4 ms·

True. However the easy and commonness of psychogenic illness does skew the issue towards that side of the scales. There's a lot more science to throw at these

True. However the easy and commonness of psychogenic illness does skew the issue towards that side of the scales. There's a lot more science to throw at these issues than was available in the days of some of the other illnesses you mentioned.

jjeaff 8y ago
There is a new series on Netflix called "Afflicted". Basically just exploring a few different people and their struggles with illnesses that are commonly thought to be all in their head. It's pretty interesting. I think the documentary tries not to draw a conclusion. Some of them definitely appear to be totally psychosymatic. The "electromagnetic sensitivity" (wifi allergy) people in particular.
- erentz 8y ago
  Careful making any conclusions from that show. A number of the participants have said they were totally misrepresented. You could tell they were going to slant things right from the start when they started first with introducing Bekah and her quirky “witch” and “psychic” beliefs, before even getting to the diagnostics or how they were diagnosed. The documentary makers definitely crossed some ethical lines by cutting in that doctor talking answering general prompts about psychological illness, and splicing that in with patients answering questions about their emotional state, etc. One thing it was good for though was to see just how horribly taken advantage of desperate and sick people can be by quacks. The show featured a lot of quacks such as Suzanne Kim and the Sophia Institute and that lady on Marthas Vineyard. I really wish I had the hours of material they left out to produce a documentary on what these quacks prescribed and charged their clients. Edit: I’ll say on the subject of Jamison for example, if you want a better documentary on ME/CFS take a look at Unrest, also on Netflix. (And Forgotten Plague I think on Prime.) But even that science has progressed a long way in the past couple of years since that came out.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  There's a difference between saying a theory is wrong vs. what it tries to explain does not exist. Obviously you can prove that wifi sensitivity is an incorrect theory by experimenting. For the sake of argument, let's say someone's symptoms are precisely hypochondria. There must be some physical reason for that, that involves their brain but cannot be assumed limited to it, that can be investigated through science. There are people who do not suffer from hypochondria, so they can be compared. Nothing can be "all in your head" because the brain is physical and part of the body. Referring to something as psychosomatic serves the social function of ritually disclaiming responsibility for figuring it out. The harmful aspect of it is the assignation of blame to the victim, as though their will controls their illness. This is related to the same epistemological territory people go over and over when debating dark matter, or evolution, or AGW. Observations don't go away just because you question a theory.
yellowapple 8y ago
And there will be a lot more science to throw at such issues decades from now than is available today. We're not even close to having full understanding of the human body, and the brain is particularly troublesome to understand.

jjeaff 8y ago

There is a new series on Netflix called "Afflicted". Basically just exploring a few different people and their struggles with illnesses that are commonly thought to be all in their head. It's pretty interesting. I think the documentary tries not to draw a conclusion. Some of them definitely appear to be totally psychosymatic. The "electromagnetic sensitivity" (wifi allergy) people in particular.

erentz 8y ago
Careful making any conclusions from that show. A number of the participants have said they were totally misrepresented. You could tell they were going to slant things right from the start when they started first with introducing Bekah and her quirky “witch” and “psychic” beliefs, before even getting to the diagnostics or how they were diagnosed. The documentary makers definitely crossed some ethical lines by cutting in that doctor talking answering general prompts about psychological illness, and splicing that in with patients answering questions about their emotional state, etc. One thing it was good for though was to see just how horribly taken advantage of desperate and sick people can be by quacks. The show featured a lot of quacks such as Suzanne Kim and the Sophia Institute and that lady on Marthas Vineyard. I really wish I had the hours of material they left out to produce a documentary on what these quacks prescribed and charged their clients. Edit: I’ll say on the subject of Jamison for example, if you want a better documentary on ME/CFS take a look at Unrest, also on Netflix. (And Forgotten Plague I think on Prime.) But even that science has progressed a long way in the past couple of years since that came out.
perl4ever 8y ago
There's a difference between saying a theory is wrong vs. what it tries to explain does not exist. Obviously you can prove that wifi sensitivity is an incorrect theory by experimenting. For the sake of argument, let's say someone's symptoms are precisely hypochondria. There must be some physical reason for that, that involves their brain but cannot be assumed limited to it, that can be investigated through science. There are people who do not suffer from hypochondria, so they can be compared. Nothing can be "all in your head" because the brain is physical and part of the body. Referring to something as psychosomatic serves the social function of ritually disclaiming responsibility for figuring it out. The harmful aspect of it is the assignation of blame to the victim, as though their will controls their illness. This is related to the same epistemological territory people go over and over when debating dark matter, or evolution, or AGW. Observations don't go away just because you question a theory.

yellowapple 8y ago

And there will be a lot more science to throw at such issues decades from now than is available today. We're not even close to having full understanding of the human body, and the brain is particularly troublesome to understand.