It's dangerous to existing systems for people to become aware they're capable of creating/conjuring/channeling useful new voices in the mind to help learn different things. People get burned at the stake for that.
I've never ever had any symptoms of schizophrenia but the idea of trying to consciously encourage myself hearing voices is terrifying, Im sure I could send myself truly insane with probably not much effort.
as did Eugen Bleuler. I have a friend who is schizophrenic whose speech hardly makes sense and she is always calling people on the phone and carrying on nonsensical conversations. Somehow the general public is hung up on ‘hearing voices’ but I have never once heard a voice but under stress I (schizotypal) did once spend about six months under the influence of a ‘system of delusions’ yet stayed mostly functional, kept working, and managed to avoid getting in serious trouble.
I think it is quite ordinary also for people to have a dialogue with an ‘invisible friend’ or believe that they ‘talk to God’ when they pray, the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia seem to be something like you have a thought that you don’t think is your thought but somebody else talking, notably schizophrenics often believe that somebody is putting thoughts into them or taking thoughts out of them, see
It's like gang-stalking--its not that there's something being introduced, but rather that the subject sees relations that are not objective relations (like, for instance, the relation between temperature, pressure, and state change). Typically, however (and I can't imagine a case where this didn't happen), the relations are social in character--and since social relations are subjective to the extent that all the social world is not expressly a fact, it can be difficult to differentiate between an illusion and a reality: people imagine their partners are cheating on them, whether or not its true. And there are many things we do not know about the social world around us; but, statistically speaking, nobody has ever actually been gang-stalked.
> the idea of trying to consciously encourage myself hearing voices is terrifying,
This is not unreasonable.
It could be less awful if the voices were positive and not harsh and negative. Schizophrenics outside the US were found to have a more benign relationship with their voices.
The striking difference was that while many of the African
and Indian subjects registered predominantly positive experiences
with their voices, not one American did. Rather, the U.S. subjects
were more likely to report experiences as violent and hateful – and
evidence of a sick condition.
I once accidentally came up with another conscious voice in my head & we decided to govern through the 12 traditions of Codependents Anonymous. She also had specific qualities I'd chosen 3 weeks prior as qualities I chose to believe I could come to embody, so that was an interesting pointer to what's possible.
And as others have pointed out, it really depends what kind of programming you're carrying around. Feeling terrified of something isn't the issue...it's how you've trained to respond to terror that matters. If you lash out or avoid, yeah....don't cultivate multiple voices. If, instead, you're choosing to purge the addiction to violence & domination fairly rooted in American imperial colonial indoctrination, it's really quite something. I'm now working on bringing in 16 others as a way to better connect with different parts of the population and spread this and other blackness-embracing ways.
Hearing/seeing things that aren't there has historically for the majority of humanity's time on Earth not been an issue. We can get back to living in such ways, especially since doing so can be extremely helpful.
Gotta a friend who’s 52 and has all his teeth rot out 10 years ago. He goes to Wegmans every month and comes back with a pill bottle the size of a small trashcan. He says he could get nothing done without out but I don’t see him getting anything done. Wouldn’t be surprised if will fall and break his hip 20 years early.
I’ve seen plenty of those pills get diverted with outcomes like somebody stays up for 4 days and gets hospitalized so, yeah, I want to diss ADHD medication. It is clear it helps in the short term, not so clear if it helps in the long term.
Even that very limited study didn't link stim use to poor teeth - at all. As far as study went, this was it.
• Stimulant ADHD medication use in adults is associated with decreased bone
mineral in the skull and thoracic spine.
• No other areas of axial or appendicular skeleton showed significant
differences.
• There was no dose-response effect between stimulant medication use and
bone mineral density.
• The overall effect of stimulant medications on adult
bone health is unclear.
They're also less habit forming than the non-stimulant drugs; I'm taking a non-stimulant right now (Intuniv) that you can't safely quit without tapering off for weeks.
The combination is good enough that I lost my caffeine addiction. Of course that's a relatively mild one.
many people hear voices and experience symptoms of schizophrenia while managing to keep their cool and thrive amongst the nerts. hearing-voices.org is a support network for such people
If genes that increase schizophrenic risk increases cognitive abilities you should find people who have high polygenic scores for schizophrenia without having schizophrenia test well on these cognitive abilities. I'm not aware of any of data that shows this in a convincing matter. I think I've seen a few small studies but nothing that replicated this on a large scale. And most of the studies show they score worse on cognitive abilities.
The only conclusions I've come to are one of the following.
1. They improve cognitive abilities in some way we aren't good at measuring.
2. There is something about our modern environment that is more likely to trigger schizophrenia which has more recently increased the fitness penalty these genes confer.
seems like they should be good at finding solutions which require leveraging partial information, and generating a large quantity of ideas (which can contain quality)
But the optimal thing might be to have a number of more typical/boring people to filter their ideas through, and that might be hard to test experimentally
I wonder if Autism would be even simpler to explain with a cliff-edged fitness function. Because there seems to be a high correlation between extremely intelligent people and people on the spectrum. Maybe the group of genes rewarded for high intelligence/creativity/quantitative ability also, by accidental design, inhibits social capacity.
> Maybe the group of genes rewarded for high intelligence/creativity/quantitative ability also, by accidental design, inhibits social capacity.
Maybe living in a world with neurotypical people who immediately dislike you [0] 'inhibits social capacity' after years of traumatic experiences piling up.
I think people should study the RCCX gene cluster and link to giftedness more, I have TNXB SNPs which results in hEDS, but C4 SNPs have a similar effect and is likely to result in Schizophrenia. There are some cross over symptoms such as dopamine dysregulation and flat affect. I think dysautonomia and auto-immune plays a big part. Our lifestyles are very different than they used to be and this could be exacerbating auto-immune issues and as we get better at treating auto-immune conditions I expect we'll get better at treating Schizophrenia.
Of course there are. I'm guessing you're insinuating two things, it's highly improbable that individuals can have this many simultaneous issues, and it's impossible for medical researchers to miss such an anomaly. The Ehlers Danlos subset is shorter but still covers a huge amount of issues (https://ohtwist.com/about-eds/comorbidities).
Well there is a reason why doctors kept telling me I am a hypochondriac, but I do have a whole zoo of conditions simultaneously, and this is a pretty common state for people with hEDS and I'm on the extreme end of it. So while milder versions of it are ~2% of the population the extreme versions of it are < 1/20K.
And yeah, medical researchers are in fact in the aggregate really bad at their jobs. Look how long it took to convince surgeons to wash their hands. But a lot of the genetic stuff relies on Linear Regression for GWAS which assumes independents of SNPs, otherwise you get multicollinearity problems, this is not a safe assumption and they've confused their results as confirming their assumptions. Instead of listing everything they get wrong a much shorter list is what they get right, Dr Jessica Eccles (https://x.com/BendyBrain) does great research into Long Covid and Generalized Joint Hypermobility which should put to bed the theory that GJH is benign - still good luck trying to talk a doctor out of that train of thought.
If you find someone who has hEDS the odds are they have a very large number of those things and most of them don't even know the names of most of the conditions, just one or two that bother them the most. The RCCX / hEDS list is a distinct subset of all possible things, the list of all medical maladies is far longer. It becomes highly improbable that a set of people have the same set of maladies - doctors tend to chalk this up to social contagion but that doesn't bear out. Genetic and behavioral causes have distinct diffusion patterns.
It's confirmable with WGS which I've done and I've encouraged many others to do and it turns out that you can indeed predict with a great deal of reliability if someone has TNXB / CYP21A2 SNPs. Unfortunately it's harder to find people who have C4 since they're likely to have schizophrenia.
I've lost one of my best friends to what I think is schizophrenia. We don't know because she's cut off all contact with friends and family and refuses to see a doctor. It's definitely psychosis. She thinks she's in some kind of Truman show that she calls "the game". Since none of her friends or family are willing to admit to it, then we must be in on it.
We don't know her full family medical history because her dad was adopted. I do know that she was "microdosing" and macro-dosing hallucinogens for years. Mostly acid and shrooms as far as I know. She followed the band Phish around with a group of friends. I can't imagine most of those shows were sober.
We've also seen a few incidents of paranoia when she was under the influence of drugs/alcohol going back decades. So it feels like this was always there in some form, but maybe the estrogen was holding it back before menopause hit. I read an article about women who get schizophrenia after menopause that suggested this could be the case.
Anyway, whenever I see wellness healers and the like extolling the virtues of psilocybin, I want to point out that there could be a downside. We don't know that all of her hallucinogen use over the years contributed to this. But it's certainly a possibility.
If you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia it's starting to seem like drugs that seem harmless like marijuana (specifically THC?) can definitely bring it out. At least, that's what seemed to happen to my mother and another friend.
The huge number of them who smoke cigarettes prior to their first episode - a different form of self medication. 90% of people with it smoke and there is research indicating a greater likelhood prior to first episode. I’ll have to look up those numbers though. (Edit, seems about 60% at a time when the average US population was at 20%)
Could there be a similar cliff function for alcohol and psychoactive drugs iff used in moderation which may confer to a society an advantage to the detriment of individual health. If used above a limit things fall of a cliff. Abstinence however may also be sub-optimal even if best for any individual.
I think the main problem is conflation and averaging out experiences to the general population. There are distinct subsets of people who react to things very differently to the others and the focus should be on first finding out if someone is in a particular group.
I do a lot of DIY psychopharmacology, mostly modafinil and amitriptyline, in a successful effort to reduce ME/CFS/hEDS related brain fog. I’ve given modafinil to normal people and they tend not to notice any effects where for me it’s a super strong drug that’ll keep me wired unless I take other drugs to calm down.
I think quite a large subset of human behavior is seeking self medication for genetic anxiety disorders and I think in knowing the mechanisms people can avoid stumbling around in the dark and go directly towards things that work.
What are your thoughts on people who self-medicate with caffeine due to their baseline ability to focus being reduced (which in modern society is cause for trouble)? That’s the reason for starting caffeine use for many.
My use is also light and fully legal, but personally I’m not sure that this is something that’s so binary. It seems more likely to sit on a spectrum, as most things do, and is largely dependent on the individual due to wide differences in brain and body function. It’s the same reason why the prescription drug that works wonders for one person and do nothing or worse, be detrimental for somebody else. We’re not all identical units of a particular model rolling off an assembly line somewhere, after all.
So I guess I would say that yes, we should be more conscientious of how substances (even those that are common) interact with our minds, but I have a hard time labeling them all as harmful. It’s just too broad of a brush.
> And no, please spare us all your justifications for how caffeine is fine or micro-dosing has been amazing, because they are simply varying levels of rationalization, I do it too, I’m just not in it as deeply. And no, just because you were able to become rich with and on the back of drugs does not mean you did it without harm, you likely just scandalized a lot of harm to, e.g., get rich selling some service to some coke head investor who will only fuel the abuse of data mining and social media addiction.
I think you make some interesting points, and it's a very well thought-out post, but this is the definition of "poisoning the well". You're attempting to preemptively discredit the most obvious flaw in your argument.
There is a massive amount of evidence for the impact on both society, economy and neurology for each of the drugs listed in your last paragraph – and it's these impacts that often change personal and societal perception of risk and reward. Caffeine, at average doses, induces an effect that is comparable to a small cortisol spike – it is mildly addictive, but nowhere near that of an opioid, for example.
