Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 5

Unproven biological etiology of autism

In the above "Deleted paragraph" talk section an editor chided me: “In addition, I would like to just try to warn you that you are seriously mischaracterising the ‘medical model’ when you equate it to anything incorporating neuroscience —they are different things”.

I am not mischaracterizing anything. Neurology is a genuine branch of medicine. Psychiatry is not. I know that the so-called “medical model of mental disorders” is not a neurological model, but a psychiatric one, i.e., fraudulent medicine —see Szasz's article.

In the above "Deleted paragraph" discussion another editor argued that “there’s pretty good evidence that ‘in average’ autistic brains are different and that autistic cognition is different. Check out Dawson & Mottron (2005)”. However, the editor himself conceded that the Dawson & Mottron’s study “has yet to be replicated”.

I have seen Dawson’s web page and I agree with much of what he says about the autistic community rights. However, nowhere in that page can I find a reliable study that demonstrates the biological etiology of autism. On the contrary, despite other shrinks’ extensive biological fishing expeditions, brain scans of autistic children compared with controls have shown no significant findings (see e.g., Colin Ross's “Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry”, pp.149f) [1].

Ross is a non biological psychiatrist. Another non biopsych, Peter Breggin, has stated that “the media have been promoting the idea that autism is now a known physical disorder, that parents have no role”. And he added: “It is unfortunate that the Autism Society of America has lent its weight, successfully, to creating a false public image of autism research” (287f) [2]. In other words, organizations run by parents that use traumatogenic modes of childrearing love bio-shrinks because they spare parents! The efforts of the Autism Society of America, Breggin concludes, “are a dramatic illustration of the politics of psychiatric diagnosis —in this case, in the service of exonerating parents”.

An editor swiftly reverted, without previous notice in the talk page, the paragraph I deleted a week ago. I won’t delete it for the moment. But if any contributor to this talk page doesn’t point out to reliable, scientific studies that prove that autism is a neurological condition, I may delete it again in a week or so.

Reason: Just take a look at the Neurodiversity article linked to the paragraph I want to delete. The article starts with these words:

Neurodiversity is a concept that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological wiring is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference.

This is exactly what Breggin was talking about. Society has been bamboozled into believing that autism —a psychogenic condition— is actually a somatogenic one! Whereas I fully agree with fighting for the rights of autistic people to prevent stigma, the somatogenic claim is blatant psychiatric propaganda and has no place in the Anti-psychiatry article. The autistic community should start fighting for their rights by challenging the medical model of autism, not by promoting it! Cesar Tort 21:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What you say above is totally contrary to the experience of autistics themselves. But never mind that. There are a ton of studies on neurological differences which are present, in average, in the autistic population. Increased head circumference is a straight foward one. Dawson & Mottron (2005) [3] is a cognitive finding, not a neurological one. The notion that autism is psychogenic was discarded in the 1970s when autism was found to be extremely heritable. Granted, that didn't kill all environmental theories. Neurodivergent 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

“There are a ton of studies on neurological differences which are present, in average, in the autistic population”. Please show me a couple of them. —Cesar Tort 19:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of PubMed? [4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. I went through a small percentage only. While I don't agree with the negative language of these abstracts, I don't think it's surprising that differences are found. Neurodivergent 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at them. It will take a while... —Cesar Tort 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now read the abstracts.

It’s tricky that all of your referents are of PubMed. But even in PubMed there are dissenting voices, for example Frances Tustin's [12].

The subject is rather complex. The neurological differences in other DSM disorders, for example schizophrenia and ADHD, are exclusively caused by the use of neuroleptics and psycho-stimulants in boys and adolescents. I.e., the neurological differences in people diagnosed with schizophrenia or ADHD are the result of psychiatric iatrogenic stupidity, not of a genetic or inborn “neurodiversity”.

The trouble I see with the paragraph I am targeting is that it is most confusing for this article. Autism is the trickiest of all of the DSM disorders. From Tustin’s and others point of view, autism and autism-related conditions are caused by bad parenting. Nonetheless, the big difference of autism with the rest of DSM disorders “of unknown etiology” (such as schizophrenia and ADHD) is that, since the abuse started at such an early age with babies, there may exist structural brain differences of autistic children compared with children who were abused later in life (e.g., teenage “schizophrenics”). Alice Miller, the foremost world authority on child abuse, has often pointed out to the brain differences in the abused child due to the abuse itself.

