Talk:Delusion/Archive 1

This is
This is a very well-done and fascinating article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:38 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- Thanks! Vaughan

A false belief?
Firstly, well done. However, I am somewhat unhappy with one aspect of this article. For me it is the quality of the way the belief is held that is paramount. The belief does not have to be false. This is discussed in the article but I cannot see an acceptance in the article that a delusional belief may be true from the outset and yet still delusional. Let me give an example to clarify what I mean. A man with delusional jealousy about his wife presents and describes his concerns that his wife is unfaithful. He has the classic features. He presents clearly psychotic reasoning for his justifications, e.g. stains on her underwear are proof, her occasional looks outside the window are to see if her lover is there. You interview the wife and find that she had a brief affair a year before the onset of the husband's condition but there is no way that he could know about this. True his belief is of an ongoing affair and you could say that therefore his belief is false, but let's extend it and consider the case where the wife IS having an affair. The husband though is clearly psychotic in the way that he holds the belief. Now, one way to test this is to say it is the fixity of the belief but I do take the points in the article on this subject. I am afraid though in practice that this is probably the main deciding factor for me and many other psychiatrists I know. But how to express this in an article? --CloudSurfer 07:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Since writing the above I have had a look at one of the referencesgiven in the article. I do not have access to the full article but it would appear from the abstract that it is dealing with the issue above. --CloudSurfer 05:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi there CloudSurfer,


 * The initial sentence describes delusions as false beliefs as this is the everyday definition of a delusion. It then goes on to discuss the psychiatric definition which although currently does include the criterion of a delusional belief being false (as per the current DSM definition), it also requires that the belief be held in a certain way (again as outlined in the article).


 * In terms of your point about delusional jealousy, I think the following paragraph covers this quite well:


 * In other situations the delusion may turn out to be true belief. For example, delusional jealousy, where a person believes that their partner is being unfaithful (and may even follow then into the bathroom believing them to be seeing their lover even during the briefest of partings) may result in the faithful partner being driven to infidelity by the constant and unreasonable strain put on them by their delusional spouse. In this case the delusion does not cease to be a delusion, because the content later turns out to be true.


 * However, I agree it could be clearer in explaining a belief may be true from the the start and still be diagnosed as delusional. However, as the diagnostic criteria for a delusion are at best, confused, and at worst, incoherent, meaning there is no adequate final definition (as the Spitzer article makes clear).
 * - Vaughan 08:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Many religious beliefs hold exactly the same features, yet are not considered delusional." --- POV and not even accurate. Many atheists and others consider religious beliefs to be delusional. And Nietzsche said, of faith: "...a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." --195.93.21.98 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Whole books could be written on this issue. It is very difficult to identify which of our beliefs are actually justified. Is an unjustified belief necessariy delusional? Does a delusional belief have to be harmful in some way to earn the epithet?

Examples

1. I believe God exists

- as an atheist I would say this belief is unjustified by the evidence. But is it harmful? Is it delusional?

2. I believe I can fly unassisted

- again an unjustified belief (though it can only be disproven by experiment!). Most people would call it delusional. Does it matter, though, as long as one doesn't attempt to act on the belief and try to fly off a cliff?

It should be pointed out that belief (1) can cause also people to do extremely dangerous things - hijack planes and fly them into buildings, launch crusades, persecute heretics. The same could be said of some political beliefs - that one's nation is a master race, or that violent revolution is necessary to obtain a just society.

3. I believe my partner/parent/child loves me

Again, this might be unjustified by the evidence. If so is it delusional? Might we depend on such unjustified beliefs such as this for our mental and emotional wellbeing?

No answers there I'm afraid. Which makes me wonder whether a "delusion" can be defined in terms other than subjective judgements.

Exile 21:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this for a definition of delusion: "Delusion:  A mental factor that arises from inappropriate attention and functions to make the mind unpeaceful and uncontrolled.  There are three main delusions:  ignorance, desirous attachment and anger.  From these arise all the other delusions, such as jealousy, pride, and deluded doubt."  p 197, "The New Meditation Handbook", Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ISBN 0948006 91 9  Link to Amazon re "The New Meditation Handbook"--Raymm 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, it has always troubled me that a person could walk into a hospital and say "I saw demons yesterday" and immediately be committed to the psychiatric unit, but in many churches, the same statement would not be unusual. Kat, Queen of Typos 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I find Buddhist thinking about delusions puts an interesting light on these comments. I.e., as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that my tendency to think I'm really quite important (self-cherishing) is a delusion that leads to suffering by encouraging selfish behavior. Even further, as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that I have a tendency to believe that a situation or object or person, or any mental event, has an inherent nature, which makes it difficult to consider alternative explanations. Then Buddhism goes on to teach antidotes (love (intention to increase other's happiness); compassion (intention to reduce other's suffering)) to these delusions and replaces the suffering caused by the delusions with more pleasant states of mind. This cross-pollination seems most interesting to me. Anyone else?--Raymm 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the delusion
We've all heard the axiom "crazy people don't think they're crazy". Is this untrue? Is it possible to have delusional thoughts, while knowing they're delusional? Example: if a person believed there was some unseen or unknown external intervention in their life (i.e. god, fate, aliens), but knew it was impossible.

