Tuesday, July 2, 2013
on gun control
[I] That's true, it's never just a single factor: the shooter game addiction combined with easy availability of guns makes a deadly combination for susceptible people.
For most people, probably not a problem. But if you know someone with even slight emotional or mental issues who's into first-person shooters, and then buys a real gun... let it be a red flag. [/I]
Yes, there are multiple factors. And chances are small any given gun owner will kill someone else, even if there are many risk factors. However the stakes are high.
And sometimes individuals with few red flags idiotically kill: extraordinarily high availability and distribution of weapons in US, makes a near statistical certainty that they will be misused to a much greater extent than in countries where their supply is limited and strictly controlled.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Actually, I do think there are clear evidence for the biological basis of mental illnesses. Mental illnesses run in families, and some people have genetic predispositions towards them. Many details of mental illnesses remain unknown, and social environment does play a role, but it's not causal in nature. For example it's well known that people are born with a set level of happiness, which social environment cannot permanently AND drastically affect (although it may affect it temporarily and/or incrementally)
At the core of the debate here are different philosophical beliefs about human nature. Those who deny the biological basis of mental illnesses must belief in the humans as a blank slate. A belief incongruent with all the modern genetic research, and what we all know now about the human nature.
At the core of the debate here are different philosophical beliefs about human nature. Those who deny the biological basis of mental illnesses must belief in the humans as a blank slate. A belief incongruent with all the modern genetic research, and what we all know now about the human nature.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Re: Paradise Now (2005)
Yeah, it's seems that Middle-East culture of honor and a bellicose religion like Islam is a deadly combination.
It's like the Bedouin saying: ""I against my brother [i.e. the particular strain of Sunni or Shiah) , my brothers and I against my cousins (Sunni or Shiah) , then my cousins and I against strangers (i.e. Jews)"
In this mindset, there would be always someone to fight even if the entire world was a caliphate, since there would be always someone with a slightly different interpretations of the Islam than your. And depending on who holds reigns of power, "heretics" will be discriminated, ostracized, prosecuted, jailed and even killed. The way Saddam Hussein treated Shiah and Bashar al-Assad treats Sunni.
It's like the Bedouin saying: ""I against my brother [i.e. the particular strain of Sunni or Shiah) , my brothers and I against my cousins (Sunni or Shiah) , then my cousins and I against strangers (i.e. Jews)"
In this mindset, there would be always someone to fight even if the entire world was a caliphate, since there would be always someone with a slightly different interpretations of the Islam than your. And depending on who holds reigns of power, "heretics" will be discriminated, ostracized, prosecuted, jailed and even killed. The way Saddam Hussein treated Shiah and Bashar al-Assad treats Sunni.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Comments for Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
Unfortunately the field of Psychiatry is still in the dark ages in comparison with the rest of the medicine. And like a somatic patient 200 years ago may have fared better untreated than treated with blood letting and leaches. So are the mentally ill patients today may be better not taking crude psychiatric medicine.
Yet denying that the brain dysfunction is the basis of all mental illnesses strikes as anti-intellectual.
*****
First of all the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The function of brain and how it relates to mental illnesses is still a black box for us. However there is an effort to trivialize mental illnesses to a cultural phenomenon and that strikes as intellectually dishonest as defending status quo.
*****
Actually "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" was also said by Carl Sagan, my favorite scientist and an atheist. Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
And by status quo I mean using INEFFECTUAL methods to treat mental illnesses like depression. And unfortunately there is enough evidence to strike down just about all the tools in the mental health arsenal as statistically ineffectual compared to the placebo. These includes: drugs like SSRI; even the most esteemed forms of "talk therapy" like CBT & alternative medicine remedies like St John Wort. The only reason talk therapy & St John Wort is promoted is due to fewer side effects, not proven effectiveness, as the author Irving Kirsch of the "Emperor's New Drugs" wrote.
