EXPECTED REWARD AND PSYCHOSIS
by Scott Hoge
(Click here to download this essay)


In the last essay, we saw that social rejection can cause one to fulfill the criteria for Asperger's Syndrome, provided that one chooses an activity of specialization, and that many traits associated with the 'disorder' Asperger's Syndrome are actually positive. In this essay, I will show that social rejection in itself can also predispose one toward what we have called 'psychotic' behavior, with a simple argument that other activities, such as approaching the opposite sex, are made less enjoyable.

I have been diagnosed psychotic several times. The clinicians refused to answer my objections, tended to avoid any debate with me, and seemed to bully me a lot in their reports. I was given forced injections on multiple occasions, and I discovered that in reports about me, psychiatrists were bending the truth. I hope that those with good intentions will gain some insight into the behaviors associated with psychosis, while those with bad intentions will take this essay as a warning.

1. Having a delusion is not the same as acting on a possibility.

To equate the two is a fallacy.

  1. If you buy a lottery ticket, are you deluded that you will win?
  2. If you barricade your house, are you deluded that you're being plotted against?
  3. If you rush out into the woods to meet God, are you deluded that you will meet God?
The answer to all these questions is not necessarily. Just because the patient expresses concerns of a paranoid nature does not mean the patient is delusional! He or she may simply be more naturally preoccupied by certain possibilities. By the theory of expected utility, the absence of a stabilizing source of pleasure, such as a boyfriend or girlfriend, can predispose one toward exotic behaviors that, properly speaking, are not delusional, and would have otherwise been dismissed as unnecessary in the pursuit of happiness. A single man, for example, may be more likely to worry about being plotted against than a married man, because he does not have the option of making love (see figure). If it were more easily in his power to make love -- say, through legal consent -- he might care less about the extraneous possibility that people are out to get him. In that case, he would have an emotionally comforting activity as an alternative to paranoia.

So how does being denied sex, or any other enjoyable activity, make you delusional? That's silly. Paranoia may just be a natural result of being deprived of activities that would otherwise occupy your time. If you aren't buying flowers for your wife, or having fun with your friends, what are you doing? Sitting there? What if you become lonely, but few people accept you? What if your circumstances become so painful that going out there and cracking down on one of the many things making you mad seems more appealing than writing music, painting pictures, approaching women, or any other activity that would afford you comparatively little pleasure? So, in the end, you worry about persecution -- and that's fine. That may just be how you feel.

This chart illustrates how a loss of expected reward may steer one into other, more destructive behaviors. It is important to understand that charts like this are only an example of what might happen. In reality, the presence or absence of alternative actions may influence the reward expectations of other actions. This diagram is somewhat simplified. Mathematically, we calculate reward expectation by multiplying the probability of an outcome with the magnitude of the value of the outcome (as in the lottery, for example).


You may object that many people diagnosed psychotic have husbands and wives, and I grant that. However, a number of factors can influence reward expectation, including one's confidence in one's partner's commitment or fidelity, factors that are, in turn, based on non-psychotic personality traits such as one's physical attractiveness or a preoccupation thereof. You don't have to be single for altered reward expectation to come into play.

You may also object in this example that parents must spend a great deal of time taking care of their children and protecting them from possible dangers. At the time of writing, I have not been granted the experience of fatherhood. Still, I still maintain that the enjoyment of family-related activities could in some way influence the relative reward expectation of other behaviors, including paranoid behaviors.

As someone who was diagnosed psychotic himself, I want to conjecture that a preoccupation with a possibility could be presented as a 'delusional claim,' without actually implying delusion. This could be done to elicit a reaction from you as if it were real -- for instance, so that you would give more consideration to the speaker's feelings and concerns than what you might normally give him or her. 'Delusional claims' could also be made in desperation when a limitation is felt on the speaker's ability to communicate. His or her vocabulary simply might not be rich enough to allow him or her to state claims in terms of possibilities, reward expectations, and contributing causes. As strange as this may sound, he or she may instead choose to fall back on incorrect statements, without believing them at heart. Finally, the accuracy of claims can be influenced by the speaker's mood (by anxiety, nausea, or weariness, for example).

As stated before, the absence of a boyfriend or girlfriend isn't the only circumstance that can give rise to distrustful thinking. Many factors can influence reward expectation and the tendency to exhibit behaviors that have hitherto been labeled 'psychotic.' An incomplete list is given below. Some of these have the effect of increasing the likelihood of persecution from that person's point of view, others discourage more quiescent activities, and others make the possibility of persecution a bigger deal than normal.

