Talk:Otherkin/Archive 1

This belongs on the talk page. However, I don't see a copyright violation based on this material. (Moved from article)

''The above is taken (without permission) from http://www.otherkin.net/articles/what-old.html. A somewhat more detailed, updated version is available at http://www.otherkin.net/articles/what.html.''


 * Smells like victimisation and close-mindedness to me. Otherkin.net appears to be down at the moment, but I don't remember seeing any similarities, myself. - Tanedra 15:56, 21 Jun 2004

Otherkin and clinical lycanthropy
Eequor, your touchup work on the article is much appreciated, but I am not so sure about your changing of my comments on clinical lycanthropy. First of all, I added those comments because the statement about there being a "controversy" over otherkin suffering from clinical lycanthropy is very problematic to me. I'm not sure who added it or why, as I've never heard anyone link the two together in any direct way. Secondly, I also am unsure of why you told me to "learn more about psychosis" -- perhaps because I said "it usually results in hallucinations and violent behavior"? However "it" refers to the antecedent "clinical lycanthropy," not psychosis in general, and clinical lycanthropy almost always is accompanied by hallucinations, and in a great many cases, violent behavior. Outsiders' opinions of otherkin are already tainted enough without connecting the phenomenon to something like that. I included those two symptoms to try and contrast those who are suffering from the diagnosable disorder of lycanthropy and otherkin, who integrate their connections to animals into their lives in much more positive ways. By the way, I prefer mental disorder to mental illness, as the causes, diagnoses, and treatments involving mental problems do not correspond to tangible and consistent elemnts like physical illnesses, but I did not change that in the article as I guess that is more of a subjective definition. Putrescent stench 19:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The similarity to clinical lycanthropy should at least be noted in the article. I think we should be very careful regarding what the article says about different groups &mdash; it isn't exactly NPOV to associate all lycanthropes with hallucinations and violence.  The popular image of psychosis is quite negative, but has little basis in fact.  We needn't perpetuate the belief that psychotic individuals are more violent.


 * The article on clinical lycanthropy does not support the claim that lycanthropes have a tendency to violent behavior, and it avoids making any statements about hallucination beyond a link between psychosis and lyncanthropy. Certainly this article should not make stronger claims; besides, how does it improve the image of otherkin to point out severely aberrant behavior that is not typical of them?


 * I think it's more important to make the distinction that psychosis and clinical lycanthropy are illnesses which interfere with an individual's ability to function in society, while otherkin are not ill. It's a very significant distinction: illnesses can be treated; disorders might not need treatment.  I suppose the article could distinguish the two more firmly.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 03:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I see now that the idea of clinical lycanthropy is at least relevant. I was not proposing to tarnish the image of lycanthropy by associating it with hallucination and violent behavior. Hallucination actually must occur in every case, for the very definition of lycanthropy is the delusion that one is turning into an animal, and until someone is proven to physically shift, I'd call that hallucination. Putrescent stench 19:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delusion and hallucination may be closely related, but they aren't quite the same. A butterfly which believed itself to be physically human would be delusional.  If it could clearly see its human body, though, it would be hallucinating (in which case it might be completely reasonable for it to believe it truly was human).  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 11:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Clinical lycanthropes suffer from both delusion and hallucinations. As you can see from this article from a psychiatric journal http://www.primitivism.com/lycanthropy.htm, the word "delusion" is used to label the lycanthropic condition. The woman also suffers hallucinations - seeing a wolf's head on her body, seeing a wolfish, evil eye beside her human eye, etc. In lycanthropy, the two often go hand in hand, as hallucinations usually feed the delusion that one is becoming or already has become a non-human animal.

As far as violent behavior, if you look at individual cases, you will see that they usually display some form of aggressive, if not outright violent, behavior. There have been cases which have even resulted in murder, though I think the typical manifestation is usually just biting and scratching. Putrescent stench 19:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd accept that for purely wolf-form lycanthropy, but would it be true of the person who believed se had turned into a bee? &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 11:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I haven't read that case. The occurence of believing oneself to become an animal such as a bee is an extremely rare phenomenon, and most cases, at least according to my knowledge, involve a predatory animal. If you come across a number of cases of lycanthropy in which the people do not act violently, then you would be justified in your assertion, but the cases I've studied usually involve violent behavior of some kind. Otherwise, it seems you're only resisting the idea that lycanthropes are violent because you don't like people with psychiatric problems to be slighted. Still, I'll leave off the bit about hallucinations and violent behavior, out of courtesy and because I think the distinction between Otherkin and clinical lycanthropy is now satisfactorily explained. Putrescent stench 20:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article on clinical lycanthropy does not really refer to specific cases, and is mostly written by one author. Although informative, it could use some expansion. Perhaps I'll work on that sometime in the near future as well.

