5 ms·

> We know a lot. Yet we know very little, like, we knew how to make fire before Lavoiser discovered the role of Oxygen in combustion. The various paradigms we

by pygy_ 7y ago

> We know a lot. Yet we know very little, like, we knew how to make fire before Lavoiser discovered the role of Oxygen in combustion. The various paradigms we use are approximate, not unlike humor and miasma theories were of some help before we understood physiology and discovered the existence of germs. The main theories of the 20th century (psychoanalysis and chemical imbalance) have been steadily eroded by research, but are still have far too much importance in clinic. > You might have a genetic predisposition to certain problems, have that exacerbated by traumas. Once we understand what genes and genes circuits are involved, and how trauma makes it worse, we'll be getting somewhere.

PaulHoule 7y ago
On some level. There is a lot of social complexity that means we may not take advantage of those facts. For instance we might get better drugs and other treatments but will that really help the people who are crapping on the street in San Francisco? Autism in particular challenges the assumptions of society. The one thing aspies really can't do is "see the emperor's clothes". In asperger's day they did not get along well with National Socialism, today they have problems with neoliberalism. You might fantasize that getting real help for aspies would increase their productivity a lot, mean they pay more taxes and make the help profitable for society, maybe even bend the curve of our civilization. From another viewpoint there is more talent than there is opportunity. Maybe Aspies are 1% of the people in the top 2% of IQ, salvaging them means a small increase of the talent pool, and if you at the top of some insanely competitive pyramid (etc. academia, business) why spend money to make it more competitive for your kids... Similarly, social structures tend to constrain the performance of science. We create the script that there is a "depression gene" and people build a career around that, maybe somebody wins a Nobel Prize, but really science is "what scientists do" and is about making stories that make sense to some people at a certain time and saying that some people are winners and others are losers. Go look at a Cochraine report on this or that and you'll see that 5000 studies got done, maybe 5 of those were done right, and there aren't enough samples to really be conclusive. Astronomy is like this. We "know a lot" but every time somebody does a new study of Cepheid variables we find the cosmic distance scale isn't what we thought it was, the cosmological models are broken, etc. That is, science manufactures a certainty that isn't there. "Reason" is often a label people use to attack other people. "Reason" magazine for instance has that name to say that socialists, labor unions, regulators, etc. are not "reasonable" and shouldn't be listened to.
- pygy_ 7y ago
  The social aspects are also off course crucial. I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a social safety net that's stronger than what you have in the US (there are still homeless folks, but psychiatric care is free in France). Still, I'm well aware that mental care is a luxury. Psychoanalysis is still very potent here though. The mothers of autistic and schizophrenic people were, for decades, vilified as responsible for the problems of their children. A friend of mine who was anorexic for years had to endure cruel and demeaning treatments (based on Freudian BS). As she said: "As if it were funny to lose all those kilos :-/". It's recently been found that, at least in some cases, anorexia is the result of auto-antibodies that stimulate the melanocortin receptor in the brain (the main satiety hormone). Those antibodies occur due to a cross-reaction with a protein secreted by E. Coli (CLPB). Bulimia and binge eating can have the same pathophysiology (where the antibodies block the receptor instead of activating it). Yet my friend was treated as if she was making it up, "to ultimately affirm herself".

by pygy_ 7y ago

PaulHoule 7y ago

On some level. There is a lot of social complexity that means we may not take advantage of those facts. For instance we might get better drugs and other treatments but will that really help the people who are crapping on the street in San Francisco? Autism in particular challenges the assumptions of society. The one thing aspies really can't do is "see the emperor's clothes". In asperger's day they did not get along well with National Socialism, today they have problems with neoliberalism. You might fantasize that getting real help for aspies would increase their productivity a lot, mean they pay more taxes and make the help profitable for society, maybe even bend the curve of our civilization. From another viewpoint there is more talent than there is opportunity. Maybe Aspies are 1% of the people in the top 2% of IQ, salvaging them means a small increase of the talent pool, and if you at the top of some insanely competitive pyramid (etc. academia, business) why spend money to make it more competitive for your kids... Similarly, social structures tend to constrain the performance of science. We create the script that there is a "depression gene" and people build a career around that, maybe somebody wins a Nobel Prize, but really science is "what scientists do" and is about making stories that make sense to some people at a certain time and saying that some people are winners and others are losers. Go look at a Cochraine report on this or that and you'll see that 5000 studies got done, maybe 5 of those were done right, and there aren't enough samples to really be conclusive. Astronomy is like this. We "know a lot" but every time somebody does a new study of Cepheid variables we find the cosmic distance scale isn't what we thought it was, the cosmological models are broken, etc. That is, science manufactures a certainty that isn't there. "Reason" is often a label people use to attack other people. "Reason" magazine for instance has that name to say that socialists, labor unions, regulators, etc. are not "reasonable" and shouldn't be listened to.

pygy_ 7y ago
The social aspects are also off course crucial. I'm lucky enough to live in a country with a social safety net that's stronger than what you have in the US (there are still homeless folks, but psychiatric care is free in France). Still, I'm well aware that mental care is a luxury. Psychoanalysis is still very potent here though. The mothers of autistic and schizophrenic people were, for decades, vilified as responsible for the problems of their children. A friend of mine who was anorexic for years had to endure cruel and demeaning treatments (based on Freudian BS). As she said: "As if it were funny to lose all those kilos :-/". It's recently been found that, at least in some cases, anorexia is the result of auto-antibodies that stimulate the melanocortin receptor in the brain (the main satiety hormone). Those antibodies occur due to a cross-reaction with a protein secreted by E. Coli (CLPB). Bulimia and binge eating can have the same pathophysiology (where the antibodies block the receptor instead of activating it). Yet my friend was treated as if she was making it up, "to ultimately affirm herself".