Actually studies show that ignoring mental illness is the least effective and most destructive response possible, and self treatment most commonly leads to addiction issues--whether narcotics, alcohol or otherwise. That is where your comments are the most offensive. You've clearly reached the conclusion that mental illness can be simply ignored or controlled by someone with a strong enough will... and you are wrong. Studies have shown you are wrong. This is not even under debate by the psychological community. In fact, this attitude--that a person should be able to control their mental problems, and that their failure to do so is indicative of weak will--has been directly connected to incidences of suicide.

 

Or am I the one that is wrong? Sorry, you have stated directly now that you have studied mental illness. What precisely did you study? For myself, I studied abnormal psychology and addiction at Sydney University.

 

Show me where I said, SHOULD. I didn't. I said can, and it has been done, which is not up for debate. Again, stop taking my comments out of context and lumpng me in with people you have an issue with. It has occured, succesfully. Am I suggesting it to people, no. Have I suggested people do it? No I haven't, although you assume I have.

I wasn't lumping you in with anyone else. I was responding to you, and you alone. Your position is offensive.

And as to the weak will part, that's open to debate, and can never be proven either way. It will always be an idea, that will never be disproven.

Psychologically and psychochemically, no, this is not subject to debate. It has been proven that mental illness--including things like alcohol and gambling addiction which are the most commonly cited 'they lack the will to fight their urges' mental issues--involves a neurochemical effect that changes perception itself. Their brains literally train themselves to negate inclinations to act against their illness on a chemical level, thereby nullifying willpower.

Furthermore its been proven that those who find ways to deal with their illness on their own invariably have shot themselves in the foot in the long run, but even so if you have managed to find a sustainable way to deal with your issues--more power to you. But the presentation that it is no more than a matter of willpower is both ignorent and offensive.

Saying weak will however makes it offensive, and I do believe I never used that termology, instead I said someone with a strong will, or extremely strong will.

And you don't see the judgement inherent in that comment? If you aren't strong, what does that make you?

If you wish to take it as an offensive statement, that's your choice. But it's not intended in that way.

I believe you did not intend to be offensive. I believe your attitude is nonetheless deeply offensive. It is ignorent. It is arrogant. Had you stated that you had an experience with mental illness and overcame it through will power, and thought maybe others could too, that would be one thing. You didn't. Your comments have at all stages disdained those who did not achieve the same control over their issues as you believe you have, both by inference and directly.

Because they disregard the severe issues that the mentally ill face in their lives.

 

Comparing mental issues with other mental issues disregards the severe issues mentally ill people face in their lives? Howso? I didn't compare to something that wasn't a mental illness, unless you're speaking of something else.

Comparison requires a detailed understanding of both sides of the comparison. You lack that--what you are doing is viewing things through the lens of your own experience, and the information you've gathered in dealing with your own experience. That is not comparison--it's judgement. An assessment of another based on your own position.

And that is precisely why it offends me so deeply. You presume to judge others, based not on a study of their experience, but on an understanding of your own laid over theirs.

The fact that person 1 can function with a gunshot wound, while person 2 passes out from the pain doesn't mean person 2 is weak, but instead points to the fact that perhaps person 1 is extremely strong-willed.

Actually it doesn't, it points to person 2 having a greater pain threshold, which has numerous causes both psychological and physiological.

This sort of simplistic assessment of effect being simply the cause of willpower is precisely why I name your position both ignorent, presumptive and offensive.

Most of my studies have been on a personal level, i.e. not in school but on my own time. Books, papers, seminars, and discussions, mostly on OCD and depression, although some on alcoholism. Basic pysc classes at University.

That is not a valid foundation for the statements you have made. Basic psych would have covered what... social psych? An introduction to nuerochemistry? Ethics? Did you even touch on abnormal psychology? Everyone knows basic psych is more about training a student to think in psychological terms than it is about the information it provides. From there you have books... papers... seminars... self-study, all viewed and judged only by you, viewed through the lens of your own experience.

Look, I appreciate that you have explored this, but you have made bold declarative statements that are... well, to be frank, baseless, wrong and offensive.

Yes, they are. And you apparently have them, by your statements. And I presume that you regard that as a reason your statements should be regarded as informed.

 

That being said, whilst I sympathise with your personal situation, you have displayed a deep and clear lack of knowledge about mental illness, and thus, no, I do not hold that your own conditions lend weight to your argument.

 

I'm sorry.

