FSTDT Forums
Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: TheReasonator on January 05, 2013, 11:02:59 pm
-
Typically studies will suggest that something according to evidence looks say X% genetics Y% environment, sometimes even Z% prenatal non-genetic causes.
But you rarely ever see a theory being proposed that says something along the lines of a gene working totally different in different environments, even though it's very reasonable if you think about it. In fact if something is said to be "natural" people assume there can be no environmental influence and vice versa.
What if there's a gene that leads to a strong interest in philosophical introspection and the person grows up in an environment where everything they learn tends towards more and more depressing philosophical positions. Then if they examined that gene and looked at depression they would say the gene lead to depression.
What if in a completely different era or in conjunction with very rare cultural influences in this day and age the environmental influences tend towards uplifting philosophical positions? Then the gene would work differently. But since there are factors that, especially in this day and age of globalization are relatively widespread throughout the world and since some scientific studies won't bother to check every culture to see if a gene has the same effects scientists would most likely just think the gene causes depression, rather than concluding that the gene causes a more philosophical personality which given certain common social conditions leads to depression.
You always hear of nurture and nature mentioned as discrete separate factors and rarely ever hear any research about how they may modify each other's effects.
Also, when differences in neurochemistry are observed to correlate with certain symptoms it's assumed the chemical itself directly causes it rather than through an indirect route i.e. what if serotonin for example filters out introspection, which then typically leads people in Western society to feel less depressed whereas in say a far away monastery of some religion or another the same neurochemistry would cause one to feel strong feelings of well-being?
These are just hypothetical examples. I'm illustrating how especially in psychiatry and neurology from what I've looked at anyways it seems like there's an awful lot of jumping to conclusions about things. Rather than considering every possible explanation and then moving on to devise experiments to eliminate or confirm various explanations one favorite explanation is chosen and assumed true. There's a history here. A Neurasthenia diagnosis, for example typically reflected a real problem, however the explanations they had for it at the time were flat out wrong and it wasn't even a single condition.
With 250 million billion neurons in the brain and over 100 different neurotransmitters and yet they only talk about a couple of them, and with psychiatric medication often showing paradoxical side effects it seems like the way the media talks about "mental illness" and "chemical imbalance" and the way psychiatrists will diagnosis and dispense medication with just a questionnaire rather than taking more time to get to know and understand their patient's mind suggests that psychiatry is overconfident and isn't considering that the science is still very young and in all likellihood while some things will turn out to be right there will be plenty of things people look back on in 100 years and be able to point out as errors.
The use of short simple questionnaires suggests an inappropriate "one size fits all" approach that is unlikely to work given the sheer complexity of the brain. One person's "depression" is not necessarily the same "Depression" as another person. In some cases drugs may not even be the answer. In spite of the fact that there are studies that show that thinking itself alters brain chemistry, as does laughter, meditation, and talk therapy people assume that since "chemistry" is involved therefore we must use "chemicals" i.e. "drugs", neglecting the obvious fact that any sensory stimulation that interacts with the information in the brain will cause chemical effects and that we have been effectively doing this to fix emotional problems throughout our history. One would think that it would be best to use tried-and-true methods of chemical control first and then resort to newer, less tested methods only when those aren't working.
No generation gets everything right, yet it seems every generation and ours is no exception assumes that it is the exception, that we've finally got it. It would be a nice change to see if people started acknowledging the effects of "chronological bias" and exercising some humility in what we think we know.
-
Oh boy, here we go...
You always hear of nurture and nature mentioned as discrete separate factors and rarely ever hear any research about how they may modify each other's effects.
Bullshit. Only when you talk to a fundie. The "Nature v. Nurture" debate ended ages ago. All legitimate Psychologists and Neuropsychologists will tell you what you just said, that it's an interplay between the two and rarely (if ever) just one factor. This is the whole basis of the simplified diathesis-stress model and the term "biopsychosocial factors."
The use of short simple questionnaires suggests an inappropriate "one size fits all" approach that is unlikely to work given the sheer complexity of the brain. One person's "depression" is not necessarily the same "Depression" as another person.
