That's when in the interest of communication and the task at hand you become mad yourself. Indulge in insanity then you will have a common ground from which to reason or appeal to their emotions. If you stand resolute as an ambassador of polite diligent civility you become just another enemy of their way of life.
This seems quite naive. Unless you're willing to give up your life as you know it, proceed with caution when trying to intervene in other people's lives when a serious mental illness is at play. Your life coming to a halt for a futile effort which only takes a toll on yourself is not worth it.
A little vague. Do you have any sources to further explain this communication technique?
It is my experience that "madness" adds a layer of abstraction that is almost unique to the single person, and when that person expresses anything through that lens it is nearly completely incompatible with my brain. How would convoluting my reasoning through an additional abstraction help my communication with a "mad" person?
Yes, there are certainly many different types of "madness". The "layer of abstraction" that the specific variety of madness imparts on the holder is their own reality. The hypothetical accepted objective true reality is irrelevant to them. While this true reality is the standard with which to measure the conduct of people's behavior, if you are to preserve the emotional well being of the suffer of madness it would be helpful to communicate and act in a way which is consistent with their own subjective reality. By delving into their madness you can understand their behavior and actions more than understanding it from an outside perspective. If the goal is to simply enforce external standards this empathy is a waste of resources. But if preserving their emotional well being is a concern empathy can be a useful tool to both understand their perspective and guide you in your interactions with the sufferer.
At the very least I think it would have been nice if the hoarder in this story was taken away to alternate accommodations for the duration of the clean up. Terrible that she had to witness the event.
I'm reminded of the study where four guys who all thought they were Jesus were brought together. Each thought the others were imposters, IIRC. Don't think it'd work.
"While initially the three patients quarreled over who was holier and reached the point of physical altercation, they eventually each explained away the other two as being patients with a mental disability in a hospital, or dead and being operated by machines."
[EDITED to add: See also http://squid314.livejournal.com/324957.html which is only marginally relevant but anyone who finds "The Three Christs of Ypsilanti" interesting will probably love it.]
You seem to be invoking an instance of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which has been soundly disproven. There is something to be said for the approach of a therapeutic presence with people with mental issues, but a becoming-insane is not a necessary result of it.
I don't think he meant it literally, as in acquire a mental illness, but to "go along with it" for a little, in order to facilitate communication.
The sufferer's world-view, insane as it may be, still has some form of internal logic and structure, large parts of it will be very twisted, but as the sane mind of the two, you have the ability to step into theirs for a tiny bit, see it from their perspective (they themselves are either incapable or tired and worn out from constantly having to adapt to a world-view that doesn't make sense to them). Your advantage is that you only have to bring up the energy to make translate a crazy world-view for a few hours, their plight is 24/7.
(also, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is about linguistics, I don't think you can naturally extrapolate what has been proven about it to the field of mental health)
http://vimeo.com/603058