I am beginning to view psychology as a mental disorder in and of itself. I would define derailment as the inability of a reductionist thinking psychologist to follow a constructionist thought pattern. I don’t see the ambiguity in the first example, I wouldn’t have noticed it as being odd. The second seems flaky, but I don’t know what he was thinking, (I wasn’t there). (I’m not saying that the constructionist thinker is right, only that he doesn’t accept the goal as fact)
In psychiatry, derailment (also loosening of association, asyndesis, asyndetic thinking, knight’s move thinking, or entgleisen) refers to a pattern of discourse (in speech or writing) that is a sequence of unrelated or only remotely related ideas. The frame of reference often changes from one sentence to the next. Examples:
- “The next day when I’d be going out you know, I took control, like uh, I put bleach on my hair in California.”—given by Nancy C. Andreasen
- “The traffic is rumbling along the main road. They are going to the north. Why do girls always play pantomime heroes.”— given by Carl Schneider
In a mild manifestation, this thought disorder is characterized by slippage of ideas further and further from the point of a discussion. Some of the synonyms given above (loosening of association, asyndetic thinking) are used by some authors to refer just to a loss of goal: discourse that sets off on a particular idea, wonders off and never returns to it. A related term is tangentiality— it refers to off-the-point, oblique or irrelevant answers given to questions.
Entgleisen (derailment in German) was first used with this meaning by Carl Schneider in 1930. The term asyndesis was introduced by N. Cameron in 1938, while loosening of association was introduced by A. Bleuler in 1950. The phrase knight’s move thinking was first used in the context of pathological thinking by the psychologist Peter McKellar in 1957, who hypothesized that schizophrenics fail to suppress divergent associations. In some studies on creativity, knight’s move thinking, while it describes a similarly loose association of ideas, is not considered a mental disorder or the hallmark of one; it is sometimes used as a synonym for lateral thinking. Derailment was used with this meaning by Kurt Schneider in 1959.
For instance; My ex-brother had a complaint filed against him for sexual harassment and was considering whether to led it slide or fight it aggressively. I made the comment, “you can’t leave yourself vulnerable, you can’t get away with doing nothing wrong twice”. (I suppose that would be viewed as “insane”, I don’t know, that’s what el Loco Gringo’s for) He was totally baffled until I explained it. What I meant was that if he let it slide, he would have a history of having sexual harassment complaints filed against him, which would come up again, and be considered, if another complaint were filed. His thought process precluded him seeing the big picture. He fought it aggressively and it turned out that the complaintant had been using these false claims to advance her career. (see, they do look at the history) By fighting it aggressively, he forced the issue, and it was resolved permanently (for him and several others, who chose to let it slide). The rule works both ways.
As I am not interested in genetics I had accepted DNA theory as valid. (it seemed reasonable) The same with evolution. Both theories have been smashed. They are even calling the DNA theory “the old dogma” in the textbooks. But the same pattern will re-establish itself and the “truth” of epigenetics will be the new “truth”. As will Ardi, when in fact, they are nothing but the best answer to date. The field of quantum physics is near collapse (or at least in an uproar) with the Lisi dudecohedron (D8) TOE. The debate is centering around the math. But reality doesn’t care about math. If the math does not agree with reality, the math is wrong. (Now THAT would be interesting.)
******Top down thinking is for implementing “the best answer to date” quickly, not for discovering new “truths”******
Letters to DrB>Here