I like the last sentence in the paragraph concerned, but I have a problem with this assertion: "but this is misguided, as otherkin do not suffer, nor even consider themselves to be ill." This is not true at all. Many otherkin suffer and struggle with accepting the idea that they are not completely human. In fact it's generally believed that if you don't question your own sanity, then you haven't fully recognized whether you're 'kin or not. Otherkin can and certainly do suffer from mental problems just like anyone else, whether it be caused by their otherness or not. I have written up something that hopefully provides better clarification, but before adding it I decided to put it here for scrutiny first:

"There is some controversy as to whether people claiming to be otherkin may be suffering from schizotypal personality disorder or clinical lycanthropy, Although there are some similiarites, such as the sensation of possessing non-human attributes, there are two important distinctions to be considered:
 * Clinical lycanthropy is defined as the delusion that one physically has become or is becoming a non-human animal; otherkin, however, recognize that their body is human, but conceive that part of them, either in a mental or spiritual sense, is non-human.
 * Otherkin generally carry on stable, functional lives, which makes any medical diagnosis unnecessary."


 * Oh, that's expressed better. I've added that to the article.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 11:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we could finally agree on something. Putrescent stench 20:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the by, this abstract of an article from a psychiatric journal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14674954 describes lycanthropy as a "disorder" not an "illness." The difference between the two words does not seem to be anything that is official in the psychiatric field, I just think the phrase "mental illness" is semantically inaccurate in ALL cases because it compares physical problems with mental ones. Even in instances where mental problems may involve organic factors (brain chemistry, brain damage, etc.), the whole nature of mental dysfunction or disorders or whatever is too complex to be likened to a physical ailment. I assume that since there's not really a rule for distinguishing between "illness" and "disorder" there's not much I can do, though. Putrescent stench 19:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Transhumanism
I'm not really seeing the connection between otherkin and transhumanism. The aricle says that the two aren't to be confused, yet the article and the category are both in Category:Transhumanism. Am I missing something? -Sean Curtin 06:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * While they certainly aren't the same, they do have a number of interesting similarities; the main issue is that transhumanism is technological while otherkin are spiritual. Both see the human form as limiting and thus have an interest in moving beyond human nature &mdash; though I doubt many transhumanists feel as conflicted about it.  They also share animist beliefs.


 * It's worth noting that transhumanists often have an interest in animal welfare, demonstrating they too see animal souls as no less than those of humans. Also consider morphological freedom.  Is that any different from what otherkin believe?


 * Surely all otherkin are, to some extent, transhumanist. How many otherkin would not want to give physical form to their beliefs?  It isn't possible now, of course, but any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  That's what the transhumanists wish to find.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 07:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't doubt the similarities between otherkin and transhumanism, but I also don't think that the category is needed here. Sure, these things have some things in common, and some (not all) otherkins are transhumanists, but with that kind of argumentation the category should also be added to Therianthropy, Furry lifestyler and the like. It is a bit of overcategorization to me. --Conti|&#9993; 07:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are similarities between the two, but they're more parallels than direct connections. Placing Category:Otherkin in Category:Transhumanism suggests a much closer overlap than actually exists.  -Sean Curtin 02:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * The justification for grouping Otherkin under Transhumanism does seem stretched a bit thin. Under Wikipedia's help page for categories, it says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." And since this is a rather debatable issue, I have removed the link. If others beside Eequor think the grouping should remain, the categorization can be added back in, marked as "disputed."


 * The similarities are, as Sean Curtin says, parallels rather than direct connections. The most important distinction is that while Transhumanists seek to physically modify themselves through technology, Otherkin already see themselves as partially non-human and do not generally talk of physically altering themselves to be like their animal (or other non-human counterpart). Until that becomes a core part of becoming Otherkin, the two should not be seen as directly linked. See http://forums.therianthropy.org/viewtopic.php?t=2404 for an interesting discussion of this. Putrescent stench 20:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Issue with final sentence
"Otherkin generally carry on stable, functional lives, which would make any medical diagnosis unnecessary. "

