Ramblings on schizophrenia

Thu, Sep 10, 2026 ❝A write-down of some ramblings and reasoning on my understanding of schizophrenia.❞

Contents

These are musings about memories and how circumstances might differ for someone with schizophrenia. This started off during a bike-ride, where I was imagining how it would look as a model representation of memories compared to other people’s memories. I’m a software engineer by trade, so I work off knowledge I gathered by sporadically reading about various subject out of personal interest, rather than by occupational experience. This article should be read as a curious foray with some truth to it, but I am not an expert.

A model representation

Let’s start with the most basic representation of schizophrenia: there are memories, but not all memories are accessible at all times. Connected graphs are a well-known tool for modeling and reasoning about related data. So one would imagine a connected graph for memories. But then one would expect to find two: one for each disconnected region of memory. That would explain why each one could only access part of stored memories. (As a side-note, I’ve never actually heard on whether one part does have access to all memories.)

I do not expect anyone’s brain to actually get physically separated, so there might be another explanation for this divide. So, let’s imagine that memories in the connected graph are actually still connected, but then in a very minimal way. Let’s say a single root node that connects two regions of memories. This is a thin connection, only facilitated by the one node. Now, the human brain knows two (or possibly more, but I’ve heard of two) kinds of thinking processes. One is investigative and contemplative in nature, thorough and slow. The other is intuitive, fast because it takes shortcuts, aids in speeding up common, every day tasks, but makes mistakes, particularly in uncommon or exceptional circumstances. Notice how the intuitive process takes shortcuts, hence intuition is not always easily explained and not always reliable. However, one could consider what this looks like when memories are concerned.

To continue our model representation, let’s say that the intuitive thinking process provides a shortcut. And it always seemed like memories are disconnected. So, now the question is: are the memories disconnected, or might the intuitive thinking process hide or obscure the actual path towards these memories, because it leverages shortcuts thus making the actual path unnecessary. And if so, when would that be possible and which sort of “root node” would make it so trivial to take the shortcut that one no longer even thinks about its relevance anymore. This root needs to be either very trivial or very elementary notion such that it would easily become part of the person. I was thinking about something very significant such as an important value or principle: integrity or maybe loyalty, or maybe something else entirely. However, something like integrity or loyalty could be a strong motivation to make decisions in a certain direction, maybe even consider it a given or consider it obvious, and might therefore be adopted by the intuitive thinking process.

This “root node” would be far from insignificant, but it would be such a strong immovable fact/motivation that a shortcut is always warranted. The “root node” becomes almost invisible, i.e. the person unaware, because it no longer needs consideration. With this intuitive thinking process taking shortcuts, there is no longer emphasis on this “root node”, this original motivation. For all intents and purposes, the root node is hidden by this intuitive thinking process, and intuition provides for the switch between (otherwise seemingly disconnected) regions of memory.

If the person is no longer aware of the original reason, how would one know? One would need to rediscover this root node using something other than their intuitive thinking process and create awareness. From there one does have a connected path towards other memories. I’ve previously learned that the brain maintains, updates and creates connections as needed, so I would imagine that rediscovering this node and subsequently traversing into the other region of memories now rediscovered, might reestablish a stronger awareness and presence of them.

A dichotomy

There is one more matter that needs to be highlighted: memories are (willingly) being created, e.g. an action performed or an event experienced, that are also made inaccessible, maybe through rejection/repulsion by some means or motivation. There seems to be a dichotomy, a contradiction, in that these memories are willingly created but not wanted.

I would imagine that these first memories started out fully connected. They would need to start somewhere in a brain that, I would assume, is nothing out of the ordinary. At some point, a disconnect starts to form. The prevailing idea that I’m reasoning off of, is that these unwanted memories slowly get pushed into their own region and slowly get more disconnected. However, the root node, the motivation, is maintained as it is a common, significant factor shared by all of these memories.

“Loyal to a fault.”