At the same time should we just deny the existence of mental illness as the biological anomaly, just because we can't effectively treat it? And that's what I mean by turning it into a cultural phenomena. Yes: the stresses of modern culture do acerbate the manifestations of the mentally illnesses. But just like let's say with stomach ulcers: it's wasn't the type "A" personality or the stress of the daily existence at the root of their formation, but bacterial infection like H Pylori. So it could be the "Toxoplasma gondii" and/or a combination of genetic and environmental factors at the root of Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
Just because we don't know the origin and effectual treatment of mental illnesses doesn't mean we should either apply ineffectual treatments towards it, or deny it's biological basis. We should invest massively and effectually to unlock the mysteries of mental illnesses, like we did in uncovering the causes and treatments for AIDS. Throwing our hands in defeat and solely blaming the modern culture for the cause of mental illnesses, is akin of South African beliefs of AIDS being caused by spirits and supernatural forces.
****
Well I always read (or rather listen as audio) books I review, including this one. And while it's true he did not state point blank that mental illnesses are not biological in nature, he did review very sympathetically "The Myth of Mental Illnesses" and it's author Thomas Szasz. I haven't read any of the Dr Szasz books but he did said that: "mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses". There are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental disease"
And these kind of arguments from ignorance are what frustrate me, someone who suffers from mental illnesses (severe depression) from very young age, and know that mental illnesses must be grounded in biology and genetics as my family history of mentally illnesses clearly indicates.
I agree that many mental illness may go into remission and seemingly fully disappear for a period of time. And probably treating depression with SSRI, it's like treating common cold with antibiotics: not only useless but potentially harmful. But as with common cold, just because we recover from illnesses such as depression, doesn't mean it's not grounded in biology.
Perhaps, even better (although far from perfect) analogy is that with the oral herpes: like depression it's chronic and incurable, most remedies are useless and it goes into dormancy by itself without any treatment. Environmental factors like stress and lack of sleep may trigger the formation of cold sores, but they don't by themselves cause oral herpes.
A possible genetic links is described in Peter's Kramer's "Against Depression. And while I am skeptical now about the authors enthusiastic embrace of antidepressants. I still find very convincing his explanation of the possible genetic link to one's response to stress and depression. For example those with two long forms of a gene are very resilient in the face of stressful environment: such people will get through Holocaust and lose everything and survive without a debilitating psychological scar. On the other hand those with two short forms of a gene interpret relatively minor setbacks very painfully, for them a failed job interview or a romantic relationship may merit contemplation and even execution of suicide. People with one long and one short version of the gene fall somewhere in between.
So while the author of this books and that of the "Manufacturing Depression" and others, may blame current social and economic pressures, alienation and discontent as the causes of the depression epidemic. However, the reason a segment of the people succumb to this, and others don't, is due to their genetic makeup leading them to be less resilient in the face of persistent stress, which in turn triggers in vulnerable individuals depression and other mental illnesses.
So yes, I am all for increasing social net, closer community bonds and more "hugs". But I am also for better genetic screening to reduce births of individuals predisposed to pernicious mental illnesses. And that's were I agree with Peter Kramer: we shouldn't neither glorify nor demonize mentally ill people. Rather we should treat them with care and respect, yet recognize that their suffering is real and their illness is real. And being mentally ill in the modern time, is much more debilitating & maladaptive than during our ancestral past when we lived in close-knit communities. And considering all that we should take a firm stand against depression, like we are firmly against cancer and other somatic illnesses.
Yet denying that the brain dysfunction is the basis of all mental illnesses strikes as anti-intellectual.
*****
First of all the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The function of brain and how it relates to mental illnesses is still a black box for us. However there is an effort to trivialize mental illnesses to a cultural phenomenon and that strikes as intellectually dishonest as defending status quo.
*****
Actually "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" was also said by Carl Sagan, my favorite scientist and an atheist. Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
And by status quo I mean using INEFFECTUAL methods to treat mental illnesses like depression. And unfortunately there is enough evidence to strike down just about all the tools in the mental health arsenal as statistically ineffectual compared to the placebo. These includes: drugs like SSRI; even the most esteemed forms of "talk therapy" like CBT & alternative medicine remedies like St John Wort. The only reason talk therapy & St John Wort is promoted is due to fewer side effects, not proven effectiveness, as the author Irving Kirsch of the "Emperor's New Drugs" wrote.
