just some shit about hearing voices research

It is clear the interview question is important. Would "Do you have an
internal dualogue or dialogue, or a conversation in your head?" be
synonmous with "do you hear voices?" In my opinion the answer is yes in
the context of the wide definition used in this paper. Part of the
problem - as I thnk I've discussed - is the language of consciousness is
not rigorous nor well known. The high lifetime prevalance/incidence
figures for psychology students and mental health nurses could be seen
to be a measure of many things. I'd take it to be a sign that their
mental health education makes them more able to recognise the internal
dualogue as what some people call hearing voices. Other people may go
through the experience without the awareness that their stream of
consciousness has two or more sentient consciousnesses or they may
simply not call their thoughts voices.

After all, the internal conversation is a conversation. It takes two
consciousnesses to talk.

Future research has to get this definition and language right. Asking
people in the community may not help if they don't know the language.
It's like asking people "are you tall?" when only you know what being
tall means. People would answer no more than height scientists.

Perhaps it may be important to add "...which caused you distress or
confusion" because I think that's important when considering the
psychopathology aspect. My experiences of consciousness during psychosis
were extremely distressing - I wanted them to end and I would die to
stop the control because I had no other means to stop it - whereas my
current experience of consciousness can include voices/thoughts not of
my "I" but it is not distressing.

It's also notable that the authors focus on the Intervoice/HVN dogma. I
wonder if they've found meaning to those people who feel the control is
coming for government forces or secret organisations? These explanations
are used instead of spiritual explanations by individuals. Are these
equally recognised as meaningful?

I'm not sure about the continuum of voice hearing. Is it a continuum of
intensity or distress or psychosocial dysfunction caused by the voices?
Or are we really talking about discrete states. Or am I getting this all
wrong?
1) [standard experience of consciousness without awareness of other
consciousnesses]
2) [ raised state of awareness to experience other consciousnesses
without distress] = normal or schizotypy
3) [ raised state of awareness to experience other consciousnesses with
distress] = schizotypy or psychosis
4) [ raised state of awareness to experience other consciousnesses with
distress and psychosocial dysfunction] = schizophrenia
5) [ raised state of awareness to experience other consciousnesses
without distress and psychosocial dysfunction] = schizophrenia

Psychiatrists only see people n states 3, 4 and 5 which is probably why
some still see hearing voices as psychopathological. Again, these
definition are important. Is the psychiatric definition of auditory
hallucination synonymous with the author's terms hearing voices and my
idea that the internal dualogue could also be described as hearing voices?