 

Never stated that. My arguments stand firm. Unless of course you're debating that no one has ever defeated mental illness without the assistance of medication, which of course you won't. You will however continue to ignore my posts or quote half of my statement in an attempt to make it seem I am saying something I am not. But I'll make it clearer since it's apparently not already clear:

 

I do not speak in definates or abesolutes. The evidence proves, numbers or percentages withstanding since the numbers are at best an estimate, that mental illnesses have been beaten succesfully without aid of medication, and sometimes without outside help. Are you refuting this?

No. I've said this four times now.

Specific to your question: "Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression)".

 

My answer was, and remains, no.

 

Beyond that, yes, I do thank you for allowing me to clarify. I no longer think you have no understanding of mental illness, I now believe you have a mistaken understanding of mental illness based on your own experiences.

 

And again I state, I'm not basing everything on my own experiences, although they were what lead me to do a deeper evaluation and study.

A base is the bottom foundation of something. If your own experiences are what led you to deeper evaluation then the base of your understanding is indeed your own experience, and furthermore the degree of misinformation present in your posts suggests to me that you are viewing all information on the subject matter through the lens of your own experience.

Certainly your position on the realities of will power in relation to mental illness are deeply incorrect, and seem based very heavily in your own experience and your personal need to distance yourself from the concept that suffering a mental illness is in some way due to a personal failing of willpower.

And it's Dealt not deal.

I presume you are speaking of this: "Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression)"

I copy and pasted that from your own post. Were you endevouring to rephrase yourself? If so it is acknowledged.

And you still haven't clarified that part about grouping that statement with the others implying it was wrong, but I suppose you won't.

What part of 'no' is unclear? Would yes do better? Yes, mental illness can be treated without medicine. Behavioural modification techniques have often proven far more effective in the long run.

Did you reasd my entire statement or just bold that part? I said mental abuse is more damaging, but I stand by my cannot affect you if you don't let it. Why do you think torture isn't 100%. Some people can resist. I wasn't excusing it at all, I don't exsuse it, as I stated.

I read your entire statement.

I have, I'm not, and I have. It can be ignored. There are plently of cases of people successfully self treating themselves without the aid of medication. And I'll state it again, since apparently it's offensive, it doesn't work for everyone, why, that's the unknown part. (Which will most likely never be known).

Actually studies show that ignoring mental illness is the least effective and most destructive response possible, and self treatment most commonly leads to addiction issues--whether narcotics, alcohol or otherwise. That is where your comments are the most offensive. You've clearly reached the conclusion that mental illness can be simply ignored or controlled by someone with a strong enough will... and you are wrong. Studies have shown you are wrong. This is not even under debate by the psychological community. In fact, this attitude--that a person should be able to control their mental problems, and that their failure to do so is indicative of weak will--has been directly connected to incidences of suicide.

Or am I the one that is wrong? Sorry, you have stated directly now that you have studied mental illness. What precisely did you study? For myself, I studied abnormal psychology and addiction at Sydney University.

Why are my comparrasions offensive?

Because they disregard the severe issues that the mentally ill face in their lives.

Are OCD, and Depression not examples of mental illness?

Yes, they are. And you apparently have them, by your statements. And I presume that you regard that as a reason your statements should be regarded as informed.

That being said, whilst I sympathise with your personal situation, you have displayed a deep and clear lack of knowledge about mental illness, and thus, no, I do not hold that your own conditions lend weight to your argument.

I'm sorry.

The first time you quoted it. You didn't say anything, you just quoted 5 of the things I said. I made a statement, and you said I had no understanding of it.

 

I said:

 

I understand it's a mental illness, like OCD, but I also understand as a mental illness, it can be overcome (In some cases, not all cases).

 

 

You said I obviously have no understanding of Mental Illnesses. OCD and schizophrenia have been overcome with and without drugs. As well as most other mental illnesses. Apparently, I'm wrong about those facts?

Specific to your question: "Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression)".

My answer was, and remains, no.

Beyond that, yes, I do thank you for allowing me to clarify. I no longer think you have no understanding of mental illness, I now believe you have a mistaken understanding of mental illness based on your own experiences.

(1-3) Less damaging is an interesting term. I cannot refute that, because the way you state it, I suppose I do believe it is less damaging, like I personally consider physical abuse to be more damaging than mental abuse, since the later cannot affect you if you don't let it, as opposed to the former. Now, they both have the same severity, hell mental abuse might be worse, but in the context used, you would be correct.

 

That doesn't make it offensive.

Yes, it does. In fact that argument has been used to excuse abuse.