Drugs like meth and heroine (and one wonders why you left off fentanyl) are highly addictive and destructive, cause enormous loss of life an an inconceivable scale, and can permanently damage neurological pathways. From what I've read, the impact of hallucinogenics is less well understood... but probably not great.
If your argument is "we like to say caffeine and alcohol are fine, when they're really no different than opioids and meth", well there _is_ a staggeringly enormous difference in the potency and impact of caffeine vs the other drugs you've listed. I do agree with you that alcohol is far more harmful than society cares to admit, however, and that's both well-studied and often ignored.
In Europe this (some rec drugs bring out latent schizophrenia) is taught in med school as a “known fact” (source: psychiatrist friend) so it’s well beyond “starting to seem”
This was discovered pretty much early on when LSD was first discovered. One of the early (cough) "uses" for LSD was for medical professionals to simulate what some patients experience.
(At least that's what I remember from "LSD, My Problem Child" by Albert Hoffman. Granted, it's been ~30 years since I read it.
Unfortunately it's hammered on so hard, and without nuance, that kids will discard it with the other half-truths that are told. And also the tendency for families to cover up and hide any "shameful" facts like uncle Jim having spent some time in a facility, that kids might not know at all that there's a family history.
DARE is one of the reasons I started smoking cigarettes. The only time the teacher was ever actually honest was when he described the effects of nicotine. Everything else was half-truths and scary lies.
The fact that in different parts of the world the voices can be helpful instead of intrusive makes me feel like the drugs are not the problem but how external forces view the drugs or if we really wanna talk like crazy people how the drugs influence the people around you even if they do not directly know you are using the drugs.
The voices are quite real, we’re not alone in our own minds, and the it is the greatest taboo of society to discuss.
It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own. That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
Readers will be so upset when a perspective challenges their rehashed psychological diatribes as mountains of lies. They got “help” damn you. Their friends (“real people”) are hurt by the craze and they’re more hurt when someone says “modern science and society is wrong.”
The true Truth is whatever existential reality reflects, not what we are prepared to understand. We are not alone in our own minds, we have collectively known this since before our generations and the “straights” of society are so adamant of their self possessed lies they will condemn those insights as crackpot crazy.
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything.
That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs.
How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it?
Do you expect everyone should just believe anything anyone says? What is there to tell lunatics and snake oil salesmen apart from those who are actually onto something?
> Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own.
Ok, you formed an hypothesis. Now tell me, how do you go about showing others that things do work the way you think they do? How can they check them for themselves? What do you expect from others?
> That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
Questions of self-identity aren't scientific questions. Science, or experience more generally, can't tell you who you are, or indeed, even tell you if there's one of "you" in your head or many. If you assert that you are not the same person you were five seconds ago, that's a scientifically unassailable claim - as well as impossible to prove to others.
So no answer to the question "who am I" is strictly speaking true or false, in an objective sense. But that doesn't mean all self-interpretations are equally good. Some self-interpretations can be very destructive. It doesn't take much imagination, or reading history books, to see how defining yourself to be multiple persons/personalities can be very destructive.
I wonder if alcohol is one of the seemingly harmless drugs whose abuse catalyzes such conditions in susceptible people.
Because, if so, then alcohol's ubiquity in society would imply that it is probably responsible (in the sense that substances are responsible) for most such conversions.
It's kind of worse with alcohol because the psychosis associated with that as an exacerbating factor is more related to alcoholic encephalopathy, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome etc... much of which can be brought on with self medicating with alcohol. Definitely a component but more like psychosis and mania drive you to drink because these experiences are awful more than a causative factor that's been proven
Schizos may take alcohol or cigarettes to calm down, a form of self medication. On the long term these may worsen, in the immediate they help. Why do you think they smoke a lot?!? To treat. If you smoke or drink, what do you do after a tough day - smoke or drink, to relax, feels great. Schizos may have a tough day , but not from external stimuli, but from internal stimuli
Alcohol is pretty bad for your brain so I would not be surprised. And while it's not really a hallucinogen itself (comparatively) I've heard some pretty hellish stories of severe alcohol withdrawals. Just going without sleep (completely) for several days can cause hallucinations and stress - and this is a common symptom of more serious withdrawal.
I would imagine other drugs which produce severe (and stressful) withdrawal could also trigger this. The stress alone cannot be good.
Nobody serious believe that alcohol is harmless. There are many anti-alcohol campaign and laws always running around. It's just that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of year, that we monstly manage it. It's not the case of cannabis, psilocybin and even less LSD (even if you can find historic usage for the not man made ones)
One of my ex' father triggered a lifelong episode of schyzophrenia by excessive drinking during mandatory military service around age 18-19. So i'd say there are number of triggers
Alternate theory; schizophrenia tends to manifest in men between 18 and 22. The drinking was him self medicating because of symptoms he was experiencing?
Or perhaps people predisposed to schizophrenia are more likely to seek out drugs. Something like 9 in 10 schizophrenics smoke cigarettes too, is schizophrenia caused by nicotine or do schizophrenics smoke because they’re predisposed to do so? I find it hard to believe that so many schizophrenics smoke cigarettes and are not also predisposed towards using other drugs.
I think blindly accepting the statement ‘drugs can cause schizophrenia’ is harmful because we don’t actually know if the drugs trigger it or if the disorder makes them seek out drugs.
Some drugs have been known to activate schizophrenia; particularly psychedelics like LSD. However, in order for this to happen, one likely already needs to have a genetic predisposition. I use LSD about once every week or two and I haven't noticed any schizophrenia yet, so it is very much a YMMV.
It's important to know that the correlation can have some other cause. Like that people with predisposition to schizophrenia may seek out drugs.
Keep in mind also the typical onset for schizophrenia is teenage years or early 20s in men, and is often later, up to early 30s in women. These are years you might experiment with drugs.
You a joking. Nobody talks about it to not to harm 'suffering minorities' business. However there are researches that show harm from marijuana is significant and likely permanent. It's no better than tobacco. But you'll never see it on CNN for political reasons...
> You a joking. Nobody talks about it to not to harm 'suffering minorities' business. However there are researches that show harm from marijuana is significant and likely permanent. It's no better than tobacco. But you'll never see it on CNN for political reasons...
Two downvotes so far. Any explanation? Can't please everybody, especially Kamala voters.
But my advice: if you value your cognitive abilities, blood vessels health, and I'm sure it's snowballing, stay away from any form of marijuana.
> But when the protective hormone is withdrawn during menopause, some who avoided earlier psychosis get a later onset. Having a first experience after age 40 is uncommon, but it may include up to 15 percent of the women with schizophrenia—twice the percentage of men who have schizophrenia onset after age 40.
My friend had a very similar episode with a psychosis, but turned out to be bipolar, not schizophrenic. Sounds very similar though!
He was smoking a lot of weed leading up to and during the psychosis.
Ended up in psychiatric ward for a month, which was followed by a couple of years of depression/introspection/therapy, but is now doing great with lithium.
It’s why I profoundly dislike the line of thinking that easier access to drugs means social progress.
It’s rather a shedding off of an inconvenience for those that have no (direct) problems of functioning (eg risk of developing addiction, psychosis, etc) at the heavy costs payed by those that are more vulnerable.
> It’s rather a shedding off of an inconvenience for those that have no (direct) problems of functioning (eg risk of developing addiction, psychosis, etc) at the heavy costs payed by those that are more vulnerable.
And what about those who have a "direct problem of functioning" (like anxiety, depression, ptsd, whatever) and get no real help from the medical profession, but do get help from the drugs?
There is pretty much zero barrier for accessing any drug. Even being busted by police or border guards for drugs don't make it a permanent problem. The real problem is advertisement. Cities have drug advertisements everywhere and it's legal. Banning all types drug ads, including ads of brands selling drug products, would be a genuinely great step towards limiting their impact.
I have more friends mucked up by LSD like drugs than any other type - at any rate three of them and I don't have much in the way of junkie of alcoholic friends. I say LSD like as they all took other stuff. From my n=3 data I'd say if you do it more than once a week for more than two years you have a good chance of ending up like your friend.
It's called "getting fried". Know many people that fried themselves doing that stuff recreationally every weekend. Good rule of thumb is if they can't hold their alcohol they won't be able to hold their psychs.
Of course there's a downside. It's a tale as old as time. Some new miracle cure comes on the scene and people promote it without relaying the risks. You see this with mushrooms, pot, etc going back to snake oil and silphium. I've never looked into it, but I would bet that there are no medications that exist that don't have some sort of side effect or increase in risk of some negative outcome. So if someone is pushing a cure/medicine its best to assume there is risk, even if we don't yet know the risk.
As opposed to what belief? That it is possible for there to be medical interventions or substances that are entirely risk-free regardless of your individual circumstances, potentially hidden allergies, or other known or unknown contraindications? Was anyone ever under such an impression?
As someone who has a person with psychosis in my family, I don't think you can find any interesting insights from the details of their delusions. It's like dissecting dreams or AI slop, there is no hidden meaning behind it. Usually best not to discuss it.
> Cannabis is also a potent psychedelic, and its association with psychosis is well established.
It's really fascinating to read this, because Alex Berenson has been beating this drum for a while now and he claims the psychosis risk has been downplayed or even denied. It's easy to find evidence supporting his take because if you just search Google for [cannabis legalization psychosis] you get a big pile of papers like this one:
"Abstract: Psychosis is a hypothesized consequence of cannabis use. Legalization of cannabis could therefore be associated with an increase in rates of health care utilization for psychosis [...] states with legalization policies experienced no statistically significant increase in rates of psychosis-related diagnoses"
That's from 2023. So apparently it's not that well established? Or if it's well established, there's a lot of researchers denying it.
I've used cannabis a handful of times. The first was a bong hit, and I felt a little funny. The second was a bong hit and I was seeing a light show half an hour later. The third was a bong hit and I got paranoia and dry mouth. The fourth was one square of THC chocolate and I felt a little funny and relaxed. The last time was two squares of chocolate. I was out for the evening with visual and auditory hallucinations.
I realize modern preparations are stronger, but the amount is too low, the dosage difference between relaxed and out there is too small, and after doing some research, it sounds like this is a sign I'm either more prone to schizophrenia, it could trigger it, or increase my likelihood of getting it, so the slightly relaxing high isn't worth it.
Yeah, it's not worth the risk. When I tried the stuff, I first felt absolutely nothing. Then I took some more, and a couple of minutes later I had a full-blown panic attack, probably some hallucinations too. My brain felt a bit weird/slow a day or two after that.
Only later I found out that a deceased close relative of mine had schizophrenia. That killed any remaining interest I might have had towards the substance.
You can definitely get fried on cannabis but you have to do it a lot, like multiple times a week for a while. In my mid twenties I smoked all day everyday for years and in my case it definitely left me paranoid and agoraphobic. That was more than a decade ago and I haven’t really smoked much pot since then (maybe once a year) and you end up making a full recovery after about 6 months to a year of no usage.
Derealization, I believe - not depersonalization? Believing everything around you to be made up - perhaps even by yourself in some cases. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, just trying to make sure I have the terminology correct
I believe since the 80's it's been well-established that people with a predisposition to schizophrenia have a greater risk to break out into psychosis when taking hallucinogenics. Even with today's clinical trials, they will exclude those with a family history of psychosis/schizophrenia.
Plenty of intelligent people entertain this possibility, as well as many other possibilities, around how our world works.
If they then become obsessed with the idea being a fact and refuse to even consider updating their mental model when presented with evidence contradicting it then they have developed a fixed belief.