  1. An inborn sensitivity to the idea of being singled out or plotted against.
  2. An actual history of being singled out, targeted, or bullied.
  3. Being made the victim of a crime, such as robbery or battery.
  4. Character traits or past actions that one fears have increased his or her likelihood of being plotted against (even high intelligence).
  5. As shown, a lack of other enjoyable activities.
  6. Drug use.
  7. Being told lies, including white lies.
  8. Psychiatric condescention, belittlement, or bullying.
  9. The fact that people actually have stalked and plotted against others.
  10. The tendency of our own present society toward deceit and Machiavellianism.
  11. A lower-than-normal 'pain threshold,' causing some possibilities, such as that of being plotted against, to matter when they would otherwise not.
  12. A collection of other stressors in one's life that could lower one's pain threshold and incite reaction to any particular one of them.
  13. An actual remarkable coincidence, one that influences the likelihood from that person's point of view that such coincidences can be caused by some property of the universe.
  14. The imposition of social taboos that stifle the motivation to express deeply felt needs and concerns.
  15. Religion.
  16. Social manipulation -- for instance, in punishing acts of kindness and rewarding violence and paranoia.
None of these imply irrational thinking. The cognitive changes influenced by such factors might even be called 'rational paranoia.' Another example of a non-psychotic personality trait that can influence reward expectation is social exclusion.

2. Rejection can influence social knowledge and the reward expectation of 'paranoid' behaviors.

'Paranoia' can refer to either extreme distrust, found in many of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, or irrational distrust, which we are told is characterized by delusions. They are not the same. A common practice in philosophy is doubting. Rene Descartes and David Hume were famous for having doubted everything, but we would certainly not have accused them of psychotic illness. We use the term 'skepticism' to refer to this kind of doubt. Extreme distrust and irrational distrust are not interchangeable ideas, and what follows from one does not always follow from the other.

Interaction with others gives us social knowledge. Social knowledge affects the likelihood, from our point of view, that another is trustworthy or untrustworthy, behaving competitively or cooperatively, hostile or friendly, lying or telling the truth. Persistent rejection can lead to a loss of in-group knowledge, affecting probabilistic knowledge and associated behaviors, in an unusual but rational way. As an extreme example, a victim of lifelong captivity may be confused or suspicious when greeted with a handshake if he or she does not have the social knowledge needed to recognize it as a friendly gesture. Similarly, many common behaviors can be interpreted as possible competitive maneuvers by an outsider. White lies can lead to a suspicion that the less attractive are intellectually bullied in all sorts of ways. "Take it easy" might mean, "Don't try." 'Cute' might just mean 'helpless.' The list goes on.1

Again, having a delusion is not the same as acting on a possibility. A lack of in-group knowledge does not mean that one is stupid or irrational. They are simply doing the best they can with what limited information you've given them their whole lives.

3. Ideas of grandeur and reference are not always delusional.

At first, the claim that one is God might seem an obvious delusion of grandeur. However, there is an organized religious movement called pantheism in which all matter in the world is claimed to belong to God. To say, "I am God," could mean any number of things, including that one's body belongs to God's or that one is subsuming his or her identity under that of the entire universe. While a designer of the world may or may not exist, the word 'God' is subject to many different definitions and interpretations.

Vague pretensions of intellect and importance must also be spared the label of 'delusional' if they are not falsifiable by direct observation. If I say, "My happiness is as important as the universe itself," we cannot readily label it a delusion of importance, for importance cannot be observed as easily as other features of the world. However, if I claim to have six billion dollars when I obviously do not, then I might have a delusion of grandeur -- for by direct observation such a claim can be falsified.

Ideas of reference are not always delusional, either. If one experiences a coincidence, he or she may say, "Wow, what a coincidence," or even consider the possibility that the coincidence was intended, without having a delusion of reference.

An idea of reference I have

Perhaps the most vivid idea of reference I've had in my life at the time of writing (2009) occured when I adopted an active lifestyle I called 'trying for God.' It was something of an experiment. The act of moving any part of my body I called 'trying,' and my purpose was to keep moving throughout the day, remaining attentive during rest. I hoped that such a lifestyle would produce a feeling of well-being, and I made an inner promise that I would try forever (though I have discontinued trying in the manner that I had been).

