Talk:Schizotypy

message: Can I suggest that the wiki-link to  Gordon Claridge is removed, for the simple reason that there is, as yet, no entry for Gordon Claridge in Wikipaedia?  
My other suggestions:
Perhaps the first mention of psychoticism could also feature the first wiki-link to psychoticism?
Perhaps the discussion of the factors that emerge when measurements of schizotypy are subject to  factor analysis could be merged with some of the information that  appears earlier in the article? I do think it important that at  some  stage, the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia are distinguished, and my sugggestion is that this section is moved earlier in the article. Cardamom
:Someone recently added a factor analysis comment suggesting that positive and negative components are typically found, when the majority of studies find three factor solutions (positive, negative and disorganised) or four factor solutions (as mentioned already in the article as the factors that form the basis of the OLIFE schizotypy scale).
:The concept of positive and negative symptoms is discussed in both the psychosis and schizophrenia articles, so I'm not sure it has to be covered here again.
:- Vaughan 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: The term "schizotypy" was coined by Paul Meehl in his American Psychological Association Presidential address back when the APA was largely a scientific organization. He later revised this idea in 1990.
Meehl, P.E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. American Psychologist, 17, 827-838.
Meehl., P.E. (1990). Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. Journal of Personality, 4, 1-99.
I have made a minor change to the section 'Development of the concept' in light of the fact that the term 'schizotypy' may first have been used by Meehl in the 1962 reference cited above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger2006 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Meehl 

message: I have some of the traits of Claridge's schizotypy (notably 1 and 4, as childhood nonconformity and an interest in the mysterious), but despite my past difficulty talking to women, I wouldn't say that I have any deficiency to actually feel pleasure from physical stimulation. I think Claridge's criterion is unfairly worded.
128.186.40.99 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deficiency in the ability to feel pleasure from physical stimulation"? 

message: I have moved two unreferenced sentences here (see below) from the main page so as to be able to remove the ‘no in-text citations’ tag; however, if anyone is able to provide apt references for them, they could be reinstated.Ranger2006 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving two sentences here 

message: Please note: rapid eye movements (REM) are characteristic of a later stage of sleep and are not normally associated with descending Stage 1.Ranger2006 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re proposed insertion of 'or REM' before 'sleep' 

message: psychiatry is a joke.--Bodinagamin (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  so now hedonism is healthy?! 

message: I found these comments directly behind the definition of schizotypy: 
CORRECTION: The current data from taxometric studies does not support the continuum nature of schizotypy.
CORRECTION: Schizotypy is not a personality characteristic—rather it represents the latent liability for schizophrenia and, as such, it is unobservable to the unaided naked eye.
These comments were inserted by  and now moved to the talk page by... Lova Falk talk 08:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Elmhurstminn - which data from taxometric studies do you have? And in which article or book did you read that schizotypy represents a latent liability for schizophrenia? Lova Falk talk 08:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Why is it that all of your edits include references to Lenzenweger? Are you a major fan of Lenzenweger on this topic? - MrOllie (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not a psychologist, and thus may be wholly unqualified to give any opinion on this matter, but I have been reading some of Lenzenweger's Schizotypy and Schizophrenia, and from what I can see there is at least a debate over the above issue.  Then again, I don't know how to evaluate whether the debate is well-founded, i.e., I don't know if Lenzenweger's ideas carry more or less weight than Claridge's, or if either position is widely discounted in the psychological community.  Is the problem with Elmhurstminn's edits that they present Lenzenweger's position as a fact rather than part of a debate within a scholarly community?  If this is the problem, it might be helpful to have the debate clarified in the article.  Again, I am not an expert in psychology, merely a curious reader. - Luna (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments in the lead and Mr. Ollie 

message: This section mentions that schizophrenia involves neurodegeneration, but this article claims otherwise. Existent human being (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, schizophrenia isn't usually considered a neurodegenerative disease. I've removed the remark from the article. Jhvx (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia as a neurodegenerative disorder? 

message: A simple search reveals that "idionomia" is not a very common term, mentioned almost solely in reference [29]; therefore it is a rational choice to provide a clear definition of this term within the Wikipedia article. However, the reference has a longer definition which would require several sentences to describe, therefore it would decrease legibility not to split the sentence mentioning it into multiple sentences to give a complete picture. The optimal solution may be to start an article on idionomia, however, as there are few references mentioning this word it may be more difficult to write a complete article on it; in short, idionomia is a complex phenomenon that may or may not be very widely recognized with this name, therefore it may be difficult to find resources to expand upon the article, but it would also be wrong to avoid mentioning the full details it entails. Existent human being (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in this paper as well, which actually has over 150 citations; therefore it may not be as obscure as a simple search reveals, as this paper (at least for me) does not appear when searching "idionomia". Existent human being (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Idionomia" 

message: This section employs excessive (sentences with five, seven, and ten) citations . Existent human being (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive citations in section "Autism"