4 ms·

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia

49 points by debo_ 5mo ago

lurquer 5mo ago
“…tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did.” Using this data, one would expect to see only 0.25 cases in those 66 blind kids. Stated differently, there is around a 78% chance of having 0 cases in those 66 by random chance alone. Dumb.
- yladiz 5mo ago
  Can you explain how you got that number from the quote? I don’t follow.
  - wizzwizz4 5mo ago
    1870/500000*66 = 0.24684. However, it's "nearly half a million", so let's call it 30000 as a conservative estimate: that's still 0.4114 children in expectance, which isn't very many.
  - bhattid 5mo ago
    Not the original commenter, but the math is (making some implicit, but arguably reasonable assumptions): Probability that someone in the population has schizophrenia = (1870/500000) = 0.00374 Probability that someone does NOT have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374) Then if we assume that blind people have the same rate of schizophrenia as the population, Probability that 66 blind people ALL don't have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)^66 = 0.78
    - lurquer 5mo ago
      The sad thing is that IF — by chance — one of those 66 had schizophrenia, the headline would undoubtedly read “Blind children are FOUR TIMES more likely to develop Schizophrenia!”
- solumunus 5mo ago
  “That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported.”
  - debo_ 5mo ago
    It's ok, people in the life sciences are very accustomed to people from other fields assuming they are stupid.
- xdavidliu 5mo ago
  this is the type of math they should be teaching in high school, not trigonometry and calculus (which should be electives)
  - tim333 5mo ago
    Calculating 1870/500000*66 is kind of basic arithmetic that is covered in high school. They could maybe have some classes in debunking bs media claims which are quite plentiful these days?
    - commandersaki 5mo ago
      A philosophy course on logic should be sufficient.
    - xdavidliu 5mo ago
      I'm of course not talking about the arithmetic, but rather understanding the semantics of ratios, sets, and subsets, and inferring statistical significance.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  I got all interested and you are right. The math isn't mathing. For social science though this is what they have to do to fund more research. At least there isn't a greater incidence? ... ? ... ?
hyperhello 5mo ago
Off topic, but do deaf people ever hear voices?
- theturtletalks 5mo ago
  I’ve heard they actually see people signing at them. Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard.
  - solumunus 5mo ago
    > Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard. And you’re not as skeptical of this claim?
    - hyperhello 5mo ago
      I’m not, actually. I think we all have inner voices if we listen, and it’s possible that different societies have different characteristics. One of them could be whether the environment is on the individual’s side or not. A more compatible inner voice could do better in either situation.
      - 4gotunameagain 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        hyperhello 5mo ago
        I didn’t say inner voices are scientifically correct. I think they’re an adaptation. Maybe if India had more functioning depressives it wouldn’t be in that situation, who knows?
        tsol 5mo ago
        Probably has more to do with how they regard hallucinations. In some cultures they're regarded as possibly mystical and a good thing, in other cultures they're regarded as strictly a sign of a malfunctioning brain which is of course bad. Even a corpse can create different feelings based on context and beliefs-- ie a corpse at a funeral is a somber memorial, a corpse lying in the street is sad and worrying.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
altairprime 5mo ago
Huh. I wonder if that means my inability to visualize mentally means I’m partly/fully defended against it? That would explain a subgroup prevalence!
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  Probably not you are likely an afantist though
  - pseudohadamard 5mo ago
    Well the voices have definitely told me my aphantasia is keeping me safe.
- eadwu 5mo ago
  No, you can definitely still be schizophrenic. Consider the combination of senile + mirages.
shirro 5mo ago
My understanding is that auditory hallucinations are more common in schizophrenia which makes this more of a WTF. Aphantasiac here so this raises an obvious question. Cursory search suggests visual hallucinations due to drugs or schizophrenia are reported. Conscious and involuntary visualisation seem to be somewhat independent.
- finghin 5mo ago
  As I said in another thread, visual hallucinations (without intoxication) are certainly a thing, but they are quite rarely associated with schizophrenia. There is far, far more to the condition than hallucinations or even psychosis more generally, but hallucinations are most commonly auditory
SideQuark 5mo ago
> The most rigorous evidence comes from a 2018 whole-population study tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did. 1870/500,000 * 66 = 0.247 Not a single blind child getting it is the most likely outcome, and this is called "the most rigorous evidence"? It didn't protect rats in a study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920996423002256 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09209... There sure is a lot of reported cases of all sorts of blindness with schizophrenia, constantly shrinking the pool of types of the two, making this conjecture constantly shrinking https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4246684/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4246684/ It also seems the Australia study does not quite say what the article claims it does - a follow-up study: https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/the-lack-of-comorbidity-between-early-cortical-blindness-and-schizophrenia/ https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/the-lack-of-comorbidity-between-ear... Too bad this article simply doesn't mention all this. Of course the article will get less clicks with a less wild title.
- protimewaster 5mo ago
  Doesn't the article address some of that in the next paragraph, which includes a link to a study from 2013? > That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported. The protection seems to be specific to cortical blindness, which is caused by damage to the brain’s visual cortex. I believe that also addresses the discrepancy between the 2014 study you linked and the article. That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness. I haven't been through the whole 2014 study (or the 2013 one, for that matter), but it does say > As the case-reports presented in this section show, only congenital/early cortical blindness—the type of blindness that occurs when bilateral lesions of the occipital cortex deprive the individual from vision (Cummings and Trimble, 2002, p. 110)—seems to confer protective effects. Isn't that saying the same thing the article does. What am I missing?
  - SideQuark 5mo ago
    > but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence No, those are also stupidly small samples. Look at the papers I listed. > That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness Yes, from 1950 till 2014, as more and more kinds of blindness were found with schizophrenia, the type of blindness has been dwindling to smaller and smaller classes, ensuring there is not enough predictive power in the claims. Again, look at the papers I listed. ALL of this is covered. > Isn't that saying the same thing the article does. The article says lots of nonsense, like the most likely outcome of data is somehow the best evidence for an unproven claim. It implies the Australia study says a thing it DOES NOT SAY. Is this not enough bad reporting to question the accuracy of the article? > What am I missing? Simply look at the papers I posted. They are right there for you to read. The article is click bait trying to claim there is some surprising scientific claim that HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

