Depending on what part of the associative process of thinking has suffered, we can conditiaonally divide these violations as follows.
Accelerating the pace of thinking, when a person processes information, makes a decision and generates ideas much faster than others. Characteristic of manic States, where this acceleration can be expressed up to the “jump of ideas”. Slowing down the pace of thinking. Reflection and decision-making is delayed, sometimes so much that the attempt to talk turns into mutual torture for its participants, and if the second interlocutor is also still in a manic state (see the previous paragraph), not far from self-harm.
Mentalism is an involuntary influx of thoughts, when these thoughts invade in addition to the will of a person in his measured thought process, thoroughly interfere with his activities, often completely disorganizing it. How would you like, say, if the influx of thoughts about the fate of the Fatherland caught you watching a porn film?
Stop (blockage, sperrung) thinking — involuntary breakage, stopping the flow, the absence of thought. Thought-thought — and all. Deadlock. Cliff. No thoughts. And no dialogue to continue, no thing to do there is no way. Frozen, waiting for everything to move again.
By mobility, liveliness of the process:
Detail — secondary nonessential details are constantly involved in the thinking process. It is as if you are in a casual conversation about the weather made happy by the classification of clouds and the average annual norms of temperature and precipitation.
Thoroughness — a pronounced detailing with a systematic stuck on the details and side associations. The wind rose, the discussion of the spoiled ecology and the coordinates of the most trustworthy forecast Bureau would surely have been added to the previous details.
Viscosity — a pronounced thoroughness in which thinking becomes unproductive, to track the original thought is not possible, as well as the direction in which the conversation was originally – in General, by the fourth hour of the discussion, you are likely to be painfully decide who to beat the face: Greenpeace, meteorologists or interlocutor.
On the grammatical structure of speech:
Speech stereotypes — stamped turns or use of a question to build an answer; this is when the speech uses cliched, formulaic turns (“so, what I said…”, “well, as they say, let’s go back to our rams”, “as one of my friends said — however, you do not know…”), as well as the use of the question to build an answer: “How is my name? And my name is too well known for me to tell you!”Verbigeration is a meaningless repetition of the same words, phrases, endings of words or individual sounds. Incoherent — “verbal hash”, a set of individual words or phrases, devoid of logical and grammatical structure (not to be confused with the poem “Mom, dad, spoon, cat”).
Flowery — in this case, to Express even a simple thought, the patient resorts to a mass of comparisons, excerpts from various sources, metaphors and sayings, formulas and scientific terms. All you have to do is say, “go fuck yourself.” Now imagine how such a person would sound an explanation of love.
Slippage — this disorder can be represented as follows. The patient talks, for example, about cats. Thinks quite coherently and sensibly. Suddenly, clinging to the fact that some of them are gray, recalls the Maxim “in the dark all cats sulfur” and then gives a lengthy discussion on the relationship of cats, darkness, demonic beginning in the cat’s soul… and then as if nothing had happened returns to the discussion of what they are, in fact, cute and fluffy creatures. Why the slippage? Because such a course of thought looks like a patient, walking along the path of reasoning, slipped, leaning on a minor Association, and for a while rode on it, and then returned to the previous, well-trodden path.
Logic-chopping — long-winded philosophizing, the transfusion of a sieve, lengthy torrent minor subject — without a goal, without any direction. Who met with a flood (chatter off topic) in the comments replicas that way for twenty or thirty, I understand.
Formalism of thinking — when all the attention and all the power of the intellect is not thrown to the comprehension of the essence of the issue, but to a clear execution of the Protocol and the letter of the Charter.
Diversity — in this case, the patient can consider the subject or phenomenon from several points of view, based on several evaluation criteria, constantly changing the levels of generalization, but is not able to come to a decision what in this particular situation should be preferred. So, asking him to exclude from the pictures with the image of the castle, castle and hut one thing, you will not get an answer from him. He says that in one way or another all the pictures are interconnected, nothing extra on them, and in General, specifically, whether such an unsolvable puzzle planted?.. Amorphous — fuzzy, contradictory use of concepts. In this case, it is built syntactically and grammatically correct, but it is not possible to understand WHAT it says. There is no main idea, no conclusions — only a set of phrases that seem logical to the patient himself. If you ask him “how is life”, the answer may well be: “Well, how to say? That is to say must. Because you know the difference between that and that. You can’t just go one way. Justice will prevail though, but it’s when we second such a leader will find objective conditions are not impossible to satiate. When the top can’t, the bottom doesn’t want to. And when it’s full, it’s too late to talk. That’s it.”
Paralogical thinking is a violation of the logic of thinking, the so-called “logic curve”, when either the prerequisites or the evidence suffer, or the process of establishing a connection between cause and effect (this distinction is conditional). Example? The patient basically does not drink juices. Why? “Juice is health. Health is sport. Sport is a lot of money. A lot of money — a lot of women. A lot of women is AIDS. AIDS is death. Am I so fucking happy?”Symbolic thinking — thinking based on pseudo-concepts, symbols, the meaning of which is clear and accessible only to the patient. So, he can talk about the special meaning of what colors are dressed today his employees, and that it can mean. Or to say that for him all the numbers have, in addition to the main, more and additional, secret meaning, thanks to which each new date is an encrypted message with a guide to action.
Pathological polysemantism — when a patient discovers a new meaning in words, based on how many vowels or consonants they have, for example, whether they rhyme with a particular word — say, with such as “death”, “love”, “treason»…
Autistic thinking — is thinking, little in contact with the surrounding reality of the patient, clear and accessible only to him, reflecting his world, in which outsiders are not allowed. Thinking fantastic and bizarre, but not devoid of its own pretentious logic, “feast behind closed curtains” E. Bleiler. Here is an example given by Blejleru : “the Patient B. S. in the work of Jung’s early dementia is Switzerland, she is also Ivikov the crane; she is the owner of all of the world and a seven-story factory of Bank bills; it is also double the Polytechnic University and the assistant of Socrates. All this seems, at first glance, complete nonsense, and indeed is nonsense from the point of view of logic. But if we look more closely, we will find clear connections: thoughts are essentially subject to affective needs, i.e. desires, and sometimes fears; the patient is a Willow crane because she wants to be free from guilt and depravity; she is Switzerland because she must be free.”
Archaic thinking — in this case, for the Foundation of the building are the judgments “the times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea”, attitudes and stereotypes, for example, the same dissenters-old believers. Or the Neanderthals — there could be as lucky…
Perseveration (from lat. perseveratio — perseverance, perseverance; from persevere — persevere, continue) — most clearly this disorder is characterized by an anecdote: “Doctor, I do everything four times, four times, four times, I am very tired, very tired, very tired, but the wife is happy, the wife is happy, the wife is happy…” This is a steady repetition or continuation of once started activities, phrases, and this repetition continues even when the context appropriate for him is exhausted. For example: “what’s your name? — Lesha. — How old are you? — Lesha. Are you retarded or something? — Lesha. — Where do you go? — Lesha. — Who are your parents? I’m not retarded.…»
Fragmentation — the lack of logical connection between individual conclusions, judgments, concepts with the formal preservation of the grammatical structure of speech. If the rupture of thinking acquires an extreme degree of severity — begins to suffer and speech. Example: “I believe it is necessary to use extreme geographical, constitutional and obscene terms, that every kind and species, sex, and religion you have understood who could not stop performing our great, horrible, but extremely pleasant mission membership in the Federation Council”.
If the above were described violations of the associative process of thinking concerning how a person thinks, now we will talk about WHAT he thinks.