliable source" and that I have given undue weight to the view? What do you consider constitutes a due weight in this case? In order to reach a consensus, we better discuss in specifics and detail. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and WP:EW makes policy clear that challenged material should not be repeatedly reinserted. If you feel your source is reliable take it to WP:RSN.

See WP:SOURCE: "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine."

Note this material is biomedical in nature see WP:MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals"; "Be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable fields."; "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not using original research demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or in textbooks or in some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported."; "Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited in ways that suggest wide acceptance."

See WP:DUE: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."" Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"

See WP:FRINGE: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."; "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play."

See WP:PSCI: "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such."

The material you seek to include does not accurately reflect current medical knowledge. The journal used as a source does not have a reputation as a medical journal nor is it considered a "reputable" journal (no sources identify it as such). Having two in house editors read an article prior to publication is very low degree of scrutiny. The article is clearly not presenting a prevailing medical or scientific consensus nor is it an authoritative review article. The material you seek to include has not recieved substantial discussion in reliable sources. It clearly represents the views of a tiny minority and is a speculative proposal. The due weight it should recieve is not being included in the article at all. The only statement about the theory comes from the inventor of the theory. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The material under discussion is way out on the fringe of conspiracy theory, not at all part of modern medical thought. We cannot introduce it here as anything but an extreme fringe view, if that. Certainly it cannot be represented as fact, put forward in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html is a reliable source, although surely there must be some medical paper covering the psychological effects of hallucinations. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that this source supports the "disputed" material in ANY WAY, but it does support adding that people suffering from hallucinations have been known to attribute those hallucinations to an exterior force and it is almost impossible to sway them from this delusion. Is this not worthy of note? Schizophrenia also seems lacking in this regard.
 * I've also just noticed this section: Auditory_hallucination, with the unreferenced bit at the end about tinnitus and low voltage signals. Any thoughts on what to do with that? Just remove it? GDallimore (Talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed analysis. Here is another reliable source which I propose to add and hopefully it will shed more light on what you consider a tiny minority view. What follow are quotes from the source which I think support the material in dispute.

The voices were crass but also strangely courteous, addressing him as "Mr. Girard."

They taunted him. They asked him if he thought he was normal; they suggested he was going crazy. They insulted his classmates

At first, he recalls, the voices would speak just two or three times a day, but it escalated into a near-constant cacophony, often accompanied by severe pain all over his body -- which Girard now attributes to directed-energy weapons that can shoot invisible beams.

But, given the history of America's clandestine research, it's reasonable to assume that if the defense establishment could develop mind-control or long-distance ray weapons, it almost certainly would. And, once developed, the possibility that they might be tested on innocent civilians could not be categorically dismissed.

Voices similar to those in Girard's case followed -- taunting voices cursing her, telling her she was stupid, that she couldn't write. Expletive-laced language filled her head. Naylor sought help from a psychiatrist and received a prescription for an antipsychotic drug. But the medication failed to stop the voices, she says, which only added to her conviction that the harassment was real.

In the case of TIs, mind-control weapons are an explanation for the voices they hear in their head.

Ralph Hoffman, a professor of psychiatry at Yale who has studied auditory hallucinations, regularly sees people who believe the voices are a part of government harassment (others believe they are God, dead relatives or even ex-girlfriends). Not all people who hear voices are schizophrenic, he says, noting that people can hear voices episodically in highly emotional states. What exactly causes these voices is still unknown, but one thing is certain: People who think the voices are caused by some external force are rarely dissuaded from their delusional belief, he says.

The very "realness" of the voices is the issue -- how do you disbelieve something you perceive as real? That's precisely what Hoffman, the Yale psychiatrist, points out: So lucid are the voices that the sufferers -- regardless of their educational level or self-awareness -- are unable to see them as anything but real. "One thing I can assure you," Hoffman says, "is that for them, it feels real."


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs)