When that fixed belief is not common among their culture, it becomes a bizarre fixed belief.
When, as a result of their obsession with those bizarre fixed beliefs, they are unable to function (hygiene, nutrition, finances, care of their dependents, etc.) - then there’s a problem.
Or do you think a mind is a perfect thing that can never be ill?
People who reject in-group socio-economic norms and isolate themselves from their previous in-group may or may not be mentally ill. If they were in one of those cults that programs their members behaviors incessantly, then it's entirely plausible that they became sane and escaped from a community of insane people.
For example, I've met several people who reported the set of symptoms and behaviors you describe - but in their case, 'the game' involved the fact they came from a wealthy extended family whose entire existence revolved around hanging onto their pool of capital and ensuring some rogue family member didn't gain control of the capital, which funded all their connected lives (including this guy, who was able to travel the country and go to music shows solely because of his family-linked trust fund). The game they all played was keeping the family members that controlled the capital happy, rather than going out into the world and finding jobs, making their own money, and being self-sufficient.
There's just not enough information in your post to evaluate whether the example was escaping from a cult or being indoctrinated into another cult, who is sane and who is crazy, etc.
This isn't one of those cases. She had a career and tons of friends and now she's shunned everything. Her family lives in another state and had zero influence on her life.
But we can't do anything because she still knows how to take care of herself and isn't a danger to herself or others. So it's just sad.
> I've lost one of my best friends to what I think is schizophrenia. We don't know because she's cut off all contact with friends and family and refuses to see a doctor. It's definitely psychosis.
Schizophrenia is not defined strictly enough that it's possible for you to be right or wrong when you say your friend has it.
Yes, I agree with that. I'm just guessing because she's super paranoid of doctors. One of the downsides of being in and around the wellness community for decades.
I don't know if she's seen The Game, but I do know that she's always had a deep insecurity about being the naive one in the room, being the one not in on the joke. It seems like this thing plays on your worst fears and brings them to life.
> whenever I see wellness healers and the like extolling the virtues of psilocybin, I want to point out that there could be a downside
Anecdotally, I had a friend once who was very into psilocybin for its mind-expanding properties. He certainly thought he was enlightened and loved to brag about the great understanding he'd gained from his trips, but he was one of the more selfish and un-curious people I've ever known. It seems to me that these drugs create a feeling of having accessed great knowledge, but the "knowledge" is just whatever nonsense your brain conjures up on the fly, like a dream world that makes sense while you're asleep but whose logic falls apart the moment you wake up.
As someone who has gotten a lot out of psychedelics therapeutically, you are correct. Psychedelics do not in of themselves grant any insight or wisdom beyond perhaps raw experiential evidence that our senses are fallible and our perception of the world is an artifact of cognition.
Past that, psychedelics are (kaleidoscopic, funhouse) mirrors. In the hands of a curious and humble person they can (in addition to being a lot of fun shared with like-minded others) be valuable therapeutic tools for approaching firmly rooted hangups, attitudes, etc. In the hands of someone like your friend, you get what you observed.
Both are commonly occurring patterns, and if you know a person's character even a little well you can usually predict how they'll engage with and come out of the experience.
To quote Shulgin,
> The most compelling insight of that day was that this awesome recall had been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained within the white solid. Everything I had recognized came from the depths of my memory and my psyche.
Yeah the main great insight I got out of doing that stuff was to see reality from a different perspective for a while. Kind of like travelling and realizing that things you take for granted aren't the same in every culture.
But I never felt like I was getting at some deeper meaning, and it wasn't something I wanted to keep doing throughout my life.
> We don't know because she's cut off all contact with friends and family and refuses to see a doctor.
It is not just schizophrenia, any mental health condition is isolating, others cannot understand it. I have OCD,ADHD etc so I know it, that's why we prefer who have been or going through same thing than normal people.
I have schizoaffective disorder, induced by a bad trip from marijuana. It was like the 3rd time I had tried weed, and I naively took too much.
For me psychosis feels like pattern matching going on extreme overdrive, while at the same time memory goes to shit. It's truly an awful illness, and what's worse is that the current medical treatments are bad. I've been fortunate enough where I can get by on a low dose olanzapine, but for many people they simply don't work at all.
Even though I'm doing well enough to function normally and hold down a good, well paying job, it's impossible to find a partner. If I were to have kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services. I am strongly in support of these screening services - the disease is truly horrible.
There has been little progress on treatments for schizophrenia, the mechanism of action of these drugs has remained the same for decades. The side effects are almost as bad as the disease, which is why so many schizophrenic stop taking them. The only novel medication recently released is Cobenfy, which I have not tried yet.
The most striking thing, is the absolute certainty of the thinking. They feel as if their thinking is crystal-clear, and that they are the only one that "sees the patterns."
Currently, they're doing well. I know of others, that are not so fortunate.
It seems that pot is about the worst thing that a schizoaffective/schizophrenic person can use. They are better off chewing tabs of acid. I've not used it in about 45 years, and I've heard that today's pot is a heck of a lot stronger than what I remember.
Can I ask how you are sure they haven’t had some novel insight that you just don’t currently understand? Like maybe they are bad at explaining but whatever pattern they noticed is valid?
I’m not defending them as I don’t know any details, I’m just curious how you came to be certain about your assessment.
I wonder about this as well...like maybe there's some comfort in automatically "diagnosing" someone when they might see patterns or think in ways that challenge your priors..
EDIT: Imagine being powerful and wealthy and assured in your position in the Catholic Church and someone comes along and questions geocentricity and says you're wrong. It's a pretty easy leap to huffily say well, they are "mentally ill, crazy, delusional, paranoid"
all kinds of authoritarian regimes and movements certainly do this.
that said... you just have to have a conversation with someone experiencing psychosis. it's a totally altered state of consciousness, they are sensing and understanding the world in a radically different way. it's never just an otherwise normal person with a nonconformist belief.
I can't speak for the above person, but what the OP of this comment thread said also tracks with my own experience of schizoaffective disorder: when I'm psychotic, the pattern matching part of my brain goes into overdrive and not only does my brain erroneously fill in the blanks in sensory input (causing hallucinations), it does the same thing on an abstract or logical level with ideas and people. It's easy to fall into the trap of paranoid delusion when you feel like you're seeing connections between so many otherwise benign, disconnected things and events.
I think what really gets me is that despite my constant vigilance and skepticism toward my own thoughts, I simply cannot talk myself out of how truly real those delusions feel when they happen. I can even acknowledge how absurd they are, even in the moment, but I can never shake the feeling that they're still very, very real. It's so maddening. The best I can do is to just not act on those thoughts.
Maybe the above person's family is actually unearthing valid insights, but if they're prone to psychosis, in that state they'll be prone to finding connections, associations, patterns, and so on between things in a way that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It'll feel very real to them in the moment, but when they exit that state (if they do) they'll likely be on the same page as others in thinking those ideas were a stretch.
Stimulant induced psychosis is very common. One of the major side effects of those medications, just like their street cousin, is paranoia.
I don’t really believe in the dormant/latent argument because once you shift down to the underground (as in, entertain all possibilities, even the possibility that you share something in common with drug abusers) where people abuse drugs, there you can see just how common psychosis is.
The drugs fuck people up. Interestingly, after many years of laying off the substance, many do find their way out of the psychosis.
Many people are actually caught in this trap and don’t tell anyone because they are struggling between reality and their delusions and trying to present a calm face to the world. It’s often directly the result of the substance, but it’s allowed to fester in the person due to all kinds of reasons (”hey, I’m really going to confess this is the crazy shit that feels believable to me?”). By the time they are done wrestling with reality and unreality, often they are left extremely damaged from the ordeal psychologically.
I can't say I've experienced psychosis due to stimulant use personally, but I see what you mean. For me it's maybe brought on instances of hypomania a few times, but I get how it could trigger issues in others, especially in high doses.
My instances of psychosis outside of depression/mania tend to be triggered by stress. I don't use drugs or take any stimulant medications, but they still just happen sometimes. It sucks. I'm thankfully not in an active episode at the moment, but I do suffer on a daily basis from the "negative" symptoms of schizoaffective disorder (i.e., the symptoms that take away function, like anhedonia, avolition, alogia, etc).
My brother has schizophrenia. He has never met or interacted with any jewish people, and lives in a part of the world where they have no influence. He still fell entirely for online antisemitism and will text me insane messages about the typical theories.
I'm not certain, but, in the case of my family member, their "certainty" is that everyone is conspiring to kill them. As I am one of the "conspirators," I can assure you that they are dead wrong.
Also, in my days of yute, I was fairly profligate in the use of ... mind-enhancing chemicals, shall we say. They basically gave me the same exact certainty and "insight."
Once, I decided to write down the marvelous insight that I experienced, while tripping. I wrote a whole bunch of stuff in a notebook, and then read it, a couple of days later.
It was pure gibberish. Made no sense at all.
[EDITED TO ADD] I should say that I had the luxury of having two distinct states of mind, including a "control state," in which to review the ramblings in the "enhanced" state. This is not a luxury that someone suffering from schizoaffective disorder has. They have no idea that their thinking is off.
Schizophrenics do sometimes have novel insights. I've noticed that schizophrenics tend to be extremely talented at coming up with deeply cutting insults. Like, insults that will change how you see yourself forever. Something about high pattern recognition. Plus an ability to mentally "go there", to countenance dark things that other people willfully ignore.
> It seems that pot is about the worst thing that a schizoaffective/schizophrenic person can use.
This isn't entirely true, and it's a dangerous misconception. High THC, low CBD cannabis wouldn't be recommended, but that's exactly what making cannabis illegal selects for.
High CBD, low/zero THC cannabis, on the other hand, will probably be one of the paths to treatment if we ever get over our Reefer Madness and pharmaceutical obsession.
Eh, maybe. I can certainly say that I have "skin in the game." Someone very dear to me suffers from it, and it's difficult to hear theories from folks that don't have as much of a stake.
That's one reason that I have compassion for parents of autistic children, that are vehemently anti-vax. I completely disagree with their stance, but I know what they are dealing with, and the very real fears and stresses that they are under.
> it's difficult to hear theories from folks that don't have as much of a stake.
It's not a theory that CBD has anti-psychotic properties. It certainly does, we just don't fully understand why.
My theory is that it will someday be part of treatment plans; and as someone with skin in the game I would hope that you care enough to learn a bit more about it. The comparison to anti-vaxxers with autism in the family is not appropriate here.
Actually, if the agenda of pushing CBD therapy applies, then it is. I know a number of folks that have autistic children, of various levels, from "nerd," to "wheelchair-bound." Their parents are usually absolute saints, regardless of their political views, or misinformation diets, and live in constant pain; making daily sacrifices that I don't think many folks here, can even comprehend.
We were discussing a serious mental illness, and, as someone that is a caregiver for someone like that, I think that my experience is relevant; just as someone who believes that their child's condition was caused by something that is really a red herring.
The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas), and look at people like us, with very real pain, as nothing but pawns, to be used to push their agenda (Think of the children!).
CBD, like Blockchain, probably has some valid application, but, because it was so unexplored, scientifically, it is currently about 75% snake-oil. We'll find out what it's good for, over time. The same can be said for other drugs, like MDMA, microdose LSD, or psilocybin.
Legal competition had lead to much higher concentrations of THC than was normal in the bad old days of smoking Mexican brick weed, not to mention the pure accessibility of buying 96% THC vapes wherever you go in unlimited amounts as opposed to being happy you could get your hands on an ounce.