What about contradicting beliefs, e.g. every potential mate they meet is in love with them and that they are not good enough for every potential mate or that they wouldn't want to be with them? Would that be considered to be delusional?

Just a couple of things I've been curious about.

Many things that we can not see and can not touch are true. e.g pain, love, soul, etc.

Knowing About Delusions from the Inside Out Rather Than Just Observed Behavior

I experienced a drug induced psychosis thirty-some years ago. I was able to with part of myself know what I was thinking may not be true, but the thoughts and feelings were so overwhelming it was hard to do anything more than ride out the psychosis. I did this by separating myself from the old environment, moving, and putting myself under house arrest. This was with a little outside help, and a lot of taking responsibility for my situation and hope that I would recover.

It is hard to for people who are suffering with delusions to do much more than to try to be opened minded. Delusions often appear to be deeply rooted. I know this from personal experience and working in Mental Health for the last 15 years. I think it wise to breach the subject that a delusion may be a false belief with a small amount of truth, but not belabor the notion.

I think it is importation to understand that delusions can be like a great wave that "rolls over the mind and engulfs it.” In my experience part of my thinking process understood the delusions I was having and how there was no “real proof” to back them up, but they were still overwhelming and the motivation of many of my thoughts and some actions.

take, for example, the classic instance of a person who thinks their thoughts can be heard by those around them - it's nonsensical! questions arise: would _i_ be able to hear _their_ thoughts? not necessarily. guess i better watch what i think. step further: they know my secrets and *must* know that i know; maybe the room going quiet as a thought private passes by is proof, but that's irrational, and yet, ultimately undeniable. the hold is unshakable. on some level, in some way, what cannot be, is. so what could cause this? a dread-inducing, cold-sweat-forcing fear of judgement, another example of the irrational? ultimately, would a person holding such beliefs want to stick around when not even his own mind is a haven from the judgement to which they irrationally, uncontrollably, and naturally overreact? maybe they speak very loudly the names of the ones who can hear in their mind to witness no reaction, and do so again in intervals expected to bewilder, to elicit a surprise reaction - only to fail. the delusion loses a lot of pull in the decisions and thought processes of the individual, but ready for the next delusional phase is the fact that the ones you're attempting to fool could once again be a step ahead, aware beforehand of your shouting ploy.

also, the perceived lack of privacy and implied negativity towards the self due to perceived, obsessive judgement could go a long way in explaining the personality loss commonly associated with schizophrenia, or at least, a cause. sorry for the rant.--Nod 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find Buddhist thinking about delusions puts an interesting light on these comments. I.e., as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that my tendency to think I'm really quite important (self-cherishing) is a delusion that leads to suffering by encouraging selfish behavior.  Even further, as I understand Buddhism, it teaches that I have a tendency to believe that a situation or object or person, or any mental event, has an inherent nature, which makes it difficult to consider alternative explanations.  Then Buddhism goes on to teach antidotes (love (intention to increase other's happiness); compassion (intention to reduce other's suffering)) to these delusions and replaces the suffering caused by the delusions with more pleasant states of mind.  This cross-pollination seems most interesting to me.  Anyone else?--Raymm 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious faith excluded?
Is it really excluded from the definition by psychologists? Is this a contentious issue within the field of psychology? Is the person who added that statement to the article delusional?

NSWelshman 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Robertson Panel
In the article Robertson Panel it mentions that shrinks are used to "reduce" interest in UFOs, aliens. Someone sued the CIA under the FOIA and got the information for the Robertson Panel, which it states that in a debunking campaign, psychiatrists are to be used, along with the media, and to spy on all UFO/alien organizations and groups. Martial Law 07:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Since the docs are used, thus explains the "delusions" used to insult and ridicule people who have had these experiences as persuant to the Robertson Panel and Project Grudge protocol. Martial Law 08:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Can this one be explained ? Martial Law 08:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Animals inside of him??
"...and now realises that this person was laughing because the man has animals living inside him"...what does that mean? Figurative or his own delusion of animals? Le Anh-Huy 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that, is this subtle vandalism? I'm going to move that sec to talk pending citation. - FrancisTyers ·

Primary and secondary delusions
Jaspers originally made a distinction between primary and secondary delusions.

According to Jaspers, primary delusions (sometimes called true delusions) are distinguished by a transformation of meaning, so that the world, or aspects of it, are interpreted in a radically different way by the delusional person. To others, this interpretation is 'un-understandable' in terms of the normal mental causality, mood, environmental influences and other psychological or psychopathological factors. Jaspers describes four types of primary delusion:
 * 1) delusional intuition - where delusions arrive 'out of the blue', without external cause.
 * 2) delusional perception - where a normal perception is interpreted with delusional meaning. For example, a person sees a red car and thinks that this means the person's food is being poisoned by the police.
 * 3) delusional atmosphere - where the world seems subtly altered, uncanny, portentous or sinister. This resolves into a delusion, usually in a revelatory fashion, which seems to explain the unusual feeling of anticipation.
 * 4) delusional memory - where a delusional belief is based upon the recall of memory or false memory for a past experience. For example, a man recalls seeing a woman laughing at the bus stop several weeks ago and now realises that this person was laughing because the man has animals living inside him.

