4 ms·

There's something important the article seems to be getting wrong: psychosis is a symptom, not a disease. There are such things as psychotic depression and pos

There's something important the article seems to be getting wrong: psychosis is a symptom, not a disease. There are such things as psychotic depression and post-partum depression; psychosis is a symptom of severe bipolar mania, etc. By the way, the concept of schizophrenia first comes up in Emil Kraepelin's realization that bipolar disorder (manic-depression) and schizophrenia ("precocious dementia") are distinct pathologies -- even though they may have similar presentations at times. With this, Kraepelin also inaugurates the idea of differential diagnosis. Similar in spirit (but less compatible with our contemporary understanding) is Freud's distinction between neurosis and "psychosis", the former being amenable to analysis. I.e. schizophrenia has always been a diagnosis of exclusion. If people are actually being able to open up schizophrenia into further detail -- well, that's good. But there will always be a diagnosis of exclusion, we'll just euphemize it as "psychotic disorder NOS" or some such.

Pica_soO 9y ago
Freud is dead. Dead and gone. We moved on. Really, i know he founded the field and made for a nice soap opera gossip generator when discussing other peoples problems sources (generating alot of unnecessary drama, to people who already had drama, like having the genes for schizophrenia in the family)- so please could we stop mentioning him, when discussing modern neurology. Its like a tribe on a pacific island had discovered boolean algebra first, and every time somebody tried to discuss comp science ever after - out of nowhere someone yells "This calls for a ritual, sacrifice the chicken, you cant discuss booleans, without being ridden by baron samedi."
- ivkustov 9y ago
  We actually shouldn't. The psychoanalysis is contempted and forgotten however psychoanalysis is something like a computer language, the language of human inner world. Some kind of lisp with probably terrible interpreter. The modern neuroscience is of course something like an assembler. So lisp or assembler? If you want to write modern OS, then you know the answer. The Freud, Jung, Lacan theory is related to psychotherapeutic work is like automata theory relationships to writing modern enterprise applications. I don't believe there is something 'true' or 'objective' in psychoanalysis - deep inside is some ocean, some chaos of different introjections, emotions and feelings. But the psychoanalysis helps to create structure there, to look and make sense out of the ocean. There is no substitude for psychoanalysis except really good prose probably or poetry. And of course Freud was a genius.
  - nradov 9y ago
    If a man who was wrong about almost everything can be considered a genius then the word "genius" has lost all meaning.
    - pizza 9y ago
      Would you consider Democritus a genius? Or Zeno?
      - RhysU 9y ago
        Everytime I reflect on Zeno, I get halfway closer.
    - ivkustov 9y ago
      I don't know how he was 'wrong about almost everything'? I just searched the article with the same name. Penis envy? Well, I saw myself and read myself about women who desired to castrate their brothers for example because they attributed their envy and jealousy of parental attention to them. Oedipus issues? Seriously? I believe every other mother or father out there in emotionally incestous relationships with their kids. Id, ego, superego? It's a model of consciousness, pretty primitive, but still useful. You basically split everything into 3 buckets - e.g. compulsive lust, fetishism goes to id, rational thinking to ego, overresponsibility to superego. Oral, anal, phallic, etc. stages of development? There were much more better theories by Theodore Lidz and Erickson.
      - nradov 9y ago
        I really hope you're being sarcastic, and that you're not deranged enough to believe that nonsense.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      There are dimensions to genius. Seeing a common subject, a set of boundaries, a possible (even if incorrect) set of guiding principles, can be genius. If it inspires further exploration or refinement or even rejection of ideas, it's a productive step. Einstein railed against QM, Newton believed in alchemy, Kelvin though the Earth was 30 million years old, the list of people opposed to continental drift / plate techtonics is vast (see Naomi Oreskes several papers and books on the history of the development of that subject), Samuel Morse had what would now be dispicable views on race and religion, Ford was an anti-semite, Crick and/or Watson have their own failings, etc., etc., etc. Much of genius is being able to jump out of and beyond the present dominant paradigm and mental models. It's not about being right but of being less wrong. Than that which came before, not after.
- pizza 9y ago
  If you want to call something irrational, at least make sure it's an action, rather than a belief. It doesn't matter what zero-cost belief someone holds until they put their money where their mouth is. The whole point of this thread is that modern neuroscience is showing us that the classification of schizophrenia in modern terms was not rational either. It makes sense to work at higher level information, at the level of feelings and dialogue, than at a lower level, e.g. epigenetic circumstances or neuronal metabolic disorders, if one mistakenly overestimates their grasp on the phenomenon. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "the genes for schizophrenia" - nor would I be so quick to dismiss the skepticism he brought to the preexisting field of analyzing people's problems, just because he became a mythical figure in pop culture to the point that more people have a mistaken view of what he wrote than have read him. Why did it matter what he wrote? Because there were many things he wrote that made people recognize things in others. Of the things they recognized, what worked either lasted and was retained, or fell out of mode due to people becoming fed up with him as long ago as the 1920s, or served as a benchmark/competition for others to test ideas against to find any that worked better. It really doesn't have much to do with stymying conversation because of cargo cult thinking..
- staticautomatic 9y ago
  Hardly. Freud's proposition that everyone is neurotic is important, relevant, and true. Also, neurology is not the same as psychology or psychoanalysis or psychiatry.