4) How so? Do you have to listen to the voice? (Not sure how intimately familiar you are with this here, but again there are no absolutes). It CAN be ignored. Can everyone do it? That's a subject of debate in itself. Does everyone have the capaticy to do it, but not the ability? That's probably closer to the truth. To use a base comparison, some people are more suspectible to suggestion, what makes them that way? Why do some people join cults and kill themselves or others and some dont?

Yes, actually, when the voice is inside your head you do in fact have to listen to it. I could be cheap and leave it at that, but no... you display an innate misunderstanding of the way mental illness affects the perception of the individual suffering it. Not only do you suffer the effects, but those effects influence every other aspect of your personality, right down to a neurochemical level.

You speak in ignorence. Your very comparisons are deeply offensive. If you wish to speak authoratatively on mental illness, please go and study it.

5) So then why quote it if you're not implying it's wrong?

You asked me a question, was I supposed to ignore it? More than that, why wouldn't I quote it, given I wasn't implying it was wrong?

Cleary I do.

 

I said not everyone has the ability to overcome their illness mentally, however it can be overcame. Normally I'd tell you to point out one mental illness where no one was able to overcome it, just one, but that would accomplish nothing. However would like you to point out where I was wrong in those statements above.

Your attitude. You present that hearing a voice is 'merely' hearing a voice. That because it is not physical it is in some way less. That is not only wrong and ignorent. It's offensive.

Is the voice physical?

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

Can it do physical harm?

No. The inference of this question, that it not being physical makes it somehow less damaging is offensive.

[edit: correction... of course I was wrong in this comment. I let my indignation speak, without considering. Obviously mental illness can and indeed often does cause physical harm, and in an analogy of this Jordan displayed Lews Therin nearly killing Rand in KoD in an attempted suicide. That being said I do maintain that the idea that a mental illness is in some way less damaging because it is not obviously and inherently physical is indeed offensive, including instances where the negative results of the illness are not physical]

Am I wrong in my comparrison to a voice outside your head, i.e. the people who commit mass murder because someone else hounded them until they did it.

Yes, you are.

Are you implying OCD cannot be overcame without the aid of drugs? (This one I know for a lie, because I deal with it myself, same with depression).

No.

I understand it's a mental illness, like OCD, but I also understand as a mental illness, it can be overcome (In some cases, not all cases).

But yes, at the end of the day it is a mere voice. I.E. it's just a voice and nothing physical about it, thus a mere voice.

At the end of the day, voices in your head, like the voices outside, don't have to be listened too.

No I'm not attempting to belittle people who suffer from illnesses, I'm just stating facts, how I see them.

You clearly understand very little about mental illness.

I was more going along the lines of, why would a mere voice make you go crazy, seems like a weakness you already had. (Especially considering you could "Tune it out" as Rand shows)

Because there is nothing 'mere' about it. We are talking about a whole other personality manifesting in your head--to the extent that it can channel on your behalf. Your basically making the same mistake about mental health that has been made throughout history, and that is not knowing a mental state you look at it in terms of your own experience of the world and cannot understand why it's significant. The same way people regard someone suffering depression say 'well, I don't see how merely feeling a bit down is a debilitating illness', so too you think to yourself that a rational person, knowingly hearing a real voice in his head should surely be capable of dealing with it--but what Semirhage has stated is that no, he can't. Any more than the depressed person can realise that they're feeling sad and just do stuff that makes them happy.

That is the core of what mental illness is. And Rand shows perfectly how mentally destabalizing that is. Had Cadsuane not intervened the world would have burned.

Read the Lews Therin: Our Friendly Neighbourhood Madman thread in my Wot FAQ and Theories listing, linked in my sig and at the top of the board.

 

Now that is something that could be soundly debated. I'd argue that the voice in your head would only make a weak willed person go crazy, especially knowing it was real.

 

Actually I don't particularily regard it as something that could be soundly debated. To quote Semirhage: "It makes no difference that his voice is real, however. In fact, that makes his situation worse. Even Graendal usually failed to achieve reintegration with someone who heard a real voice. I understand the descent into terminal madness can be . . . abrupt."

 

I meant more along the lines of, why would having a person in your head make you go crazy things. If it was a real voice, something has to make you snap right? It can't hurt you physically. It's more along the lines of torture, some people die without ever going crazy or giving up secrets, thus my weak willed comment, although I suppose I should instead say, a person who is extremely strong willed shouldn't go crazy from a mere voice in their mind.

And yet Semirhage states that they do, if they cannot achieve reintegration. Having two manifest facet personalities clearly destabalizes the mental state--we see it with Rand, and Semirhage makes clear his case, though rare, is not singular.