Secondary delusions (sometimes called delusion-like ideas) are considered to be, at least in principle, understandable in the context of a person's life history, personality, mood state or presence of other psychopathology. For example, a person becomes depressed, suffers very low mood and self-esteem, and subsequently believes he or she is responsible for some terrible crime which he or she did not commit.

Possible Edits re: "Unfalsifiability", "Falsity", "Diagnostic issues", etc.
Re:

"Delusions do not necessarily have to be false or 'incorrect inferences about external reality' [2]. Some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as 'I believe in the existence of God') including those diagnosed as delusional, by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect [3]."

What does the term 'unfalsifiable' mean, here? If it means necessarily true, then it is true that such a belief "cannot be described as false", but that God exists would hardly seem to be an example. If it means cannot be shown to be false, then that God exists might be an example (depending upon what God is conceived to be), but I see no reason to say that such beliefs "cannot be described as false or incorrect": it need not be the case that all falsehoods can be shown to be false. Perhaps the intent was to say that such beliefs cannot be known to be false (which is true if a belief must be capable of being shown to be false in order to be known to be false).

Re:

"In other cases, the delusion may be assumed to be false by doctor or psychiatrist assessing the belief, because it seems to be unlikely, bizarre or held with excessive conviction. Psychiatrists rarely have the time or resources to check the validity of a person’s claims leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional [5]. This is known as the Martha Mitchell effect, after the wife of the attorney general who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane)."

This paragraph presupposes that delusional beliefs must be false despite the fact that the two immediately preceding paragraphs were aimed at showing that delusional beliefs can be true (and succeed in that aim, I think). If it is intended that the paragraph not imply that delusional beliefs must be false, then '...leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional...' could be changed to '...leading to some beliefs being erroneously classified as delusional...', and '...only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane)...' could be changed to either '...only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right, which made it seem unlikely that her allegations evinced mental illness...' or '...which made it plausible that her allegations were well grounded...'.

Moreover, since the paragraph is about the erroneous classification of beliefs as delusional, '...the delusion may be assumed to be false...' would be better rendered as '...a belief may be assumed to be delusional...'.

Finally, the entire section entitled "Diagnostic issues" seems to suffer from a failure to adequately distinguish between the following distinct issues:

(1) Whether the proposed definition succeeds in capturing all and only the cases of delusional belief in some "intuitive" sense of 'delusional belief'. (The notion that there are "counterexamples" to a definition presupposes that there is a pre-existing concept of which the definition is supposed to be an articulation.)

(2) Whether the proposed definition defines a condition which is unacceptably susceptible of misdiagnosis.

Perhaps these two issues ought to be treated in two separate sections. Hemlock 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical error?
99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)people do not know the difference between delusions illusions, hallucinations and when lay people are looking to wiki for a general idea of what's what- - relatives confused by bizarre behaviour could really benefits from a list of clear examples --when to recognize that nightmares are not really happening- this is not a question for a social worker it is a brain disease.99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular Hollywood films such as The Soloist and A Beautiful Mind provide true stories from the lives of patients and their families.99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LIST OF popular books = Crazy-a father's story --man does break and enter to take a bubble bath; children's books called iristhedragon in perth ontario canada; book "i am not sick" by dr.... 99.234.95.84 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as 'I believe in the existence of God') of some, including those diagnosed as delusional, by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect."

Of some, the words I emboldened, are not in the article, but I think they should be because the sentence doesn't make sense without them. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or correct the page if it's wrong.

>>>>PoidLover
 * I tried to reword the sentence and I think it is grammatically correct now.--DorisH 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea of delusions in Buddhist teachings
Delusions are an important element in Buddhism. I was surprised there was no reference to the idea of Buddhist delusions in this article. Would it be appropriate to add this? --Raymm 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that before. What would you use as a citation?--DorisHノート 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, this might take me a little while, but I'll get you something authoritative for you to consider. --Raymm 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 02:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok,re "What would you use as a citation?
 * For example: "Delusion:  A mental factor that arises from inappropriate attention and functions to make the mind unpeaceful and uncontrolled.  There are three main delusions:  ignorance, desirous attachment and anger.  From these arise all the other delusions, such as jealousy, pride, and deluded doubt."  p 197, "The New Meditation Handbook", Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ISBN 0948006 91 9  Link to Amazon re "The New Meditation Handbook"--Raymm 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be more interested in knowing about a scientist's view of what a delusion is rather than a philosopher's view. 207.237.41.202 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs
Is believening a certain religion or conspiracy theory "delusional"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.91 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends not on what is believed in, but in how many people believe it. Something cannot be delusional if it is accepted in society (this is by the definition of delusion), even if there is strong/solid evidence directly against it. For example you could say that taken individually, a religious person would match the definition of delusion if they were the only person of that religion left. Also by the same logic, many founders of religions are therefore delusional, as at the time only themselves and perhaps a couple of followers believed in them.--Dacium 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some conspiracy theories would not be delusional - for example, the Watergate Scandal to Martha Beall Mitchell. But some - for example, the 9/11 "no planes" conspiracy theory - would be. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If a falsehood is believed true by few, it is called delusion. When believed by many, it is called religion.Final Philosopher (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A contradiction?
I am not an expert in this, but I am wondering about the sentence "In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)." As far as I know the "illness" where delusions are most important is schizophrenia. But in the criteria for schizophrenia in the DSM or ICD one of the main things that constitute the diagnoses is delusion. So if having a delusion is part of the criteria FOR a schizophrenic illness, then having a mental illness can`t be a necesary thing to decide whether something is a delusion or not. It would be a circle in the argument. Can anyone explain? Geomatix2 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuhn, Oversimplification
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn suggested a number of things about the modern scientific community, but the statement "scientists can hold strong beliefs in scientific theories despite considerable apparent discrepancies with experimental evidence" never appears in any form. Kuhn's argument consisted mainly in showing that scientific revolutions are generally revolutions of perspective; questions and whole classes of answers change value. In Kuhn's view, anomalies in the body of experimental data are taken by the scientific community as a challenge to stretch the current paradigm to fit the anomaly until someone comes along with a more elegant paradigm. Though both paradigms may be able to account for the anomaly, the elegance with which the new paradigm handles the anomaly has usually been the deciding factor.