This makes me think that all of the above discussion is a misunderstanding. I was talking of etiology; you about neurodiversity. Sorry for the confusion!

However, since this is not the Psychiatry article I still think that the paragraph should be, at least, modified to explain the view of autism among those in the Anti-psychiatry movement. The original anti-psychiatrist, R.D. Laing, always maintained that bad parenting was the cause of mental disorders: a school of psychology that is absolute taboo in our conservative culture.

For example, in my Google search the first article that comes up on autism is James Herbert et al’s “Separating Fact From Fiction in the Etiology and Treatment of Autism: A Scientific Review”. In the section under the heading “psychoanalysis” at the middle of the article the authors make this incredible statement: “The focus on parental (and especially maternal) rejection in the etiology and treatment of autism can lead to a misplaced blame and a deep sense of guilt in parents”.

In other words, the foremost psychologists on autism are, just like the rest of human beings, terrified of pointing out the finger; of seeing the psychological truth of the baby’s mind, and they spare parents instead. Since this is also the accepted view in mainstream psychiatry, I cannot find a way out of this dilemma other than deleting the paragraph or radically modifying it. —Cesar Tort 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, even James Herbert et al in the above-mentioned article acknowledged no less than three times in their article that “the cause of autism is largely unknown”. This is what I meant with my subheading: Unproven biological etiology of autism. —Cesar Tort 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your views on autism are from the 1950s-1970s, but that's irrelevant. I do not believe there's such as thing as a "view of autism among those in the Anti-psychiatry movement". Many autistics are anti-psychiatry, judging by this. I think this is notable enough for the article to mention it. Neurodivergent 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I know those six pages that Peter Breggin wrote about autism in his main work, Toxic Psychiatry, which is not a treatise of the 1950s-70s but of the 1990s, which reflect my views on autism in my previous communication (and Breggin is still alive and publishing in the EHPP journal). And Alice Miller has written about psychogenic autism in the new century. —Cesar Tort 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I otherwise like Breggin's views on ADHD and Ritalin. If that's truly his opinion on autism today, he'd be dead wrong. Autism is not the result of abuse of any sort. This is an offensive proposition. But what is factually important is that it is unsubstantiated, and inconsistent with a large body of cognitive and neurological knowledge about autism. I think there's an important element of anti-psychiatry in the autistic community which is notable enough for this article. The concepts invented by the autistic community are obviously quite anti-psychiatry and represent a new paradigm that should be documented. Neurodivergent 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t dispute current cognitive knowledge of autism. But what about the fact that even those who reject the psychogenic view of autism concede that “the biological cause of autism is largely unknown”?

On the other hand, I would really take offense if someone tells me that my falling prey into cults back in the 1980s was neurological divergence. It wasn’t. I fell prey because I was abused as a teenager by my parents. Though falling in cults is no DSM, all biological models for “unknown etiology” behaviors can only serve society’s supreme law: Thou Shalt Spare Parents.

I don’t believe Breggin is dead wrong. In fact, and despite claims to the contrary, since the biological etiology of autism is not established the psychogenic hypothesis has not been refuted.

Why don’t we discuss such a delicate subject in an even more civil way: For example, I read the article of the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical you referenced above, and you read the Alice Miller article? Like Kanner, Bettelheim, Tustin, Breggin and many others Miller believes autism is psychogenic. I don’t find this offensive. —Cesar Tort 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were abused by your parents, but from this you can't extrapolate and assume that all cognitive and psychological deficits can be blamed on parents. I'm aware of various psychogenic theories, all unsubstantiated. I agree that the focus of psychiatry is probably a bit too much on genetics and neurobiology these days, but you can't infer from this that the alternative must be right. Psychogenics as an environmental trigger should be studied, just as mercury and other silly theories are studied. Stress, in particular, is a trigger that would make sense for autistics, as autistics are sensitive to stress. To assume that it all has to come down to some form of abuse is far-fetched and simply wrong. Anyway, the discussion on causes is irrelevant to the matter of whether the anti-psychiatry component of the autistic community is notable enough. Neurodivergent 17:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted that the autistic community views itself in a rather different light to that of those who work in the trauma model. Nonetheless, Breggin’s views of autism in Toxic Psychiatry ought to be mentioned in the paragraph I want to modify.

