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 t

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..