For those who dont know mental disorders are covered under the ADA and you dont have to disclose them on an application. That being said if you later disclose them you may still encounter issues with your employer although leagally you should not
The simple message is people are different and words such as 'delusion' links to meaning not real then your punished for being not repeating the same basic behaviours every day. Talking to a car, or saying I have a throne is just is being different to link to a different chain of objects in their mind for feelings, like poetry or a group of people with shared actions so 'jargon'. If that person begins to harm another, or themselves then it means they don't have a need and should be talked to without assuming different means 'delusional' so 'ill'
serious question: how is religious conviction not a psychological disorder? doesn't it show an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy? it can alter a persons view on daily life even endangering people (faith healing, exorcisms, and the like), and seems to encourage impulsive superstitious behavior.
shadownight333 You might want to hear a psychologist's perspective on that. ;-) Interestingly DSM IV-TR actually makes very clear that delusions must be of a different nature than the subject's cultural beliefs" for a diagnosis of psychological disorder or illness to be considered. For schizophrenics of different cultures, delusions can be remarkably similar but totally distinct from their cultural beliefs which distinguishes schizophrenia as a separate psychological disease or group of diseases. There are no "psychologically normal" people, normalcy is a myth. Everyone has some type of psychological disorder (not an illness) but for most of us those disorders are mild and do not impair functionality, so there is no need for a diagnosis and treatment. Personal ability to function is one of the key determining features for diagnosis of psychological disorder or illness because ethically one needs to justify the necessity of labelling the delusion a "disorder" or "illness" From current perspectives in Psychology, - In most people (and with most religions) - sharing delusional beliefs is not generally thought to impair the person's functionality in a given society enough to warrant a psychological intervention. (Or at least did not generally warrant a necessity for intervention until recent times - that depends on how you want to look at it). Islam may well be an example where religion impairs one's ability to function in a modern society and (if more of our leaders read the Quran in their own language) perhaps one day we shall declare Islam to be psychologically damaging and deem the diagnostic terminology and psychological intervention to be necessary steps to rehabilitate someone, like save a child from indoctrination. I would very much welcome that decision. Anyway, hope you find it somewhat elucidating. Also having said that, - most people don't believe in these absurdities anyway, not in the Western society. Instead - they naively believe that pretending to believe will make one a better person. Their repeated attempts at converting someone come from a folly that if another person will pretend to believe these absurdities with you - you will find them more convincing yourself, only it never quite works out that way ;-)
Even if there is a theological bent in the general doctrine of the school you must remember that the information isn't tainted by the obvious bias that this might present. You can see this objectively by comparing the lessons to the surrounding literature. Furthermore, any rationality that I might see in you, or the rationality you probably overinflate to yourself, coming from being religiously skeptical is dashed by damning an entire institution for the association of a specific individual.
Not intellectually rigorous. First 20 minutes is wasted. More time wasted later in eliciting answers from students to engage their interest. Fleeting and cursory gloss over how a PD is defined, plus small summary of anxiety, OCD, schizophrenia. Not really rigorous i wouldn’t waste my time, find a stanford or other uni lecture if poss
![[PSYC 200] 20. Psychological Disorders, Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kNUu4sAXRys/mqdefault.jpg)
![[PSYC 200] 20. Psychological Disorders, Part 2](/img/tr.png)
![[PSYC 200] 18. Personality](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Lst6DxyuIAA/mqdefault.jpg)
listened to this at night when i was falling asleep in preparation for my final exam. very helpful.
Just got a 93% on my quiz psy 101 quiz thx
Thank you for posting this free education !!!
how I love this lecture...#if only you were in my university.
this is very interesting! but the stigma of mental disorders is very challenging to many ppl.
For those who dont know mental disorders are covered under the ADA and you dont have to disclose them on an application. That being said if you later disclose them you may still encounter issues with your employer although leagally you should not
ADA...?
He's brilliant
I think it's because the cameraman didn't pan up to the slides that you were showing your class, but i'm guessing there's a reason for that?
The simple message is people are different and words such as 'delusion' links to meaning not real then your punished for being not repeating the same basic behaviours every day. Talking to a car, or saying I have a throne is just is being different to link to a different chain of objects in their mind for feelings, like poetry or a group of people with shared actions so 'jargon'. If that person begins to harm another, or themselves then it means they don't have a need and should be talked to without assuming different means 'delusional' so 'ill'
serious question:
how is religious conviction not a psychological disorder?
doesn't it show an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy? it can
alter a persons view on daily life even endangering people (faith healing,
exorcisms, and the like), and seems to encourage impulsive superstitious
behavior.
shadownight333 You might want to hear a psychologist's perspective on that. ;-) Interestingly DSM IV-TR actually makes very clear that delusions must be of a different nature than the subject's cultural beliefs" for a diagnosis of psychological disorder or illness to be considered. For schizophrenics of different cultures, delusions can be remarkably similar but totally distinct from their cultural beliefs which distinguishes schizophrenia as a separate psychological disease or group of diseases. There are no "psychologically normal" people, normalcy is a myth. Everyone has some type of psychological disorder (not an illness) but for most of us those disorders are mild and do not impair functionality, so there is no need for a diagnosis and treatment. Personal ability to function is one of the key determining features for diagnosis of psychological disorder or illness because ethically one needs to justify the necessity of labelling the delusion a "disorder" or "illness" From current perspectives in Psychology, - In most people (and with most religions) - sharing delusional beliefs is not generally thought to impair the person's functionality in a given society enough to warrant a psychological intervention. (Or at least did not generally warrant a necessity for intervention until recent times - that depends on how you want to look at it). Islam may well be an example where religion impairs one's ability to function in a modern society and (if more of our leaders read the Quran in their own language) perhaps one day we shall declare Islam to be psychologically damaging and deem the diagnostic terminology and psychological intervention to be necessary steps to rehabilitate someone, like save a child from indoctrination. I would very much welcome that decision. Anyway, hope you find it somewhat elucidating.
Also having said that, - most people don't believe in these absurdities anyway, not in the Western society. Instead - they naively believe that pretending to believe will make one a better person. Their repeated attempts at converting someone come from a folly that if another person will pretend to believe these absurdities with you - you will find them more convincing yourself, only it never quite works out that way ;-)
Is there something specific this comment is referring to?
Kindly allow us to view your power point :
Isn't W Lane Craig associated with this university? I wouldn't have much respect for the place in that case.
Even if there is a theological bent in the general doctrine of the school you must remember that the information isn't tainted by the obvious bias that this might present. You can see this objectively by comparing the lessons to the surrounding literature. Furthermore, any rationality that I might see in you, or the rationality you probably overinflate to yourself, coming from being religiously skeptical is dashed by damning an entire institution for the association of a specific individual.
Compared to being willfully ignorant, It is equally blind to be irrationally disgusted.
how so?
I believe ur not seeing the comments ; I have asked u to show your power point , while lecturing .
This video series is multiple years old.
cameraman deserves to be fired!!!
yet, without him you wouldn't be watching this course
Not intellectually rigorous. First 20 minutes is wasted. More time wasted later in eliciting answers from students to engage their interest. Fleeting and cursory gloss over how a PD is defined, plus small summary of anxiety, OCD, schizophrenia. Not really rigorous i wouldn’t waste my time, find a stanford or other uni lecture if poss
this is terrible. at least he’s trying