Incidentally, I’m translating the Miller article for the Spanish Wikipedia, which perhaps is your native language. It must be mentioned that all people in my clinical experience have had abuse problems: I am not extrapolating from my life. —Cesar Tort 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is. Good guess. Neurodivergent 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Cesar. I've been following this discussion. As a matter of interest, if all people in your experience have had abuse problems, how does one account for abusive families where, perhaps, one child displays 'syndromic' psychiatric effects of the abuse while a sibling (of a similar age and who has undergone similar abuse) does not. Would genetically programmed neurodiversity not be the most parsimonious explanantion for this? Rockpocket 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No Rockpocket. As I explain in my book Cómo asesinar el alma de tu hijo (How to murder your child’s soul), it is not uncommon that abusive parents chose a single child among other siblings to re-enact all the parental abuse and traumas of their own childhood. Let’s take as an example a case of real life. Did you see Shine, awarded an Oscar by the Academy in 1996? Well, in real life, just as in the film, David Helfgott —and David Helfgott alone— was abused by Peter Helfgott, his beloved father. Peter broke David’s heart and David became psychiatrically disturbed. Suzie, Margaret, Lousie, Rachel and Les escaped Peter’s abuse. It is just that simple... —Cesar Tort 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. No prizes for guessing what your book is about then. You explanation may be the case in some situations, but in other examples of extreme mental stress/abuse (war, incarceration, torture, institutional abuse) there are clear differences in how that manifests psychologically between different people. Brains are biological material, made from proteins, made from RNA, made from genes. To argue that genetic diversity does not influence the effect of environmental stress on brain output is simply in dispute with everything we know about gene/environment interation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggest a paradigm where parents are to "blame" in that they provide both the genes and environment for children to develop, but there will be situations where "psychiatric disorders" occur when the genetic factors outweigh environmental factors (i.e a very atypical neural genotype interacts with a "normal" childhood) and there will be situations where the opposite is true (a relatively typical neuronal genotype interacts with a very abusive childhood). The majority will fall somewhere in between - as few of us have "perfect" upbringings or completely lack neuroses. You may well be an example of my second example, but your theory - without evidence - does a huge injustice to those parents in the first example. Rockpocket 19:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

At least in David’s case it is not a theory: his heart-breaking, schizophrenogenic abuse by his father is well documented. And I believe this subject belongs more to the humanities (biography) than to science. As to blaming genes for being more susceptible to psychiatric disorders, there is no evidence whatsoever according to Dr. Jay Joseph and other critics of the “blaming the body” models. All of this bio stuff is very convenient for a society that is extremely reluctant to recognize the enormous extent and devastating effects of child abuse. —Cesar Tort 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cesar: I guess what you say is possible, but is it a proven fact that they have been abused? Or do you presuppose they have been abused and then convince your clients that they have been? Psychoanalysts are notorious for doing this exact thing. Now, there is some data that autistic kids are abused and killed more often than neurotypical kids. But this is not what causes them to be autistic. They are abused and bullied and even killed more often because they are autistic. Have you seen any autistics in your practice? How do you explain cognitive differences in autistics, such as savant skills? How do you explain higher scores than the norm in the Raven IQ test? How do you explain the results of twin studies on autism? The Refrigerator mother theory is all but discarded in the US. I understand it still has some support in Europe. The main reason the Refrigerator Mother theory was thrown out was the low concordance of autism found in siblings. There's still higher prevalence in siblings than in the background, but this can easily be explained by genetics, considering the extremely high concordance in identical twins. So it's not just that your theory is offensive and contrary to the experience of autistics, parents of autistics and children of autistics (I believe I'm all those), but also that your theory is contrary to reality in general. Neurodivergent 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you had read the Miller article, you’d know by know that we who work in the trauma model really hate psychoanalysis.

However, I agree with you that handicapped people are more abused by their families.