Read the Lews Therin: Our Friendly Neighbourhood Madman thread in my Wot FAQ and Theories listing, linked in my sig and at the top of the board.

Now that is something that could be soundly debated. I'd argue that the voice in your head would only make a weak willed person go crazy, especially knowing it was real.

Actually I don't particularily regard it as something that could be soundly debated. To quote Semirhage: "It makes no difference that his voice is real, however. In fact, that makes his situation worse. Even Graendal usually failed to achieve reintegration with someone who heard a real voice. I understand the descent into terminal madness can be . . . abrupt."

Hard for me to know what "the voice is real" means.

 

The debate has always suffered from semantics issues. The 'realers' are generally people who have a hard time making distinctions, taking the clear reality of Lews Therin's memories too far. It's what RJ intended—readers accepted Rand's interpretation without questioning it really—and the fact that he was able to pull it off was one of his greatest accomplishments, along with hiding Verin's mission in plain sight. You can argue about it all day, but as long as you recognize that 1) Lews Therin's memories were effectively Rand's memories, and 2) the 'voice' and its accompanying delusions were byproducts of taint madness, then you're all good.

I don't know about other 'realers' but I questioned Rand's assertions in great detail, and I have little problem with making distinctions. You claim the memories are real. You claim that Rand constructed a personality around those memories, and called it Lews Therin. Thus, you claim that the voice is not real, whilst the memories are.

Semirhage claimed that you are wrong. Lews Therin claimed that she rarely lies. This holds true in an analysis of her comments, including those which she should have no basis for knowing outside an abstract understanding of those with Rand's condition, as she stated Graendal provided her with, and thus I agree with Semirhage, Rand and Lews Therin's claims.

Without the taint's madness, would Rand have been able to cope with another man suddenly appearing in his head? I believe the taint shielded him from even greater madness.

Firstly, the taint is not a madness, the taint causes madness. It basically works as a catalyst--this is why we see so many different types of madness, and why we see different time frames in their manifestation. So natural forms of insanity--of which the manifestation of a past life voice is--occur due to exposure to the Taint.

The answer to your question is no, there would have been no difference between what occured to Rand under the Taint than if Lews Therin had manifested naturally. Except that Lews Therin probably wouldn't have maifested naturally without the Taint any more than Morr would have had a reversion to childhood without the Taint.

One of Semi, Mesaana, Dem surely has access to information about Rand from one of the DFs that have been close to him. The visible manifestations of his increasing madness had to have been noticeable to even the most casual observer. The readers have the benefit of Rand's PoV of course, but other characters would see his increasing tendency to mutter to himself. Everyone in the WoT knows men who channel go mad so spies would be looking for the signs. If you believe the DO's ultimate victory could only come after turning the DR, Rand's mental health would have been one of his primary concerns and any signs of weakness would have been strenuously sought.

None of which explains Semirhage's specific knowledge. Only the abstract knowledge provided by Graendal of others with Rand's condition could have provided that.

Hard for me to know what "the voice is real" means. Without the decent into madness, Rand would never have thought he heard a voice. "Reintegration" would never have been necessary because the disintegration would not have occurred. LTT's memories and personality would have been a welcomed part of RaT from the start. The ta'ver'en, the most important one produced in the Third Age in order to ensure the continuity of the Wheel of Time, would not have been gestated with an inherent design flaw. Absent the taint (direct intervention by the DO) Rand Therin would have emerged earlier and with much less of a chance of the DO's victory.

Actually, you got that backward. Without the taint Rand would not have heard Lews Therin's voice. Without the manifestation of Lews Therin Rand would not have needed reintegration.

That being said, any instance where Rand faced the voice would have resulted in both disintegration and the need for reintegration. There is not situation in which the manifestation of Lews Therin would be welcomed without the resultant potential decent into madness.

1. LTT was never in Rand's head. As Rand said he wasn't "real" and never had been.

 

Actually, Rand states they were not two different men, and never had been, which is entirely true. They were two different facet personalities in the same manner as, say, Maerion, Taedra and Joana are each seperate distinct personalities, but still manifestations of the same woman.

 

Brandon has confirmed that Rand's comment is not indicative either way of the realness of the Lews Therin manifestation. Semirhage, on the other, definately did comment on on the realness of it, stating that the voice was real--the voice, not the memories which inform the voice, as the Construct Theory argues. She states the voice itself is real. This of course makes it no less a form of insanity, as the manifestation of another facet personality definately does interfere with a persons mental stability (as we witness with Rand).

