See citation [1]. Click on URL to see comment in context.

*

I find this statement (and the idea of "2 Types" of psychosis seriously problematic on multiple levels:

(1) The only thing that I have found that most people can really agree on with regard to what gets called "psychosis" is that this is simply a term pointing to the experience of anomalous perceptions, beliefs and behaviors (i.e., perceptions, beliefs and behaviors that are not in line with those that are generally experienced, believed or condoned/understood within the individual's broader culture). These kinds of experiences can vary radically between individuals, suggesting that what we call "psychosis" is highly heterogeneous in its manifestation, suggesting that trying to contain these within "2 types" is a serious overgeneralization. I personally believe that certain core existential dilemmas or themes (or "problems in living," as some like to call them) very often come to the fore when people are having such experiences, but that the manifestation is highly individualized depending upon the person's particular history, past traumas, current situation/culture, etc. I discuss this extensively in my book, "Rethinking Madness," and my other articles here: www.rethinkingmadness.com

(2) I feel that the term "mental illness" is also a highly problematic term. First of all, it's an oxymoron--a "mind" can perhaps be chaotic, disordered, disocciated, etc., but how can a mind be "ill." Of course a brain can be "ill" (i.e., diseased), but the conditions that are typically referred to as "mental illness" have yet to be clearly causatively correlated with brain disease, and in those cases where this has occurred, then they're referred to as the particular physiological conditions associated with them (such as neurological or endocrine disorders; alzheimer's, huntington's, hypothyroidism, etc.)--nobody continues to refer to these as "mental illnesses"--there is simply nothing scientific or imho useful about this term. I write more about this here: http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/the-mental-illness-paradigm-itself-an-illness-that-is-out-of-control/

(3) The implication with these 2 types of psychosis is that it's possible to observe clear diagnostic and prognostic indicators between "Type 1" and "Type 2" psychosis, with Type 2 suggesting a generally more "persistent" and hopeless condition. According to my understanding of the recovery research, these assumptions are simply unfounded. Many individuals with the most severe forms of psychosis have gone on to experience full and lasting (psychiatric drug -free) recoveries; and many individuals with more benign conditions have struggled with their experiences for many years (especially when distressing psychosocial factors are not adequately addressed).

So my two cents here is that this particular nosology is not scientifially grounded, and contributes to unfounded prognostic pessimism that is likely to only cause harm to those struggling with such conditions. For those interested in generally more humanistic, hopeful and (I believe) accurate theoretical models of extreme states, I outline a number of these (and formulate an integrative model myself) in my book, "Rethinking Madness." And I also list a number of other books, videos, etc. offering more such models in the resource section of my website: www.rethinkingmadness.com