Cognitive differences are explained simply: to live in a bubble-world makes the autistic person to develop skills that “normal” people usually don’t develop, including IQ.

“…easily explained by genetics”. My reply: “easily explained by environment”.

If the parental theory was discarded in the United States but not so in Europe it is because the U.S. is suffering an extreme conservatism, “family values” Weltanschauung after Reagan and the Bushs (Europe is more liberal). The refrigerator mother theory was more popular in America’s 1960s because those were civil libertarian times. The U.S. is horrible today.

If “you are all those”, as you say in your last words, has any lab test proven some genetic, neurological or biochemical anomaly or divergence in your body? —Cesar Tort 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Genetic tests for autism don't exist yet, but my dad, at least one brother, a cousin, and my son can be placed somewhere in the autism spectrum. In addition to this, my father-in-law seems to be an undiagnosed Aspie, which is indicative of assortative mating. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. Researchers are working on finding genetic markers for autism. Some findings exist, but the genetics of autism are notoriously complex. You can't deny that certain forms of autism, such as Fragile-X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis and Rett syndrome, are all genetic. Neurodivergent 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, autism is the trickiest of DSM diagnoses. If it is indeed genetic, the condition shouldn’t belong to psychiatry but to real biology or neurology. I suppose however that the family dynamics, nurture environment and modes of childrearing of your relatives are rather similar? I don’t want to offend you, Neurodivergent, and am not an expert in autism. My concern with the paragraph is that it is confusing since 99% of the DSM diagnoses are psychogenic and, by claiming that they are somatogenic (the “unknown etiology” trick), psychiatry has entered the field of fraudulent medicine. —Cesar Tort 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one is "blaming the body" - its the interaction of body with environment that is responsible. So you would argue that an individual who has been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition must have been abused at somepoint, even if they themselves, their family, and everyone involved in that person's life insist that their childhood was perfectly normal? Why should anyone take your word over theirs? Rockpocket 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, your scenario is invented. As I stated above, in my clinical experience all of the people with emotional or mental problems I have treated have been abused —without exception. I am not advancing imaginary scenarios: I am talking of what people have told me. —Cesar Tort 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your anecdotal experience is insufficient to draw such broad conclusions. There are many possible explanations for it. For example, you might be known for your views, so cases referred to you are of this nature. Neurodivergent 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To call “anecdotal experience” the case of a woman who comes here to talk about how she was sexually abused as a teenager is offensive; though I acknowledge I cannot extrapolate from that or similar cases to the 100% cases of mental disorders. My humble point is that she or I have the right to talk about our horrible, heart-breaking memories. —Cesar Tort 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do Cesar. But there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning based on personal experience.

Let me put it another way. Lets say every patient you have seen really has been abused. There may be as many people, or even a lot more, who have undergone the exact same kinds of abuse but that do not have emotional or mental 'problems' (and as such, you would never likely see them in a clinical setting as your cohort is by its very nature selective, and people often keep such information to themselves if they can). So, in your theory, what accounts for the difference between those that have manifest 'problems' and those that don't? I would argue your experience is perfectly compatible with a gene/environment interactive model - your patients are simply, in genetics terms, the thin end of the wedge. Rockpocket 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don’t understand why you talk about genetics —bio bio bio!— in a subject that belongs to the structure of the inner self; and how that self can be seriously injured by our most loved ones: our dearest dad and mom.

As to why people don’t seem to be traumatized, that’s only because there’s a lot of mad things that “normal” people do that are considered normal by society. In other words, disturbed people not only fall in the DSM psychiatric categories. War; abusing the next generation of children in boring schools; tolerating extreme levels of poverty and homelessness; destroying the environment and much, much more are not psychiatric conditions. However, from an humanitarian point of view they are as mad as psychiatrically-labeled people.