I'm not really sure how true this statement is. Many, if not most, of the otherkin I have met in online communities suffer from a variety of issues, ranging from depression to mania. A large number are on medication. There has been, to my knowledge, no scientific study of the phenomenon, and thus making a statement such as this is probably inappropriate. It seems to be nothing more than opinion, and it conflicts with what I have seen among the community. Titanium Dragon 12:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the author with that statement was to illustrate that members of the otherkin community do not universally suffer from the mental problems that seem to have become a stigma of the group. The current revision of the statement seems a little less biased in that it does not attempt to convey the idea that all or most otherkin fall into this group, but leaves open the idea that not all otherkin have these problems. Given that the sentance was removed by an anonymous source, along with the recent article vandalism, I'm going to restore the article to keep this sentence. Arkyan 19:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again we have a controversy with this sentence. Does anyone really think that to say, "While it is true that some otherkin experience mental illness, the vast majority of of otherkin carry on stable, functional lives" is more neutral than, "While it is true that some otherkin experience mental illness, a number of otherkin carry on stable, functional lives"? Gabrielsimon has changed my wording twice, and while claiming neutrality, has not really explained himself. Unless other users offer some suggestions here, I'm going to change it back to the way I had it.Putrescent stench 17:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's extreemely clear that User:Gabrielsimon has no interest in neutrality, only in removing anything that could in any way be considered less than flattering. He tried to defend his latest change with the claim that it was original research, but of course that, even if it were true (off the cuff opinions by supporters do not constitute "research" by any stretch of the imagination, original or otherwise), it would still not be allowed, per No original research policy. DreamGuy 21:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten this sentence simply because I didn't find it terribly clear, and also because "mental illness" isn't a synonym for "psychological problem" - the latter is a subset of the former, and even that is up for debate. Hopefully this is an improvement. Vashti 23:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I went back, too, and added a couple of paragraphs assessing the likelihood that otherkin, as a group, are in fact schizotypal. Vashti 00:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that whole section is again taking a side. And it doesn't make a lot of sense either, to be frank. "However, the DSM-IV goes on to list seven other symptoms, including social anxiety, social and emotional withdrawal and paranoia, and states that a minimum of five or more symptoms are required for a diagnosis of this disorder." Right, and can you honestly tell me that Otherkin don't frequently experience social anxiety, social and emotional withdrawal, etc.? You are focusing on just one bit when all the others could easily apply as well. It ends up looking like unfair debating techniques, which an encyclopedia article should not have. The article isn't here for you to make your own personal arguments about why you think Otherkin should not be considered schizotypal (which violates No original research), NPOV and various other policies), the article should exist to mention neutrally the facts that many consider them to be so and that others, especially ones labeling themselves Otherkin, do not. Trying to disprove it means you're trying to advance a side, which should not be happening here. DreamGuy 04:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I reckon that if a neutral assessment of the likelihood of the diagnosis being a valid one is POV, then putting in mention of the medical issues is also POV. There has been no assessment of the otherkin phenomenon by a psychologist that I am aware of.  This isn't a question of somebody writing a paper going "look, otherkin have this disorder".  It's armchair psychology of the worst kind, which is why I also added the link to DSM cautionary statement.


 * I've seen the discussions that first forwarded the idea that otherkin were ScPD. They aren't doing it on the grounds that otherkin are socially anxious, withdrawn, and so on; they're doing it on the grounds of unusual belief and phantom body part syndrome.  Goths are also frequently socially anxious, paranoid and so on; are we to go and edit that entry saying that they may all have a personality disorder too?


 * ScPD is a very real, disabling problem; it's not just a question of religious belief or feeling wings, and to be blunt, I've rarely encountered any otherkin who begin to qualify. Vashti 11:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Having looked at it some more, I agree that describing the evidence instead of simply stating it was POV, and I hope I've removed that. However, I believe that the text as it now stands is neutral.  It is not "original research" that the DSM-IV states that a minimum of five symptoms, which are pervasive and maladaptive, are required for a diagnosis of ScPD, nor that it requires assessment by a medical professional and not someone with an axe to grind, a pin and a copy of the DSM-IV; these things are facts.


