Schizophrenia Is Not An Illness (Part 3)


Hallucinations

In Schizophrenia Part 1, we noted that the APA lists hallucinations as one of the primary “symptoms” of schizophrenia.  The APA defines an hallucination as follows:

“A sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.” (DSM-IV-TR, p 823)

In other words: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or feeling something that isn’t really there.  Typically the individual who has been “diagnosed” with schizophrenia reports that he hears voices that accuse him of some wrong or exhort him to some action, and sometimes threaten him with punishment or retribution.

A number of points need to be made.

Firstly, it has been established for many years that people who report auditory hallucinations are in fact talking to themselves.  Sensitive monitoring equipment can pick up the minute vibrations of the vocal chords, and when these signals are amplified, it is possible to actually hear what the individual is saying to himself.

Secondly, apart from the kind of monitoring equipment mentioned above, the only way you can know if someone is hallucinating is if he tells you so or if he gives you some overt indication, e.g. cocking his head to one side as if listening to a voice from the other side of the room, etc.. Now the fact is that almost everybody engages in self-talk.  Most of us, however, keep it private and even display a small measure of embarrassment when “caught” engaging in this activity.  The difference between “ordinary” people and “hallucinators” is that the latter reveal the process publicly by a variety of methods.

The vast majority of people realize that their self-talk is just that:  talking to themselves inside their heads.  And although we may enjoy this activity, we afford more importance and pay more attention to external stimuli, i.e. the real world.  And because the real world seems more important and relevant to us than our self-talk fantasies, we assume that this is the way it should be for everybody.  The fact, however, is that paying attention is what behavioral scientists call an operant.  We pay attention to certain things in life because the act of paying attention to them is rewarded, and we routinely ignore other material because there is no pay-off for attending to it.  For instance, if you are driving in city traffic, it is worth your while to pay attention to traffic lights, other vehicles, and pedestrians.  It is not worth your while to pay attention to windblown trash swilling and eddying in the gutters.  In fact, if you’re paying more attention to the latter than the former, you will likely incur some very negative consequences.  However, if you are sitting on a bench eating your lunch, you can watch the windblown trash all you like.  Similar considerations apply to almost every aspect of life.  If you’re in a meeting at work and the boss is talking, it generally makes sense to pay attention to what’s being said and to put the fantasy life on hold, etc., etc.

But what needs to be remembered in these considerations is that we assign more priority to external reality than internal fantasy only because historically this perspective has brought us success.  We pay attention to the boss because in our experience this brings rewards.  The reward may simply be a smile of appreciation, but because of our training and experience, we see these tiny rewards as important and cumulative.  They’re like green stamps:  save up enough and you get a prize.

For a person who has experienced little but failure, suffering, and grief, however, the situation is markedly different.  His experiences tells him that it doesn’t really matter what you do or what you pay attention to, it all ends badly anyway.  In this kind of context, a retreat to the internal fantasy world becomes very understandable and, in extreme cases, almost inevitable.  The prioritization of internal over external stimuli is not in itself a pathological process, but is rather a natural and understandable consequence of repeated and significant failure.  So young people who go out in the world lacking the kind of basic skills mentioned in my post on schizophrenia Part 1 are at high risk for experiencing profound failure in the three great challenges:

-          emancipation from parents

-          finding a partner

-          launching a career

For these individuals, paying attention to internal stimuli is far more rewarding than continuing to invest attention and interest in external reality.  In my experience, these are the essential dynamics in most cases where a diagnosis of schizophrenia has been assigned.

Now, of course, it’s possible for hallucinations to occur because of neurological impairment.  Such impairment can be temporary (e.g. morphine induced) or permanent.  But it is never safe to assume a neurological impairment on the basis of a behavioral problem.  The behavioral explanation outlined above is more parsimonious and far more likely to be correct.

Related posts:

  1. Schizophrenia Is Not an Illness (Part 2)
  2. Schizophrenia Is Not An Illness (Part 1)

  • Geli Heimann

    Dr. Hickey,

    Thank you for this most excellent read!

    During my first degree in psychology, during the clinical component of the course, we were challenged to critically evaluate the pros and cons of the application of the DSM IV. To me that research project was a tremendous eye-opener combined with the decision not to continue my career into clinical psychotherapy (I did my masters in business psych, with a specialization in relationships).

    Since that research project the subject of mental illnesses and the psychopharma industry have become my personal huge ‘soap box’.

    I found your site whilst looking up some pointers and refreshers for coaching a client who was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

    All I can say is that I am really grateful that you took the time not only to write this article but also patiently reply to all your comments. To me this has been a real treasure find!

    Best wishes,
    Geli.

  • http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com Phil

    Geli,

    Thank you for your kind words. It is equally heartening to me to learn that someone else has seen that the emperor has no clothes. At the present time we are quite literally a few scattered voices in the wilderness. The bio-psychiatric pharma juggernaut is in top gear, and DSM-5 promises even more devastation and destruction.

    I encourage you to develop your soap-box in every way that you can. Spread the word – there are no mental illnesses – just human living problems that have been spuriously medicalized for profit to the ultimate determinant of clients and society.

    Organizational psychology with a specialization in relationships sounds like a great pursuit with lots of opportunities for developing valid models of human interaction.

    Best wishes in all your endeavors.

  • Geli

    Thank you Phil for taking the time to reply.

    My favourite leaning is Positive Psychology / Strengths Psychology and the work of Cloe Madanes. I’ll tweet a link on Twitter to your site. I believe it’s all about creating massive awareness, so people will not be coerced into treatment that will really mess them up. From what I understand in the USA, insurance companies will not pay up unless the clinician/therapist went the DSM route and prescribed meds.

    Keep up your great work!

    Geli.

    P.S. are you on Facebook and Twitter, they are powerful media to educate people about having the opportunity to make their own educated choices, rather than accepting as gospel that they are ill.

    Have the same group forum on Facebook as you have on your website (linked to each other) it’ll give you more exposure which is vitally important!

  • http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com Phil

    Geli,

    Yes, here in the US the medical model has come to dominate the landscape. Problems of living are conceptualized (spuriously) as “mental illnesses,” and the preferred “treatment” is, of course, drugs. The financial resources backing this framework are truly enormous.

    One of the problems with the medical model is that it ignores the role of the social and physical environment. Problems are routinely conceptualized as illnesses within the individual. The fact that the individual is trapped in chronic poverty or a dysfunctional family arrangement or a soul-destroying job or whatever is afforded no significance.

    Back in the 70s I worked for the British Home Office, in the prison department, and I think the DSM model had less of a grip over there – though perhaps that might be changing.

    Thanks for the suggestions re Facebook and Twitter. To be honest, I don’t even know what these things mean. I am computer illiterate. My son-in-law Jay is my webmaster. My long-suffering wife, Nancy, is my interface with the World Wide Web. When computers started happening back in the 70’s I took some initial interest, but concluded that I had better things to do and that anyway, it would never be more than a peripheral research aid for large organizations. Not my only error! I will, however, ask Jay and Nancy about Facebook and Twitter.

    Best wishes.