Sounds like you've been reading some very poor sampling surveys. Or you're looking at Fundie websites too much - surveys that lack validity and reliability are something that psychologists strive to limit. Obviously no survey is going to ever be one size fits all and that's why you don't stop with one survey. No psychologist, anywhere, is just going to say "oh take this survey...ah, you scored x out of y, you have depression." They'll say "you have symptoms of depression but we're gonna run some more tests" and parse it down. Psychological interviews are also quite helpful, it's never, ever, just one test and done. Inventories don't work like that.
In some cases drugs may not even be the answer.
Which is why drugs aren't always prescribed... you've really been seeing some bad therapists if you gotta say that. Anxiety disorders for example, suffer heavily from the use of drugs - talk therapy really shines there. Whereas in depression, some cases get better just by talking, others require a mixture of drugs and talk. More serious disorders however, medication is still the first line of defense (offense?)
the way psychiatrists will diagnosis and dispense medication with just a questionnaire rather than taking more time to get to know and understand their patient's mind
No, just no. Stop. Right there. Citation needed. It's true that some ambulance chasing psychiatrists will push pills unethically, but rarely do they ever fail to get to know their patients. You've been drinking the right-wing bullshit diahrrea again.
No generation gets everything right
Nobody's saying we're entirely right, just that, in general, we're taking the next step towards the limit of "rightness." Even if we're never entirely right, each generation adds to the knowledge pool. This is how ALL sciences work and why they're revised. the fact that we do this is the issue fundies have with all of science. Of course knowing your past posts, I'm pretty sure you understand this perfectly.
But you rarely ever see a theory being proposed that says something along the lines of a gene working totally different in different environments
It's called Gene-Environment Interaction and YES you do. It's a fundamental of Abnormal Psychology at the lowest level. It's very well researched and thoroughly validated, especially in cases like Schizophrenia. Look at some of the twin studies. I'm seriously baffled here, this is basic Abnormal stuff, the kind of stuff they tell you in the introductory chapter of the textbook. Lecture 1. Never mind when you get to professional practice.
What if there's a gene that leads to a strong interest in philosophical introspection
They already thought of stuff like that with Williams Syndrome kids who were missing 19 genes instead of 20 - thought they could "zero in" on what 1 gene does. Problem is, 1 gene doesn't just do 1 thing. It does many things. Likewise, something isn't caused by just one gene - there's not a gay gene, or a depression gene, or a Williams gene. There's a series of genes whose culminative effect is the disorder. This is true even with the mutation that causes Downs - it's been narrowed down to one chromosome but at the genetic level there's likely multiple gene interactions resulting in that mutation.
awful lot of jumping to conclusions about things
No, sorry, there isn't.
-----
Conclusion: You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. At all. Everything you said can be debunked if you took just an Abnormal Psychology course for one single quarter. It's utter right-wing Fundie-level drivel. I can't be more tactful than that, I apologize.
Source: Me, and 5.5 years of Psychology textbooks and training.
-
But you rarely ever see a theory being proposed that says something along the lines of a gene working totally different in different environments, even though it's very reasonable if you think about it.
All I'll say is "read Steven Pinker".
Genes working differently in different environments is a known fact the same as any other known fact in science. I'm not sure who you've been reading/listening too but sounds like they're rather behind the times. By a few decades.
-
Well scientists may know it's a complex interaction but the oversimplified way things are expressed in the media leaves most people in ignorance.
When I said our generation doesn't have everything right I wasn't talking about the brightest or even the credentialed I was talking about everyday talk. There are people who think "why bother talking to a counselor, depression is chemical" because they are uneducated and think that "chemical"=can only use drugs.
And I've been to a psychiatrist who didn't really get to know me and actually just did questionnaires.
And I consider myself fairly left-wing thank you.
-
Ah but you see, you're backtracking now. You spent most of the post talking about how "most of what you've seen Psychologists do" - that's not the layman's opinion you're attacking, that's the professional's. Yes, the media tends to oversimplify things - that's not the fault of the scientist, that's the fault of the media.