At the same time should we just deny the existence of mental illness as the biological anomaly, just because we can't effectively treat it? And that's what I mean by turning it into a cultural phenomena. Yes: the stresses of modern culture do acerbate the manifestations of the mentally illnesses. But just like let's say with stomach ulcers: it's wasn't the type "A" personality or the stress of the daily existence at the root of their formation, but bacterial infection like H Pylori. So it could be the "Toxoplasma gondii" and/or a combination of genetic and environmental factors at the root of Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
Just because we don't know the origin and effectual treatment of mental illnesses doesn't mean we should either apply ineffectual treatments towards it, or deny it's biological basis. We should invest massively and effectually to unlock the mysteries of mental illnesses, like we did in uncovering the causes and treatments for AIDS. Throwing our hands in defeat and solely blaming the modern culture for the cause of mental illnesses, is akin of South African beliefs of AIDS being caused by spirits and supernatural forces.
****
Well I always read (or rather listen as audio) books I review, including this one. And while it's true he did not state point blank that mental illnesses are not biological in nature, he did review very sympathetically "The Myth of Mental Illnesses" and it's author Thomas Szasz. I haven't read any of the Dr Szasz books but he did said that: "mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses". There are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental disease"
And these kind of arguments from ignorance are what frustrate me, someone who suffers from mental illnesses (severe depression) from very young age, and know that mental illnesses must be grounded in biology and genetics as my family history of mentally illnesses clearly indicates.
I agree that many mental illness may go into remission and seemingly fully disappear for a period of time. And probably treating depression with SSRI, it's like treating common cold with antibiotics: not only useless but potentially harmful. But as with common cold, just because we recover from illnesses such as depression, doesn't mean it's not grounded in biology.
Perhaps, even better (although far from perfect) analogy is that with the oral herpes: like depression it's chronic and incurable, most remedies are useless and it goes into dormancy by itself without any treatment. Environmental factors like stress and lack of sleep may trigger the formation of cold sores, but they don't by themselves cause oral herpes.
A possible genetic links is described in Peter's Kramer's "Against Depression. And while I am skeptical now about the authors enthusiastic embrace of antidepressants. I still find very convincing his explanation of the possible genetic link to one's response to stress and depression. For example those with two long forms of a gene are very resilient in the face of stressful environment: such people will get through Holocaust and lose everything and survive without a debilitating psychological scar. On the other hand those with two short forms of a gene interpret relatively minor setbacks very painfully, for them a failed job interview or a romantic relationship may merit contemplation and even execution of suicide. People with one long and one short version of the gene fall somewhere in between.
So while the author of this books and that of the "Manufacturing Depression" and others, may blame current social and economic pressures, alienation and discontent as the causes of the depression epidemic. However, the reason a segment of the people succumb to this, and others don't, is due to their genetic makeup leading them to be less resilient in the face of persistent stress, which in turn triggers in vulnerable individuals depression and other mental illnesses.
So yes, I am all for increasing social net, closer community bonds and more "hugs". But I am also for better genetic screening to reduce births of individuals predisposed to pernicious mental illnesses. And that's were I agree with Peter Kramer: we shouldn't neither glorify nor demonize mentally ill people. Rather we should treat them with care and respect, yet recognize that their suffering is real and their illness is real. And being mentally ill in the modern time, is much more debilitating & maladaptive than during our ancestral past when we lived in close-knit communities. And considering all that we should take a firm stand against depression, like we are firmly against cancer and other somatic illnesses.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I tend to get into a new relationship like 2 weeks after a breakup, and I do not feel guilty. That may be one of my flaws
See, by classifying your inability to feel guilty as a "flaw", you may betray a subconscious guilt about it.
Yet women get really horny during certain times while they are pregnant
Well it makes a lot of evolutionary sense to be horny while pregnant. Basically, if you're pregnant you can have sex without consequences of having a baby while perhaps scoring some extra resources from men you have sex with.
Most women do not have two babies a year. I think the dynamics are equal between men and women when women are not producing yet
It's about the potential. Had we not have modern birth controls and access to abortion, most women may have had a baby every year or two.
Men's desire to have sex is not diminished by the knowledge it won't result into babies, as his desire for fat & sweet food is not diminished by knowing he won't have to face hunger.
Well I was stating in statistical terms. Most men may not want to have intercourse if proposed by an old, obese woman with poor hygiene. However most (if not virtually all) women may not agree on the spot to have intercourse even if proposed by a male supermodel.
In fact they had a study when a cute girl on campus offered guys to have intercourse, and the vast majority agreed. Whereas when a cute guy asked to have sex to girls on campus, not a single one took up on his offer. And I doubt that after the sexual liberation, women refused (at least primarily) because of some social standards, rather than their own, ingrained standards.