“Dangerous misconception”? Get out of here with that. Cannabis is dangerous for schizoaffective people. Why are people that smoke pot so tiresome about this? Just accept that it’s not good for everyone!
> “Dangerous misconception”? Get out of here with that.
I will not.
The demonization of cannabis has led directly to it becoming high THC and low CBD, as I said. It also has lead to it often being tainted with all manner of adulterants, from ketamine to glass beads to plaster dust to worse.
> Cannabis is dangerous for schizoaffective people.
CBD is a leading target of research for it's anti-psychotic properties; and if you don't know this it's a complete mystery to me why you feel entitled to weigh in.
And it's not even the only compound in cannabis that is being investigated; there are others with anti-psychotic and synergistic potential.
> Why are people that smoke pot so tiresome about this?
What if what I'm saying might be true, and you're dead wrong to accuse anyone who disagrees of being a 'tiresome stoner'?
... Because, in fact, it may well be [0].
> Just accept that it’s not good for everyone!
If it's not for you, that's fine; but the wilful ignorance around cannabis over decades has caused far, far more harm than cannabis ever has.
Can you accept that it will may well have a role in treating "psychosis, in general and schizophrenia, in particular" [0]?
I wouldn't dismiss personal anecdotes any more than I'd dismiss someone claiming they saw something in a reputable journal but can't remember the citation.
In other words, yeah, don't just believe it at face value- but if you have good reason to trust the source, it's worth considering and checking into further.
In this case it's not just one individual but many people saying that THC and CBD are almost opposites if eachother, for example in how they affect anxiety.
Definitely worth proper research imho, could lead to medication that has more of the pros and less of the cons
No it's not. The poster should have referenced some sources. CBD has been touted as a miracle drug for over a decade now and it seems mostly like a fad at this point. But also it's not well regulated so it's easy for unscrupulous companies and individuals to profit from misleading marketing around it.
Sorry, it depends on the person. Elyn Saks is a law professor at USC who gives speeches to international audiences when she's not writing books - and she has schizophrenia. Her fame gives her a unique position: many people write letters to her. She's said that she's surprised by how many highly successful people confide in her that they have schizophrenia. There are schizophrenic CEO's, lawyers, doctors, founders. You just don't hear about them because they don't publicize their condition. Possibly because they fear judgment. Possibly because they want success on their own terms, to be simply a "successful person", not a "successful person with schizophrenia".
Why do you need to do embryo pre-screening for something that’s not genetic? Or do you think it still is genetic despite also thinking you know the specific trigger in your case?
Edit: are you thinking it’s genetic, but exacerbated by weed?
This is through the grapevine. I thought they said 20% likelihood, not 20% higher likelihood. But this isn’t me and I don’t know the numbers well.
I do know that this woman chose to not use her own eggs for their child. And you would think that going from 1-1.2% would not make you do that. Perhaps there is another variable involved that I am unaware of. Her sister developed it after their parents divorce in her 30s fwiw.
That is much, much higher than I am aware of - and my mother's sister has schizophrenia so I did look this up a while ago. And the outcome so far is 0 cases in 25 nieces and nephews, all of us in our mid twenties or older.
From my understanding of the science, weed can trigger schizophrenia in the genetically predisposed. Schizophrenia can be triggered by other environmental factors, so the embryo screening makes sense to lower the risk of the child getting it as well.
> I am holding out hope that schizophrenia has some basis as an autoimmune disease
From article:
Increasingly, researchers consider schizophrenia to be a “meta-syndrome,” encompassing multiple symptom dimensions/clusters and arising from intersections of diverse underlying mechanisms
So while autoimmune might be the cause for some people, other people have other causes?
As humans we look for a simple A therefore B story. Even then most people in my experience are either (a) poor at spotting cause and effect or (b) go into denial e.g. many political arguments
> kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services
Have to? Do you mean you would want to? Or is there some compulsory force where you are?
Interesting, I had some really bad experiences with weed and the pattern matching thing strikes out to me as on these trips I experienced a ton of visual geomteric shapes and came to believe our intelligence is based on pattern recognition and spent 5 years, not to much avail, thinking about them.
This post convinced me to never try marijuana again.
I've tried 3 times, last time was a bad trip, I went into a very cold state (was shaking) and I was seeing random visual images every second. It felt like my brain was telling chat gpt to generate a random image on the fly none stop.
Anyways I was fine the next day, but I'm not trying it ever again if there is some risks associated with it. I took a low dose (half gummy).
Induced schizophrenia is well known. Your brain is not a machine. It's several independent chunks of meat that were assembled in situ. There are more failure modes than operational modes.
The odd thing is that among identical twins when one has it the other has it roughly 50% of the time. Which suggests that having the generic basis still requires something external, and it is common but not too common.
I wonder if schizophrenia (or perhaps psychosis) could be in some way analogous to the LLM temperature function becoming disregulated?
I mean, what is the extreme opposite of psychosis? If it is matter of degree, which it seems to be, then there is probably a tuning mechanism. Perhaps too little and you fail to account for factors that might not be apparent but might be guessed or inferred, too much, and too much seems plausible.
If so it would be possible to have a great deal of different “causes” given the tight and complex coupling of biological mechanisms.
There was a theory that autism and schizophrenia were opposite ends of a spectrum, but it's fallen into disfavor. The theory went that autism produces mechanical, rigid thought patterns while schizophrenia takes free association too far.
I think it is possible to be diagnosed with both schizophrenia and autism which is why the theory is not considered anymore.
Interesting. I wouldn’t have intuited autism as being on the opposing end of psychosis, really, at least not based on my experience of both in my family.
I think your LLM temperature analogy is interesting in this deprecated dichotomy between autism and schizophrenia.
One Youtuber Jreg used a breadth-first search (schizophrenia) vs depth-first search (autism) analogy when comparing the the two, but I think your temperature analogy is more apt. Higher temperature results in more disorganized thoughts like schizophrenia. And if you buy into the idea that the root of most schizophrenia is thought disorders, then this analogy implies that dialing up temperature corresponds to more signs of psychosis through speech
My experience with many friends on the autism spectrum is that their speech tends to be more scripted, but I certainly don't think autism and psychosis are mutually exclusive.
They are. Autism is normal, and neurotypicality is simply the socially acceptable/expected level of insanity.
I know I have unconventional beliefs, but the reason is the opposite of what people describe here. There are no patterns and commonly accepted beliefs seem unjustified, and crazy. So I need to find my own answers, but it's difficult. I think that people used to be more like this until recently, and people messed it up because iron is toxic, and heavy metals belong in the brain. I become more and more like this as I keep taking them, and it's better. I admit my IQ has probably dropped, but it's better this way.
Schizophrenia can coexist with extreme levels of intelligence and lucidity.
A schizophrenic member of my family argued in divorce court that her husband, a leading physician at one of the most famous medical institutions in the world, was secretly involved in outrageous nefarious activities.
The stories were all fiction but she was so convincing that the judge awarded her a ruling in the divorce that ruined her husband financially and took an emotional toll.
I wouldn't exactly call it intelligent to lie to a court ;) Perhaps another descriptor would be more precise? For that matter, can one be "truly lucid" if one lies in such a manner?
Lucidity is a feeling let's say. And the stuff you feel it "about" does necessarily mean that the stuff is legit.
Or to quote Moby Dick ~ "Human madness is oftentimes a cunning and most feline thing. When you think it fled, it may have but become transfigured into some still subtler form..."
People with schizophrenia are often not lying, they really believe the bizarre things they say. How do you know what your brain is telling you is true?
Right after the time I was diagnosed (~36), I started to become weirdly good at some stuff.
Music, for example. I've been playing for almost two decades and couldn't progress after a certain level. This changed almost overnight, and I started to learn new instruments very quickly (now I play guitar, bass, drums and piano). I'm not a genius at them, it's not what I'm trying to say. It's just that the pace at which I learn is very different from when I was younger, I can do things I never imagined being able to do.
Somehow, I also acquired some ambidextry. This might be due to learning the instruments. I now can write with both hands (not at the same time, dominant hand is still faster and more acurate). I also developed a second, completely different handwriting (now I have two "fonts" I can use naturally).
I got worse at dealing with people. Everyone seems to be in a haze from my point of view, and it discourages any kind of meaningful relationship. I can pretend though.
I am highly skeptical of the idea that any genetic component is involved in all of this (my father was ambidextrous though, but he acquired it in childhood), it seems purely psychological. I am also skeptical about the stereotypical triggers people often associate schizophrenia to.
Last year I was reading about Havana Syndrome. That was the thing that most resonated with the kinds of psychotic events I had. Weird sounds and voices that seem to come from nowhere, dizziness, balance problems, insomnia, headaches. By the time I got to a doctor, these effects were not there anymore (they last a very short time, at least for me). I was diagnosed by describing them to the psychiatrist. Since the first episode, it has happened again a handful of times. I have learned since that Havana syndrome is not a thing anymore, but there are no official explanations other than "it's likely to be psychogenic". I also wouldn't qualify for it (apparently, only diplomats and spies had it).
Could be age related. I could never play a musical instrument until my mid thirties. Nobody in my family could. My wife found a Ukulele which was left on the side of the road and which was in good condition and took it home. I started playing just randomly tugging strings to understand the sounds and I kept doing that maybe 10 to 30 mins a day for about 2 months and the tunes became less and less random and now I can improvise full 1 to 2 minute melodies on the spot with multiple strings.
I don't need to plan the melody ahead of time I just pick a few notes that go well together then I pick some starting notes and I just intuitively know how to join them together into a full piece. It's like when I play some notes, my fingers themselves resist certain bad notes and whatever note I end up choosing (high pitch or low pitch) seems to work out every time.
I had a guitar since I was 16, and never gave up trying to learn. I reached a plateau very quickly (knew some chords, simple songs), and could never go past it. I then spent almost 20 years in that plateau.
Then, suddenly, it all started to click. I was reharmonizing, writing my own lines, improvising, soloing. It was uncanny. I moved to other instruments at similar speed, stuff I never played before. It became so easy.
I heard many times that once you age, you lose some ability to learn music. What made this experience so jarring was that I experienced the exact opposite.
Maybe this thing that you have to start young is all bullshit (probably what's going on here), and before I had some kind of block. I can't explain what that block was though.
Did the diagnosis perhaps relax some defensive structure in your mind which freed up an ability to tolerate the discomfort of actually identifying what you need to improve?
I don't know. It seems too vague of a description.
On the guitar, I did some identifying and learning.
On drums though, I just sat there and in a matter of months I was able to play to a lot of songs. I was doing polyrhythms, for example, before I knew what polyrhythms were.
Possibly, this is nothing extraordinary and fits the overall learning curve for the general population (I'm assuming lots of people do polyrhythms without knowing them). Which means that before the first episode, I was below that general curve of learning music (slower than everyone else would learn), then something changed right after such episode.
Since I'm on HN, let's use a computer analogy: I would describe it as upgrading a PC to new hardware, things felt smoother. The world of music (and arts in general) felt higher resolution, faster, more responsive to my actions.
The kinds of genetic claims people usually make about schizophrenia are of the hereditary kind (including the post article), not random mutations.
I attribute this to how the illness is researched: finding a genetic factor would be a major breakthrough, so lots of people do studies on that, and eventually force their way into a discovery that represents a narrow subset of the illness but ultimately fails to explain it. It's all over the place.
This makes me extra skeptic regarding the validity of some of these studies.