Besides this, Kuhn took issue with what was (before his time) a common error among science historians, namely the application of the term "science" to work done before science became a distinct discipline.

In this light, the sentence about Kuhn doesn't even belong in this article. Kuhn never had anything to say about the difference between scientific theory and delusion; the sentence in the article suggests that the difference is in some sense tenuous. See the articles on The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions and Thomas_S._Kuhn for more details. --A3soggetti (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: the sentence seems totally out of place in this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing that Causes of schizophrenia be moved in this article because the topics discussed there are not specific to schizophrenia, but apply to delusions in general. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - this section should be moved there (and checked, but it is late here and I need to sleep - too fatigued to read now....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not instead, rename the article "Causes of delusions"?

and link it to this and other articles? --Bouleau (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems a good alternative as the article does mention schizophrenia specifically and keeping all sz information together makes sense too. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I hadn't noticed how informative this article is with its full list of delusional types, it should be very helpful for those with a diagnosis. I don't think it should be incorporated into the article on schizophrenia because of the many different ways delusions can come about it deserves its' own space. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I went to merge the section in question into this article. It definitely didn't belong in an article on the causes of schizophrenia, but I didn't see anything that warranted inclusion in this article.. Much of the text didn't provide any meaningful content, was poorly written, and was likely original research. Dgf32 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

deleted known examples section
I deleted this section because these are not good examples.

Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic - a mass delusion, not a good example of a typical delusion

Religion, as argued by Richard Dawkins - does not meet the criteria for delusion, religion is par of a socially accepted norm, not a fixed belief. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, people with religious beliefs can sometimes reason out other ideas and change their beliefs when they are presented with a good argument or convincing evidence. It's this possibility of voluntary change in thought that rules out believers in god/religion as delusional. People experiencing psychotic delusions are locked into their beliefs and are just not able believe otherwise unless there are some neurochemical changes taking place. --Roastporkbun (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

capgras
what about the capgras delusion? needs to be added as another type? Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it has its own article here but think it still needs mention as it own category ?? Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

regardless of your POV a persons faith beliefs are not delusions
removed this content today from religious delusion types ''This is debatable based on whether or not you are religious. From an atheist point of view any religious belief could be considered delusional'' as by definition religious beliefs are not delusions for a number of reasons. For example, they are within social norms of belief held by a persons peers and secondly dont hold all the qualities required (those with religious ideas can usually enterain or see the perpectives of others and acknowledge the faith aspects of their belief). Happy to debate on talk page but above comment did not cite any source. Earlypsychosis (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

except for people who think "God" is telling them to kill others, in which case they are delusional (an all powerful being wouldnt need help with that) 69.140.35.147 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Erotomania and "people of a higher status"
I'd like to find more concrete data on this idea that patients with erotomania "often" experience their delusions regarding those of a "higher status". In my experience, someone with erotomania can perceive that anyone is in love with him or her. That the secret admirer is "often" of a higher status...I think the only reason why this phrase has been repeated so many times is because of the high-publicity cases of erotomania involving celebrities. However, there are even more cases of "ordinary" erotomania that takes place every day -- the perceived "secret admirer" can be quite random and does not have to be someone of a higher status. The admirer might the repairman, a neighbor, and in some cases even one's own family member. If you've ever observed anyone with psychosis you know that delusional onsets are often completely random, illogical, and have nothing to do with the sufferer's pre-onset personal beliefs or history. (Example, it's not likely that when someone has the delusion that the FBI is following him/her that there's some deep-seated meaning to that, or that the sufferer had some kind of bad experience with law enforcement in the past. It's just a random delusion. Nothing more.) Furthermore, someone suffering from erotomania does not always necessarily "return" the "love".

All in all, there hasn't really been too much concrete, statistical research published about erotomania, and yet this idea of "the patient perceives that someone of a higher status" is in love with him/her keeps getting repeated everywhere... Roastporkbun (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. Need to check the refs on that one, but off the top of my head I don't recall the 'higher status' being a recognised feature in the literature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Using plural pronouns to refer to singular nouns?
Re: Reverted edit -- 10 July 2009 75.2.132.12 (Used "they are" for gender neutral pronoun, long-time accepted English usage per Chicago Manual of Style and Wikipedia itself) (undo) (Used "they are" for gender neutral pronoun, long-time accepted English usage per Chicago Manual of Style and Wikipedia itself)

Is this correct? Does Wikipedia promote sentenes like, "a person may believe they are receiving special messages from newspaper headlines"? It sounds awfully wrong. I was always taught to use either "he/she/he or she", or simply change everything to "people may believe they are..."

