Talk:Neurosis

message: Note: psychoanalytic theory is just that, a theory. Are there any cites for the scientific validity of this as a distinction with practical meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.232 (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Is homosexuality a neurosis ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.205.59.15 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 August 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're a homophobe, or a fundamentalist bible-thumping evangelist, then yes :D --Easty 13:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So which were the authors of the early DSMs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.22.19.194 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both!--66.108.140.89 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought neuroses were caused by conflicts between the Id and the Ego, at least according to Freud. --Easty 13:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be, but often isn't. Depends on the person, situation. It's possible some neuroses (likely about sex) can drive an otherwise heterosexual person to homosexuality. But there are also many homosexuals whose sexual identity doesn't coincide with any neurosis at all. Sexuality is not a black-and-white thing as most ppl think, and a great many factors come into play. There is no simple yes/no answer to that question. --DanielCD 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The findings of the majority of the medical and scientific community is that it is not, and no, it isn't a yes/no issue or a gray area. If you're talking about the opinions of people who cant make up their mind, then yes.. but if we are talking about actual homosexuality, then the answer is a clear "no"... it is not a neurotic condition whatsoever, and is merely a biological and evolutionary condition and a common trait among mammals.  Further discussion can be found in this video: Is Homosexuality a Choice? The video clearly states that the very institutions responsible for the classifications of neurotic conditions (which, by the way, no longer use the term "neurosis") have made it clear that homosexuality is in no way a neurotic condition in all official statements, based on all scientific findings.Radical Mallard (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT AN ALCOHOLIC, BEING IN AA TURNS TO BE A "NEUROTIC"?
AM I WRONG IN THINKING THAT A NEUROTIC IS ALWAYS FINDING FAULT AND VERBALLY ATTACKING HIS-HER SPOUSE AND CHILDREN?  IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AME
:To cite Dr. Arthur Janov is maybe not a very good idea, as his research may be questionable. See the talk page on his wikipedia entry.
::There are substantial differences between neurotic people, depending which mental disorders they have and what other facets of their personality exist. Many neurotics are alcoholics, but most are not. Being over-critical of others and being verbally abusive is the case with some neurotics, but most do not do this. Jim Michael (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Arthur Janov 

message: I am not happy with claims in this article that Psychoanalysis is not to be confused with Psychology or Psychiatry, or that the word neurosis is not now used in English speaking countries in Psychology.  Psychology is surely the generic catch-all heading and must not be abused by allowing it to describe a formal branch of something (psychology?). Arthur Janov, for example, comes under the heading of Psychologist (and Psychiatrist) as far as I am concerned. To treat Psychologist as a strict job description is like allowing the word Physicist to become hijacked by a group of alchemists (Newton was an alchemist, but he was also a physicist). This hijacking is rife in psychology, for example clinical psychologist is taken to specify a particular training now in the UK, leaving no term for the general clinical practise of psychology. Psychodynamics is similarly hijacked by Psychoanalysis. --Memestream 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology, psychiatry, clinical psychologist - clarify meaning 

message: Hello
it seems rather strange to have a page on neurosis without at least an outline of Freud's theories of neurosis, and yet with a summary of Jung's views on the subject. I am not personally qualified to do this, but I hope somebody can be found to do it, without which this page remains incomplete. 
Peter Coville
I have to agree, it was Freud's theory of neurosis that is prevalent today not Jung's views. Jung as far as this term is concerned is irrelevant.142.150.48.174 (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Freud?! 

message: "It was discovered that a person becomes neurotic because he cannot tolerate the amount of frustration which society imposes on him in the service of its cultural ideals, and it was inferred from this that the abolition or reduction of those demands would result in a return to possibilities of happiness." Freud ( Civilizations and Its Discontents, III, p 275)\  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.145.80 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a good summary of Freud's views:

message: "Neurosis, also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, is a "catch all" term that refers to any mental imbalance that causes distress, but, unlike a psychosis or some personality disorders, does not prevent rational thought or an individual's ability to function in daily life." (emphasis mine)
It was my understanding that neuroses could affect an individual's ability to function in daily life, in the worst cases leading to inevitable failure in many everyday endeavors.  Twin Bird 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "neurosis" 

message: there are different types of neurosis  
1.... pyschoneurosis,anxiety        [the ones i m 
2....psychoneurosis,manic depressive  sufferin from]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.165.171 (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of neurosis 

message: It would be nice if we could get a source, gonna quote the article "Some studies show no benefit is gained from talk therapies. However, some benefit is gained from other kinds of untrained personal companionship and discussion". It bashes psychotherapy and psychiatry with no actual proof and saying that is kinda risky. I say we should modify or delete that section, Tarot cards FTW! >_>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.145.42 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No verb missing at the end of the sentence... but quite a few words were removed by a vandal that nobody apparently caught.  It's been restored.--Isotope23 talk 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: In the main article:
"I have frequently become neurotic when wrong answers to the questions of life (Jung, [1961] 1989:140)."
I seriously believe there is a verb missing at the end of that sentence.
Somebody do something about it...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireraider (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No verb missing at the end of the sentence... but quite a few words were removed by a vandal that nobody apparently caught.  It's been restored.--Isotope23 talk 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested correction by FireRaider. Somebody fix it if needed! 