Yeah, I was referring to a mix of genes not mutation.
Some things happen only with the right set of genes, which don’t come together through any obvious combination of parents or ancestors and may also be unlikely to pass on as a set to children too.
Even more complicated, there may be alternative genes, making identifying which genes are a factor and which are not very difficult.
But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.
But it appears making any progress there has been difficult.
> But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.
I guess I'm genetically predisposed to not give much credit to genetics then. Nothing you can do about it, I will always be skeptical regarding these sorts of claims.
If you scan Wikipedia's "Famous people with schizophrenia" article, as in people whose talent was so exceptional that they could succeed despite their disadvantages, most of the people on the list are musicians.
After reading this article, I’m really curious how you would model all kinds of other reproduction reducing behaviors that have become popular in recent years and how they many generations it will take them to be squeezed out of our culture. Like say taking care of a pet instead of having a kid in Korea.
One plausible explanation is that birth and childhood have become much less dangerous. Before 1900, children with poor genes died; since 1900, children with poor genes survive and have children of their own.
My understanding of high child mortality rates in the past is that it has little to do with genetics, and more to do with infectious diseases and poor hygiene.
Julian Jaynes' theory is always interesting to think about. I self-diagnosed myself as schizophrenic in my late teens and I still stand by my diagnosis 20 years later. I do believe it is a spectrum though and the degree to which one is schizophrenic is not static, and I don't think it's even necessarily a bad thing.
As expected a lot of the comments here are anecdotes. I’m assuming there exists a class of highly technical articles that get posted regularly that incite ancillary discussion, but no real contribution involving the article.
For me, I don’t like that this is about a mathematical model. I don’t want a mathematical model. I like the theory, and I think it’s interesting. I don’t need further digressions into a model. I want to see the real thing. Prove it, replicate it, codify it.
As someone who is currently dating someone with history of psychosis, I have vested interest.
90% of the time she is truly the most amazing, compassionate, full of life and thoughtful person one can ever meet. Then there are times when it’s truly awful. She can barely sleep at all, leaves house without telling anyone seemingly thinking the presence of third person around. And she strongly feels others around are judging her hard, giving non verbal communication. It’s truly awful.
I didn’t know to the full extent her symptoms when we started dating. But one thing that was clear was she could barely sleep at night. Or sleep too long. There was no “normal sleep cycle”.
Over the time, some triggers are noticeable. Places with crowds, bright lighting, or sometimes stress at work. Aripaprazole so far seems to be holding up, no one knows for how long. I hear meds become resistant at some point. I don’t know what future holds. Kids are probably not an option. Although she very much wants it.
I have schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for staying with your partner. I’ve never been able to get someone to stay through my illness with me through my life. But that’s probably because I am man.
I was on so many meds. I can’t even count them. Now I’m not on any, and I consider myself essentially cured after living with it for 35 years.
If she has triggers, that means she does not have a disease
, it means she’s a different person that sensitive to different things. If someone who carries the celiac risk genetics, never eats wheat they never get celiac disease. If your partner was never exposed to triggers, you would never know she had a mood disorder. Do you see what I mean?
Thank you for sharing your journey! Most difficult part of this relationship has been to have her not worry about me leaving her because of her symptoms. Communication is the key. The only thing that can get tiring is when sleep schedules are so messy, and I have to go to work in the morning.
If you don’t mind sharing, what was your progression towards being cured? Did you do anything different lifestyle wise? I have consulted many psychiatrists but the general consensus seems to be that the management is the only option.
I am also somewhat concerned about the genetic component of it. The general feedback I received from pedestrians is most meds are not safe during pregnancy and postpartum episodes are very likely. And the risk of passing down is also about 10-20%. Her dad’s sister also seemingly had it.
First, I’m sorry if there’s any typos I am doing speech to text on my iPhone writing this and it’s early in the morning.
There are many psychiatrist that have different viewpoints, for example I’ve talked to many who see purines as a problem and then you have the whole keto/mitochondrial doctors. There are many psychiatrist that will never change their minds about mood disorders because why do they have to?
I should add as well that there are so many things out of my control that are triggers that I still carry Klonopin with me just in case. It’s the one thing that can stop my psychosis in a heartbeat. I think the glutamate GABA balance is extremely important and unlooked with a lot of mental illnesses. Glutamate are a big trigger for my psychosis.
To me, and I think this can be true for anyone, it’s all about connecting the dots between the triggers and not only mood symptoms, but physical symptoms as well. But obtaining my genetics and also learning about genetics over a 10 year period helped me tremendously. I knew it was in my family because my mother, my brother and my nephew, including myself all had extremely similar experiences and also suicide attempts.
The first thing is, I could not have done this if I did not stop my medication. I’m not recommending anyone stop their medication‘s but it’s going to be really hard to find things that affect glutamate, dopamine and serotonin if you’re taking these drugs at the same time. But being on the same drugs my mother was o 50 years ago did not seem logical to me. And then I started hearing stories about people recovering from mental illness, real stories. Then my nephew hung himself at 13 and that changed everything. I knew it was genetic so I knew that’s the direction I had to go to investigate what was going on with my family.
So I got to know my mother side of the family a bit better both genetically and from stories. It definitely came from my great great grandmother side and it turns out while we all thought that side of the family was Polish, they were actually from Finland.
For myself, my gut was a big indicator and clue. I’ve had IBS-D really bad since I was a child. I managed on my own to find foods that were triggers, but it was not until I discovered I was a FUT-2 non-secretor that thing is really changed. Only 20% of Europeans carry this gene so I knew it was important
Eating a diet heavy in Fucose (not fructose!) fixed my gut. Seaweed, mushrooms, etc.
This was not a cause of my schizoaffective disorder, but it definitely was a trigger. When my gut was bad, I was bad. But there were a lot of times when my gut was good and I was bad as well. So I kept looking for triggers.
Then there was the early heart attacks in my family and my hyperlipidemia. In my genetics, I saw that I had genes that were more like people who were the Inuit when it comes to poly unsaturated fatty acids. At this time, I was a vegetarian. With all the research about how omega-3 helps with heart disease I decided to eat more like an Inuit and what do you know, my cholesterol totally reversed. LDL down and HDL from 30 up to 54. Plus, I was feeling much more stable. Don’t underestimate how omega-3 can control receptor function.
Both my mother and I also had what is called multiple chemical sensitivity. I don’t really like that name but that’s what I’m left with. It’s essentially a sensitivity to a lot of aldehydes. The story here is kind of long and complicated so I’m not gonna go too much into the genetic details but I’m just showing you another of several triggers that helped me find out what was going on. A lot of foods have aldehydes, aldehydes impact flavor of foods and food manufacturers add aldehydes to foods as well as add glutamate and purines to increase our taste but sensitivity to flavors.
And then we could talk about air pollution. Ano...
> If she has triggers, that means she does not have a disease , it means she’s a different person that sensitive to different things
This is not the medical consensus. Schizophrenia, along with many other mental disorders, are well known to have a complex interplay with not only background genetic/chemical factors, but also the psychological conditions of the patient -- stressors like homelessness, drug use, and lack of sleep very much can trigger psychotic episodes. Suggesting otherwise is to suggest that a sick person not get care that they very well may need.
> homelessness, drug use, and lack of sleep very much can trigger psychotic episodes.
Yes, I don’t understand your disagreement, that’s the point I was making. That for some of us these things will cause schizophrenia for others. Maybe some other illness like lupus. The problem isn’t the gene. The problem is the environment. If you’re not homeless, don’t use drugs and get good sleep And you don’t get schizophrenia, an we say schizophrenia is a disease? Or is it a symptom of environment that is not fitting for the individual?
And in fact, schizophrenia is not a disease, it’s classified as a disorder.
I’m assuming this is due to life complexity? If it’s generic fear, you could consider adopting (although that also has the potential to be difficult in it’s own way).
Also wanted to +1 to the other comment, you seem like a wonderful person, thankyou for making the world a better place. I hope I “grow up” to be like you :)
Even if you love someone and can manage your life with them, it's important to consider how that'll play out with even a little bit more pressure placed on a situation that thrives on stability. Kids are not a little bit of pressure, and if there's a possibility their mother (or adopted mother) will disappear for periods of time unpredictably, it would make an already extremely demanding obligation that much more tenuous.
> Kids are probably not an option. Although she very much wants it.
Like many (but not all) people, my bias is love of children. But extend that love to your dearest future hopes. A marriage will be a serious test of commitment and stable teamwork every day — for decades. Otherwise it is likely to crumble and the children will be victims too.
Even as an optimist, I will say to a HN brother... there are short hikes, but for the longest you choose your ascent, your kit, and the weather conditions.
She will break down, then she'll get strong meds and she'll change unrecognizably. Think twice before making a long relationship with this person. You'll get a lot of stress and eventually she'll change drastically.
Schizophrenia has a strong genetic component, so think twice about making a children as well.
Doctors prescribe meds for a reason. Schizophrenia is not a funny thing. Person with voices in the head, can hurt or kill, themselves or someone. It's a choice between two evils. My spouse has these issues, and it was much worse for me, when she resisted to take a treatment. And treatment eventually changed her, so it's very terrible thing that I wouldn't recommend someone to experience voluntarily.
The original article does point out the polygenic nature of the disease.
Currently dealing with a schizophrenic brother-in-law randomly calling for the death of his wife. They have a 2-year-old. I have high hopes for her though, but not for the ability for HN commenters to be able to make empathetic comments instead of random barking.
That sounds like my mother (except for the "90% of the time" comment). I can tell you from experience it would be a bad idea to have kids, even adopting.
This is a shot in the dark, but there is a lot of excitement right now about treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder as a metabolic issue. Some people are seeing complete remission, without medication. This isn’t a quick easy recommendation to just go off meds and go keto, but for some people that apparently has worked. Chris Palmer M.D.[0] is one of the main people driving it.
Is there a reason to go off the meds when starting keto? If the meds are only mostly effective, and then a keto diet makes them very effective, then I might be inclined to go off the meds – but only if it stacks like that.
The article suggests a possible model where the schizophrenia is an extreme linear progression. But the inability to find a culprit genes suggests something more complex. It is possible that there are is a group of genes that all have variations that confers benefit, but when those variations are all together negative effects occur. That makes the positive variants overall beneficial, and keeps them in the gene pool. This is why it is dangerous to presume that when we correlate genetic variants with disease and then presume they should go away. In fact, nearly any inherited disease that has survived may be conferring value to other individual when in proper partnership with other genetic profiles.
For your consideration: the theory of "Positive Disintegration" developed by Kasimir Dabrowski does help to explain the capacity and reality of schizotypal disorders. The easiest way to explain it, is that human brain potential for "over-excitation" leads to personality development; this is natural and human. The stages of personality development are not guaranteed to succeed and proceed correctly. Most cases of schizophrenia may be a result of failed re-organization, or a failure to develop the final, executive, function. In cases of "arrested development," this process may be delayed till later in life. This is the so-called mid-life-crisis, which also can fail, and then you get adult onset schizophrenia. This is all emerging research thats usually locked up in foreign language journals. Almost no medicine to be sold here, AMA and APA are not interested...
Very worth it to read the follow up research paper that moves away from this cliff-edge hypothesis, highlights other ambiguities, and attempts some self-correction.
The problem with this whole line of thought is that the human environment since the neolithic period has changed.
