Delusions in the two-factor theory

Abstract

In this paper we ask whether the two-factor theory of delusions is compatible with two claims, that delusions are pathological and that delusions are adaptive. We concentrate on two recent and influential models of the two-factor theory: the one proposed by Max Coltheart, Peter Menzies and John Sutton (2010) and the one developed by Ryan McKay (2012). The models converge on the nature of Factor 1 but diverge about the nature of Factor 2. The differences between the two models are reflected in different accounts of the pathological and adaptive nature of delusions. We will explore such differences, considering naturalist and normativist accounts of the pathological and focusing on judgements of adaptiveness that are informed by the shear-pin hypothesis (McKay and Dennett 2009). After reaching our conclusions about the two models, we draw more general implications for the status of delusions within two-factor theories. Are there good grounds to claim that delusions are pathological? Are delusions ever adaptive? Can delusions be at the same time pathological and adaptive?

Are delusions pathological beliefs?

“…In the philosophy of medicine, we are faced with a multiplicity of views about what disorder is, which makes it difficult to approach the issue in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner. In what follows, I will confine my attention to three influential views to which Miyazono's account is indebted: naturalism, normativism, and the HDA (Lancellotta & Bortolotti, 2020).…”