I have never seen "they" used to refer to singular nouns in an effort to be gender-neutral. Roastporkbun (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Colloquially yes, but not in a medical article. I find its use a bit jarring here too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific Delusions
I have added this section which used to be written under causes of schizophrenia. The main criticisms were that it was poorly written and constituted original research. This version was from 2008 and edited by Eversince and is written better. Just checking WP's policy where X is a type of Y is used - amphetamine delusions are a type of delusion, culture is a type of cause of delusion... I will send the previous editors a short note. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious and Scientific Theories
You know there can't be a subject of delusions without these two terms.

The ones that stick out are: Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation), Erotomania and Religious delusion.

Complete BS. The first is feelings of guilt which all have. If it was feelings of guilt without cause toward a specific event, then it can be a delusion, but not when there's a constant feeling of guilt which can be from anything that hasn't been resolved yet in the mind. The second, Erotomania, isn't a delusion. If a person get confused about another person liking them, its not because their delusional, its respinding to singals. The third, Religious delusion, is from an Atheist's perspective which is one of the smaller belief(or rather disbelief) systems.

For example the phrase, "Beliefs that would be considered normal for an individual's religious or cultural background are not delusions." is something an Atheist would write to not offend. According to that idea, Scientology, the religion based upon a scifi book, shouldn't be considered a delusion. But they are delusions and false beliefs and should not be counted out based on ones feelings. It should be mentioned, and there is no reason not to add them. I purpose removing it and redefining "Religious Delusions".

The other delusions I added in the title are Scientific Theories, which seem to be the most perplex delusions. There are many absurd theories, including the "Dream Argument" and similar scientific propositions of Origins. For one, I don't think the belief of God should be categorized as a delusion because that would mean Love, Life, Good and Evil, Morality, Logic, and Reason should be considered delusions based on no purpose or proof of existence. The same could be said about "perception" since nothing is certain in the Atheistic belief of "Nothing to Something" ergo, "No Truth", "No Constant", "No Purpose", "No Meaning" and "No Supernatural". The latter negating Life, because there would be no sure way to prove it. Since I have never met a single person who didn't hold all these beliefs, it renders Atheism, the strictest sense that there is no God, obsolete. So it's odd this article fails to add Atheism, a disbelief rather than belief, making it non-religious, to the line up. I purpose adding it to the line up as well.

Any thoughts or additional reasons/disagreeable opinions please let me know. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, listing atheism as a delusion for no good reason would be clear POV-pushing, as would listing religion as a delusion. They are just ways of saying "I disagree with X", not informing the reader about delusion. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delusions imply psychosis, which is also linked with hallucinations.
 * You can believe in "Love, Life, Good and Evil, Morality, Logic, and Reason" without believing in a god (or God). Buddhists are taught to be open to the concept of God/gods, but they don't necessarily have to believe.
 * "Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation): This is a false feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity. A person may, for example, believe they have committed some horrible crime and should be punished severely. Another example is a person who is convinced they are responsible for some disaster (such as fire, flood, or earthquake) with which there can be no possible connection." As another example, you could genuinely believe that you killed someone, when you didn't. Excessive guilt (when the events are factual) could be described as scrupulosity (religious OCD). An example of this could be praying for forgiveness after eating raw/uncooked meat by accident. The Bible states that blood is Holy (something on the lines of that), and should not be consumed. Scrupulosity is something entirely different from delusions of guilt or sin, however.
 * For Erotomania, "They believe that this other person was the first to declare his or her affection, often by special glances, signals, telepathy, or messages through the media." There's also a pretty big difference between love and romantic interest.
 * Essentially, religious delusions are senseless exaggerations (maybe someone claiming that Jesus is walking among us or Obama being the antichrist), and the same would go for nihilistic delusions (which is basically an extreme of atheism). If both atheism and religion in general were considered delusions, would that not make every living animal deluded? MichaelExe (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. But I still think Religion and Atheism should be some form of delusions, seeing as their both based off of specific views, that both fail to meet Reality completely. As for what I mentioned about Life, Love, Good and Evil, Logic and Reason, you pretty much can't say they exist without God. Those are immaterial's and concepts, that have no meaning without God. Even if you rely on them without the belief of God(Atheism) you still have no account for them. Making them as meaningless as any concept.