Thus, if many people that do not appear to be abnormal because of such societal norms and environmental matrix (like the Matrix movie), they are pretty disturbed from an emergent viewpoint of the human being, his mind and morals: what Lloyd deMause has called a superior psychoclass of people. —Cesar Tort 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But irrespective of what society calls normal,what is superior or inferior, what accounts for the differences in the manifest behaviour? Rockpocket 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What accounts is the Psychogenic mode. —Cesar Tort 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So the logical conclusion of that is you could take any two humans in the world and expose them to the exact same abusive environment and they would have the exact same pychiatric 'symptoms' ? Rockpocket 23:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, if I remember correctly I once called your attention to Orwell’s 1984. Have you read the novel? Soviet psychological tortures demonstrated just that. The human mind is not infinitely resilient. It has a breaking point, just as elastics have. Yes: anybody can be broken in the hands of an Orwellian O’Brien. Have you followed the white rabbit and found how deep the hole goes (especially the external link below the internal article of my previous posting)? —Cesar Tort 00:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't answer Rockpocket's question. Absent environmental influence, do you believe every human being would have the same personality, IQ and socio-lingustic skills? Neurodivergent 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I believed Rockpocket and I were talking about psychological torture and mental breakdown.

By the way, could you guys move the entire talk section above “Unproven biological etiology…” to an Archive 4 before continuing our discussion (you have more experience than me to do that)? —Cesar Tort 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to visit Wonderland, besides the Miller article you may want to take a look at the following reference I posted after a paragraph I wrote for the Psychiatry article. The MDs and psychiatrists of that article didn't remove it. It is much better written than the above-mentioned Wikipedia article titled Psychogenic mode and introduces the “psychoclass” subject that I mentioned to Rockpocket after his question “What accounts for the differences in the manifest behavior?”: [13]. —Cesar Tort 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Its an interesting theory, but i find your multiple avoidance of the direct question we've asked more telling. Neurodivergent's question above follows the logical conclusion of the argument that atypical mental states are caused by environmental abuse only. If there is no genetic/biological contribution to psychosis then the genetic diversity to humanity cannot be a factor in the variation of mental states. Thus given the absence of variable enviromental stimuli, we would all be exactly the same - clones, psychologically speaking.

This is in contrast to everything we know about genes and the environment interact (in every other field, even if not specifically psychiatric genetics) and also seems inconsistent with natural selection. Whenever a stable gene allele exists, it has a selective purpose (otherwise it wouldn't be stable), we also know some alleles co-segregate with syndromes that have a mental aspect, such as Fragile-X syndrome. Thus we know that genes can effect how our brains work. Since personality is a product of our brain function it follows that genes must be able to influence personality. If genes can influence personality then it must follow, according to Darwinian natural selection, that changes in genes can result in different effects on brains, which in turn can result in differences in personality. Rockpocket 06:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If I avoided Neurodivergent’s question it’s because I was trying first to prove to you that an 1984’s O’Brien could break anybody’s mind, even with the best of genes. Tortuous environmental influence apart, of course I don’t believe every human being would have the same clone personality, IQ, etc. We are pre-wired genetically for such traits (and of course the Fragile-X syndrome is related to mental retardation). This is hard science and real biology; not psychiatric pseudoscience.

But pathological mental states belong to another category altogether. I still cannot understand why you keep talking about genetics in this subject. If it were true it’s due to faulty genes, schizophrenia, bi-polar conditions, serious depression, etc would have been observed in wild animal life. But they haven’t. If psychopathology is genetic, it’s elemental that Darwinian natural selection wouldn’t have permitted in wild animals such a broad predisposition to DSM states as we observe in our species. And I find it inconceivable that a substantial population of Homo sapiens, and Homo sapiens alone, must have such faulty genes.

This speculation is likely wrong. Humans are different to animals in many important respects. For example, animals don't have language. So any speech disorders such as autism or reading disorders such as dyslexia cannot be observed in the wild. Same applies to 'hearing voices' and that kind of thing. Behavior considered 'weird' is in fact observed in nature. BTW, check out the Bowerbird description and compare to autism or OCD. Neanderthal had 10% bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens and may have been autistic-like. According to your definition above, giftedness, left-handedness and homosexuality are all pathological. As for depression, I'm sure animals do experience it to some extent, but again, human emotion is much more complex. Let's take hyperactivity as another example - are you kidding me? Neurodivergent 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My book contains three chapters on the DSM and you can see there I don’t like it at all! There may be some genuine disorders but it contains other normal behaviors such as homosexuality, ADHD, Oppositional Defiance “Disorder” and more behaviors that the shrinks consider pathological but that they are absolutely not. My 150,000-word book in Spanish was available in internet for year and a half. I retired it recently for copyright reasons. On the other hand, what you say about the Neanderthal is most interesting. I insist you and Rockpocket should visit Wonderland and see how grim the real world actually is. It’s not that I like to play Morpheus but the Neanderthal behavior you mention can be perfectly understood in the trauma model. For the last time I advise just follow the fucking rabbit: [14] —Cesar Tort 02:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So we have to look elsewhere. Do you remember Jacob Bronowski’s last TV program of the series The Ascent of Man? I am a fan of Bronowski. Man, and man only, has an extremely long childhood. We are born almost in fetal state because our brains are so huge that it takes many years to the infant human being to achieve maturity and independency. This means that our species is vulnerable to diverse injurious modes of childrearing, as psychohistorians have tried to show in the reference I posted above.

