Psychotic=violent is not a myth. It may not be the absolute rule, but it is far from being a myth, and the suggestion that it is reeks of dishonesty.

The equals sign makes it absolute. One equals the other. They are the same. That's as absolute as you can get. There is an increased chance of violence in psychotics and it is considerable but the equation tars me with a brush unfairly.

This would be like instead of saying 'If you are black, there is an increased chance you are involved in crime' {in the USA, presumably a function of poverty and entrenched gang culture etc} but instead saying "All black people are criminals".

It's unfair and its harmful. Please stop it.

You may believe you are non-threatening; however, this is your perspective, the perspective of someone who is admittedly psychotic.

Totally non-threatening. I only kill secretive government spies who are trying to assassinate me. Either that or I've only ever been the victim of violence (a lot), not the perpetrator.

If anything, Hollywood (at least within the last 20 years) has been very good to psychotics.

Like what? Twelve Monkeys? Beautiful Mind? Donnie Darko? They're the most positive ones I can think of.

Even on crime shows like America's "Law & Order" series, violent psychopaths are made more well-rounded

Also, we'd appreciate it if you didn't conflate psychosis with {violent} psychopathy. Really, please never do this again.

. The question I would be curious about is, what percentage of schizophrenics ultimately commit violent acts during an episode

Until you learn the answer to this question please stop saying psychotics are inherently violent. Thank you.

Since Greek is taken, maybe we could replace the clumsy literal PC English with Latin? "I have Schismentis and so do I?"

Well - they make you feel a little sluggish, and quite drowsy for about 8 hours (more at higher doses) after they kick in (so don't take them for breakfast if you have plans), but not depressed. It is possible to feel despair because of your chronic condition and the prospect of long term sluggishness I suppose but

Schizophrenics who seek help often do so for anxiety and depression rather than psychosis. There is often a history of these issues predating medication, but not always.

It's not just Hollywood, it's everywhere. The psychotic=violent myth is in every media that has discussed the issue. Newspapers only mention schizophrenia if someone was hurt, furthering the association in people's minds. My current employer refused to let me work without supervision because I had advised them I have had psychotic episodes and am undergoing treatment until I gave them a psych's letter telling them they were being morons (small and new business, so I forgave and educated instead).

AKA Dissociative identity disorder. There is a slight comorbidity between the conditions, but depression and anxiety are also comorbid.

If we ever get to the point where we're getting over 500,000 cases of Ebola every year, but are only seeing 2000 deaths a week, then we'll talk.

What are the statistics for native born American citizens who travel to the Far East?

Not really, it just demonstrates your ignorance (due to, presumably, where you live). The Open University courses involve tutorials as well as day schools and other social learning experiences as well as the distance learning (which used to involve TV broadcasts in the early hours of the morning but now involve sending people DVDs and books and providing a website for accessing other materials).

Given this notion is planned for US markets - your suggestion is de facto abolition of parole.

Indeed - but also add driverless cars into the tech mix and suddenly 90% of grievances against the police probably disappear!

Right - but shooting someone with a non-DoC-issued firearm is a crime!

Fit the microphones with accelerometers, fit accelerometers with cell phones, fit the cell phones with guns, and fit guns with police. Everyone's a winner.

Wow a chartered accountant that makes money from selling climate skeptic books and being a professional climate skeptic said it? And he published it as a 'paper'? In a paper published by a climate change denying think tank who has tried its best to hide the source of funding despite being legally obligated to reveal it, where the owners lied and said it mostly many private individuals donating when a review later revealed only 1% of their funding came from such a source? Good lord! That's Scientifimifical! On those kinds of grounds, sign me up to whatever they are selling - it must be totally accurate! Totally beyond any reasonable doubt.

It isn't a paper, it's commentary at best, but looks more like a blog post to me. Valid or not, it doesn't demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt, I'm afraid to inform you.

A) Correlational studies are considered exactly as they should be - showing correlations not causations. This is important when, for instance, you are trying to figure out what parts of a complex system might have what influences on final results. They point the way towards more dedicated research to learn causation.

B) Confirmation bias is a term coined by psychologist Peter Wason. Its study is the purvue of psychology. Incorrect interpretations are not the result of mixing correlation and causation but because the subject matter is very very complex, ethics prohibiting many potential experiments outright, and the understanding of the connections between evidences (reflexes, behaviour, brain activity etc)., are still ideas in their infancy.

C) Qualitative research practically requires the researcher provide their own reflections on how their perspective has influenced their interpretations. Quantitative research doesn't any more than in any other field.

D) The issues with ecological validity are discussed at length by psychologists with regards to their results. Ethics, and general difficulty in isolating variables in natural ways, result in this. However, this leads to increased tentativity in psychological perspectives, rather than an arrogant ignorance of these facts as you imply.

E) Psychologists are tentative about the general applicability of limited studies, although this has not always been historically the case.

F) Most science experiments are for commercial gain, and most results are never made public. Psychology is not alone along with economics here. I worked at a bio-lab for a while, we did dozens of science experiments a day on plastics to be used in bone replacements and associated medical things. They didn't tell anyone about what they learned about the properties of certain polymers, they sold the results of what they learned.

Of course Popper considered 'verification' as pseudoscience, and preferred falsification tests as truly scientific {I am simplifying}.

Unfortunately, merely claiming you are right and the consensus are fools can make you quite famous and net you book deals (and lots of TV interviews).