Pica_soO 9y ago

Freud is dead. Dead and gone. We moved on. Really, i know he founded the field and made for a nice soap opera gossip generator when discussing other peoples problems sources (generating alot of unnecessary drama, to people who already had drama, like having the genes for schizophrenia in the family)- so please could we stop mentioning him, when discussing modern neurology. Its like a tribe on a pacific island had discovered boolean algebra first, and every time somebody tried to discuss comp science ever after - out of nowhere someone yells "This calls for a ritual, sacrifice the chicken, you cant discuss booleans, without being ridden by baron samedi."

ivkustov 9y ago
We actually shouldn't. The psychoanalysis is contempted and forgotten however psychoanalysis is something like a computer language, the language of human inner world. Some kind of lisp with probably terrible interpreter. The modern neuroscience is of course something like an assembler. So lisp or assembler? If you want to write modern OS, then you know the answer. The Freud, Jung, Lacan theory is related to psychotherapeutic work is like automata theory relationships to writing modern enterprise applications. I don't believe there is something 'true' or 'objective' in psychoanalysis - deep inside is some ocean, some chaos of different introjections, emotions and feelings. But the psychoanalysis helps to create structure there, to look and make sense out of the ocean. There is no substitude for psychoanalysis except really good prose probably or poetry. And of course Freud was a genius.
- nradov 9y ago
  If a man who was wrong about almost everything can be considered a genius then the word "genius" has lost all meaning.
  - pizza 9y ago
    Would you consider Democritus a genius? Or Zeno?
    - RhysU 9y ago
      Everytime I reflect on Zeno, I get halfway closer.
  - ivkustov 9y ago
    I don't know how he was 'wrong about almost everything'? I just searched the article with the same name. Penis envy? Well, I saw myself and read myself about women who desired to castrate their brothers for example because they attributed their envy and jealousy of parental attention to them. Oedipus issues? Seriously? I believe every other mother or father out there in emotionally incestous relationships with their kids. Id, ego, superego? It's a model of consciousness, pretty primitive, but still useful. You basically split everything into 3 buckets - e.g. compulsive lust, fetishism goes to id, rational thinking to ego, overresponsibility to superego. Oral, anal, phallic, etc. stages of development? There were much more better theories by Theodore Lidz and Erickson.
    - nradov 9y ago
      I really hope you're being sarcastic, and that you're not deranged enough to believe that nonsense.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    There are dimensions to genius. Seeing a common subject, a set of boundaries, a possible (even if incorrect) set of guiding principles, can be genius. If it inspires further exploration or refinement or even rejection of ideas, it's a productive step. Einstein railed against QM, Newton believed in alchemy, Kelvin though the Earth was 30 million years old, the list of people opposed to continental drift / plate techtonics is vast (see Naomi Oreskes several papers and books on the history of the development of that subject), Samuel Morse had what would now be dispicable views on race and religion, Ford was an anti-semite, Crick and/or Watson have their own failings, etc., etc., etc. Much of genius is being able to jump out of and beyond the present dominant paradigm and mental models. It's not about being right but of being less wrong. Than that which came before, not after.
pizza 9y ago
If you want to call something irrational, at least make sure it's an action, rather than a belief. It doesn't matter what zero-cost belief someone holds until they put their money where their mouth is. The whole point of this thread is that modern neuroscience is showing us that the classification of schizophrenia in modern terms was not rational either. It makes sense to work at higher level information, at the level of feelings and dialogue, than at a lower level, e.g. epigenetic circumstances or neuronal metabolic disorders, if one mistakenly overestimates their grasp on the phenomenon. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "the genes for schizophrenia" - nor would I be so quick to dismiss the skepticism he brought to the preexisting field of analyzing people's problems, just because he became a mythical figure in pop culture to the point that more people have a mistaken view of what he wrote than have read him. Why did it matter what he wrote? Because there were many things he wrote that made people recognize things in others. Of the things they recognized, what worked either lasted and was retained, or fell out of mode due to people becoming fed up with him as long ago as the 1920s, or served as a benchmark/competition for others to test ideas against to find any that worked better. It really doesn't have much to do with stymying conversation because of cargo cult thinking..
staticautomatic 9y ago
Hardly. Freud's proposition that everyone is neurotic is important, relevant, and true. Also, neurology is not the same as psychology or psychoanalysis or psychiatry.