One day while working at a fast-food restaurant, an assistant manager began giving me orders. I told him, "I'm trying!" Which was true, of course -- I had been trying all day. He said, "No you're not," discharged me, and while walking home, I passed by a van that was playing a rap song called Stop Tryin' by Pastor Troy. I just happened to hear the chorus:

Stop tryin', nigga!
Stop tryin', nigga!
Stop tryin', nigga!
. . .

I was alarmed when I heard it, and a few of my friends agreed that the coincidence was astounding. However, it would be foolhardy to call it a delusion of reference, since I acknowledge that there are several possible explanations, including no explanation, and I do not claim anything false about its significance. (It has also become a subject of my poem, 'If God Were a Bully.')

1 Some of these suspicions are mine.

What They Did To Me

As I mentioned, I've been diagnosed with several labels. One of them was Paranoid Schizophrenia. I must say, I am outraged by the way the medical community has treated me, a student of philosophy and advanced mathematics, on the issue of my 'psychosis.' A total of 21 reports were written about me at one hospital, and I read them all. They twisted facts and refused to support any of their claims that I was delusional. In this section, I will break the reports down sentence by sentence and challenge or refute the accusations made against me.

One clinician made this comment:

"The results of the Rorschach [inkblot test] indicated significantly impaired capacities to think logically and coherently and to perceive people and events realistically."

Wait a minute! The Rorschach test? How do blots on paper prove anything about your ability to think logically? Just because blots on paper remind me of castles, or bats, or Indians facing each other, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my thinking. Tests of logical thinking are given by syllogisms, not ink blots. Shame on you, psychiatry!

Let's look at some others.

"The patient has a long-standing difficulty of controlling his emotions ..."

'Controlling his emotions' -- Vague expression. It could mean either controlling how I feel -- and with the absence of alternative activities, like sex, yes, it may be difficult -- or controlling myself while in specific moods, and of course I can. I may feel, in some moments, that I am righteously angry. Just because you can't control me in these situations doesn't mean I can't.

Now let's look at a completely opposite claim made about me, that I do control my emotions:

"Scott shows a potentially maladaptive style of experiencing and expressing affect in which he exerts more stringent control over his feelings than most people. Consequently, he is likely to have an emotionally reserved individual who has difficulty ... being spontaneous ..."

'Potentially maladaptive' -- This means the possibility of my screwing up at some point is there, but not necessarily now. What struck me as curious about this statement is the comment that I 'have an emotionally reserved individual who has difficulty being spontaneous.' What could that mean?

Let's continue:

"Scott lacks openness to experience and has an avoidant style in which he tends to view the world with an overly narrow frame of reference. As a consequence, he is likely to have little tolerance for uncertainty ..."

If I lacked openness to experience, would I have volunteered to pick up trash or to feed the homeless? Just something to think about.

"Scott ... tends to misperceive events and to form mistaken impressions of people and the significiance of their actions. This adaptive liability is likely to result, at times, in instances of poor judgment ..."

'Misperceive events' -- Do they mean draw faulty conclusions from events? Misperceive what events? 'Mistaken impressions of the significance of people's actions' -- this could mean that I draw faulty conclusions, another unsupported accusation, or even that I react to them. But it shouldn't take much intelligence on their part to understand that actions that may be individually insignificant can, when they all pile up on someone, become significant as a whole. To claim otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of composition, that the whole must inherit the attributes of its parts, which itself would be an instance of irrational thinking.

"Scott demonstrates limited ability to identify comfortably with real people in his life. Instead, he appears inclined to identify with ... people who do not regularly participate in his everyday real world."

'Limited ability to identify comfortably with real people in his life' -- Unqualified statement. Here, they could mean either some, or all real people in my life. Suppose I can't comfortably identify with someone I protect on the streets, or a member of my family who has been physically violent toward me. Does that make the statement true? It says 'limited ability to identify with real people,' and after all, there are some people with whom I can't easily identify. And what does 'identify' mean, anyway? To have traits in common? To do everything the way someone else does it, as in blind conformity to other people?

The next statement: "Instead, he appears inclined to identify with ... people who do not regularly participate in his everyday real world" -- Of course I do! I'm a philosophy student! I read the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, and Albert Einstein. So they don't regularly participate in my everyday real world. So what?

Even so, as I've explained above, 'identification' is another vague concept. Roleplaying may be one of my pastimes, and I may play out the personalities and intentions of fictional characters. Again, so what?

"... his perceptual distortions appear to be provoked by emotionally arousing situations ..."

