The Good News about Genes and Mental Disorders

[Nous]

Yes, my position previous to this exposition was in condition for the proposition.

Whatever that means.

How do you account for the racial/ethnic or cultural patterns in the assessment of Criterion A symptoms, as found by McLean et al. above?

For that matter, how do you account for the racial disparities in the diagnosis of schizophrenia, as found by Bingham et al.? Do you believe that schizophrenia occurs 4 times more often in African Americans and 3 times more often in Hispanic Americans?

My uneducated opinion, unsupported by study, is that there appears to be a bias.

The bias in the diagnosis of mental disorders is a product of and illustrates the fact that what is diagnosed as mental disorders are not objective entities. Indeed, a variety of statements and even criteria listed in the DSM indicate that the presence or absence of a mental disorder or symptom depends on a person's "culture," not his/her biology.

 

[Nous]

again with that attitude? I'm able all right.. but as I was saying I don't know what you want with the OP.

In the OP, I invited anyone to cite any further "good news" regarding genes and mental disorders, any "bad news" on the topic, or any fact that refutes any of the claims in the OP. Presumably you agree that you haven't cited any such news or facts.

Are you trying to convince anyone in here that there is no mental disorder gene? or there is?

What the hell is a "mental disorder gene"? What is that term supposed to mean? Did you see that term in any of the literature quoted in the OP? Have you ever seen that term in any scholarly literature? If so, quote it.

 

[Nous]

No, but one must get his priorities straight. This is where I disagree with you.

Again, you haven't noted anything you have done in order to "feed millions of starving people daily". As far as you have indicated, it seems to be a safe assumption that you participate in the industry that wastes millions of tons of grain to feed livestock animals.

 

[Kueid]

In the OP, I invited anyone to cite any further "good news" regarding genes and mental disorders, any "bad news" on the topic, or any fact that refutes any of the claims in the OP.

You are saying that your intent with this post was to find out if anyone in RF had "good news", "bad news" or facts that refutes the "claims" in the OP, but, what claims? can you summarize those "claims"?

What the hell is a "mental disorder gene"? What is that term supposed to mean? Did you see that term in any of the literature quoted in the OP? Have you ever seen that term in any scholarly literature? If so, quote it.

Sorry, I was generalizing the "schizophrenia genes" term from the OP. I thought you had the fortitude to interpret it, you seemed so clever.

Presumably you agree that you haven't cited any such news or facts.

News or facts about what?

 

[Burl]

The bias in the diagnosis of mental disorders is a product of and illustrates the fact that what is diagnosed as mental disorders are not objective entities. Indeed, a variety of statements and even criteria listed in the DSM indicate that the presence or absence of a mental disorder or symptom depends on a person's "culture," not his/her biology.

You are invited to present any evidence refuting any of the above.

Seems like 'Spiritual possession' or 'Tormenting demons' are as legitimate an explanation as any 'Medically scientific' opinion.

 

[Nous]

You are saying that your intent with this post was to find out if anyone in RF had "good news", "bad news" or facts that refutes the "claims" in the OP

No, I didn't say or imply that at all.

but, what claims? can you summarize those "claims"?

Each of the statements in the OP seems to be self-explanatory. Are there any for which you need further clarification?

Sorry, I was generalizing the "schizophrenia genes" term from the OP.

In the OP professor Leo's comment is quoted: "Even if you completely agree with the 108 loci study’s methodology and all its inherent assumptions, there is no way to conclude that the researchers have discovered 'schizophrenia genes.' In fact, they have disproved their existence." I agree with his agree with his statement. Do you know of any reason to disagree with it?

 

[Nous]

Seems like 'Spiritual possession' or 'Tormenting demons' are as legitimate an explanation as any 'Medically scientific' opinion.

What does that mean? How did you arrive at that idea?

You quoted my invitation in the OP to"present any evidence refuting any of the above." Have you presented any evidence that refutes anything in the OP?

 

[Burl]

What does that mean? How did you arrive at that idea?

If anything, your presentation does more to support alternative theories of psychic derangement than to dismiss them.

You quoted my invitation in the OP to"present any evidence refuting any of the above." Have you presented any evidence that refutes anything in the OP?

The assertion of an alternate prognosis accomplished that.

 

[Nous]

If anything, your presentation does more to support alternative theories of psychic derangement than to dismiss them.

Nothing I have said or quoted even vaguely suggests anything about "spiritual possession" or "tormenting demons". You should try reading the peer-reviewed literature.

The assertion of an alternate prognosis accomplished that.

The truthful answer to my question is that you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever about anything on this thread.

 

[Burl]

The inferred evidence in the presence of 'lack of evidence' as you presented, includes any theory. Thankyou for providing the basis for this conclusion with your presentation concerning the lack of evidence for a gene contributing to schizophrenia.

 

[Nous]

The inferred evidence in the presence of 'lack of evidence' as you presented, includes any theory. Thankyou for providing the basis for this conclusion with your presentation concerning the lack of evidence for a gene contributing to schizophrenia.

Hopefully you recognize this is gibberish. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the topic, such as some fact you've gotten from the scholarly literature?

 

[Burl]

Jesus exorcised demons, so let's not give up on that option.

 

[Nous]

Jesus exorcised demons, so let's not give up on that option.

This is not a thread for your religion.

So you haven't read any of the scholarly literature on the topic of the thread?

 

[Kueid]

No, I didn't say or imply that at all.

hum... then this thread is for what?

Each of the statements in the OP seems to be self-explanatory. Are there any for which you need further clarification?

Seriously, what do you want? I asked you to summarize those "self-explanatory statements" and you cleverly deviate.

In the OP professor Leo's comment is quoted: "Even if you completely agree with the 108 loci study’s methodology and all its inherent assumptions, there is no way to conclude that the researchers have discovered 'schizophrenia genes.' In fact, they have disproved their existence." I agree with his agree with his statement. Do you know of any reason to disagree with it?

YES! I do! But I don't feel you want to know it.. and I'm kinda inclined to never engage in a conversation with you again about nothing.. so.. bye..

ps: rhetoric questions

 

[Nous]

YES! I do! But I don't feel you want to know it.

Of course I want you to provide your reasons for disagreeing with professor Leo's statements. That's what I asked for in the OP. All I can do is beg. Be sure to cite your sources.

 

[Burl]

This is not a thread for your religion.

So you haven't read any of the scholarly literature on the topic of the thread?

I don't think one can discount religious scholars from this subject that easily .

 

[Burl]

I'm kinda inclined to never engage in a conversation with you again

Oddly I'm beginning to find him edifying and stimulating, and I look forward to his future topics.

 

[Demonslayer]

Jesus exorcised demons, so let's not give up on that option.

I love this topic.

- Jesus exorcised Demons.
- The practice of communicating with and/or controlling spirits is called Necromancy
- There are 20+ places in the Bible where God forbids Necromancy
- Therefore, God forbids Jesus.

Bible logic 101!

 

[Burl]

Nah; Your wrong; Casting out demons is a different context from fraternizing with them.

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Necromancy

 

[Kueid]

Oddly I'm beginning to find him edifying and stimulating, and I look forward to his future topics.

the edifying part I can understand, but the stimulating.. I couldn't care less about genes and mental disorder after interacting with him