 * We've had this discussion and, no, this source does not support your POV, as I've already said above. Do not add anh such material to this article. GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Atually read the policies and guidelines. WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI, WP:DUE. That a newspaper reports on what patients of a particular doctor believe is not MEDRS, does not represent mainstream scientific consensus. The source does not in any way actually support the idea. What hallucinating people believe is not reliable biomedical information. If they could they would, once developed the possibility could not be categorically dismissed SERIOUSLY, the conjectures of possibilities based on suppositions of possible conspiracy theories. Please do not propose any such material or sources again. After taking some time to read and understand WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE I am sure you will realize this material has no place in an encyclopedic article and the sources you have put fourth so far are completely inappropriate and inadequate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC:About adding Voice to skull to the See also section of the article
According to wp:see_also, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Voice to skull is related to Auditory hallucination because the former supposedly causes similar effect in human subjects as the latter. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have no 'voice to skull' article. The 'see also' redirects to Microwave auditory effect - which makes clear that the only verifiable 'relationship' is in the imaginations of the conspiracy theorists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. However, I don't think you have a valid justification against my proposal. Please back up your argument by citing specific Wikipedia guidelines or policies. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is your burden to show the validity of the "see also" link you want to insert. The burden is always on the person who wants to add or restore text. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And he DID have a valid justification for not including the link. Indeed, Andy directly responded to your reason for including the link explaining why your reasoning was wholly flawed for two separate reasons. Either you lack the comprehension to recognise that so are incapable of having a sensible discussion, or you don't care and are just trying to push your POV. Either way, that is justification enough for this conversation to end and for your edits to simply be reverted without further discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 10:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I already provided applicable policy and reasoning for my proposed addition. If anyone opposes my suggestion, the burden of justification and citing relevant policies/guidelines is on him/her. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus that your arguments are not remotely convincing. I see no point wasting further time on this. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In order for there to be a clear consensus, you have to persuade me. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually consensus on Wikipedia is not the same as unanimity. When you are the only one pushing a topic and everyone else says no, it is probably time to drop the stick.  Yobol (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern consistent with disruptive editing emerging. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've read all the linked policies and some of the discussions regarding the previous battles on this page. It's clear that User:Synsepalum2013 has an agenda, but honestly who doesn't on Wikipedia?  The only indisputably relevant policy that I can tell is WP:SEE_ALSO.  I think it's debatable whether or not WP:BURDEN applies because it repeatedly mentions material and verifiability.  This is not something we have to worry about in a See also link.  WP:SEE_ALSO says, "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."  This seems to give a lot of leeway for what we can put in, meaning WP:CONSENSUS applies.
 * I've noticed a culture on Wikipedia of extreme skepticism, which is a healthy and respectable thing, for the most part. But I think it begins turning into a quest to exclude all conspiracies, rather than debunk them.  The two sentence mention in the section Voice to skull directs to is very dismissive of the entire theory, so users directed there won't be mislead into thinking there is more mainstream acceptance of this idea than there is.
 * Basically, this is not something worth fighting for, and it might enhance our readers' understanding of a subject they could potentially come to this article trying to research. We're not making claims that aren't true.  In fact, linking from this article implies that the sounds sufferers are hearing are hallucinations and not government devices, undermining the conspiracy.  V2K is tangentially related.  The topic comes up often enough that there are support groups and mainstream coverage of it.  I say, for lack of a better phrase, let the baby have his bottle.  Fight the good fight at Microwave_auditory_effect rather than the See also section here.
 * Apologies to the veteran editors I see here, but I would rather see conspiracy theories debunked than excluded! PraetorianFury (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're overlooking one very important point: if an hallucination has an exterior cause, it is not an hallucination. Therefore, someone investigating hallucinations could never ever have any interest in V2K. It is not even tangentially related because it is contradictory. The reverse, however, is not contradictory: someone investigating V2K could have an interest in hallucinations as a more likely explanation for hearing voices. Therefore, MAE correctly links here as far as I'm concerned. When Synsepalum2013 added a link from that article to this one, I actually moved it from see also into the main body of the article.
 * I agree with debunking nonsense over removing it, which is why I added some relevant/sourced material from the deleted V2K article to the MAE article, but this is not a equally flowing two-way street of related information. To say it is would be to give undue weight to the fringe theories. GDallimore (Talk) 00:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that auditory hallucination and V2K are mutually exclusive in terms of diagnozation. Still both have similar symptoms thus can be easily confused, which is why they are related and warrant differentiation. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PraetorianFury, thanks a lot for your comment which sums up my opinion pretty well. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You lie. His comments do not sum up your position AT ALL.  GDallimore (Talk) 10:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link to Talking tree
I inserted a link to a wikipedia article called Talking tree and it was removed on the claim it has no relevance. In my opinion the past history of mankinds documented "hearing voices" is relevant. Today hearing voices is viewed as an illness, when in the past it was not as one.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That viwes on auditory hallucinations have changed over time is true, and should be introduced into this article as sourced content if suitable sources can be found. The talking tree article is about fictional talking trees and is not relevant to that historical truth or this article. Link removed. GDallimore (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at how literal you are GDallimore. As you must know trees do not talk, so these multitude of historical references to talking trees has to be an "auditory hallucination".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What references? There are none in the talking tree article suggesting that they are anything other than a fictional construct or allegory. GDallimore (Talk) 16:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge Article Request (Question of Ethics)
It should be noted and with respect for the medical community, there are existing articles on Wikipedia which may help explain this medical phenomena. As a peer, this article could articulate more clearly the difference between non-medical (reasoning, cognition, etc.) and medical situations. A standard measuring system or data table would improve the article greatly. Also, a more detailed examination of treatment options within the medical community could be noted (specific medicines, surgical procedures, etc.). Below are links to articles that contribute directly to the argument of if this condition is a legitimate treatable condition or if it is a medical tort.

