What are delusions? Examining the typology problem.

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-06 DOI:10.1002/wcs.1674
Pablo López-Silva, Miguel Núñez de Prado-Gordillo, Victor Fernández-Castro
{"title":"What are delusions? Examining the typology problem.","authors":"Pablo López-Silva, Miguel Núñez de Prado-Gordillo, Victor Fernández-Castro","doi":"10.1002/wcs.1674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Delusions are a heterogenous transdiagnostic phenomenon with a higher prevalence in schizophrenia. One of the most fundamental debates surrounding the philosophical understanding of delusions concerns the question about the type of mental state in which reports that we label as delusional are grounded, namely, the typology problem. The formulation of potential answers for this problem seems to have important repercussions for experimental research in clinical psychiatry and the development of psychotherapeutic tools for the treatment of delusions in clinical psychology. Problematically, such alternatives are scattered in the literature, making it difficult to follow the current development and state of the target discussion. This paper offers an updated critical examination of the alternatives to the typology problem currently available in the literature. After clarifying the two main philosophical views underlying the dominant formulation of the debate (interpretivism and functionalism), we follow the usual distinction between doxastic (the idea that delusions are a type of belief) and anti-doxastic views. We then introduce two new sub-distinctions; on the doxastic camp, we distinguish between revisionist and non-revisionist proposals; on the anti-doxastic camp, we distinguish between commonsensical and non-commonsensical anti-doxasticisms. After analyzing the main claims of each view, we conclude with some of the most fundamental challenges that remain open within the discussion. This article is categorized under: Philosophy > Foundations of Cognitive Science Philosophy > Consciousness Philosophy > Psychological Capacities Neuroscience > Cognition.</p>","PeriodicalId":47720,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"e1674"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1674","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Delusions are a heterogenous transdiagnostic phenomenon with a higher prevalence in schizophrenia. One of the most fundamental debates surrounding the philosophical understanding of delusions concerns the question about the type of mental state in which reports that we label as delusional are grounded, namely, the typology problem. The formulation of potential answers for this problem seems to have important repercussions for experimental research in clinical psychiatry and the development of psychotherapeutic tools for the treatment of delusions in clinical psychology. Problematically, such alternatives are scattered in the literature, making it difficult to follow the current development and state of the target discussion. This paper offers an updated critical examination of the alternatives to the typology problem currently available in the literature. After clarifying the two main philosophical views underlying the dominant formulation of the debate (interpretivism and functionalism), we follow the usual distinction between doxastic (the idea that delusions are a type of belief) and anti-doxastic views. We then introduce two new sub-distinctions; on the doxastic camp, we distinguish between revisionist and non-revisionist proposals; on the anti-doxastic camp, we distinguish between commonsensical and non-commonsensical anti-doxasticisms. After analyzing the main claims of each view, we conclude with some of the most fundamental challenges that remain open within the discussion. This article is categorized under: Philosophy > Foundations of Cognitive Science Philosophy > Consciousness Philosophy > Psychological Capacities Neuroscience > Cognition.

Abstract Image

什么是妄想症?研究类型学问题
妄想是一种异质的跨诊断现象,在精神分裂症中发病率较高。围绕着对妄想的哲学理解展开的最基本的争论之一,涉及到我们称之为妄想的报告所基于的精神状态的类型问题,即类型学问题。这个问题的潜在答案的提出似乎对临床精神病学的实验研究和临床心理学治疗妄想症的心理治疗工具的开发有着重要的影响。问题是,这些替代方案散见于文献中,很难跟上目标讨论的当前发展和状态。本文对目前文献中类型学问题的替代方案进行了最新的批判性研究。在澄清了这一争论的主要表述所依据的两种主要哲学观点(解释学和功能主义)之后,我们按照惯例区分了 "妄想 "观点(认为妄想是信念的一种)和 "反妄想 "观点。然后,我们引入了两个新的细分;在妄想论阵营,我们区分了修正主义和非修正主义建议;在反妄想论阵营,我们区分了常识性和非常识性反妄想论。在分析了每种观点的主要主张后,我们以讨论中仍未解决的一些最根本的挑战作为结论。本文归类于哲学 > 认知科学基础 哲学 > 意识 哲学 > 心理能力 神经科学 > 认知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信