7 Answers

  1. No, if we mean the everyday concept of madness., in which a person is in a state of delirium, if we take the criteria of delirium according to Jaspers, it becomes clear:

    1. subjective patient confidence in the adequacy of the content of a delusional idea;

    2. the inaccessibility of correcting a delusional idea either by persuasion or suggestion;

    3. false content of a delusional idea.

    These criteria do not reflect the essence of the disorder, but allow you to understand that he sees the world as he sees it, without criticality, it's like proving to you that the chair you are sitting on is not really a chair, but a hippo, will you listen to this and believe it?(the example about hallucinations is more, but I think the essence is clear)

  2. I can't imagine why anyone would do such a thing. If a person really has deviations , it does not need to be proved, because everything is already visible. This isn't a joke.

    If you are talking about insanity in the everyday sense – you are not satisfied with the behavior of someone close to you and you can not agree – then I can not imagine how their admission that they are crazy will help you. After all, then it is definitely impossible to negotiate with them. You can only remove responsibility from yourself if this is what you are driving at. So in general, this approach will not lead to anything good.

  3. I hate the term ” crazy.” It doesn't describe the problem. Not crazy people, but people with mental disorders.

    First, there are mental disorders that the patient does not deny. He has nothing to prove. I fully recognize my depression when it gets worse ,and I separate the dark thoughts it dictates from the neutral ones. It's hard, really, and it's better when someone helps, but still I have nothing to prove, I know that this is a mood disorder and in fact everything is a little wrong.

    Secondly, if a person with a mental disorder has a serious thinking disorder, you can't prove anything to them. He will perceive all your proofs with his disturbed thinking, and therefore, the logical proof itself goes to hell.

    I remember very well how my brain worked during stimulatory psychosis (they say it is very similar to an exacerbation of schizophrenia). They tried to prove to me that I was behaving inappropriately.

    I didn't understand what this had to do with me at all. My mind was completely clear. I sat on the floor in the middle of a mountain of records and tore the envelopes into small pieces, because I had to catch up, and I knew that in Soviet times they put amphetamine in the envelopes of records.

    From the point of view of common sense, this was complete nonsense. But I had an alternative common sense, because I just knew it was true, and that was it.

    Clear consciousness. No hallucinations. I just know that amphetamine was put in the envelopes of records in the USSR, and that's all. I'm sitting on the floor among the torn envelopes. I have to find him, I have to catch up. What do you want to prove to me?�

    Normal people don't behave like that? No, that's just how normal people in my position behave. You're just denying the obvious, and I'm being perfectly logical. It's just that you don't know that amphetamine was put in the envelopes, and I know that's why I tear up the envelopes.�

    Does my behavior seem strange to me? No, I'm just not feeling well and I need to catch up. And in the envelopes of records in the USSR they put amphetamine, and I have to find it.�

    Do I look like a schizophrenic? Fuck you. A person has a waste of time, and you load it. It's probably useless to explain that amphetamine was put in the envelopes. Any sane person should understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

    Here, in principle, nothing can be proved. I had exactly the same logic, only the reality is alternative, different from the generally accepted one. But even if they proved to me that it differs from the generally accepted one, I would say that there is something wrong with the generally accepted reality, and I am the most normal of normal people.

    And what's more, I still think so – that there was something wrong with the real world back then.

  4. Insanity is inherently illogical, that is, the ability to transform the concept of the relationship of cause and effect in accordance with one's current needs in order to justify one's own rightness.
    That is, for a madman, the consequence can become the cause in cases where it is profitable for him.
    As an example: “This man was bad because I hit him.” In fact, the opposite is true, but it is enough for a madman that these two facts are interrelated – and therefore he is right.
    Therefore, he will process any of your logic into a proof of his own rightness, and in the most unexpected way for you.
    The only questions you should ask a madman are “Where are you right now?”, ” What date is it and what time is it?” and ” Tell us how you were successful and what were you right about back then?”.
    Any logical constructions given to the madman for consideration and arguments based on them with him will do nothing but aggravate his condition: he will plunge even deeper into insanity in an attempt to prove that HE is RIGHT.
    And in the event that your logic pushes him to the wall, no matter how soft and perfect it is, he may have a severe breakdown, even trying to kill you or himself – from emotional hopelessness.
    When faced with cases of insanity in real life or in social networks, ask similar questions, and with adequate answers to them in further communication, ignore the manifestations of insanity, do not react to them in any way and do not confirm the significance of their insanity for you, and support only normal reactions of the patient. Give them more opportunities to speak out using these techniques.
    But never overwhelm with logic! So you will finally kill the person.

  5. Given that the madman has absolutely his own logic (that is, everyone has a purely personal one, which does not intersect with other logics), then he will not understand this. The main thing is that I didn't change your mind.

    “What was there? How did you escape?
    Everyone climbed and pestered
    But the mechanic just shook
    And chinariki shot
    He alternated between crying and laughing
    Then he bristled like a hedgehog
    He was bullying us
    Well, crazy-what will you take!”

  6. There are chances if a person is in remission at this point. Small, but there is.
    In pritsnip, history knows examples when during remission people voluntarily and by their own decision turned to a psychiatrist.

    If a person has an exacerbation, then he will embed your words in his delirium, or simply discard them.
    In this case, there will be nothing useful from such proof, either for you or for that person.

  7. If he succeeds-so he is not so crazy-he has self-criticism, accepts arguments, is ready to draw conclusions that he does not like. This doesn't work with normal people who have moved out

Leave a Reply