No: there is no genetic contribution for psychoses. Any child can become disturbed by current and past modes of childrearing. Society doesn’t want to see this because, as I stated elsewhere, they’re plugged in the Matrix. And they simply don’t want to become unplugged.

You said: “It is an interesting theory”. But have you really taken a serious look at it? I mean, though I am not a biologist by profession like you, at least I took a one-year biology course in the Open University in 1998-1999. Have you spent not a year, but a week of your life researching the trauma model of mental disorders? You may start by reading the chapter of that book that can be read online [15]. Welcomed to Wonderland! —Cesar Tort 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You make some very incorrect assumptions there, Cesar. Firstly - of course the correct psychological pressure could break anyone's mind, irrespective of the "best of genes". Just as enough physical pressure will break any human's arms, irrespective of the "best of genes" - however we know that there are genetic variation that predisposes to brittle bones, just as we know there are people with remarkably strong bones. Thus the fact that a strong environmental pressure can overcome any gene's protective effect does not rule out a genetic factor influencing such an effect in reality.

Secondly, you seem to insist that mental disease/variation is somehow different from any other human characteristic. Why should this biological output differ from any other? If it is because (as you seem to suggest) animals do not appear to suffer from mental disorder then i would ask you to read about the vomeronasal organ. Most animals have the ability to detect a type of molecule called pheromones that humans cannot. Your rationale would follow that, because humans do not sense pheromones, it cannot have a genetic basis. However, clearly it does (a colleague of mine actually found a key gene that regulates pheromone detection in mice, that is unsurprisingly, lacking in the human genome). Irrespective of the flaw in reasoning, there is actually a lot of evidence that social animals suffer from 'depression' when deprived of interaction.

Finally, there are two faults in your reasoning that selection would most likely not "permit" substantial DSM states in nature. Human society no longer selects under Darwinian rules (though, of course, genetic variation continue to be generated undeterred). Pretty much every human disease state resulting from "faulty genes" would not survive in "nature", but since we take care of our ill and disadvantaged (to some extent) we, not 'nature', permits their propogation. That is why neurodiversity is so variable in humans compared to other animals. However, even if we did select under Darwinian rules, your assumption that would not be permitted, depends on there being no upside to DSM states that may confer a selective advantage. I would argue that many of of most innovative thinkers in history most likely had atypical neuronal states. Its very likely true that there is a fine line between genius and madness, thus you call the genes "faulty" i call them "different" and, in some situations, selectively superior. Like ever other genetic change, the genotype has the potential to confer an advantage or disadvantage - depending on the environment it interacts in. Rockpocket 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So the reason i keep going back to genetics is because nothing that effects any living thing does so independent of genes. It is simply not possible, as (unless you subscribe to supernatural views) we must be the product of both our genes and our environment and everything about us is a result of their interaction. Everything. So there is little point in me learning more about any theory which, from its starting point, disputes that fact. As, quite frankly, the weight of all we know about biology is against it.