And I don't think I'd classify us as animals but, I agree. All of us are pretty deluded, mixing truth with other views and creating "Theories" that never end. The Truth itself, in purity is almost unknown to us anyway, so even the closet person doesn't know all of it. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we've got scientific and psychological explanations for Life, Love, Good and Evil, Logic and Reason. From a psychological point of view, Love is another word for attachment, Good (interpersonally) is essentially Agreeableness (a personality trait, suited to an ideal childhood, Evil is even described as disordered (usually due to a less than ideal childhood, coupled with biological predisposition) in several religious contexts, although sin is often situational (provoked). Even animals are capable of logic and reason, although much less than us, because we have exceptional brain function compared to any other animal. I have yet to come across a reasonable scientific theory for existence and the beginning of Life, however. The theory that something can be created from nothing doesn't make sense to me, considering it would be impossible to replicate.
 * Either way, in medicine, there's a line that needs to be crossed before we can consider someone deluded (or disordered, in general): the delusion imposes a negative effect on the "sufferer's" functioning and life in general. At this point, it presents a need for therapy. Religious orientation has little to do with social functioning, so if we considered everyone deluded, we'd all need therapy. And in this, we'd lose a large part of our freedom of opinion and individuality, because we'd be pushed to accept certain views. Life would be pretty boring if we were all the same. MichaelExe (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Under "Religious delusion"
Under Religious Delusion it says: "Any delusion with a religious or spiritual content. These may be combined with other delusions, such as grandiose delusions (the belief that the affected person was chosen by God, for example), delusions of control, or delusions of guilt. Beliefs that would be considered normal for an individual's religious or cultural background are classed as mass delusions."

This sentence is saying that normal beliefs in religion are mass delusions. Although I'm not here to argue whether religion is a delusion itself we have to acknowledge that the majority of the worlds population do follow a religion and this is considered to be normal and healthy. That said, shouldn't this say: "Beliefs that would be considered normal for an individual's religious or cultural background are not delusions."? As seen here: http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

I'm changing it to that unless someone objects.--24.224.187.186 (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

duplication of Delusional disorder
much of this is a duplication of Delusional disorder. The list of delusions need to be mapped out in terms of identified psychiatric conditions including Delusional disorder--Penbat (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted the following sentence: " Also, patients usually appear normal as long as another person does not touch upon their delusional themes." This statement specifically concerns the symptoms of delusional disorder, not delusions per se. It is true that individuals meeting criteria for delusional disorder will often have few if any other bizarre or otherwise pathological behavioral or cognitive disturbances. However, delusions are commonly noted symptoms of other psychiatric disorders, and these other disorders will often be accompanied by other symptoms (disturbances in thought processes, hallucinations, etc.). Often, individuals with these other conditions will certainly not "appear normal". Moonharpoon (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a new paragraph
I was surprised to see that there was barely any material in this article covering substance-induced delusions under the Causes section. My father is the resident director at South Buffalo Mercy Hospital and I've gone to the hospital with him many times, and since like father like son, I'd like to be a physician. I have personally seen many up close cases of stimulant-induced delusions where people would fall off their hospital beds, rip the lines out of their arms and think they're possessed by some spirit. The guy only took 80mg Dextroamphetamine. Yeah, that's a lot, but he had quite the tolerance. Delusions caused by stimulants happen more often than you know. It's quite scary, really--the person genuinely believed he was being controlled by some other consciousness. So, before anybody goes and edits or deletes the paragraph I added in I'd like to hear ahead of time as to why(not enough citations, innacurate information,etc), so please message me over Wikipedia. I always have my Fedora Thinkpad x41 with me all the time at school so I'll get the message pretty quickly. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks guys!
 * thanks for your edits. There are however differences between the standard understanding of a delusion and the experiences when using drugs.  It may be that we need to discuss  these generally accepted differences and find sources to support this.  also see  or .  cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010

(UTC)
 * PS please sign your edits with ~ Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Persecutory delusions
Someone created a stub on that topic, but based on the sources in it as of this writing, it doesn't appear justified as a separate article from this one. The DSM only lists it as a subtype, among quite a few other. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree with merge for both grandiose and persecutory delusions.Grandiose delusions is a variant of grandiosity and associated with megalomania. --Penbat (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll take a look at who created the article in the first place, and then look at his edit history (covered in my write-up of Wikipedia's Persecutory Delusions Guy), it's pretty clear there's an agenda and a POV. In my opinion, the article was created for the purpose of attacking a class of people. Jeremy  stalked (law 296) 23:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas of reference
I favor merging this article as well. You'll notice a certain editor's influence in that article, where he links the type of delusion mentioned in that article to homicidal impulses. Jeremy stalked (law 296) 07:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would favour keeping the articles separate, as Ideas of reference seem substantial enough to me to merit their own unique pageJacobisq (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Under the "Types" section...
Please remove the following sentence: "In addition to these categories, There is also another type of delusion. The Liverpool delusion syndrome. This is a classic case, where fans of Liverpool Football club refuse to accept they are a spent force in the English Premier League. This delusion which they possess is most likely to be based on trophies which most of them weren't even alive for." While undoubtedly an attempt at humor, this passage undermines the tone of the rest of the article.Weesasuzi (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Levels of incorrigibility
I can see that incorrigibility can take a few forms: Do psychiatrists tend to distinguish these? — Smjg (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * you acknowledge corrections at the time they're given to you, but they fail to displace the false belief from your long-term memory
 * you fail to see the most obvious contradictions between what you already "know" and what you're being told, such that you might in the same conversation bring up the former in a matter-of-fact way as if you haven't been given the correction
 * you dismiss there and then any attempts to tell you you're wrong, insisting instead that those who correct you are wrong