It also does not take into account the huge amount of human relocation that’s taken place over the last 200 years. For example, we have a large number of Africans that are now living in climate that are much colder than what they evolved to live in. The same as truth for northern Europeans, who lived in cold, cloudy climate now living in sunny, warm climates. Does anyone hear really think that that wouldn’t affect the populations mental health?
We know schizophrenia genes are almost always risk genes, meaning their polygenic, or they don’t cause schizophrenia, and everyone who carries the genetics. There are a very few number of cases of people who carry genes that directly caused schizophrenia.
So it’s quite possible that schizophrenia did not exist as frequently as it does in the modern world, a world filled with pollution, stress, drugs, aldehydes, bad food, and on and on and on.
But let’s just take migration. It is a well-known risk factor for schizophrenia. See the paper below.
So no schizophrenia is not the price we pay for mine poison near the edge of a cliff, it’s the price we pay for technology. The technology that enabled not only all the wonderful things to get, but also all the horrible things that come with it.
I had schizoaffective disorder, and I have essentially cured it. But I really can’t say it’s a cure because what was happening was there was a Mitch match between my genetics in my environment. It’s like curing yourself from celiac by not eating wheat. Celiac is only a disease if you eat wheat.
So I am one of these involuntarily relocated people because of capitalism. My great great grandparents on my mother side were Sami and I still carry those genetics. Changing my environment and changing my diet changed my life. Frankly, I’m tired of these articles saying that there’s no cure for mental illnesses and it’s just a price we pay.
This is personally interesting to me, as I am the first generation of my family that is not semi-nomadic (not sure about the exact term in English). When you say you've cured it - did you move somewhere more adequate or you did you stop moving?
Is it possible that the pro-schizophrenia genes persist because they offer other (non-neurological) benefits, e.g., lower risk of cancer? Siblings of patients with schizophrenia are less likely to develop cancer, and in several studies these patients had lower risk of developing cancer despite higher prevalence of smoking.
There’s no such thing as a “pro schizophrenia genes”. There are only genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia, and this is probably due to environmental variables.
Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation. You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
>Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation
But it can be though. Consider a population that works with carcinogens like coal. due to capitalist class structures, they cannot leave their occupation, so a gene that would increase their survivability would be a great help.
It depends very much on the likelihood that the gene causes a disorder, and the deadliness of the disorder. Those two outcomes could be vastly different.
The cliff theory is an interesting one. I don't have any kind of schizo propensity, to my knowledge, but I did, for a brief period of my life, have what I call a "firemind" experience.
During that period I spent an unhealthy amount of time alone. I also spent tons of time reading. During that time the ability of my brain to free-associate seemed to absolutely explode. I felt like I could see a pattern or form a connection between almost anything whatsoever. I read symbolism in everything. The few times I did see friends during that time, I remember them being kind of shocked at the callbacks, linkages, etc. that I was able to fire off instantaneously at the board game table.
My brian no longer works like this. I underwent several lifestyle changes and it seemed to really rewire me. I'm much more logical in my thinking now, but it's taken practice, and the shift was gradual. Every now and then I kind of miss the "semiotic aptitude" I had in those days, but I wonder if I was really just teetering on the edge of a cliff. Maybe a few more months of isolation would have pushed me over the edge.
Though it doesn’t mention it by name exactly, I think a related idea for systems that are optimized close to a point of phase change is “the edge of chaos”
Not my area of expertise, so it should be taken with a boulder of salt, but there are other studies that seem to indicate a much higher correlation. Part of the problem may be that “creative” is a nebulous term. One Swedish study found that people with artistic backgrounds have a 1.9x likelihood of developing schizophrenia and 1.62x odds of developing bipolar disorder.
I suspect (with nothing to support it) that there is a range where people with mental illness are able to interpret the world differently than normies (and thus make connections that normies do not), but also a point where that perception gets so out of joint that they can no longer function in reality. So in the former case, it may help in creative pursuits, but the latter may hamper it.
Interesting article. Also a good amount too high above the paygrade for me to decipher all concepts in it, but as someone who had close contact with schizophrenics a lot, I was missing one aspect in particular:
All schizophrenics I know didn’t start as obvious psychopaths, but rather have their personal „cliff“ usually around an age associated with hormonal changes (eg early twenties, menopause).
So in other words the negative selection effects aren’t there until after reproduction.
283 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder
as did Eugen Bleuler. I have a friend who is schizophrenic whose speech hardly makes sense and she is always calling people on the phone and carrying on nonsensical conversations. Somehow the general public is hung up on ‘hearing voices’ but I have never once heard a voice but under stress I (schizotypal) did once spend about six months under the influence of a ‘system of delusions’ yet stayed mostly functional, kept working, and managed to avoid getting in serious trouble.
I think it is quite ordinary also for people to have a dialogue with an ‘invisible friend’ or believe that they ‘talk to God’ when they pray, the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia seem to be something like you have a thought that you don’t think is your thought but somebody else talking, notably schizophrenics often believe that somebody is putting thoughts into them or taking thoughts out of them, see
https://www.theairloom.org/mindcontrol.php
This is not unreasonable.
It could be less awful if the voices were positive and not harsh and negative. Schizophrenics outside the US were found to have a more benign relationship with their voices.
ref: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2014/07/voices-culture-luh...And as others have pointed out, it really depends what kind of programming you're carrying around. Feeling terrified of something isn't the issue...it's how you've trained to respond to terror that matters. If you lash out or avoid, yeah....don't cultivate multiple voices. If, instead, you're choosing to purge the addiction to violence & domination fairly rooted in American imperial colonial indoctrination, it's really quite something. I'm now working on bringing in 16 others as a way to better connect with different parts of the population and spread this and other blackness-embracing ways.
Hearing/seeing things that aren't there has historically for the majority of humanity's time on Earth not been an issue. We can get back to living in such ways, especially since doing so can be extremely helpful.
Whom I thank every day for repairing my retention processes, just enough that lessons become learning.
I’ve seen plenty of those pills get diverted with outcomes like somebody stays up for 4 days and gets hospitalized so, yeah, I want to diss ADHD medication. It is clear it helps in the short term, not so clear if it helps in the long term.
FTR, meth mouth has no overlap with ADHD meds. I specifically looked into this, way back when.
> He goes to Wegmans every month and comes back with a pill bottle the size of a small trashcan.
If he took that many ADHD meds he'd be dead on day one. Three tabs/day is a heavy dose.
https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-and-substance-abuse-stimula...
They're also less habit forming than the non-stimulant drugs; I'm taking a non-stimulant right now (Intuniv) that you can't safely quit without tapering off for weeks.
The combination is good enough that I lost my caffeine addiction. Of course that's a relatively mild one.
The only conclusions I've come to are one of the following.
1. They improve cognitive abilities in some way we aren't good at measuring. 2. There is something about our modern environment that is more likely to trigger schizophrenia which has more recently increased the fitness penalty these genes confer.
But the optimal thing might be to have a number of more typical/boring people to filter their ideas through, and that might be hard to test experimentally
Maybe living in a world with neurotypical people who immediately dislike you [0] 'inhibits social capacity' after years of traumatic experiences piling up.
0 - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8992906/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/RCCX_Genetic_Module_Theory
Well there is a reason why doctors kept telling me I am a hypochondriac, but I do have a whole zoo of conditions simultaneously, and this is a pretty common state for people with hEDS and I'm on the extreme end of it. So while milder versions of it are ~2% of the population the extreme versions of it are < 1/20K.
And yeah, medical researchers are in fact in the aggregate really bad at their jobs. Look how long it took to convince surgeons to wash their hands. But a lot of the genetic stuff relies on Linear Regression for GWAS which assumes independents of SNPs, otherwise you get multicollinearity problems, this is not a safe assumption and they've confused their results as confirming their assumptions. Instead of listing everything they get wrong a much shorter list is what they get right, Dr Jessica Eccles (https://x.com/BendyBrain) does great research into Long Covid and Generalized Joint Hypermobility which should put to bed the theory that GJH is benign - still good luck trying to talk a doctor out of that train of thought.
If you find someone who has hEDS the odds are they have a very large number of those things and most of them don't even know the names of most of the conditions, just one or two that bother them the most. The RCCX / hEDS list is a distinct subset of all possible things, the list of all medical maladies is far longer. It becomes highly improbable that a set of people have the same set of maladies - doctors tend to chalk this up to social contagion but that doesn't bear out. Genetic and behavioral causes have distinct diffusion patterns.
It's confirmable with WGS which I've done and I've encouraged many others to do and it turns out that you can indeed predict with a great deal of reliability if someone has TNXB / CYP21A2 SNPs. Unfortunately it's harder to find people who have C4 since they're likely to have schizophrenia.
I have an Ancestry partial genome that I've imputed to expand. Would be curious whether those SNP's are present in the data.
We don't know her full family medical history because her dad was adopted. I do know that she was "microdosing" and macro-dosing hallucinogens for years. Mostly acid and shrooms as far as I know. She followed the band Phish around with a group of friends. I can't imagine most of those shows were sober.
We've also seen a few incidents of paranoia when she was under the influence of drugs/alcohol going back decades. So it feels like this was always there in some form, but maybe the estrogen was holding it back before menopause hit. I read an article about women who get schizophrenia after menopause that suggested this could be the case.
Anyway, whenever I see wellness healers and the like extolling the virtues of psilocybin, I want to point out that there could be a downside. We don't know that all of her hallucinogen use over the years contributed to this. But it's certainly a possibility.
I do a lot of DIY psychopharmacology, mostly modafinil and amitriptyline, in a successful effort to reduce ME/CFS/hEDS related brain fog. I’ve given modafinil to normal people and they tend not to notice any effects where for me it’s a super strong drug that’ll keep me wired unless I take other drugs to calm down.
I think quite a large subset of human behavior is seeking self medication for genetic anxiety disorders and I think in knowing the mechanisms people can avoid stumbling around in the dark and go directly towards things that work.
My use is also light and fully legal, but personally I’m not sure that this is something that’s so binary. It seems more likely to sit on a spectrum, as most things do, and is largely dependent on the individual due to wide differences in brain and body function. It’s the same reason why the prescription drug that works wonders for one person and do nothing or worse, be detrimental for somebody else. We’re not all identical units of a particular model rolling off an assembly line somewhere, after all.
So I guess I would say that yes, we should be more conscientious of how substances (even those that are common) interact with our minds, but I have a hard time labeling them all as harmful. It’s just too broad of a brush.
I think you make some interesting points, and it's a very well thought-out post, but this is the definition of "poisoning the well". You're attempting to preemptively discredit the most obvious flaw in your argument.
There is a massive amount of evidence for the impact on both society, economy and neurology for each of the drugs listed in your last paragraph – and it's these impacts that often change personal and societal perception of risk and reward. Caffeine, at average doses, induces an effect that is comparable to a small cortisol spike – it is mildly addictive, but nowhere near that of an opioid, for example.
Drugs like meth and heroine (and one wonders why you left off fentanyl) are highly addictive and destructive, cause enormous loss of life an an inconceivable scale, and can permanently damage neurological pathways. From what I've read, the impact of hallucinogenics is less well understood... but probably not great.
If your argument is "we like to say caffeine and alcohol are fine, when they're really no different than opioids and meth", well there _is_ a staggeringly enormous difference in the potency and impact of caffeine vs the other drugs you've listed. I do agree with you that alcohol is far more harmful than society cares to admit, however, and that's both well-studied and often ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kg0sK-dY98
(At least that's what I remember from "LSD, My Problem Child" by Albert Hoffman. Granted, it's been ~30 years since I read it.