Of course, everyone else could be wrong and a minority of enlightened individuals could be right. But you appear to assume that it is our POV that is shackled by society and yours that is enlightened. Might it not, with respect, be apparent to the detatched observer that your own traumatic experiences make your opinions less likely to be impartial than those with only an academic interest? Afterall, if i had been abused as a child, i would much prefer to believe that the resultant effect on me was due only to the abusers. No-one likes to hear that an inherent genetic factor stacked the deck against them from the start when the blame can be apportioned to someone much more deserving of it. That is human nature. Rockpocket 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

“Your rationale would follow that, because humans do not sense pheromones, it cannot have a genetic basis”. I am still astonished how you confuse science (pheromones —chemistry) with mental disorders (psychological trauma —humanities). Which is the real flaw in all of the reasoning?

Yes: animals in the wild suffer depression. But the most serious psychoses I was talking about are human since only humans are abused for prolonged time.

Your statement that genial deeds are genetic can only demonstrate that you are not very much familiar with the humanities; biography in particular. One of the things I liked of Bronowski is that he, as Renaissance men, was dexterous in science and the humanities. Though he was a mathematician and a physicist professor, he edited books of poetry.

“…Everything. So there is little point in me learning more about any theory which, from its starting point, disputes that fact”. As far as I know, no psychohistorian or trauma model expert disputes genetics. Colin Ross for example, today’s foremost non bio-psychiatrist, talks a lot of genetics (but that doesn’t mean he buys pseudo bio-psych claims).

You wrote “academic interest…impartial…” That’s why I talked about phrenology and Lysenkoism last month. They were once mainstream academic bio thinking in some countries, just as biopsych in America today. And no: I don’t believe my bad teenage experiences made me less fair-minded than academics.

Finally, I find insulting what you say at the end: because I never had any DSM disorder. To blame my genes for my broken heart when my father hit me is the most outrageous insult I can ever imagine. In our society any talk about biological “divergence” is the first step to involuntarily assault a healthy brain of a sane person, just as happened with political dissidents. In the 1930s’ totalitarian states and in today’s “therapeutics states” (cf. Szasz) any discourse about psychological trauma or unwanted behavior as “biological” or “genetic” without lab proof is the discourse of intolerance.

Frankly, I don’t think this discussion is becoming rational or fair. Perhaps it’s better to suspend it. —Cesar Tort 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading back my last comment i agree it is unfair and unwarranted. Written after a sentense referring to you specifically, it implies you also have/had a DSM disorder which, which, of course, you have never mentioned. I apologise for that inference, however please believe it wasn't intentional to suggest that. Notice that i didn't actually refer to you specifically in the following section - it was more a wider point on why individuals (irrespective of who they are) who do have a DSM disorder would welcome your theory of the cause of their disorder. I am sorry again, though, for bringing up your personal situation. I guess i'm just not used to discussing such matters outside the detached environment of a research laboratory, and debating with one who has personal motivation always makes me extra doubtful of objectivity.

You are correct when you say we should suspend this discussion though, as Wikipedia is not the place for it. I will just finish of by saying that i think we are both debating different points. You are keen to separate the study of biology from humanities/sociology. Of course there is a lot to be learned from such studies outwith the context of biological function. However, i am not an expert in those subjects and i don't really have the background knowledge to comment on their validity. There may be very good evidence for or against a trauma model, i really don't know, but my limited experience tells me abuse seems to be a prime, though not exclusive, environmental trigger for mental disorder.

What does interest me, however, is the genetic component of any biological output. Simple outputs like blood pressure or respiration are relatively easy to study, more complex outputs including personality, language, psyche etc are more interesting. Here is the angle that i am coming from when i talk of a genetic basis for disorders of these outputs: I'm not suggesting genes cause DSM disorders in the direct sense of the word, such as you have gene X and you will be bipolar. I'm am stating the basic fact that if any environment influence interacts with any part (or output) of a living being (like trauma effecting a personality) then there must be potential for genetic influence on that resulting effect (however minor or indirect). This is a fundamental tenent of genetic variation (without it evolution could not occur). You say "As far as I know, no psychohistorian or trauma model expert disputes genetics" so therefore, i presume, they (and you) accept this. If you accept this then we are singing from the same sheet, as that is the only point i wish to make. If you disagree with that, then you are disputing the very basis of genetics. Rockpocket 06:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, and independently of the previous misunderstanding, if genetics is your area of expertise you might find interesting in the future to take a look at Jay Joseph’s work on genetics and psychiatry [16]. —Cesar Tort 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt to do just that. Rockpocket 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)