'My perceptual distortions' -- Unsupported accusation.

"He also gives evidence of a limited capacity to form close attachments to other people."

'Limited capacity to form close attachments' -- See how slyly they worded that? Almost everyone's capacities are limited to some degree.

"While walking out of his job, he heard a song ... The chorus in the song was saying quit trying so he felt that it was a message to him ..."

'He felt that it was a message to him' -- Straw man. This is an instance of the mistake I described in Section 1: confusing a delusion with a possibility. Of course it's possible that someone arranged the Stop Tryin' coincidence as a prank, but it doesn't mean I actually think that happened. Careful there, Mr. Psychiatrist.

"He is extremely enmeshed and obsessed with online roleplaying video games ... He feels that because this person insulted his character in [EverQuest], that now everyone socially in real life views him the same way."

'Extremely enmeshed and obsessed with online roleplaying games' -- Slight exaggeration. 'He feels that because this person insulted his character, that now everyone in real life views him the same way' -- Another straw man. (The incident in question involved a 'wizard' character I was playing, on which I was taunted for an extended period of time by a particularly obnoxious player about the relative merits of the wizard class. I became so frustrated by the general attitude of the playerbase that I almost left the game.)

"He has very bizarre thoughts. He engages in very magical and odd thinking,"

Unsupported accusation -- and what is magical thinking? They don't talk about this, do they? Many scientifically-verified phenomena are so profound and mysterious that they could be called 'magical,' as well as many tenable theories about the nature of the universe. Perhaps they didn't grasp the depth of my scientific knowledge at the time. To find a glimpse of a truly magical idea, one need only read my essay, Many-Worlds and the Origin of Life in the Universe. And no, this isn't pseudoscience: this is actual theorizing conducted by top physicists about the nature of reality.

"[He] does have these delusions that people ... online are somehow destroying his social status now."

'He does have these delusions that people are destroying his social status' -- Yet another unsupported accusation. Is this a statement that can be falsified by direct observation? What does it mean to 'destroy someone's social status'? What do I think it means? How they know that's what I think it means? These are exactly the kind of errors I forewarn of in this essay.

"He does present with some bizarre delusions ..."

"... when playing video games he felt as if they were out to get him ..."

Notice the continued use of vague phrases, including 'out to get.' What does 'out to get' mean? What do I think it means? How do they know? Did I ever use that term myself? If so, how can they prove it delusional, unless they know what the term means? If not, how can they tell me I feel that?

Terms like 'out to get' are in danger of being used by people who want to weasel out of getting proven wrong by leaving it unexplained what they really mean, and can become a major annoyance to the intelligent patient.

Not a single claim of delusional thinking was supported -- a giant slap in the face to me as an allegedly 'psychotic' person.

They made further remarks about my intelligence:

"The patient is known to harbor peculiar ideation at times with over-inclusion of logical beliefs leading to erroneous conclusions. At one point, he talked about the Trigonometry [sic] of the room, for example."

Over-inclusion of logical beliefs? What's wrong with this guy? As it turns out, he's the head of the whole psychiatric hospital, and yet he thinks there's a limit to being logical. 'Leading to erroneous conclusions' -- such as? Do psychiatrists ever support their accusations?

For the record, I did not say 'Trigonometry of the room.' I was referring to the mathematical orderliness revealed in the world and in all of nature. This is a topic discussed by the greatest scientists and philosophers who ever lived! What's erroneous about it? Looks like some people really have a hard time respecting intellectuals.

"His mother indicates that ... the patient appears to want to reduce to logic very simple things in a faulty manner."

'In a faulty manner' -- Yet another unsupported claim. When will it end?

"... he was concerned about the different mathematics available to him in the room [sic]. This thought process is associated to a pseudo intellectualization of his symptoms to include a social isolation."

"The patient is known to present with an altered thought process that includes a pseudo intellectualization of his symptoms."

'Pseudo-intellectualization' -- What an awful unsupported accusation to make of someone who taught himself integral calculus in middle school and read Immanuel Kant at age 16. But let's go on.

"His thought process is concrete ..."

Oh, really? How so...?

"Patient ... has these mathematical concepts and they are focused also around girls and women and so he seems a bit, if not psychotic, extremely odd in his thinking. He has received [several medications] ... but he still has these very peculiar kinds of theories and thoughts."

They did not even respect my understanding of causality and orderliness in the world. They might as well have insulted the entire scientific community.

Now, to continue,

"He displays zero emotion ..."

