| Title |
Incomprehensibility: The role of the concept in DSM-IV definition of schizophrenic delusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, October 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1021164602485 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Markus Heinimaa |
| Abstract |
In this paper the role of incomprehensibility in the conceptualization of the DSM-IV definition of delusion is discussed. According to the analysis, the conceptual dependence of DSM-IV definition of delusion on "incomprehensibility" is manifested in several ways and infested with ambiguity. Definition of "bizarre" delusions is contradictory and gives room for two incompatible readings. Also the definition of delusion manifests internal inconsistencies and its tendency to account for delusions in terms of misinterpretation is bound to miss the content of the traditional comprehension of delusionality. It is suggested that the ambiguities in defining delusions has to do with the question whether psychiatric practice is better accounted for in terms of the grammar of "incorrectness" or of "incomprehensibility". |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 3 | 30% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2011.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#237
of 621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,269
of 49,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 49,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them