 

Just because LTT said remembered(?) she rarely lied, I for one, will not automaticallu believe her every word. "Rarely" leaves a good bit of wiggle room in the Last Days. Plus, who knows how far to credit LTT's commentary re: the character of the people around Rand? LTT was kind of correct about Verin, but not really accurate about Cads at all. And talk about missing the boat on Weiramon...bad, bad, bad; though fortunately not a fatal mistake.

Except every verifiable part of her comment proved to be true--including things she could have no way of knowing absent an abstract scientific understanding of people with Rand's condition [as she stated was provided by Graendal]. Which means that if she lied, she did so with magical specificity. And hey, who knows, maybe Semirhage did have some sort of Talent for knowing what other people can confirm, and that this is the reason Lews Therin thinks she lies rarely... because her Talent keeps her from being caught out.

Or, you know, she told the truth.

1. LTT was never in Rand's head. As Rand said he wasn't "real" and never had been.

Actually, Rand states they were not two different men, and never had been, which is entirely true. They were two different facet personalities in the same manner as, say, Maerion, Taedra and Joana are each seperate distinct personalities, but still manifestations of the same woman.

Brandon has confirmed that Rand's comment is not indicative either way of the realness of the Lews Therin manifestation. Semirhage, on the other, definately did comment on on the realness of it, stating that the voice was real--the voice, not the memories which inform the voice, as the Construct Theory argues. She states the voice itself is real. This of course makes it no less a form of insanity, as the manifestation of another facet personality definately does interfere with a persons mental stability (as we witness with Rand).

Lan = Ninja.

 

Lol. While I can see Lan being a Ninja, I cannot see him sneaking Moriane in with him and his Ninja skills. But still gave me a chuckle.

 

Everyone else got in thru windows right? although how the hell Rand squeezed in thru an arrow slit, when we all know he has broad shoulders is beyond me. Not to mention climbing what I always thought was a smooth surface. Honestly, the Stone doesn't seem like a very good fortress. I mean many people broke in the first time they saw the damn place, but that's neither here nor there.

And yet that is precisely what he did. You can chuckle at it all you want, it is still cannon. Lan found a way to sneak both himself and Moiraine in. Much like Rand, Mat and Juilin found a way in.

Aight, some clarity... firstly in researching i realised i misnamed Folded Light, Inverted Light. So... from there...

 

Folded Light = Making oneself invisible. Causes ripples with movement.

 

Illusion = What Moiraine, Alanna and the Salidar embassy did when they made themselves huge. It's basically taking their own image and blowing it up--it is a weak version of Mirror of Mists, much the same as Liandrin and Verin's compulsions are a mild version of true compulsion.

 

Mirror of Mists = Actually creating a fully distinct illusion. Note: in early drafts this was incorrectly called Mask of Mirrors.

 

But if you attach it to the floor, and walk behind it, is that rippling? If so, what was the point of doing their campsite like that, if it would make ripples. So Moraine had to know Mirror of Mists.

No. Again, Mirror of Mists is disguising oneself as someone else--like when Lanfear makes herself look like Keille.

Folded Light, making oneself invisible, is utterly distinct from Mirror of the Mists. And no, when Folded Light is anchored to the ground it makes them completely invisible, irrespective of movement, no ripples. It is only if the weaving moves that the ripple occurs.

To the MoM - Inverted Light.

 

I would say that they are different things. However, WoT Wiki apparently says they are variations of the Mirror of Mists.

 

There is no evidence in the book that says this is MoM, however, so I don't know.

 

Apparently Mirror of Mists is a technique used to change the appearance of the body.

 

If this is so, then regardless of the Inverting Light, Moiraine did indeed know it. She uses it at Baerlon where she makes herself look taller and walk over the wall.

Aight, some clarity... firstly in researching i realised i misnamed Folded Light, Inverted Light. So... from there...

Folded Light = Making oneself invisible. Causes ripples with movement.

Illusion = What Moiraine, Alanna and the Salidar embassy did when they made themselves huge. It's basically taking their own image and blowing it up--it is a weak version of Mirror of Mists, much the same as Liandrin and Verin's compulsions are a mild version of true compulsion.

Mirror of Mists = Actually creating a fully distinct illusion. Note: in early drafts this was incorrectly called Mask of Mirrors.

I don't think they explain it, but she knew Mirror of Mists right.

 

No, she did not. Lan got her in, using his super ninja skills.