"He feels that the TV and the radio specifically communicate with him ..."

More rubbish. It appears that they might have been stereotyping me so that they could get their pills sold:

"The patient resisted the idea of antipsychotics having trouble understanding the concept of his illness ..."

"It appears that Scott could benefit from appropriate psychotropic medication ..."

"Patient will undergo therapeutic milieu and medication regimen ..."

As noted, the lead psychiatrist was fond of using the term 'pseudo-intellectualization' in describing my cognition, and although he was outwardly friendly, I did not feel much consonance with him in therapy. Even though we shared an interest in neuroscience, he spent a considerable amount of time trying to persuade me that my thinking was irrational and that I needed antipsychotic medication.

It almost seemed as if ridiculing you to convince you that there's something wrong with you was their profiting tactic. In the same way that food is flashed in front of your face on TV, appeals to status are made in jewelry ads, and other measures are taken to convince you that you 'need' a product, so the psychiatric industry could be emotionally abusing people in order to convince them they need medication.

As I have stated, my overall experience with the psychiatric community was infuriating. They did not give me the support I needed. They distorted facts, left claims unjustified, and in their reports made me out to be worse than I really am. I truly felt this to be a case of psychiatric bullying, and my sympathies go out to anyone who was treated in a similar way. I hope that other psychiatrists who haven't respected their patients will take this as a warning that they have gone far enough.

*     *     *

Ethical Considerations

Aside from a botched way of treating their patients, there are a number of dangers in practicing psychotherapy that I feel must be considered, if one at all cares about the quality of life of the potential patient. One of these is the effect of medication upon the citizen.

What Medications Do Psychiatrists Use to Treat Psychotic Illnesses?

The medications used to treat people diagnosed psychotic are called 'psychotropics,' and psychotropics are almost exclusively what we call 'dopamine blockers.' Unlike antidepressants, which may boost the functioning of serotonin or dopamine, psychotropics are depressants, and they inhibit the function of dopamine. Naturally, this is going to have unpleasant, mind-robbing effects on the human psyche, as we will see shortly.

When Are Psychiatrists Allowed to Medicate You By Force?

To be medicated by force, you must first be 'Baker Acted.' This is a process by which a person or group in power determines that you are an imminent danger to yourself or others, and deprives you of your freedom in the outside world against your will. And remember: only they get to decide whether you truly pose a danger. You don't even have to commit a crime to be Baker Acted. If they want to say, "Yes, we think you're a danger to yourself," and slap you in the psych ward, they can do so. It's all about vague terms.

After that, they determine whether you should be medicated by force. To do this, they hurl the next vague term at you: 'adjudicated incapacitated.' If they feel -- and again, only they get to decide -- that you are incompetent to make a decision about whether or not to take medication, then they can medicate you without your consent. Typically, they pull down your pants, stick a needle in your rear end, and inject the sad juice directly into your veins, where it continues to affect your well-being for as long as six months afterward.

And guess who was 'adjudicated incapacitated' twice? That's right: yours truly, the author of these hard-won essays.

Just What Do Dopamine Blockers Do, Anyway?

Dopamine is sometimes called the 'pleasure chemical.' It operates in the reward circuitry in the human brain when we engage in fulfilling activities, like eating food, working, or listening to music. Some drugs, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, exert their pleasurable effects by increasing and prolonging the activity of dopamine in the reward system.

Standard antipsychotic drugs, as we have seen, have the opposite effect. They decrease dopamine activity and can make you feel tired, listless, bored, frustrated, subdued, and unmotivated. I myself have tried many brands of antipsychotics, some over the course of months. The drowsiness they cause can reach unbearable extremes and you can gain weight from lack of energy. However, everyone around you would be happy, because you'd just be sitting there, doing nothing. It's as if your feelings don't even matter to them.

Aside from boredom and weight gain, we also know that dopamine blockers can cause a movement disorder called Tardive Dyskinesia characterized by involuntary tics, some of them facial grimaces, that last for the rest of your life. And if you're adjudicated incapacitated, you don't even get to choose. You're just the government's guinea pig.