And I've been to a psychiatrist who didn't really get to know me and actually just did questionnaires.
Then s/he was unethical as hell and should have been written up. But not all of us are like that.
In regards to the general population, we're in agreement - most people are uneducated fucks. And I say that without a hint of irony, just getting a high school degree puts you above a shockingly high number of people in the US. Then subsequently higher for each AA/S, BA/S Ph.D, MD, Psy.D Etc level you reach. Such is the state of our country thanks to backwards ass handling of our educational system. A depressingly large number of people just don't know what they're talking about.
-
Fundie drivel can be left wing. Anti-vaxxers and raw foodies tend to be fundie level but more left wing in general.
That said, a lot of what you said is either old, out dated, or not true. I've been to a psycharist who took the time to get to know me for teh depression. I hit enough checks to try medicines, but she knew it was far from a sure bet I'd get the right one with the first try. I tried a lot of drugs, and none of them quite worked. Either they made me feel more motivated without any real mood improvements, so I just turned into a rage fest, or just helped me sleep better. Still, helping me sleep better really started to help me improve so it was fine. Getting the drug out to try the many different types is kind of a big deal.
-
Very true - I was attacking more of the right-wing idiot mentality with regards to psychotherapy rather than specifically calling out Anti-vaxxers who...honestly really need to be slapped with reckless endangerment charges. I guess I've never really considered them left-wingers in that sense, since it seems to get so tied together with the "OMGAWD GAIZ THEY PUTS THE FLUROIDE ON ITS DRINKIN' WATER DEH GUBMINT MIND CONTROL" bullshit and that seems to be more typical of fundamentalist right-wingers and the association's stuck.
-
Very true - I was attacking more of the right-wing idiot mentality with regards to psychotherapy rather than specifically calling out Anti-vaxxers who...honestly really need to be slapped with reckless endangerment charges. I guess I've never really considered them left-wingers in that sense, since it seems to get so tied together with the "OMGAWD GAIZ THEY PUTS THE FLUROIDE ON ITS DRINKIN' WATER DEH GUBMINT MIND CONTROL" bullshit and that seems to be more typical of fundamentalist right-wingers and the association's stuck.
The thing about vaccines is that since there are risks associated with any vaccination (though perhaps not the ones they claim), it can at a certain point be rational to choose not to be vaccinated--namely, the point at which the risk from the shot outweighs the risk of infection thanks to herd immunity.
-
Very true - I was attacking more of the right-wing idiot mentality with regards to psychotherapy rather than specifically calling out Anti-vaxxers who...honestly really need to be slapped with reckless endangerment charges. I guess I've never really considered them left-wingers in that sense, since it seems to get so tied together with the "OMGAWD GAIZ THEY PUTS THE FLUROIDE ON ITS DRINKIN' WATER DEH GUBMINT MIND CONTROL" bullshit and that seems to be more typical of fundamentalist right-wingers and the association's stuck.
The thing about vaccines is that since there are risks associated with any vaccination (though perhaps not the ones they claim), it can at a certain point be rational to choose not to be vaccinated--namely, the point at which the risk from the shot outweighs the risk of infection thanks to herd immunity.
Except doing so will eventually undermine herd immunity.
-
The only time the risks truly outweigh the loss of herd immunity is if someone has a valid medical reason not to receive a vaccine, such as a child with a compromised immune system. And that's a decision that should be made by a doctor.
-
The only time the risks truly outweigh the loss of herd immunity is if someone has a valid medical reason not to receive a vaccine, such as a child with a compromised immune system. And that's a decision that should be made by a doctor.
That's not quite the point I was making.
There is a point, dependent on the level of vaccination of the entire population, at which, because my risk of infection has been lowered by people no longer being infectious thanks to vaccination, I put myself at greater risk by getting the vaccine (because all vaccines can have complications) than I do by not getting it (because there are so few people who could infect me). At this point the rational decision is not to get vaccinated.
