Talk:Hallucinatory states: Difference between revisions

(20 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

~~==Classification==~~

* Command hallucination, imperative hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/968/imperative_hallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Command

** Verbal auditory hallucination (VAH) is more neutral: http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1997

* Somatic hallucination, somatosensory hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1747/somatic_hallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#General_somatic_sensations

* Mood-congruent hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1188/mood-congruent_hallucination. Mood-incongruent hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1189/mood-incongruent_hallucination

==Cause==

Can we add a Cause section like this?:

Line 33:

Line 27:

::{{ping|Clarity}} [[To-do list]] says: "Library and book reviews (e.g. LSD: My Problem Child and The Doors of Perception". Can you please write a review for [[Dictionary of Hallucinations]])? --[[User:David Hedlund|David Hedlund]] ([[User talk:David Hedlund|talk]]) 07:36, 19 December 2017 (CET)

:::{{ping|David Hedlund}} I appreciate that you think such a review would be worthwhile, but I cannot see why this is necessary or a rational way to allocate my limited time and resources. For one, I am neither a practitioner nor lay expert in psychiatry, so there is no reason to expect that I would have anything particular to say or new to contribute to the field -- I'd just be offering a limited and uninformed perspective that could very easily come off as forced, promotional, or otherwise inorganic.

:::Second, while I did not read the full book, I thought the provided review was reasonable and fair enough. I'd say the chances are high that I'd come to the same conclusion as the author, and find it satisfactory to just refer to their review as a substitute for mine. If I did find the time to write up a book review, it'd have to be for something of historical significance such as one of the aforementioned books, and only those that I felt a genuine personal connection with.

:::Lastly, do keep in mind that the to-do list isn't contractual or specific. Just because something is up there, doesn't mean it is my or anyone else's job to do in particular. The to-do list is for any contributor or potential contributor to the site, meaning it is communal and participatory instead of proprietary or compulsory. It's just as much intended for you as it is for me. --[[User:Clarity|Clarity]] ([[User talk:Clarity|talk]]) 08:20, 19 December 2017 (CET)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Classification==
-* Command hallucination, imperative hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/968/imperative_hallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Command
-** Verbal auditory hallucination (VAH) is more neutral: http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1997
-* Somatic hallucination, somatosensory hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1747/somatic_hallucination, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#General_somatic_sensations
-* Mood-congruent hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1188/mood-congruent_hallucination. Mood-incongruent hallucination - http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/1189/mood-incongruent_hallucination
 ==Cause==
 Can we add a Cause section like this?:
@@ Line 33: / Line 27: @@
 ::{{ping|Clarity}} [[To-do list]] says: "Library and book reviews (e.g. LSD: My Problem Child and The Doors of Perception". Can you please write a review for [[Dictionary of Hallucinations]])? --[[User:David Hedlund|David Hedlund]] ([[User talk:David Hedlund|talk]]) 07:36, 19 December 2017 (CET)
+:::{{ping|David Hedlund}} I appreciate that you think such a review would be worthwhile, but I cannot see why this is necessary or a rational way to allocate my limited time and resources. For one, I am neither a practitioner nor lay expert in psychiatry, so there is no reason to expect that I would have anything particular to say or new to contribute to the field -- I'd just be offering a limited and uninformed perspective that could very easily come off as forced, promotional, or otherwise inorganic.
+:::Second, while I did not read the full book, I thought the provided review was reasonable and fair enough. I'd say the chances are high that I'd come to the same conclusion as the author, and find it satisfactory to just refer to their review as a substitute for mine. If I did find the time to write up a book review, it'd have to be for something of historical significance such as one of the aforementioned books, and only those that I felt a genuine personal connection with.
+:::Lastly, do keep in mind that the to-do list isn't contractual or specific. Just because something is up there, doesn't mean it is my or anyone else's job to do in particular. The to-do list is for any contributor or potential contributor to the site, meaning it is communal and participatory instead of proprietary or compulsory. It's just as much intended for you as it is for me. --[[User:Clarity|Clarity]] ([[User talk:Clarity|talk]]) 08:20, 19 December 2017 (CET)