Advice for Acquaintences

As I have shown, psychiatric misinformation can get very nasty. A clinician's reputation can be harmed if he or she belittles or underestimates the intelligence of a patient. My advice for psychiatrists and other acquaintences is to remember the point of view of the patient, take into account everything I've discussed so far, and be careful about what you say in regard to the patient:


Instead of saying: Try saying:
"You have a delusion" "You seem preoccupied by a possibility"
"You're psychotic" "You've been diagnosed psychotic"
"You need medication" "If you want, you can try medication"
"You think people are out to get you" "You think (someone) is out to do (something specific) to you"
"You're paranoid" "You seem worried that you can't trust others"
"Loss of contact with reality" "Preoccupation with unlikely possibilities"
"Your thinking is irrational" "You've committed the fallacy of _____"


One final remark: You may be wondering what a 'fallacy' is. Technically speaking, a fallacy is a mistaken rule of inference that doesn't always lead to correct conclusions. As such, they are the true elements of irrational thinking in this world, committed by nearly all of us at some time or another and even by psychiatrists in abusing their patients. A few examples of fallacies are:

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent -- When you assume something is true just because it fits the evidence. For example, "There's a crack in my windshield. Someone must have come along and vandalized my car," or, "He doesn't trust his therapist. He must be suffering from paranoid delusion."

Fallacy of the Straw Man -- When you misrepresent someone's position or 'put words in the mouth.' For example, if I said, "I believe that most arguments against voluntary euthanasia are specious," and then you told someone, "Scott thinks we should euthanize everyone who is disabled," you would be strawmanning me.

Fallacy of Division -- When you assume that because an entity has a property, every constituent of that entity must have that property. For example, "That pile of sand is huge. Every grain of sand in it must therefore be huge," or, "My roommate got angry and yelled about corporate selfishness after receiving a sales call. He lets something as insignificant as a sales call bother him," or, "One of my friends says he hates the whole world. If he hates the world, he must hate everyone in it."

Fallacy of the Single Cause, Scapegoat Fallacy -- When you shift the blame or the cause of something entirely onto one event or person, when there could be many contributing causes, as in, "That only happened after you used drugs. You have only yourself to blame." This fallacy is often marked by the words, 'You're the one...' When you hear these words, watch for this fallacy.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem -- 'Ad hominem' is Latin for 'to the man.' This fallacy occurs when you try to argue that someone's claim is false simply by insulting him or her. For example, "Of course you're wrong. You have a thinking disorder."

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority -- When you argue that something must be true because an authority states it. For example, "Peter is a successful psychiatrist who went to graduate school and spent many thousands of dollars to earn his degree. If he says you're delusional, that means you're delusional!"

Fallacy of Appeal to Majority -- When you argue that something must be true because almost everyone else believes it. For example, "Everyone in this house except you believes in the prophecy of Joseph Smith. So it's you who's wrong, not us."

(If any psychiatrists commit any of the above-named fallacies in response to my essay, you will know that they are thinking irrationally.)

It's also important to show respect for 'buzz words' and phrases stereotypically associated with psychotic delusion, and to avoid wrongly inferring that someone is delusional based merely on his or her use of these phrases: "conspiracy," "government plot," "mind control," "signal directed at me," "spying," and others. When we hear phrases like this, some of us leap to the conclusion that they must be delusional, but it is always respectful to give thoughtful consideration to the speculator's point of view.

Advice for the Diagnosed

My advice to the diagnosed is to stay calm if the medical industry lies about you. Your feelings are important to us and we are taking measures to end all injustice committed against innocent citizens. In the meantime, it may help to focus on using a logical language in which to frame your concerns, making cautious use of such terms as:

Partly
Possibly
Point of view

When you get used to saying that people are partly to blame for things, and that that certain things are only possible from your (or someone else's) point of view, then you will be able to guard yourself against claims of being delusional. If you learn the names of fallacies such as those listed on the previous page, you will gain even more intellectual power over the uninformed who make baseless accusations against you.

*     *     *

In conclusion, patients diagnosed psychotic may not be delusional in the true sense of the word. They may simply be influenced by their unique hardships to have worries and resentments that 'normal' people do not have. They are not 'out of touch with reality,' as everything that happens in their brains is real. In this essay, I have tried to foster sympathy for them and show that they are real people with real feelings, just like you, who must wake up every morning to lives of their own. It would be a shame to see them mistreated by haughty psychiatrists the way I was.

If anyone seriously tries to tell you that I'm delusional, or psychotic, or crazy, or a madman, then I've written this essay to address and challenge their claims. I hope my willingness to shed light on the rationality of hitherto-labeled psychotic behavior and to defend patients from medical malpractice will be proof in the end that the pen is mightier than the needle.


Send me mail

Back to My Essays

View my Guestbook

Online Degree Programs
1