 * It seems like weaseling, by the way, to say that "many consider them to be so", when out of four pages of links for "otherkin schizotypal" on Google, most of them are references back to this Wikipedia page, and of the handful that aren't, most are the results of a Livejournal quiz and one is a site that specialises in bashing otherkin. Two are otherkin.net's refutation of schizotypy, three are people who consider that the label applies to them personally, and one is a discussion of the psychological implications of soulbonding, which is a whole other pudding; regardless, 49 Google hits regarding a primarily Internet-based phenomenon is not "many". Vashti 13:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I made some changes, because your recent edit did not fix problems I pointed out to you. Claiming that they cannot be diagnosed in this way because there are other symptoms completely fails to note that individual otherkin very well could have those symptoms (and often do). The original research would be where you summarily dismiss that possibility as false. Also, claiming that they fit perfectly well within their subculture norms but defining the norm as being otherkin is completely bizarre and misses the enire point of the DSM classification. You can't claim that a condition is mentally healthy just because they act the same as other people with the same condition. That's completely circular logic. At any point in the article where you outright claim that otherkin would not fit into a mental health diagnosis you are putting your unsourced speculation into it as if it were completely factual. That's a violation of several policies (No original research, Neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, among others). If you have a source of some expert saying what you claim, by all means quote it, otherwise you are just making things up as you go along. Neither DSM classification nor Wikipedia works that way. DreamGuy 15:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Individuals of any category you care to name may have these problems, but it is a very great stretch to say that any group in its entirety has them because of this. I have not "summarily dismissed" any possibility; if anything, I've corrected the existing POV bias in the article by pointing out why the reasons otherkin are commonly given the ScPD label by people not competent to do so, *may* not be valid.  This is in contrast to the situation as it previously stood, when no information on ScPD was given whatsoever, and the page gave the impression that it was the same thing as clinical lycanthropy.  If you think the section is now biased in favour of one point of view, then expand it to give more information on why otherkin are nuts so that the page can contrast the two opinions, don't just delete what's there!


 * I have at no point claimed that individual otherkin may not have these problems, or that it is impossible for them to have them; I've said it is *insufficient* to claim that simply identifying as otherkin is evidence of a psychological disorder. This is not original research and not "soapboxing", as you put it; the arguments I've used are all listed on [] (which is currently a tad broken but still readable) for one thing.  Are you going to require me to provide textbook evidence from psychology, outside of drawing conclusions from the DSM, when this has not been required to make the original claim?


 * The point regarding the definition of a subculture is simply that otherkin definitely is just that, a subculture with its own norms of behaviour. This is what defines subcultures in the sociological sense.  It's not circular to say that the beliefs of otherkin are normal for otherkin - they are!  This is self-evident, so the question becomes whether or not this is sufficient to meet the DSM's definition of a subculture.  Trying to evade this by defining otherkin as a mental disorder, as you've repeatedly done in this discussion, seems to qualify as POV-pushing to me.


 * [] states that "To be considered signs of a mental disorder, these atypical behaviors or mental events cannot be either ... individual variations that are expressions of a particular subculture (for example, coloring one's hair green and purple because one's friends are doing it). In neither case are the atypical behaviors or mental events a sign of an internal dysfunction: they are consistent with the norms (standards) of some social group to which the individual belongs."


 * [] states that "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)."


 * Vashti 16:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put these two quotes into the article. I've also reworded the opening sentence of the article (because there are a lot of people who have otherkin-type beliefs but don't consider themselves to be otherkin), and the opening sentence of this section (because while there have been suggestions to this effect, it doesn't appear to have reached the level of controversy yet). Vashti 16:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical
how can you say that them being what they claim to be is nonsensical? if science is your bastion for this then it is a flawed bastion, for science doesnt have al the answers and by its very nature, never will, there are things that science simply can not explain or deal with in a manor that is fitting such things. Otherkin's Otherness for example. why not use them as the only usable POV when discussing them even in NPOV, should be based of information from  them, and not from a cold, unenlightened scientific viewpoint.

GabrielSimon


 * "why not use them as the only usable POV when discussing them even in NPOV"


 * That statement makes no sense. That's like saying that something is the only usable red when you are coloring something green, or that if we need to buy a cat and only a cat that only a dog will do.


 * Here's a diagram for you:


 * Completely off the scale POV one way: Otherkin really ARE part nonhuman, science sucks, it's true because they believe it!! ! !!


 * Neutral Point of View: Otherkin is a label for those people who believe themselves to be only part human.


 * Off the scale POV the other way: Those "otherkin" people are all nuts, they are deluded, freaky weirdos who are incapable of dealing with normal humans and invented up a bizarre little fantasy world in their head.


 * Saying that they believe they are nonhuman is not taking sides, it's simply pointing out a fact that neither side disagrees with.


 * NPOV is a cornerstone of this encyclopedia. If you have a problem with it, Wikipedia is obviously not the place for you. DreamGuy 04:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Multiplicity
The opening section has a clearer mention of multiples in the community now. A lot of those same multiples will probably hit me if they see I've linked them to an article on DID *cowers*, but there appears to be no Wikipedia article on healthy multiplicity. There is a very brief section within the DID article on it, but this strikes me as a situation where the two cultures are perhaps different enough to merit two articles that link to each other. Anyone up for the challenge? :) Vashti 02:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was something in the DID article about healthy multiplicity anyway? Tom 07:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)