4 ms·

Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness. Sure there is a large genetic component to schizoph

by jxdjsks 11y ago

Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness. Sure there is a large genetic component to schizophrenia - I was terrified for years that I might have it because my mother did. I think it more likely that shizophrenia is a heterogenous illness - there are many pathways to the same disease state. It is quite a bold statement to say that none of these pathways are in any way effected by the environment in which we develop. Especially given what we know about the association between early traumatic experiences and various disease states. It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business. It appears that biological systems, although heirachical and modular are, unlike human engineering, highly interconnected across all the levels. Particularly: The health of the mind effects the health of the body and the health of the body effects the health of the mind. If you do not believe this you have not learnt enough, or like many, you have ideoligical issues with this reality.

tmnvix 11y ago
Yes. It surprises me that people are so quick to so readily assume a biologically deterministic cause when these types of findings are presented. People seem too eager to discount environmental factors - even when it should be obvious to all that our biology is intimately related to our environment and circumstances. For a good summary of the contemporary positions of the biological and environmental camps when it comes to the causes of schizophrenia I can't recommend this lecture highly enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be Long story short; both camps have valuable insights and a lot to learn from each other.
lutusp 11y ago
> Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness. Schizophrenia is a classic case of a mental illness that isn't one, a condition that doesn't appear in people who don't have a specific genetic predisposition. > It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business. Yes, that's true, but according to the new finding this thread is about, biology is now able to (a) detect schizophrenia in people who lack symptoms, and (b) dismiss the possibility in those who show symptoms (for example by an actor trained to imitate the symptoms). The reason? Schizophrenia isn't a mental illness, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms. Dustin Hoffman nailed autism in "Rain Man". If Mr. Hoffman appeared at a mental health clinic and performed his character, do you suppose he would be turned away by the psychiatrists as a fake? Now consider this alternative -- if there was a genetic test for autism (there isn't at the moment), do you suppose he would be turned away by the biologists? > ... you have ideoligical [sic] issues with this reality. Science isn't about ideology, it's about evidence.

by jxdjsks 11y ago

tmnvix 11y ago

Yes. It surprises me that people are so quick to so readily assume a biologically deterministic cause when these types of findings are presented. People seem too eager to discount environmental factors - even when it should be obvious to all that our biology is intimately related to our environment and circumstances. For a good summary of the contemporary positions of the biological and environmental camps when it comes to the causes of schizophrenia I can't recommend this lecture highly enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be Long story short; both camps have valuable insights and a lot to learn from each other.

lutusp 11y ago

> Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness. Schizophrenia is a classic case of a mental illness that isn't one, a condition that doesn't appear in people who don't have a specific genetic predisposition. > It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business. Yes, that's true, but according to the new finding this thread is about, biology is now able to (a) detect schizophrenia in people who lack symptoms, and (b) dismiss the possibility in those who show symptoms (for example by an actor trained to imitate the symptoms). The reason? Schizophrenia isn't a mental illness, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms. Dustin Hoffman nailed autism in "Rain Man". If Mr. Hoffman appeared at a mental health clinic and performed his character, do you suppose he would be turned away by the psychiatrists as a fake? Now consider this alternative -- if there was a genetic test for autism (there isn't at the moment), do you suppose he would be turned away by the biologists? > ... you have ideoligical [sic] issues with this reality. Science isn't about ideology, it's about evidence.