Delusions as harmful malfunctioning beliefs

What are delusions? Examining the typology problem

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.

We are not ready to abandon the current schizophrenia construct, but should be prepared to do so

The current schizophrenia construct as delineated in the latest editions of the DSM and the ICD has some strengths, but also many weaknesses. It improved the reliability of the diagnosis, made communication among clinicians, users and families less ambiguous, is useful for education and training, and for reimbursement and insurance purposes. However, many serious weaknesses should be considered. The term "Schizophrenia" does not recognize the heterogeneity of the disorder and might nourish the belief that schizophrenia represents a unitary disease. In addition, there is no agreement on the existence and nature of a "core aspect" of the disorder. Stable dimensions, in particular negative symptoms and cognitive impairment, which are key determinants of functioning, are not de facto regarded as core aspects. Finally, the construct is associated to the notion of a poor outcome, to a high level of stigma and has acquired a derogatory connotation. We are not ready but should be prepared to abandon the current schizophrenia construct. Clinicians and researchers should be encouraged to complement the ICD/DSM diagnosis with an in-depth characterization of the individual clinical picture, along with other variables, such as family history, comorbidities, vulnerability factors and personal trajectory. The "Primary Psychoses" construct, together with improved cross-sectional and longitudinal phenotypes from representative population and patient cohorts, and the availability of artificial intelligence methods, could lead to a new and more precise taxonomy of psychotic disorders, and increase the probability of identifying meaningful biomarkers to improve prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for people suffering from psychotic disorders.

Do delusions have and give meaning?

Delusions are often portrayed as paradigmatic instances of incomprehensibility and meaninglessness. Here we investigate the relationship between delusions and meaning from a philosophical perspective, integrating arguments and evidence from cognitive psychology and phenomenological psychopathology. We review some of the empirical and philosophical literature relevant to two claims about delusions and meaning: (1) delusions are meaningful, despite being described as irrational and implausible beliefs; (2) some delusions can also enhance the sense that one's life is meaningful, supporting agency and creativity in some circumstances. Delusions are not incomprehensible representations of reality. Rather, they can help make sense of one's unusual experiences and in some circumstances even support one's endeavours, albeit temporarily and imperfectly. Acknowledging that delusions have meaning and can also give meaning to people's lives has implications for our understanding of psychotic symptoms and for addressing the stigma associated with psychiatric conditions.

Doctors without ‘Disorders’

On one influential view, the problems that should attract medical attention involve a disorder, because the goals of medical practice are to prevent and treat disorders. Based on this view, if there are no mental disorders then the status of psychiatry as a medical field is challenged. In this paper, I observe that it is often difficult to establish whether the problems that attract medical attention involve a disorder, and argue that none of the notions of disorder proposed so far offers a successful demarcation criterion between medical and non-medical problems. As an illustration, I consider why delusions are considered pathological and whether they attract medical attention in virtue of being pathological, where ‘pathological’ stands for ‘being caused by a disorder’. Although there are several promising answers to what makes delusions pathological, available accounts of the pathological nature of delusions fail to distinguish delusions from other irrational beliefs that are not typically thought of as pathological; and cannot explain why delusions typically attract medical attention whereas other irrational beliefs do not.

Are clinical delusions adaptive?

Delusions are symptoms of psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and dementia. By and large, delusions are characterized by their behavioral manifestations and defined as irrational beliefs that compromise good functioning. In this overview paper, we ask whether delusions can be adaptive notwithstanding their negative features. Can they be a response to a crisis rather than the source of the crisis? Can they be the beginning of a solution rather than the problem? Some of the psychological, psychiatric, and philosophical literature has recently suggested that they can. We consider different types of delusions and different ways in which they can be considered as adaptive: psychologically (e.g., by increasing wellbeing, purpose in life, intrapsychic coherence, or good functioning) and biologically (e.g., by enhancing genetic fitness). Although further research is needed to map the costs and benefits of adopting and maintaining delusional beliefs, a more nuanced picture of the role of delusions in people's lives has started to emerge.

This article is categorized under:

Philosophy > Representation

Philosophy > Knowledge and Belief

Neuroscience > Cognition

Taxonomising delusions: content or aetiology?

INTRODUCTION

Many theoretical treatments assume (often implicitly) that delusions ought to be taxonomised by the content of aberrant beliefs. A theoretically sound, and comparatively under-explored, alternative would split and combine delusions according to their underlying cognitive aetiology.

METHODS

We give a theoretical review of several cases, focusing on monothematic delusions of misidentification and on somatoparaphrenia.

RESULTS

We show that a purely content-based taxonomy is empirically problematic. It does not allow for projectability of discoveries across all members of delusions so delineated, and lumps together delusions that ought to be separated. We demonstrate that an aetiological approach is defensible, and further that insofar as content-based approaches are plausible, it is only to the extent that they implicitly link content to aetiology.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a more explicit focus on cognitive aetiology as the grounds for delusion taxonomy, even when that would undermine traditional content-based boundaries. We also highlight the iterative and complex nature of evidence about aetiologically grounded taxonomies.