message: Those who retain a psychoanalytical perspective, which would include a majority of psychologists in countries such as France, continue to use the term 'neurosis'.
Countries such as France? This is a kind of useless definition. Meaning socialist countries? I don't know if that's true and is it even really true on a nationwide level in France? I don't know enough to answer it, but it would be better to have something like, "psychologists that follow..." some psychologist or school of psychoanalysis.
Prayformojo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neurosis the term is the one of the only terms that survived past the era of Freudian psychology. Its widely used in many fields of psychology and country as no relevance. It is widely used in modern psychology.142.150.48.174 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on where the term is still in use 

message: As a complete outsider... I am wonder if Jung's theory of neurosis deserves to be in this article. It seems kind of pseudo-sciency and the link to Jung's theory of neurosis only provides a page that seems not to be of great importance and only cites a few sources, all of which are of Jung himself. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jason. Jung employed the term in his system of thought and therapy, so, yeah, something about his use would be appropriate here. Absence of scientific rigor shouldn't exclude him. Anthony (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Jung's theory of neurosis 

message: er dont neurotics blow things out of proportion, exaggerate or magnify minor problems ? nothing about this here--Penbat (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This could very well describe people with Borderline Personality Disorder, or Anxiety. In some cases it may be a symptom of Narcissism.Radical Mallard (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurosis and magnification or exaggeration 

message: It's important to make it clear that the term is no longer used officially by licensed psychiatrists, and people who are Freudists or Jungists and so on, who practice non licensed, non evidence based (new age) medicine and people who simply prefer to pick and choose what to believe in (I know many of us go through periods of life like that) should accept that it is no longer an officially used term. I have asked about it's use in a number of hospitals and licensed psychiatric persons I have met and they have said the term is no longer used. If anyone wishes to say the term is still officially in use they should specifically identify who uses it and why. While i think people like to use easy labels to describe human beings, it's apparent that the catch-all term has done more to confuse the issue and cause adverse results for people with psychiatric conditions. The problem is that "neurosis" describes a number of different conditions and it has proven to be better to simply say "a psychiatric condition" or "has undergone a trauma". There is a big problem of the people who follow philosophical or ideological trends (where a specific person or guru says what is right or wrong with people) vs actual scientific findings, procedures and results. Philosophers or Ideologues will tend to wish to keep around terms that have become outdated or have a stigma attached to them, while the scientific community functions well by abandoning scientific dead-ends. This explains in part why the term "Neurosis" is no longer officially used. Radical Mallard (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term no longer officially used by psychiatrists 

message: The Link to the medical dictionary is broken. Also, it would be nice to have an explanation as to what the condition is called nowadays since the article mentions the deprecation of the term so prominently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.91.2 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that dictionary seems to have been taken offline. Graham87 13:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: I'm not the smartest person, but...
Symptoms: "anxiety, sadness or depression, anger, irritability, mental confusion, low sense of self-worth, etc., behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, vigilance, impulsive and compulsive acts, lethargy, etc., cognitive problems such as unpleasant or disturbing thoughts, repetition of thoughts and obsession, habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. Interpersonally, neurosis involves dependency, aggressiveness, perfectionism, schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors"
yet "behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms"
84.168.101.54 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering... 

message: "poor ability to adapt to one's environment, an inability to change one's life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality."
This can't be right as it assumes ones objective is to adapt. Isn't it often the case in traumatic situations and unpleasant environments that resistance is the objective? Hence not a failure or inability. A neurotic person doesn't necessarily have a "poorer" personality (and by what means is that measured? Too subjective). Isn't someone with that much going on about them a more complex personality? Schpitt (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced content though, and I think the point of "not outside socially acceptable norms" is that this is one of the distinctions between neurosis and psychosis. When behavior is outside socially accepted norms, we could suspect psychosis. There is more to say about this, but I can't find the right words right now. Lova Falk talk 18:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoanalytical theory section definition of neurosis 

message: "Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations, whereby behavior is not outside socially acceptable norms"
Does anyone else see the problem with this definition? Can "outside socially acceptable norms" really be used? We all know that what is socially acceptable is not necessarily healthy. Many cultural norms are self defeating and encourage neurosis. Also, cultural norms varie greatly from place to place. None of the greatest minds in history followed the "social norms". Can't we just change that bit to something like "whereby behavior causes the individual unnecessary suffering and is impractical".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.254.158 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced content though, and I think the point of "not outside socially acceptable norms" is that this is one of the distinctions between neurosis and psychosis. When behavior is outside socially accepted norms, we could suspect psychosis. There is more to say about this, but I can't find the right words right now. Lova Falk talk 18:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in the definition

message: That's the way it's usually presented, no?
Benvhoff (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I agree with you that hypervigilance makes more sense than vigilance, this is a direct quote, and writing vigilance instead of hypervigilance is not the kind of typo we can just correct. So it seems our options are to remove the quote, or to replace it with a better one. Lova Falk talk 08:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the symptom "vigilance" be termed "hyper-vigilance" or "hypervigilance"? 

message: Schizoid isolation is a just another cleverl label that the DSM came up with by consensus.  It should not be included in neurosis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C000:7B59:9134:9E86:461C:D85 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizoid? 

message: Neurosis is a good word.  If it may have been overused at some point, throwing it out in this fashion is 'baby with the bath water,' (i.e. a pretty neurotic decision.)  I sort of doubt that the sentence is fully accurate though.  My guess is that the word neurosis still has meaning and function for the community, just not as a clinical diagnosis, but of course, the DSM, whichever edition, is far from perfect. Wikinetman (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The term is no longer used by the professional psychiatric community in the United States, having been eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980 with the publication of DSM III."