culture references
let me state this so that everyone can understand it, "PEOPLE ARE NOT DELUSIONAL BECAUSE THEY DO OR BELIEVE THINGS THEIR RACE OR CULTURE DOES NOT ACCEPT. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS, YOU ARE DELUSIONAL YOURSELF AS THIS BELIEF IS NOT TRUE, BUT YET YOU BELIEVE IT". Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're going to delete large chunks of text please check that it does not mess up references. Also, I think the section that you have identified as problematic could do with a considerable rewrite - but I wouldn't just blank it. Incidentally, the Jasper's section is a little wrong - Berrios shows quite clearly that he didn't "invent" the modern concept but systematised a lot of 19th century thinking on the subject. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry, lol, lets rewrite it. I'll do a draft first and let me know what you think Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Delusions are not due to a medical condition
The statement "delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse" applies to the carachterization of delusiional disorder and not to the definition/carachterization of delusions in general. Please, remove this statement, since it is wrong. 143.107.176.125 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Montezuma Ferreira -- Sept 22, 2011.
 * Done Feel free to edit these pages yourself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Delusion or Unpopular?
Why are religious beliefs not classified as delusions? Are then the terms "delusion" and "unpopular belief" interchangeable? --Chompy12345 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The are not considered delusions because they are based on accepted cultural norms. Delusions are personal to the person's individual psyche and systems of meaning.  That is my understanding of why.  Now, it is fairly common for delusions to have a religious nature to them - but that is again after it becomes personal and is outside of the culturally accepted bounds of (any) religion.  Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By that logic, you can only be delusional if you are different. Conformity and psychological health are equated.  Chompy12345 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They are related, but not equal. It doesn't matter in any case, this is not the place to debate it.  And there is such a thing as too much conformity as well, which can although be pathological.  Regardless, if you want to work on adding something on wikipedia about this it should be in the delusional disorder article, or maybe anti-psychiatry, and not this one.  This article is about what delusions are and types of them and and not the full spectrum of delusional illnesses.  Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I don't think that thinking critically about psychiatry is the same as anti-psychiatry.  It's just like the role of debate in a democracy.  Psychiatry shouldn't be a religion with unquestionable, holy edicts.  A section noting that delusions are defined not by objective criteria but by what is currently popular or fashionable might be the most important part of the page.  After all, you said that this article is about what delusions are.


 * I don't mean any of this as a personal attack. I hope it didn't come across that way.  I respect your opinion, and am only responding to your arguments.  I just think that this debate and exchange of ideas is important.  Chompy12345 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I am usually more eloquent and not as mean. I am a new editor and am just not sure exactly how that would fit in this article, though I personally believe to some extent religions are/can be delusional and that indeed culture can make things that would be considered "delusional" to be normalized.  But mentioning it here seems more like a dig on religion than something that expands this article about delusions, you know what I mean?  I could be completely wrong and maybe what you have in mind wouldn't have these problems.  I didn't take anything as a personal attack and I agree with thinking critically about psychiatry and basically everything else.  I think you got me on a grumpy day. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversed edits from Bluebird29
I reversed or manually removed all of the slight wording edits and only kept the see-also link to self-fulfilling prophecy. The rest may be the editor's opinion but is not what the sources say and seems to be a personal bias. Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Other sources
Hi. This is an excellent article. I'm not inclined to do so myself but it could perhaps be improved by extending the historical concept of delusions which predates Jaspers considerably (even in terms of the form/content distinction). | Berrios might be a good source for this. Also John Locke had a very influential conception of delusions that might be added (as reasoning correctly from false premises). I guess you could also include Hadfield's insanity defence constructed by Erskines - | Joel Eigen would be a good source for this.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Autism
Tony Attwood, in the complete guide to Asperger syndrome talks about delusions in Asperger Syndrome, having personally had them I would not say that they are pathological since as soon as I had provable evidence to the contrary that element, but not the whole, of the delusion cleared and they where based on incomplete evidence, though I was sectioned due to it. Asperger Syndrome isn't an illness it's a neurological development disorder.