-
No, that's not the rational view. It's the sociopathic view. These are often confused, I'll admit. You're basically getting into the prisoner's dilemma. Yes, if everyone else does what they're supposed to, and you don't, you're okay. You come out slightly ahead, since you don't have the risks of the disease or the vaccine. However, this falls apart as soon as you allow other people the ability to make the same choice. If a substantial number of people also decide to forgo the vaccine, you all lose. And since by refusing the vaccine you're encouraging others to do the same, you're ultimately making your risk of disease worse.
This is why I don't believe vaccines should be voluntary. If there's no valid medical reason to refuse one, you should be required to get one. It's a matter of public safety.
-
No, that's not the rational view. It's the sociopathic view. These are often confused, I'll admit. You're basically getting into the prisoner's dilemma. Yes, if everyone else does what they're supposed to, and you don't, you're okay. You come out slightly ahead, since you don't have the risks of the disease or the vaccine. However, this falls apart as soon as you allow other people the ability to make the same choice. If a substantial number of people also decide to forgo the vaccine, you all lose. And since by refusing the vaccine you're encouraging others to do the same, you're ultimately making your risk of disease worse.
This is why I don't believe vaccines should be voluntary. If there's no valid medical reason to refuse one, you should be required to get one. It's a matter of public safety.
The rational decision, in a game-theoretic sense, is defined as the decision to make to maximise your payoff--in this case, what provides you with the least risk. If the number of people vaccinated is below the threshold, the rational decision is to get vaccinated. If it's above, the rational decision is to not get vaccinated.
If sufficiently many other people follow your "lead" and don't get vaccinated, then the rational decision is to get vaccinated. However, by the time the rational decision is to not get vaccinated, there are enough people vaccinated that there are not enough people to follow your "lead".
(Note here that "people" refers to the population that can transmit the pathogen. If it can be transmitted from, say, animals, the rational decision is always going to be to get vaccinated.)
-
No, that's not the rational view. It's the sociopathic view. These are often confused, I'll admit. You're basically getting into the prisoner's dilemma. Yes, if everyone else does what they're supposed to, and you don't, you're okay. You come out slightly ahead, since you don't have the risks of the disease or the vaccine. However, this falls apart as soon as you allow other people the ability to make the same choice. If a substantial number of people also decide to forgo the vaccine, you all lose. And since by refusing the vaccine you're encouraging others to do the same, you're ultimately making your risk of disease worse.
This is why I don't believe vaccines should be voluntary. If there's no valid medical reason to refuse one, you should be required to get one. It's a matter of public safety.
I agree that morally people should get their children vaccinated.
However, I don't trust the government to make this decision. Not that I think they would intentionally cause harm, but that people are fallible, people make mistakes and that includes scientists, politicians, and regulators. Let's say that there is a case where a vaccine comes about and it turns out to cause some terrible horrible defect or disease. Then the government would've been complicit in making people get it. I know there's a lot of fake scares about such things and that's irresponsible, but the potential for something to really go wrong exists no matter how low of a chance there is. In such a case we shouldn't penalize people who notice this problem and decide not to vaccinate their kids. Since we can't quite pass a law mandating vaccines except when there is a harmful defect in the product that the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry and scientific consensus failed to pick up on (since by definition the government wouldn't be noticing this exceptional scenario) I think it's better to allow choice.
Especially because of the potential for a "crying wolf" effect from all the fake vaccine scares. A real problem may come around and even people whose job it is to make sure its safe may miss something because of a bias towards thinking any "fear" about vaccines will turn out to be a red herring. Even the experts are only human and reaction formation is a natural aspect of human psychology. I know I would be less likely to notice if there was significant evidence that a vaccine might be dangerous, since I would be more predisposed to doubt any information referring to that. So I tell people to get their kids vaccinated, but I don't believe that I or anyone is unbiased enough to justify granting them the authority to make everyone get vaccinated.
For certain jobs they should be required, such as anyone working in a hospital. At least then if you did really know about a real problem and refused the vaccine for that reason the worst is you lose your job.