49 points by debo_ 5mo ago

“…tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did.” Using this data, one would expect to see only 0.25 cases in those 66 blind kids. Stated differently, there is around a 78% chance of having 0 cases in those 66 by random chance alone. Dumb.

yladiz 5mo ago
Can you explain how you got that number from the quote? I don’t follow.
- wizzwizz4 5mo ago
  1870/500000*66 = 0.24684. However, it's "nearly half a million", so let's call it 30000 as a conservative estimate: that's still 0.4114 children in expectance, which isn't very many.
- bhattid 5mo ago
  Not the original commenter, but the math is (making some implicit, but arguably reasonable assumptions): Probability that someone in the population has schizophrenia = (1870/500000) = 0.00374 Probability that someone does NOT have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374) Then if we assume that blind people have the same rate of schizophrenia as the population, Probability that 66 blind people ALL don't have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)^66 = 0.78
  - lurquer 5mo ago
    The sad thing is that IF — by chance — one of those 66 had schizophrenia, the headline would undoubtedly read “Blind children are FOUR TIMES more likely to develop Schizophrenia!”
solumunus 5mo ago
“That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported.”
- debo_ 5mo ago
  It's ok, people in the life sciences are very accustomed to people from other fields assuming they are stupid.
xdavidliu 5mo ago
this is the type of math they should be teaching in high school, not trigonometry and calculus (which should be electives)
- tim333 5mo ago
  Calculating 1870/500000*66 is kind of basic arithmetic that is covered in high school. They could maybe have some classes in debunking bs media claims which are quite plentiful these days?
  - commandersaki 5mo ago
    A philosophy course on logic should be sufficient.
  - xdavidliu 5mo ago
    I'm of course not talking about the arithmetic, but rather understanding the semantics of ratios, sets, and subsets, and inferring statistical significance.
2ndorderthought 5mo ago
I got all interested and you are right. The math isn't mathing. For social science though this is what they have to do to fund more research. At least there isn't a greater incidence? ... ? ... ?

hyperhello 5mo ago

Off topic, but do deaf people ever hear voices?