My edits to that effect would be a bit messy given the current page, so i would like some discussion about what the best way to do those edits given the current material is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.248.132 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 January 2013‎
 * Hi 86.174.248.132! Please start with writing here on the talk page what you like to insert in the article, so other editors can give their comments. However, you need to take care, because you have your own experience with this, that you write what the source says and not what you think about it. Sometimes it can be difficult to be neutral when you're personally involved. Best regards,  Lova Falk     talk   19:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Regrading "True delusions"
The article needs to contribute more from sources, whom are critical of legitimacy of the notion of 'true' delusions. If a belief turns out to be true, than there may have been (and quite likely, was) a rational basis for a subjects beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! You seem to know about this, so please be bold and write some text about it, using your sources - If the sources are reliable, that is.  Lova Falk     talk   08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lova Falk - would you not have some expertise on this topic? The definition of delusions generally is problematic (i.e. there's no satisfactory definition that distinguishes pathological from non-pathological delusions). But I feel using wordnet or any similar source (dictionary etc) to define delusions, as occurs in the lead to this article, is inappropriate. In regard to the observation by 142.196.88.228, there are some sources linking delusions to life experiences (e.g. those who have experienced victimisation are more likely to suffer from persecutory delusions, etc) but I'm not sure if the evidence they present is overwhelming. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... some, but it's not my main area. But I'll start with removing this strange sentence, that is not covered by the source: "Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)." I'll put this page on my (quite long) "to do" list.  Lova Falk     talk   12:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sociological commentary requested
There is a sociological and thus at least slightly political element to the concept 'delusional', which we see applied widely in all levels of societies, normally as one group against another group. A few sentences on this, perhaps an Emile Durkheim quote or two if applicable, would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ddd1600! You might be the one of us who has most knowledge about this. Why don't you find some good, secondary sources and then please be bold and write a few sentences about this! With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-bizarre delusions
Is the current example of a non-bizarre delusion (a person believing they are under constant police surveillance) really viable as an example any more, given that state surveillance of completely innocent people has become so disgustingly common and so many news stories (especially since - but certainly not limited to - the Snowden revelations) have highlighted these sorts of abuses occurring on an almost incomprehensibly massive scale? It just seems that it no longer passes the definition of being a delusion that this article starts with, i.e., strongly believing something despite superior evidence to the contrary. Xmoogle (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Delusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819071820/http://www.abess.com:80/glossary.html to http://www.abess.com/glossary.html#D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322210939/http://www.sanp.ch/pdf/2000/2000-01/2000-01-058.PDF to http://www.sanp.ch/pdf/2000/2000-01/2000-01-058.PDF
 * Added tag to http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/403-a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728045829/http://mindfull.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_et_al_2003_BeliefsAboutDelusions.pdf to http://mindfull.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_et_al_2003_BeliefsAboutDelusions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion vs. delusion 2
It seems the above concern was addressed, apparently without considering why such beliefs should be implicitly or explicitly excluded? It seems to current edit is intended to do specifically that, even though we speak of being being "deluded" or "delusional" when they hold a false belief to be true "based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception" - and "in spite of superior evidence to the contrary". It seems to me the current edit is intentionally deceptive and contrived to implicitly exclude religious belief by attempting to distinguish delusion as a "pathology" and setting it aside from religion (or excluding religious beliefs) by protecting it from the "in spite of superior evience" definition (last I checked, all the other things listed would qualify as "inferior evidence"). I recognize we're not here to attack religious beliefs, but neither are we here to protect them, either. The point, as I understand it, is to present an accurate understanding of what "delusion" is. It's a separate question for people to decide whether or not belief in a given religious ideology is delusional or not. 75.67.75.112 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC) BJ

Some sections not archiving
I'll add another section header and comment on some to see the the old sections will archive. StrayBolt (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Religion vs. delusion
Isn't anyone concerned that the initial sentence of this article describing a delusion and definition section for delusion would qualify every religion as a delusion? Maybe, a clarification should be made differentiating belief or faith in religion versus that of a delusion?
 * 68.54.0.181 September 3, 2017
 * Prior message wasn't signed, copied info from history StrayBolt (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible Edits re: "Unfalsifiability", "Falsity", "Diagnostic issues", etc. (cont.)
You say "only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).", but a paragraph earlier you explain how delusions do not necessarily cease to be delusions when a subject was right. So, yes, she was proved right, but "hence sane" is non sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.117.173 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added section to see if it will archive in the future StrayBolt (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Definition or description?
After reading this section, the entry does not strike me as being a "dictionary" type of definition. Instead, it reads (at least to me) as being more as a description of the condition rather than a definition of the word itself; or at the very least, more of a glossary entry. Therefore, I think this section should be retitled "Description" or something similar. Opinions? Erzahler (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The WP:First sentence of the article currently reads: A delusion is firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background. That Apparently appeared with little explanation and no supporting cite in this January 19, 2019 edit. The word interpretation appears to be needed following the word contrary.

Additionally, this seems to be contradicted by. That source says that Delusion is defined:
 * In DSM-IV as: 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. [...]
 * In DSM-V as: fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. [...]

I have WP:BOLDly edited the lead sentence to agree with the DSM-V definition, citing the source mentioned above. I was tempted to add, the author of which appears to be the same person credited as the author of that web article I cited, as a Further reading item, but I'm way out of my depth here and I thought I had better just mention that here.

Please revert, correct, and improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Not all organ transplants are bizarre
I thought this was a funny Easter egg in the examples of bizarre delusions:

> An example named by the DSM-5 is a belief that someone replaced all of one's internal organs with someone else's without leaving a scar, depending on the organ in question.

To wit: depending on the organ in question, the nefarious forcible transplantation with another person's is a bizarre delusion. Perfectly reasonable to say they stole your brain your sleep---They do it all the time. But They took your spleen you say? That's crazy talk. Botriot (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section is biased and generalizes too much
My understanding is that criticism sections are discouraged now, so it should probably be removed regardless of merit. But I also find it odd that the entire section is a wall of text about one person, an outsider to the field, with an apparent anti-psychiatry stance generalizing about how psychiatrists and psychologists differentiate delusions from other false beliefs. This would be confusing to someone who does not understand the subject and thus it gives undue weight to this view.

If it's necessary to include this viewpoint, it needs to be reframed as an opinion and not an objective representation of expert consensus. 2603:7081:1603:A300:20EC:6D63:EA13:4BD (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)