5 ms·

>There are people today who hear voices, but they are a minority and we label them as mentally ill. The sane ones know better than to tell people that they hea

>There are people today who hear voices, but they are a minority and we label them as mentally ill. The sane ones know better than to tell people that they hear voices. >"Research supports the view that hearing hallucinatory voices is not by itself an indicator of mental illness. Estimates of the percentage of people in the general population without a known psychiatric illness who report auditory hallucinations vary widely. One review of seventeen surveys from nine countries found prevalence estimates as low as fewer than 1% to as high as 84%. Estimates of college students who have reported hearing hallucinatory voices have ranged from 13% to 71%. The wide range of estimates can be attributed in part to differences in definitions, survey instructions, and other methodological variations. Taking into consideration such methodological differences, some researchers estimate the prevalence of hearing voices in the general population to be between 5% and 28%, with 75% of people who report hearing voices to be psychologically healthy. Research suggests also that the prevalence of auditory verbal hallucinations varies by gender, age and culture." https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/longing-nostalgia/201803/research-is-shedding-new-light-hearing-voices https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/longing-nostalgia/...

michaelmrose 8y ago
Between 1 and 84% isn't a very useful range "The wide range of estimates can be attributed in part to differences in definitions, survey instructions, and other methodological variations." Kind of burying the lead. "Taking into consideration" Making shit up I'm more interested in how many people actually hear voices, not memory, interior monologue, or day dreaming. Unbidden commentary by a voice of another that is distinguishable from reality only by deduction.
- starbeast 8y ago
  Did you check through the referred papers at the end? It doesn't seem, via reading them, that they are just making shit up. You seem to be taking issue with a turn of phrase in the article, rather than the papers the article refers to. Are you making shit up and didn't actually check if they were making shit up?
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. There being an acceptable way to do so doesn't mean it tells you anything meaningful about the world. Getting widely divergent numbers means to me that we don't have any accurate understanding.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      >Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. First stating the range within the existing literature is useful and common practice, at least within academic article writing. It also doesn't generally mean that any numbers mentioned in the article thereafter are derived by the author mashing the results together and getting some number in between, they are picked from the papers that are referenced at the bottom of the piece. So here, the wider range is being pulled from one paper that is a wide historical review, the narrower range and estimates for amount of people who hear voices without a recognized mental illness, are pulled from another paper, also a review of existing literature, but one that narrows the scope to more recent research. And then the numbers in the article for the amount of people who link their voices to their God, is the subject of another paper.
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        In the prior race between almost nobody and almost everybody voted democrat. Not too useful.
        starbeast 8y ago
        If you cannot work out by yourself why an academic article would include that the historical range of the subject under discussion is all over the place, then I am not sure that any attempt of leading you to it is going to help. Perhaps just have a bit more of a think about it. Have you read any of the referenced papers?

michaelmrose 8y ago

Between 1 and 84% isn't a very useful range "The wide range of estimates can be attributed in part to differences in definitions, survey instructions, and other methodological variations." Kind of burying the lead. "Taking into consideration" Making shit up I'm more interested in how many people actually hear voices, not memory, interior monologue, or day dreaming. Unbidden commentary by a voice of another that is distinguishable from reality only by deduction.

starbeast 8y ago
Did you check through the referred papers at the end? It doesn't seem, via reading them, that they are just making shit up. You seem to be taking issue with a turn of phrase in the article, rather than the papers the article refers to. Are you making shit up and didn't actually check if they were making shit up?
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. There being an acceptable way to do so doesn't mean it tells you anything meaningful about the world. Getting widely divergent numbers means to me that we don't have any accurate understanding.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    >Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between. First stating the range within the existing literature is useful and common practice, at least within academic article writing. It also doesn't generally mean that any numbers mentioned in the article thereafter are derived by the author mashing the results together and getting some number in between, they are picked from the papers that are referenced at the bottom of the piece. So here, the wider range is being pulled from one paper that is a wide historical review, the narrower range and estimates for amount of people who hear voices without a recognized mental illness, are pulled from another paper, also a review of existing literature, but one that narrows the scope to more recent research. And then the numbers in the article for the amount of people who link their voices to their God, is the subject of another paper.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      In the prior race between almost nobody and almost everybody voted democrat. Not too useful.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        If you cannot work out by yourself why an academic article would include that the historical range of the subject under discussion is all over the place, then I am not sure that any attempt of leading you to it is going to help. Perhaps just have a bit more of a think about it. Have you read any of the referenced papers?