Funny what kids pick up on.
The voices are quite real, we’re not alone in our own minds, and the it is the greatest taboo of society to discuss.
It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own. That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
Readers will be so upset when a perspective challenges their rehashed psychological diatribes as mountains of lies. They got “help” damn you. Their friends (“real people”) are hurt by the craze and they’re more hurt when someone says “modern science and society is wrong.”
The true Truth is whatever existential reality reflects, not what we are prepared to understand. We are not alone in our own minds, we have collectively known this since before our generations and the “straights” of society are so adamant of their self possessed lies they will condemn those insights as crackpot crazy.
That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs.
How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it?
Do you expect everyone should just believe anything anyone says? What is there to tell lunatics and snake oil salesmen apart from those who are actually onto something?
> Those who refuse to believe our thoughts are not all our own.
Ok, you formed an hypothesis. Now tell me, how do you go about showing others that things do work the way you think they do? How can they check them for themselves? What do you expect from others?
> That much mysticism is rooted in something that merely cannot be explained by the logical empirical mind.
If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony?
I get impulses. Science knows about and studies these. But I don't hear any voices.
So no answer to the question "who am I" is strictly speaking true or false, in an objective sense. But that doesn't mean all self-interpretations are equally good. Some self-interpretations can be very destructive. It doesn't take much imagination, or reading history books, to see how defining yourself to be multiple persons/personalities can be very destructive.
What happens when people with acute psychosis meet the voices in their heads?
It's strongly correlated to genetics, and most people are totally asymptomatic, no idea they have it until one day they do.
The story of sudden-onset schizophrenia inducing a psychosis making the patient unwilling to consider treatment is depressingly common.
Because, if so, then alcohol's ubiquity in society would imply that it is probably responsible (in the sense that substances are responsible) for most such conversions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459134/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26941382/
Schizos may take alcohol or cigarettes to calm down, a form of self medication. On the long term these may worsen, in the immediate they help. Why do you think they smoke a lot?!? To treat. If you smoke or drink, what do you do after a tough day - smoke or drink, to relax, feels great. Schizos may have a tough day , but not from external stimuli, but from internal stimuli
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2613326/
I would imagine other drugs which produce severe (and stressful) withdrawal could also trigger this. The stress alone cannot be good.
I think blindly accepting the statement ‘drugs can cause schizophrenia’ is harmful because we don’t actually know if the drugs trigger it or if the disorder makes them seek out drugs.
Keep in mind also the typical onset for schizophrenia is teenage years or early 20s in men, and is often later, up to early 30s in women. These are years you might experiment with drugs.
You a joking. Nobody talks about it to not to harm 'suffering minorities' business. However there are researches that show harm from marijuana is significant and likely permanent. It's no better than tobacco. But you'll never see it on CNN for political reasons...
Two downvotes so far. Any explanation? Can't please everybody, especially Kamala voters.
But my advice: if you value your cognitive abilities, blood vessels health, and I'm sure it's snowballing, stay away from any form of marijuana.
https://archive.ph/zT99C
> But when the protective hormone is withdrawn during menopause, some who avoided earlier psychosis get a later onset. Having a first experience after age 40 is uncommon, but it may include up to 15 percent of the women with schizophrenia—twice the percentage of men who have schizophrenia onset after age 40.
No it doesn’t. It sounds like they’re really concerned about a loved one who went off the deep end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E61Hup6hWWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSWS6rNv0I
He was smoking a lot of weed leading up to and during the psychosis.
Ended up in psychiatric ward for a month, which was followed by a couple of years of depression/introspection/therapy, but is now doing great with lithium.
It’s rather a shedding off of an inconvenience for those that have no (direct) problems of functioning (eg risk of developing addiction, psychosis, etc) at the heavy costs payed by those that are more vulnerable.
And what about those who have a "direct problem of functioning" (like anxiety, depression, ptsd, whatever) and get no real help from the medical profession, but do get help from the drugs?
(Not to condemn psychedelics, I just think the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the "it's totally harmless" direction.)
Could you elaborate on The Game? What did she say about this?
It's really fascinating to read this, because Alex Berenson has been beating this drum for a while now and he claims the psychosis risk has been downplayed or even denied. It's easy to find evidence supporting his take because if you just search Google for [cannabis legalization psychosis] you get a big pile of papers like this one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36696111
"Abstract: Psychosis is a hypothesized consequence of cannabis use. Legalization of cannabis could therefore be associated with an increase in rates of health care utilization for psychosis [...] states with legalization policies experienced no statistically significant increase in rates of psychosis-related diagnoses"
That's from 2023. So apparently it's not that well established? Or if it's well established, there's a lot of researchers denying it.
I realize modern preparations are stronger, but the amount is too low, the dosage difference between relaxed and out there is too small, and after doing some research, it sounds like this is a sign I'm either more prone to schizophrenia, it could trigger it, or increase my likelihood of getting it, so the slightly relaxing high isn't worth it.
Only later I found out that a deceased close relative of mine had schizophrenia. That killed any remaining interest I might have had towards the substance.
Might be depersonalization. I had suffered from it in my twenties; everything feels fake, although you know it is not.
If they then become obsessed with the idea being a fact and refuse to even consider updating their mental model when presented with evidence contradicting it then they have developed a fixed belief.
When that fixed belief is not common among their culture, it becomes a bizarre fixed belief.
When, as a result of their obsession with those bizarre fixed beliefs, they are unable to function (hygiene, nutrition, finances, care of their dependents, etc.) - then there’s a problem.
Or do you think a mind is a perfect thing that can never be ill?
For example, I've met several people who reported the set of symptoms and behaviors you describe - but in their case, 'the game' involved the fact they came from a wealthy extended family whose entire existence revolved around hanging onto their pool of capital and ensuring some rogue family member didn't gain control of the capital, which funded all their connected lives (including this guy, who was able to travel the country and go to music shows solely because of his family-linked trust fund). The game they all played was keeping the family members that controlled the capital happy, rather than going out into the world and finding jobs, making their own money, and being self-sufficient.
There's just not enough information in your post to evaluate whether the example was escaping from a cult or being indoctrinated into another cult, who is sane and who is crazy, etc.
But we can't do anything because she still knows how to take care of herself and isn't a danger to herself or others. So it's just sad.
Schizophrenia is not defined strictly enough that it's possible for you to be right or wrong when you say your friend has it.
Here's a discussion of the change in diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV to DSM-V, which has the side effect of describing what the criteria formerly were and now are: https://psychcentral.com/schizophrenia/dsm-5-changes-schizop...
Has your friend seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(1997_film) ?
I don't know if she's seen The Game, but I do know that she's always had a deep insecurity about being the naive one in the room, being the one not in on the joke. It seems like this thing plays on your worst fears and brings them to life.
Anecdotally, I had a friend once who was very into psilocybin for its mind-expanding properties. He certainly thought he was enlightened and loved to brag about the great understanding he'd gained from his trips, but he was one of the more selfish and un-curious people I've ever known. It seems to me that these drugs create a feeling of having accessed great knowledge, but the "knowledge" is just whatever nonsense your brain conjures up on the fly, like a dream world that makes sense while you're asleep but whose logic falls apart the moment you wake up.
Past that, psychedelics are (kaleidoscopic, funhouse) mirrors. In the hands of a curious and humble person they can (in addition to being a lot of fun shared with like-minded others) be valuable therapeutic tools for approaching firmly rooted hangups, attitudes, etc. In the hands of someone like your friend, you get what you observed.
Both are commonly occurring patterns, and if you know a person's character even a little well you can usually predict how they'll engage with and come out of the experience.
To quote Shulgin,
> The most compelling insight of that day was that this awesome recall had been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained within the white solid. Everything I had recognized came from the depths of my memory and my psyche.
But I never felt like I was getting at some deeper meaning, and it wasn't something I wanted to keep doing throughout my life.
It is not just schizophrenia, any mental health condition is isolating, others cannot understand it. I have OCD,ADHD etc so I know it, that's why we prefer who have been or going through same thing than normal people.
For me psychosis feels like pattern matching going on extreme overdrive, while at the same time memory goes to shit. It's truly an awful illness, and what's worse is that the current medical treatments are bad. I've been fortunate enough where I can get by on a low dose olanzapine, but for many people they simply don't work at all.
Even though I'm doing well enough to function normally and hold down a good, well paying job, it's impossible to find a partner. If I were to have kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services. I am strongly in support of these screening services - the disease is truly horrible.
There has been little progress on treatments for schizophrenia, the mechanism of action of these drugs has remained the same for decades. The side effects are almost as bad as the disease, which is why so many schizophrenic stop taking them. The only novel medication recently released is Cobenfy, which I have not tried yet.
Personally I am holding out hope that schizophrenia has some basis as an autoimmune disease. There was a cancer patient who had a bone marrow transplant and ended up being cured: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/schizophre...
The most striking thing, is the absolute certainty of the thinking. They feel as if their thinking is crystal-clear, and that they are the only one that "sees the patterns."
Currently, they're doing well. I know of others, that are not so fortunate.
It seems that pot is about the worst thing that a schizoaffective/schizophrenic person can use. They are better off chewing tabs of acid. I've not used it in about 45 years, and I've heard that today's pot is a heck of a lot stronger than what I remember.
I’m not defending them as I don’t know any details, I’m just curious how you came to be certain about your assessment.
EDIT: Imagine being powerful and wealthy and assured in your position in the Catholic Church and someone comes along and questions geocentricity and says you're wrong. It's a pretty easy leap to huffily say well, they are "mentally ill, crazy, delusional, paranoid"
that said... you just have to have a conversation with someone experiencing psychosis. it's a totally altered state of consciousness, they are sensing and understanding the world in a radically different way. it's never just an otherwise normal person with a nonconformist belief.
I think what really gets me is that despite my constant vigilance and skepticism toward my own thoughts, I simply cannot talk myself out of how truly real those delusions feel when they happen. I can even acknowledge how absurd they are, even in the moment, but I can never shake the feeling that they're still very, very real. It's so maddening. The best I can do is to just not act on those thoughts.
Maybe the above person's family is actually unearthing valid insights, but if they're prone to psychosis, in that state they'll be prone to finding connections, associations, patterns, and so on between things in a way that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It'll feel very real to them in the moment, but when they exit that state (if they do) they'll likely be on the same page as others in thinking those ideas were a stretch.
I don’t really believe in the dormant/latent argument because once you shift down to the underground (as in, entertain all possibilities, even the possibility that you share something in common with drug abusers) where people abuse drugs, there you can see just how common psychosis is.
The drugs fuck people up. Interestingly, after many years of laying off the substance, many do find their way out of the psychosis.
Many people are actually caught in this trap and don’t tell anyone because they are struggling between reality and their delusions and trying to present a calm face to the world. It’s often directly the result of the substance, but it’s allowed to fester in the person due to all kinds of reasons (”hey, I’m really going to confess this is the crazy shit that feels believable to me?”). By the time they are done wrestling with reality and unreality, often they are left extremely damaged from the ordeal psychologically.
My instances of psychosis outside of depression/mania tend to be triggered by stress. I don't use drugs or take any stimulant medications, but they still just happen sometimes. It sucks. I'm thankfully not in an active episode at the moment, but I do suffer on a daily basis from the "negative" symptoms of schizoaffective disorder (i.e., the symptoms that take away function, like anhedonia, avolition, alogia, etc).