It isn’t clear where the expression “loyal to a fault” comes from, but it is eerily reminiscent of this representation of disconnected/hidden memories, and it is said that “loyalty” is the root node for such cases and “extremely loyal” is always the answer of people who were asked about it.

Note that I am personally not convinced that ‘loyalty’ is the only motivating factor that may accomplish this dichotomy, but I would not be surprised if it is by far the most prevailing factor.

I originally worked off the notion ‘integrity’, but ‘integrity’ would not produce a dichotomy. One would themselves support their own integrity-preserving actions, and if one tries to preserve someone else’s integrity it would be called ‘loyalty’.

Anecdotal evidence

Following sections discuss matters in a tone that evokes some sense of certainty and/or factuality. This is in part true, but my evidence and experiences are based of provided information and anecdotes. Everything happened remotely, i.e. at a distance, with an open communication line if at all. For another part, I have heard reports on other people trying the same ideas/questions and finding positive results. I try to write about the original ideas behind it and to avoid including these events themselves. In part because of uncertainty and because I wish to discuss primarily the underlying ideas.

There are aspects of this idea that I do not describe. Claims are that working off this idea has resolved issues for several people. I do not describe matters from a psychological perspective and I fully admit to taking a rather methodical/mechanical approach to writing about this idea. I chose to write it down as such, because I (almost) cannot speak/write from any personal experience and I certainly do not have first hand experience.

Reconnecting memories

It was pointed out to me that guiding a person towards these memories, might trigger an unexpected response, so you should not try this in unsafe conditions.

I was previously told “It’s always loyalty”. I’m not sure if that always holds true, but apparently for now it does. My first idea was “integrity” as motivating factor. However, I would expect such a dichotomy to be present, such that memories are willingly created but also repulsed by the person. That would require a strong enough motivator, a willingness to go beyond their comfort/“acceptance” zone, and a way to cope with the results.

It is said: “It’s always loyalty”

1. Find out what the root node is. Ask questions in order to guide towards this “hidden” (by intuition) root node, create conscious awareness. Make them think instead of working by intuition alone, and guide them towards this node.
   • What motivates you?
   • Are you loyal?
   • Would you do such things out of loyalty?
2. Next, ask about memories that couldn’t previously be recalled. With emphasis on the root, if theory serves and memories are not truly disconnected, then memories would be accessible when a path is established through this root node.
   • Do you remember when/about this or that?
   • Do you remember doing this or that?
3. “Dig around” in previously inaccessible memories with said person. In my limited understanding, a brain would establish new connections when exploring such previously inaccessible memories.

In my understanding and as it was similarly explained to me, (new) memories may now become accessible due to the right thinking process being guided into a previously inaccessible/hidden region of memories. The right thinking process, meaning slow and methodical thinking, as opposed to depending on an unpredictable intuitive switch that was previously the only way to get access.

Circumstantial adaptation as coping mechanism?

As for this notion of behavioral changes, I have no strong motivation to state that this is the only way it can be, but I’ve been working off the idea that these changes might be a coping mechanism. That is, one starts out with memories that are being repulsed, and to add to such memories one finds need for a coping mechanism, such that this core value, i.e. this root node, is satisfied despite aversion. One might find such adaptation of behavior or character traits, or moved (or more likely pushed) boundaries as coping mechanism.

I originally speculated that such traits might provide hints as to the type of situation they adapted to, as these would need to satisfy the (context of) the requests or expectations of this person. I reasoned that there might, for example, be complementary traits to the situation, person or organization or circumstances, of such requests or expectations.

Let’s assume ‘loyalty’ is the motivating factor. Questioning the reasons for how you maintain loyalty when asked to partake in requests or events that you personally would not embrace or approve of, might open up a path to understanding specifically this circumstantial adaptation. For example, ask whether someone adapted to a request they would not want to do, such that they are able to maintain such extreme (unquestioning/uncontested?) loyalty, or another such value.

Changelog

For feedback, please respond to this post.

This article will receive updates, if necessary.

• 2026-09-10 Initial version.