-
My view of vaccination: Anyone who spends extended time around other human beings should be required to be vaccinated, barring legitimate medical concerns.
Since basically every job on the planet requires this, as does attending school, it basically boils down to "every member of society should be vaccinated, barring legitimate medical concerns".
The recent resurgence of diseases once entirely under control show that "choice" in this matter is too dangerous to those who don't have a choice--those resistant to the vaccine, or who were unable to get one due to medical concerns. As far as vaccinations go, herd immunity is too important for the public good to leave people a choice in the matter.
-
My view of vaccination: Anyone who spends extended time around other human beings should be required to be vaccinated, barring legitimate medical concerns.
Since basically every job on the planet requires this, as does attending school, it basically boils down to "every member of society should be vaccinated, barring legitimate medical concerns".
So could someone choose to opt out by becoming a hermit? If someone buys a piece of land somewhere remote, grows all their own food, and either makes their own electricity or goes without it should they have to be vaccinated?
The recent resurgence of diseases once entirely under control show that "choice" in this matter is too dangerous to those who don't have a choice--those resistant to the vaccine, or who were unable to get one due to medical concerns. As far as vaccinations go, herd immunity is too important for the public good to leave people a choice in the matter.
So you consider the risk of faulty vaccines to be acceptable?
Do we want the government to be complicit in getting people to put things into their bodies that are toxic? I'm not saying that most vaccines are toxic. Most turn out to be perfectly safe. But is there anything to completely rule out the chance of something toxic in a vaccine getting passed science's radar? Once there is I'll support mandatory vaccinations.
-
Nothing can ever be "completely ruled out". For instance, there are cases where a person wearing a seat-belt gets in a crash and dies, where without the seat-belt, they very likely could have survived. These things happen. Wearing seat-belts is still mandatory, because the benefits far, far out-weigh any risks.
Besides, you have to look at the kind of people who voluntarily refuse vaccinations: They aren't doing it because a specific vaccination may be unsafe. They refuse all vaccinations, because they're evil tools of government control. So, let's say some vaccination gets through testing with some massive flaw that poisons everyone who takes it. Do we really want to be left with a world that ONLY contains the lunatics who refuse vaccinations?
-
Nothing can ever be "completely ruled out". For instance, there are cases where a person wearing a seat-belt gets in a crash and dies, where without the seat-belt, they very likely could have survived. These things happen. Wearing seat-belts is still mandatory, because the benefits far, far out-weigh any risks.
Besides, you have to look at the kind of people who voluntarily refuse vaccinations: They aren't doing it because a specific vaccination may be unsafe. They refuse all vaccinations, because they're evil tools of government control. So, let's say some vaccination gets through testing with some massive flaw that poisons everyone who takes it. Do we really want to be left with a world that ONLY contains the lunatics who refuse vaccinations?
To your last question, that's not going to happen.
As to the people who voluntarily refuse vaccinations you characterize them as "they", attributing to them a uniform character. Yes, most of them are like that. Just like most people charged with rape are rapist scumbag. We don't use that as an argument to just skip the trial and go to sentencing, because there are rare exceptions and those people have rights too. The potential for the government forcing people who are just rationally responding to some information they realize but is evading the mainstream at the time to get vaccinated and then hurt themselves is there. Even if there are no such vaccines like this now(though if there were how would we know?) there may be in the future, it's not impossible, not even close to impossible. It is probable, since people make mistakes that at some point, maybe even centuries from now or sooner there will likely be such a vaccine.
However, maybe we could tax people who refuse vaccination or refuse vaccination of their children. This way there is a consequence, but the consequence isn't so bad that if you legitimately realize there is a problem with the vaccine that you would go get it anyways and while time can not be returned money can if the government realizes it made a mistake. Those people who are just conspiracy theorists know it on some level and it will be tempting to keep the money rather than protect their pride and hubris. Those who legitimately realize something is wrong will just pay the tax as most people will choose life and health over money.
Or we could give out tax credits to people who have vaccines. Or both tax credits and tax increases as a sort of carrot-and-stick mechanism.