Talk:Schizotypy

Suggestions

Can I suggest that the wiki-link to Gordon Claridge is removed, for the simple reason that there is, as yet, no entry for Gordon Claridge in Wikipaedia? My other suggestions: Perhaps the first mention of psychoticism could also feature the first wiki-link to psychoticism? Perhaps the discussion of the factors that emerge when measurements of schizotypy are subject to factor analysis could be merged with some of the information that appears earlier in the article? I do think it important that at some stage, the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia are distinguished, and my sugggestion is that this section is moved earlier in the article. Cardamom

Someone recently added a factor analysis comment suggesting that positive and negative components are typically found, when the majority of studies find three factor solutions (positive, negative and disorganised) or four factor solutions (as mentioned already in the article as the factors that form the basis of the OLIFE schizotypy scale).

The concept of positive and negative symptoms is discussed in both the psychosis and schizophrenia articles, so I'm not sure it has to be covered here again.

- Vaughan 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul Meehl

The term "schizotypy" was coined by Paul Meehl in his American Psychological Association Presidential address back when the APA was largely a scientific organization. He later revised this idea in 1990.

Meehl, P.E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. American Psychologist, 17, 827-838.

Meehl., P.E. (1990). Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. Journal of Personality, 4, 1-99.

I have made a minor change to the section 'Development of the concept' in light of the fact that the term 'schizotypy' may first have been used by Meehl in the 1962 reference cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger2006 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term "schizotypy" was not first used by Paul Meehl but by Sandor Rado (1953). Heartlight79 (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Deficiency in the ability to feel pleasure from physical stimulation"?

I have some of the traits of Claridge's schizotypy (notably 1 and 4, as childhood nonconformity and an interest in the mysterious), but despite my past difficulty talking to women, I wouldn't say that I have any deficiency to actually feel pleasure from physical stimulation. I think Claridge's criterion is unfairly worded.

128.186.40.99 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a scientific article's content profits from inclusion and alteration on the basis of personal anecdote. For what it's worth -- almost nothing -- I am a diagnosed schizoaffective, surely high in any schizotypal factoring, and my life has been dominated by a persistent disinterest in the pleasures of the flesh normally obtained, and despite my quitting smoking and regaining a measure of renewed sense of smell, food to me is hardly better than finding the most convenient method of supplying nutrition so as to avoid mental suffering as my body's nutrients run dry. One health worker found it amusing that I measured my dietary success by how many pounds of consumable material I could buy per dollar -- the relative rank of gustatory pleasure in my calculations was almost non-existent. But again, what does this prove? Nothing. Keep the science, ignore the anecdotal stories. Apophenian Alchemy (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving two sentences here

I have moved two unreferenced sentences here (see below) from the main page so as to be able to remove the ‘no in-text citations’ tag; however, if anyone is able to provide apt references for them, they could be reinstated.Ranger2006 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some researchers have argued that full-blown psychosis or schizophrenia requires the presence of a 'schizogene' or other specific inherited attribute in addition to high schizotypy. Further evidence that there is a non-linear relationship between schizotypy and some cognitive factors known to be affected in schizophrenia (such as latent inhibition) is also given as evidence for the fully-dimensional approach.

re proposed insertion of 'or REM' before 'sleep'

Please note: rapid eye movements (REM) are characteristic of a later stage of sleep and are not normally associated with descending Stage 1.Ranger2006 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

so now hedonism is healthy?!

psychiatry is a joke.--Bodinagamin (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments in the lead and Mr. Ollie

I found these comments directly behind the definition of schizotypy:

CORRECTION: The current data from taxometric studies does not support the continuum nature of schizotypy.

CORRECTION: Schizotypy is not a personality characteristic—rather it represents the latent liability for schizophrenia and, as such, it is unobservable to the unaided naked eye.

These comments were inserted by Elmhurstminn (talk · contribs) and now moved to the talk page by... Lova Falk talk 08:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Elmhurstminn - which data from taxometric studies do you have? And in which article or book did you read that schizotypy represents a latent liability for schizophrenia? Lova Falk talk 08:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

ELMHURSTMINN IN RESPONSE: There are numerous taxometric studies that support the taxonic latent structure of schizotypy: Lenzenweger & Korfine (1992); Korfine & Lenzenweger (1995), Lenzenweger (1999), Beauchaine et al., 2008; see extensive reviews by Haslam (2003, 2007). There is overwhelming evidence in support of this position, a position that accords with the views of Paul E. Meehl (1962; 1990) and Mark F. Lenzenweger (1998, 2010).

The case for schizotypy representing a latent liability for schizophrenia is also well established in the empirical research literature and summaries can be found in Lenzenweger, 1998) and in the new monograph by Lenzenweger (2010).

What is especially perplexing is that a so-called "Mr. Ollie" keeps removing information that speaks to the points (taxonic structure of schizotypy; schizotypy as the latent liability for schizophrenia) from updates to the Schizotypy entry and Schizotypal PD entry on Wikipedia. Is Mr. Ollie a major fan of Gordon Claridge's position on this topic? Elmhurstminn (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that all of your edits include references to Lenzenweger? Are you a major fan of Lenzenweger on this topic? - MrOllie (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a psychologist, and thus may be wholly unqualified to give any opinion on this matter, but I have been reading some of Lenzenweger's Schizotypy and Schizophrenia, and from what I can see there is at least a debate over the above issue. Then again, I don't know how to evaluate whether the debate is well-founded, i.e., I don't know if Lenzenweger's ideas carry more or less weight than Claridge's, or if either position is widely discounted in the psychological community. Is the problem with Elmhurstminn's edits that they present Lenzenweger's position as a fact rather than part of a debate within a scholarly community? If this is the problem, it might be helpful to have the debate clarified in the article. Again, I am not an expert in psychology, merely a curious reader. - Luna (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"theory" in opening sentence

" In psychology, schizotypy is a theory [...] " is it though? isnt it just a view on something, to which terms like hypothesis and theory are inapplicable?

Schizophrenia as a neurodegenerative disorder?

This section mentions that schizophrenia involves neurodegeneration, but this article claims otherwise. Existent human being (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Right, schizophrenia isn't usually considered a neurodegenerative disease. I've removed the remark from the article. Jhvx (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Idionomia"

A simple search reveals that "idionomia" is not a very common term, mentioned almost solely in reference [29]; therefore it is a rational choice to provide a clear definition of this term within the Wikipedia article. However, the reference has a longer definition which would require several sentences to describe, therefore it would decrease legibility not to split the sentence mentioning it into multiple sentences to give a complete picture. The optimal solution may be to start an article on idionomia, however, as there are few references mentioning this word it may be more difficult to write a complete article on it; in short, idionomia is a complex phenomenon that may or may not be very widely recognized with this name, therefore it may be difficult to find resources to expand upon the article, but it would also be wrong to avoid mentioning the full details it entails. Existent human being (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this paper as well, which actually has over 150 citations; therefore it may not be as obscure as a simple search reveals, as this paper (at least for me) does not appear when searching "idionomia". Existent human being (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: term removed per MOS:NEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Existent human being (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations in section "Autism"

This section employs excessive (sentences with five, seven, and ten) citations . Existent human being (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)