I do agree that religion may influence a lot of our mores, but as they saying goes: "man created god in his image", that is the vengeful, sexist, homophobic and characterize by all the other attribute of the typical ancient patriarch.
Regarding animals they may deploy different strategies, for example females cats allow to be screwed by a bunch of toms, and then they release their eggs, so the fittest sperm gets the prize.
Bonobos stereotypically make make much more love than war and chimps vice versa. Humans are equally related to both chimps and bonobos. So they can be a mixed bag. Still it's hard to deny the typical emotions humans experience in the interactions with the opposed sex. Free-love communes have been tried and failed. And situations when one husband has multiple wives are much more common then vice verse. So, while random stuff does happen, the evolutionary logic remains strong & sound amidst all the noise.
In fact they had a study when a cute girl on campus offered guys to have intercourse, and the vast majority agreed. Whereas when a cute guy asked to have sex to girls on campus, not a single one took up on his offer. And I doubt that after the sexual liberation, women refused (at least primarily) because of some social standards, rather than their own, ingrained standards.
I do agree that religion may influence a lot of our mores, but as they saying goes: "man created god in his image", that is the vengeful, sexist, homophobic and characterize by all the other attribute of the typical ancient patriarch.
Regarding animals they may deploy different strategies, for example females cats allow to be screwed by a bunch of toms, and then they release their eggs, so the fittest sperm gets the prize.
Bonobos stereotypically make make much more love than war and chimps vice versa. Humans are equally related to both chimps and bonobos. So they can be a mixed bag. Still it's hard to deny the typical emotions humans experience in the interactions with the opposed sex. Free-love communes have been tried and failed. And situations when one husband has multiple wives are much more common then vice verse. So, while random stuff does happen, the evolutionary logic remains strong & sound amidst all the noise.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Evolutionarily speaking, a woman who get penetrated by an unfit man, is more likely to produce an unfit baby. Whereas a man can penetrate women indiscriminately fit or unfit, since he's not the one getting stuck with those babies.
So a man is inherently opportunistic when it comes to sex, whereas a woman is inherently discriminating. And culture only tends to reflect these tendencies, not generate them. And saying otherwise is akin of blaming western culture for not encouraging men breastfeed babies. Culture stems from biology, not vice verse.
Now, speaking about gay sex, Viagra probably makes the job staying erect on demand much easier. And I am not saying gay sex is not natural, since it happens all the time in nature. It's just that there is no evolutionary pressure for male penis and male (or female) anus to conform to each other, like there was strong evolutionary pressure for male penis and female vagina to conform to each other.
Since men with too big or too small penises in relationship to most vaginas did not tend to leave many offspring. And so vagina who was too small to accept most penises or too big to keep one in place, did not had much success either. On the other hand the fact that most male penises are too big for most anuses (and hence cause pain without lubrication), did not result in any fewer babies. In fact when it comes to female anus, there might had been evolutionary pressure for the female anus to be too small for male penis (and vice versa) in order to prevent misplacing the sperm. Since men hardwired for plugging the holes would have had challenge penetrating anus if their partner experienced pain.
So a man is inherently opportunistic when it comes to sex, whereas a woman is inherently discriminating. And culture only tends to reflect these tendencies, not generate them. And saying otherwise is akin of blaming western culture for not encouraging men breastfeed babies. Culture stems from biology, not vice verse.
Now, speaking about gay sex, Viagra probably makes the job staying erect on demand much easier. And I am not saying gay sex is not natural, since it happens all the time in nature. It's just that there is no evolutionary pressure for male penis and male (or female) anus to conform to each other, like there was strong evolutionary pressure for male penis and female vagina to conform to each other.
Since men with too big or too small penises in relationship to most vaginas did not tend to leave many offspring. And so vagina who was too small to accept most penises or too big to keep one in place, did not had much success either. On the other hand the fact that most male penises are too big for most anuses (and hence cause pain without lubrication), did not result in any fewer babies. In fact when it comes to female anus, there might had been evolutionary pressure for the female anus to be too small for male penis (and vice versa) in order to prevent misplacing the sperm. Since men hardwired for plugging the holes would have had challenge penetrating anus if their partner experienced pain.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)