Wed 18 Jun, 2014 06:20 am
Therapist states to a patient, "i believe you to be psychotic, you have psychotic symptoms, for example you stated to me you are a mathematical genius, where's the evidence for that, it is a delusion of grandeur, its grandiose ideation, there's no foundation behind it."
Lets stop at this point for now, the follow up is yet to come.
So without yet looking at reply of patient, just the therapist statement alone, Does the logical follow through of that statement imply that The thepapist statement is in itself a delusion, It only NOT being a delusion if therapist had evidence to the contrary of the patients statement, which she did not have. To be particular I would see it implying the therapist has psychosis, based on the therapists statement and logic alone, but in this situation it implies she has the delusion of the patient not being a maths genius, she has a grandiose delusion or ideation of normality of the patient. Please discuss and i will answer any questions asap.
I disagree on two things
1) Today's therapists do not call patients, patients, they are called "clients"
2) If a therapist made that kind of assumption he or she may enact on a pre-conception based on past clients. It's not psychosis
thanks for reply to
a, its irrelevant to the situation what the names are and it could be a statement about anything. Just focusing on the statement alone, the logical follow up or and to, if one used the "Therapists" as the stater.
b, I know its not psychosis, but even based on enacting on a per-conceived idea with no foundation behind it, using the therapist criteria for the "Client" being delusional, would it not make logical sense to then follow that the therapist is delusional.
c, i'm not a English professor so forgive my English, but mathematically speaking..
First of all "Buttermilk" is too hung up on political correctness. It makes no difference whether Psychologists call their patients, patients or clients. What is missing is how long has the psychologist been seeng this person. Was patient, background or talks made to suggest that the person had little mathamatical background. Did person make previous statements, blatenatly, contradicting that this person was a Mathamatical geneious.
If the patient is a maths genius it'd be easy enough to prove wouldn't it?
yes, indeed you are correct Fabulini, its easy to prove mathematically that why i said to please hold for the reply, but i need to know how to phrase it in the English Language, i stated this in the answer to previous post, i am not an English professor, i;m blatantly worse, i'm dsylexic.