First, sorry for being so rude in my previous comment, and what i might put here. There is a lot of misinformation out there (and in the article) and it hurts people in very tangible ways. Stigma and misinformation can very literally kill.

There is a lot of inaccurate information, and a lot of unknowns being taken as fact in this article.

For starters, almost any model of the mind based on ideas of wither Freud or Jung have been thoroughly... i won't say "disproven" because there is no proof for any of this within reach of humanity so far, but they are effectively useless. Those models don't account for a lot of things, lead to wrong outcomes in others, and overall they are a bad way to describe what's going on inside the psyche of a person.

Some characteristics of those models can be inherited into newer models, but basing anything off them will lead to routes that won't be representative of the way the mind of a person works, whether is neurotypical or not.

Having this in the middle of the article demolishes whatever credence one might hope to sustain about what it further develops.

As you point out, the "voices" that schizophrenic people might hear are not a simple auditory hallucination; though just saying it's reasonable to say they are actual selves is taking an idea in a very simplistic way. Here is where the issue begins, a person not versed whatsoever in psychology reads the article and believes as gospel what is said here in a very simplified way, the nuance is lost in the middle.

Whether the voices of a person with schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder, or schizoaffective disorder might actually be discriminated as having the same qualities as a disembodied being, is dependent on the specifics on the case, how is it treated, and how other comorbidities might interact with it. Things regarding mental illnesses are extremely messy and extremely hard to grasp even for trained professionals with specific experience in the area (years to find a psychiatrist qualified enough to treat my partner. years!).

The article contains a lot more bad sources, inaccurate understanding of the self and the inner dialogue (that not even everyone has) and has a haphazard mixture between pop-psych and neuroscience that conflates things that are pertinent to a certain domain as generalizable or universal.

I'm sorry but this is not good and it's not as simple as correcting a thing or two about schizophrenia, because when i read the whole thing it screams "i don't really know what i'm talking about but i will throw a bunch of sources and topics and pretend i do". Maybe you're knowledgeable about this stuff and just the process of simplifying things for the article butchered everything, or maybe you don't really have much idea about what you're writing. In any case if you want i can give you some books/papers/sources, or chat about the subject, feel free to contact me.

And again, sorry for being so rude earlier.

I appreciate the apology! Not strictly necessary though, it's the internet after all :) I also appreciate the detailed response.

I'm not sure how much of your criticism to chalk up to disagreement (totally valid!) versus me being factually wrong. E.g. while Jung and Freud have fallen out of favor with mainstream psychology, I and many others find their ideas both intellectually and practically useful. Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.

> The article contains a lot more bad sources

Any specific sources I should have avoided? I went through all the links, and it's mainly Wikipedia, Nature, The Atlantic, NYT, etc, aside from one article by Tanya Luhrmann (who I think is brilliant) in Wilson Quarterly (which I know nothing about).

Again, happy to correct any factual inaccuracies.

> Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.

The same can be said for supernatural belief systems like Christianity: oftentimes people find them useful or helpful.

That doesn't make them true or accurate or related in any way to reality.

Your article has an authoritative tone on a scientific topic. You should fix that, given that modern science has rejected the cited models as without merit.

You are welcome to constrain your thinking to the artificial, speculative Overton Window laid down by The Science (which is based on hypotheses in the Motte version), but some of us choose to do otherwise, thanks.

A claim above is "they are effectively useless" - this is a claim of fact, but science does not know the facts about such matters.