Maladaptive daydreaming should be included as a dissociative disorder in psychiatric manuals: position paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maladaptive daydreaming is a distinct syndrome in which the main symptom is excessive vivid fantasising that causes clinically significant distress and functional impairment in academic, vocational and social domains. Unlike normal daydreaming, maladaptive daydreaming is persistent, compulsive and detrimental to one's life. It involves detachment from reality in favour of intense emotional engagement with alternative realities and often includes specific features such as psychomotor stereotypies (e.g. pacing in circles, jumping or shaking one's hands), mouthing dialogues, facial gestures or enacting fantasy events. Comorbidity is common, but existing disorders do not account for the phenomenology of the symptoms. Whereas non-specific therapy is ineffective, targeted treatment seems promising. Thus, we propose that maladaptive daydreaming be considered a formal syndrome in psychiatric taxonomies, positioned within the dissociative disorders category. Maladaptive daydreaming satisfactorily meets criteria for conceptualisation as a psychiatric syndrome, including reliable discrimination from other disorders and solid interrater agreement. It involves significant dissociative aspects, such as disconnection from perception, behaviour and sense of self, and has some commonalities with but is not subsumed under existing dissociative disorders. Formal recognition of maladaptive daydreaming as a dissociative disorder will encourage awareness of a growing problem and spur theoretical, research and clinical developments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".