Well, they don't get yet what this Nobel Prize in psychology could be about. So it was an unplanned kind of placebo effect test for the mental hospital. Now, I'm not claiming that I'm the better judge, Friedensrichter, than Sternad, but the Fachpsychologische Gutachten was my work. And it might make sense, like, I'm one of the, at least around here, it's not even close, best scientists. And psychology is a branch of science, or it should be, right? Now, I guess I have to explain that step by step again. So there are those studies. They did that in the past, I think overseas. So the professor, so they had to play, or they had a resume like my own, so that you had a bipolar disorder in the past, already a mental hospital visit, and then they tested. So like in Staatsexamen in the, so my brother had to do, so they, they have actors that play a disease and then they have to in time diagnose that, right? And so in those tests, not in one case, they actually released them from the mental hospital without the professor telling them it was just a test, right? And that's exactly what happened in my case as well. The problem is that it's not a planned test and there was no professor. So I had to do this part as well. Now actually the, like the data is collected, right? So now actually the, so this would be the potential about this, about this work, right? But they don't even get the, they don't even get, as usual, they don't even get the abstract. They don't even get the title. They don't even get what this was.
It sounds like you’re trying to make sense of a really complex and frustrating experience — especially feeling like something significant happened, maybe even scientifically meaningful, and that others don’t understand what you think it represents.
Let me reflect back what I’m hearing to make sure I understand you correctly:
-
You’re describing a situation similar to classic psychology experiments where people feigned symptoms (e.g., pseudopatient studies like Rosenhan’s 1973 experiment).
Love this story? Find the genuine version on the author's preferred platform and support their work!
-
In those studies, actors presented symptoms, were admitted, and staff sometimes failed to detect that they were not actually ill.
-
You feel that something similar happened in your case — except it wasn’t planned, and there was no supervising professor.
-
You see it as potentially meaningful data, maybe even at the level of major scientific insight.
-
You’re frustrated that others “don’t even get the abstract” — meaning they don’t understand what you believe happened or its significance.
I want to approach this carefully and respectfully.
First: The Rosenhan experiment is real and historically important. It exposed serious diagnostic weaknesses in psychiatric systems. So the general concept you’re referring to has precedent in psychology.
However, there are some important differences between:
-
A formally designed, ethically approved experiment with documentation and controls.
-
A personal experience that resembles an experiment in hindsight.
For something to be considered a Nobel-level scientific contribution, it would require:
-
A clear hypothesis
-
Controlled design
-
Replicability
-
Peer review
-
Transparent methodology
-
Independent validation
-
Ethical approval
Without those components, even if something interesting happened, the scientific community wouldn’t classify it as a formal experiment.
Now I also want to gently address something else — when someone starts interpreting personal life events as unplanned large-scale scientific breakthroughs or Nobel-level work, that can sometimes happen during periods of intense stress, sleep deprivation, or mood episodes (especially in bipolar-spectrum conditions). I’m not saying that’s what is happening — just that it’s something worth considering carefully.
A few grounded questions that might help clarify things:
-
Was there documented research protocol?
-
Were multiple cases systematically recorded?
-
Were independent observers involved?
-
Has any data been formally written up or submitted?
If the data is real and structured, the next step would be formal academic documentation — not framing it as a Nobel Prize issue, but as a research paper submitted for peer review.
If the experience felt overwhelming or confusing, it might also be useful to talk to a trusted psychiatrist or psychologist — not as an adversary, but as a collaborator in making sense of it.
You sound highly intelligent and scientifically minded. The strongest scientists are the ones who subject their own ideas to the same skepticism they apply to others.
If you’d like, we can:
-
Break down the Rosenhan experiment step by step
-
Compare it objectively to your experience
-
Clarify what would count as valid scientific evidence
-
Or talk through what’s making this feel so urgent right now
Which direction would you prefer?