theturtletalks 5mo ago
I’ve heard they actually see people signing at them. Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard.
- solumunus 5mo ago
  > Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard. And you’re not as skeptical of this claim?
  - hyperhello 5mo ago
    I’m not, actually. I think we all have inner voices if we listen, and it’s possible that different societies have different characteristics. One of them could be whether the environment is on the individual’s side or not. A more compatible inner voice could do better in either situation.
    - 4gotunameagain 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - hyperhello 5mo ago
        I didn’t say inner voices are scientifically correct. I think they’re an adaptation. Maybe if India had more functioning depressives it wouldn’t be in that situation, who knows?
      - tsol 5mo ago
        Probably has more to do with how they regard hallucinations. In some cultures they're regarded as possibly mystical and a good thing, in other cultures they're regarded as strictly a sign of a malfunctioning brain which is of course bad. Even a corpse can create different feelings based on context and beliefs-- ie a corpse at a funeral is a somber memorial, a corpse lying in the street is sad and worrying.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

altairprime 5mo ago

Huh. I wonder if that means my inability to visualize mentally means I’m partly/fully defended against it? That would explain a subgroup prevalence!

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
2ndorderthought 5mo ago
Probably not you are likely an afantist though
- pseudohadamard 5mo ago
  Well the voices have definitely told me my aphantasia is keeping me safe.
eadwu 5mo ago
No, you can definitely still be schizophrenic. Consider the combination of senile + mirages.

shirro 5mo ago

My understanding is that auditory hallucinations are more common in schizophrenia which makes this more of a WTF. Aphantasiac here so this raises an obvious question. Cursory search suggests visual hallucinations due to drugs or schizophrenia are reported. Conscious and involuntary visualisation seem to be somewhat independent.

finghin 5mo ago
As I said in another thread, visual hallucinations (without intoxication) are certainly a thing, but they are quite rarely associated with schizophrenia. There is far, far more to the condition than hallucinations or even psychosis more generally, but hallucinations are most commonly auditory

SideQuark 5mo ago

> The most rigorous evidence comes from a 2018 whole-population study tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did. 1870/500,000 * 66 = 0.247 Not a single blind child getting it is the most likely outcome, and this is called "the most rigorous evidence"? It didn't protect rats in a study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920996423002256 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09209... There sure is a lot of reported cases of all sorts of blindness with schizophrenia, constantly shrinking the pool of types of the two, making this conjecture constantly shrinking https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4246684/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4246684/ It also seems the Australia study does not quite say what the article claims it does - a follow-up study: https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/the-lack-of-comorbidity-between-early-cortical-blindness-and-schizophrenia/ https://jmsgr.tamhsc.edu/the-lack-of-comorbidity-between-ear... Too bad this article simply doesn't mention all this. Of course the article will get less clicks with a less wild title.

protimewaster 5mo ago
Doesn't the article address some of that in the next paragraph, which includes a link to a study from 2013? > That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported. The protection seems to be specific to cortical blindness, which is caused by damage to the brain’s visual cortex. I believe that also addresses the discrepancy between the 2014 study you linked and the article. That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness. I haven't been through the whole 2014 study (or the 2013 one, for that matter), but it does say > As the case-reports presented in this section show, only congenital/early cortical blindness—the type of blindness that occurs when bilateral lesions of the occipital cortex deprive the individual from vision (Cummings and Trimble, 2002, p. 110)—seems to confer protective effects. Isn't that saying the same thing the article does. What am I missing?
- SideQuark 5mo ago
  > but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence No, those are also stupidly small samples. Look at the papers I listed. > That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness Yes, from 1950 till 2014, as more and more kinds of blindness were found with schizophrenia, the type of blindness has been dwindling to smaller and smaller classes, ensuring there is not enough predictive power in the claims. Again, look at the papers I listed. ALL of this is covered. > Isn't that saying the same thing the article does. The article says lots of nonsense, like the most likely outcome of data is somehow the best evidence for an unproven claim. It implies the Australia study says a thing it DOES NOT SAY. Is this not enough bad reporting to question the accuracy of the article? > What am I missing? Simply look at the papers I posted. They are right there for you to read. The article is click bait trying to claim there is some surprising scientific claim that HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.