These articles do not go into the topic as a whole, but do help differentiate contemporary medical practice and misconceptions.
 * Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States): Represents workers rights and occupational safety standards.
 * Transparency (behavior): Establishes the bridgework between social and consumer relations
 * Administration: The standing definition of normalcy and management.
 * UL (safety organization): A global safety assurance and standards organization.
 * Risk management: A universal insurance principle of inclusion by corporate responsibility.
 * Breach of confidence: (see also; Securities exchange In tort law, the instance of disclosing confidential and trade secrets, usually for profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habatchii (talk • contribs) 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discrimination: A usually defensive response against another which creates bias, stress and mental duress.
 * Denial of service attack: A computer network blackout due to dispute or liability.
 * Doctor–patient relationship: A contentious and consenting agreement of treatment.
 * Malpractice: Abuse sustained in the auspiciousness of transparency during an administration or treatment.
 * Ambulance: An emergency response and medial monitoring vehicle.
 * Health care reform in the United States

Note: For a religious reference on the main topic page, go to Babel Probably the article should point to more literature sources that relate religion attribution to voices being heard 174.89.175.18 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Habatchii (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said that?
Although this is said
 * Differentiating actual auditory hallucinations from a normal internal dialogue is important since the latter phenomena are not indicative of mental illness

in the article (more than once); you might want to emphasise it (i) earlier in the intro, and (ii) in the Schumann paragraph.

MBG02 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed New Section: Cross-Cultural Understandings of Auditory Hallucinations
Hello all, I am planning to add a new section to the page either right after "History" or after "Potential causes". Let me know if you have any feedback on this idea. I plan on adding this new section in the next couple of hours. Thank you!

These are the sources I will be citing:

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

2. Bauer, S. M., Schanda, H., Karakula, H., Olajossy-Hilkesberger, L., Rudaleviciene, P., Okribelashvili, N.,. . . Stompe, T. (2011). Culture and the prevalence of hallucinations in schizophrenia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52(3), 319-325. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.06.008

3. Beavan, V., Read, J., & Cartwright, C. (2011). The prevalence of voice-hearers in the general population: A literature review. Journal of Mental Health, 20(3), 281-292. doi:10.3109/09638237.2011.562262

4. Luhrmann, T. M., Padmavati, R., Tharoor, H., & Osei, A. (2015). Hearing Voices in Different Cultures: A Social Kindling Hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 646-663. doi:10.1111/tops.12158

5. Taitimu, M., Read, J., & McIntosh, T. (2018). Ngā Whakāwhitinga (standing at the crossroads): How Māori understand what Western psychiatry calls “schizophrenia”. Transcultural Psychiatry,55(2), 153-177. doi:10.1177/1363461518757800

ColorfulSocialJusticeHummingbird (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about adding a new section: Audible thoughts
Hello all, I'm a college student studying psychology at LSE. I have an assignment to make a contribution to Wikipedia this term. I'm thinking about adding a new section talking about aduible thoughts under this entry. Audible thoughts is a kind of auditory verbal hallucination that wasn't described in detail in this page, I think adding it to this page would help the readers understand more about auditory hallucination. If you have any concern about my proposal please let me know.

I'll list my sources below:

1.Mellor, C. S. (1970). First rank symptoms of schizophrenia: I. the frequency in schizophrenics on admission to hospital II. Differences between individual first rank symptoms. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 117(536), 15-23.

2.Humpston, C. S., & Broome, M. R. (2016). The spectra of soundless voices and audible thoughts: Towards an integrative model of auditory verbal hallucinations and thought insertion. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(3), 611-629.

3.Nayani, T. H., & David, A. S. (1996). The auditory hallucination: a phenomenological survey. Psychological medicine, 26(1), 177-189.

4.Kaufmann, C., Agalawatta, N., Masson, M., & Malhi, G. S. (2017). Phenomenal Insights: Extraordinary auditory hallucinations–Thought sonorisation. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 51(5), 538-539.

--Scott Sun1 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Auditory hallucination doesn't necessarily mean Schizophrenia
In the book Hallucinations by the neurologist Oliver Sacks he mentions that most people have Auditory hallucinations at some point in their life. He also mentions that people with Auditory hallucinations are often wrongly identified as people suffering from Schizophrenia, even though the vast majority of people with Auditory hallucinations don't have Schizophrenia. It is true and mention it that most people with Schizophrenia do have Auditory hallucination. I think it is important to mention it, due to the wrong stigma that people have regarding Auditory hallucination. and also the very common misconception that auditory hallucination is almost always psychotic (which is not true).


 * As far as I see the article doesn't claim that auditory hallucination = schizophrenia, I see plenty of non-schizophrenia causes mentioned. What exactly do you want changed?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)