 

She did Mirror of Mists on their campsites quite a few times. OR is that not Mirror of Mists?

 

Nah, that's Inverted Light. :)

 

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

 

If so, what's the difference? Wouldn't either work? Lan's ninja skills aren't that good!

Serious. Mirror of Mists is creating disguises. Inverted Light is making oneself invisible.

I do see what you are suggesting now, though. You think she made them invisible and they entered the Stone under that guise... but again, no. Lan's ninja skills were that good (for that matter Rand, Mat and Juilin all manage it also). But quotage...

Perrin shook his head. She must be crazy. I could wish I were not one of this party. I could wish I were back home working Master Luhhan’s forge. Aloud, he said, “If he is inside the Stone, if he is waiting there for Rand, we must go inside to reach him. How do we do that? Everyone keeps saying no one enters the Stone without the permission of the High Lords, and looking at it, I don’t see any way but through the gates.”

 

“You do not go in,” Lan said. “Moiraine and I will be the only ones to enter. The more who go, the harder it will be. Whatever way in I find, I cannot believe it will be easy even for only two.”

Lan = Ninja.

I don't think they explain it, but she knew Mirror of Mists right.

 

No, she did not. Lan got her in, using his super ninja skills.

 

She did Mirror of Mists on their campsites quite a few times. OR is that not Mirror of Mists?

Nah, that's Inverted Light. :)

I don't think they explain it, but she knew Mirror of Mists right.

No, she did not. Lan got her in, using his super ninja skills.

The WoT Encyclopedia only offers that it might be a jet contrail, too, but I find that ridiculous.

 

Was that a reply for me? If it was I meant that it was something that might be in the Encyclopedia that Harriet, Maria and Alan are making from Jordan's notes, not that it would be in eWoT.

 

You mean we're actualy going to get to look at the notes the man himself made for the WoT? I've been griping about that for ages! Excelent, now I have something to look forward to after aMoL comes out. Hopefully the internal art will be better than the White Book. I know the artist was rushed and only had time to submit sketches, but still; we've got fan art up on the dragonmount boards thats better. From kids. That's real good news, Luckers.

Yeah, it will probably be released about a year or so after aMoL.

The WoT Encyclopedia only offers that it might be a jet contrail, too, but I find that ridiculous.

Was that a reply for me? If it was I meant that it was something that might be in the Encyclopedia that Harriet, Maria and Alan are making from Jordan's notes, not that it would be in eWoT.

This sounds like something that might be in the Encyclopedia.

How did Masema recognize Faile before she and Cha Faile put an end to him in TGS? I do not recall them meeting previously or any reference to the two of them having met before his conversion to the Prophet but when she step into the clearing Masema knows her name. Is this a mistake or a clue as to something else going on behind the scenes? Maybe insight as to Masema's reasons for wanting to stay in the West rather than heading directly to Rand? Grasping at straws but it really stuck out in the latest read.

I'm guessing mistake. Even if he'd seen her at a distance in Malden its weird.

Well, the one used on Rand may not have been the original in any case, and thus may not have been cuendillar, but that still leaves some questions open.

There is a very clear, very distinct feeling upon naming the Dark One.

"Shai'tan is dead," he said harshly, and abruptly the room seemed to lurch. He grabbed his head as waves of dizziness sloshed through him.

 

"You fool! You pure, blind, idiotic fool! Naming the Dark One, bringing his attention down on you! Don't you have enough trouble?"

 

"He's dead," Rand muttered, rubbing his head. He swallowed. The dizziness was already fading. "All right, all right. Ba'alzamon, if you want. But he's dead; I saw him die, saw him burn."

 

"And I wasn't watching you when the Dark One's eye fell on you just now? Don't tell me you felt nothing, or I'll box your ears; I saw your face."

I agree that there have been superstitions built around this which are just that, yet nonetheless this effect is, in itself, pervasive...

"Old Bill named the Dark One. I'll bet you didn't know that."

 

"Light!" Rand breathed. Mat's grin broadened. "It was last spring, just before the cutworm got into his fields and nobody else's. Right before everybody in his house came down with yellow eye fever. I heard him do it. He still says he doesn't believe, but whenever I ask him to name the Dark One now, he throws something at me."

Whether the Yellow Eye Fever was the result or not, which is debatable, it seems clear that the incident had an effect on Old Bill, just the same as Rand.

Given the effects of naming him remained throughout the world despite the sealing, suggesting that a pervasive subtle influence across the world is not unprecedented. No, this was just colouring--a world in decline is a common theme in fantasy.