Also, in my days of yute, I was fairly profligate in the use of ... mind-enhancing chemicals, shall we say. They basically gave me the same exact certainty and "insight."
Once, I decided to write down the marvelous insight that I experienced, while tripping. I wrote a whole bunch of stuff in a notebook, and then read it, a couple of days later.
It was pure gibberish. Made no sense at all.
[EDITED TO ADD] I should say that I had the luxury of having two distinct states of mind, including a "control state," in which to review the ramblings in the "enhanced" state. This is not a luxury that someone suffering from schizoaffective disorder has. They have no idea that their thinking is off.
It’s an extremely debilitating condition.
This isn't entirely true, and it's a dangerous misconception. High THC, low CBD cannabis wouldn't be recommended, but that's exactly what making cannabis illegal selects for.
High CBD, low/zero THC cannabis, on the other hand, will probably be one of the paths to treatment if we ever get over our Reefer Madness and pharmaceutical obsession.
That's one reason that I have compassion for parents of autistic children, that are vehemently anti-vax. I completely disagree with their stance, but I know what they are dealing with, and the very real fears and stresses that they are under.
It's not a theory that CBD has anti-psychotic properties. It certainly does, we just don't fully understand why.
My theory is that it will someday be part of treatment plans; and as someone with skin in the game I would hope that you care enough to learn a bit more about it. The comparison to anti-vaxxers with autism in the family is not appropriate here.
Actually, if the agenda of pushing CBD therapy applies, then it is. I know a number of folks that have autistic children, of various levels, from "nerd," to "wheelchair-bound." Their parents are usually absolute saints, regardless of their political views, or misinformation diets, and live in constant pain; making daily sacrifices that I don't think many folks here, can even comprehend.
We were discussing a serious mental illness, and, as someone that is a caregiver for someone like that, I think that my experience is relevant; just as someone who believes that their child's condition was caused by something that is really a red herring.
The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas), and look at people like us, with very real pain, as nothing but pawns, to be used to push their agenda (Think of the children!).
CBD, like Blockchain, probably has some valid application, but, because it was so unexplored, scientifically, it is currently about 75% snake-oil. We'll find out what it's good for, over time. The same can be said for other drugs, like MDMA, microdose LSD, or psilocybin.
I will not.
The demonization of cannabis has led directly to it becoming high THC and low CBD, as I said. It also has lead to it often being tainted with all manner of adulterants, from ketamine to glass beads to plaster dust to worse.
> Cannabis is dangerous for schizoaffective people.
CBD is a leading target of research for it's anti-psychotic properties; and if you don't know this it's a complete mystery to me why you feel entitled to weigh in.
And it's not even the only compound in cannabis that is being investigated; there are others with anti-psychotic and synergistic potential.
> Why are people that smoke pot so tiresome about this?
What if what I'm saying might be true, and you're dead wrong to accuse anyone who disagrees of being a 'tiresome stoner'?
... Because, in fact, it may well be [0].
> Just accept that it’s not good for everyone!
If it's not for you, that's fine; but the wilful ignorance around cannabis over decades has caused far, far more harm than cannabis ever has.
Can you accept that it will may well have a role in treating "psychosis, in general and schizophrenia, in particular" [0]?
0 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22716160/
On what exactly are you basing that off of? Vibes?
In other words, yeah, don't just believe it at face value- but if you have good reason to trust the source, it's worth considering and checking into further.
In this case it's not just one individual but many people saying that THC and CBD are almost opposites if eachother, for example in how they affect anxiety.
Definitely worth proper research imho, could lead to medication that has more of the pros and less of the cons
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cbd+antipsychotic&atb=v340-...
from the guys I knew who chewed the tabs of acid and had evident schizophrenic problems, I don't think so.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44347211
Edit: are you thinking it’s genetic, but exacerbated by weed?
We have a friend whose sister has it and she went to genetics counselors before having kids.
They told her that because her sister has it that her kids had a 20% likelihood of developing it. Obviously 20% is way higher than normal.
I do know that this woman chose to not use her own eggs for their child. And you would think that going from 1-1.2% would not make you do that. Perhaps there is another variable involved that I am unaware of. Her sister developed it after their parents divorce in her 30s fwiw.
From article:
So while autoimmune might be the cause for some people, other people have other causes?As humans we look for a simple A therefore B story. Even then most people in my experience are either (a) poor at spotting cause and effect or (b) go into denial e.g. many political arguments
> kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services
Have to? Do you mean you would want to? Or is there some compulsory force where you are?
He might be interested in looking up THC, glutamate and schizoaffective disorder. Here’s a good start.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0374-8
One other possible immune system link is the relationahip between the parasite toximoplasis gondii to schizophrenia.
If I'm not mistaken that's the paper about that:
https://dbc.wroc.pl/Content/39095/PDF/1031.pdf
I've tried 3 times, last time was a bad trip, I went into a very cold state (was shaking) and I was seeing random visual images every second. It felt like my brain was telling chat gpt to generate a random image on the fly none stop.
Anyways I was fine the next day, but I'm not trying it ever again if there is some risks associated with it. I took a low dose (half gummy).
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/some-unintuitive-properties...
I wonder if schizophrenia (or perhaps psychosis) could be in some way analogous to the LLM temperature function becoming disregulated?
I mean, what is the extreme opposite of psychosis? If it is matter of degree, which it seems to be, then there is probably a tuning mechanism. Perhaps too little and you fail to account for factors that might not be apparent but might be guessed or inferred, too much, and too much seems plausible.
If so it would be possible to have a great deal of different “causes” given the tight and complex coupling of biological mechanisms.
I think it is possible to be diagnosed with both schizophrenia and autism which is why the theory is not considered anymore.
One Youtuber Jreg used a breadth-first search (schizophrenia) vs depth-first search (autism) analogy when comparing the the two, but I think your temperature analogy is more apt. Higher temperature results in more disorganized thoughts like schizophrenia. And if you buy into the idea that the root of most schizophrenia is thought disorders, then this analogy implies that dialing up temperature corresponds to more signs of psychosis through speech
My experience with many friends on the autism spectrum is that their speech tends to be more scripted, but I certainly don't think autism and psychosis are mutually exclusive.
Psychosis can also be caused by a lack of sleep (like not sleeping for days) and in this case sleep can end the psychosis.
Which is to say that schizophrenia and psychosis have an intersecting relationship.
I know I have unconventional beliefs, but the reason is the opposite of what people describe here. There are no patterns and commonly accepted beliefs seem unjustified, and crazy. So I need to find my own answers, but it's difficult. I think that people used to be more like this until recently, and people messed it up because iron is toxic, and heavy metals belong in the brain. I become more and more like this as I keep taking them, and it's better. I admit my IQ has probably dropped, but it's better this way.
A schizophrenic member of my family argued in divorce court that her husband, a leading physician at one of the most famous medical institutions in the world, was secretly involved in outrageous nefarious activities.
The stories were all fiction but she was so convincing that the judge awarded her a ruling in the divorce that ruined her husband financially and took an emotional toll.
Or to quote Moby Dick ~ "Human madness is oftentimes a cunning and most feline thing. When you think it fled, it may have but become transfigured into some still subtler form..."
Note, I don't question your lucidity. But hope it shows the fallacy of your logic train.
Right after the time I was diagnosed (~36), I started to become weirdly good at some stuff.
Music, for example. I've been playing for almost two decades and couldn't progress after a certain level. This changed almost overnight, and I started to learn new instruments very quickly (now I play guitar, bass, drums and piano). I'm not a genius at them, it's not what I'm trying to say. It's just that the pace at which I learn is very different from when I was younger, I can do things I never imagined being able to do.
Somehow, I also acquired some ambidextry. This might be due to learning the instruments. I now can write with both hands (not at the same time, dominant hand is still faster and more acurate). I also developed a second, completely different handwriting (now I have two "fonts" I can use naturally).
I got worse at dealing with people. Everyone seems to be in a haze from my point of view, and it discourages any kind of meaningful relationship. I can pretend though.
I am highly skeptical of the idea that any genetic component is involved in all of this (my father was ambidextrous though, but he acquired it in childhood), it seems purely psychological. I am also skeptical about the stereotypical triggers people often associate schizophrenia to.
Last year I was reading about Havana Syndrome. That was the thing that most resonated with the kinds of psychotic events I had. Weird sounds and voices that seem to come from nowhere, dizziness, balance problems, insomnia, headaches. By the time I got to a doctor, these effects were not there anymore (they last a very short time, at least for me). I was diagnosed by describing them to the psychiatrist. Since the first episode, it has happened again a handful of times. I have learned since that Havana syndrome is not a thing anymore, but there are no official explanations other than "it's likely to be psychogenic". I also wouldn't qualify for it (apparently, only diplomats and spies had it).
I don't need to plan the melody ahead of time I just pick a few notes that go well together then I pick some starting notes and I just intuitively know how to join them together into a full piece. It's like when I play some notes, my fingers themselves resist certain bad notes and whatever note I end up choosing (high pitch or low pitch) seems to work out every time.
Then, suddenly, it all started to click. I was reharmonizing, writing my own lines, improvising, soloing. It was uncanny. I moved to other instruments at similar speed, stuff I never played before. It became so easy.
I heard many times that once you age, you lose some ability to learn music. What made this experience so jarring was that I experienced the exact opposite.
Maybe this thing that you have to start young is all bullshit (probably what's going on here), and before I had some kind of block. I can't explain what that block was though.
On the guitar, I did some identifying and learning.
On drums though, I just sat there and in a matter of months I was able to play to a lot of songs. I was doing polyrhythms, for example, before I knew what polyrhythms were.
Possibly, this is nothing extraordinary and fits the overall learning curve for the general population (I'm assuming lots of people do polyrhythms without knowing them). Which means that before the first episode, I was below that general curve of learning music (slower than everyone else would learn), then something changed right after such episode.
Since I'm on HN, let's use a computer analogy: I would describe it as upgrading a PC to new hardware, things felt smoother. The world of music (and arts in general) felt higher resolution, faster, more responsive to my actions.
Something can still be (weakly or strongly) genetic, but not inherited in any direct way. I.e. due to a particular mix of genes.
I attribute this to how the illness is researched: finding a genetic factor would be a major breakthrough, so lots of people do studies on that, and eventually force their way into a discovery that represents a narrow subset of the illness but ultimately fails to explain it. It's all over the place.
This makes me extra skeptic regarding the validity of some of these studies.
Some things happen only with the right set of genes, which don’t come together through any obvious combination of parents or ancestors and may also be unlikely to pass on as a set to children too.
Even more complicated, there may be alternative genes, making identifying which genes are a factor and which are not very difficult.
But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.
But it appears making any progress there has been difficult.
I guess I'm genetically predisposed to not give much credit to genetics then. Nothing you can do about it, I will always be skeptical regarding these sorts of claims.
For me, I don’t like that this is about a mathematical model. I don’t want a mathematical model. I like the theory, and I think it’s interesting. I don’t need further digressions into a model. I want to see the real thing. Prove it, replicate it, codify it.
90% of the time she is truly the most amazing, compassionate, full of life and thoughtful person one can ever meet. Then there are times when it’s truly awful. She can barely sleep at all, leaves house without telling anyone seemingly thinking the presence of third person around. And she strongly feels others around are judging her hard, giving non verbal communication. It’s truly awful.
I didn’t know to the full extent her symptoms when we started dating. But one thing that was clear was she could barely sleep at night. Or sleep too long. There was no “normal sleep cycle”.
Over the time, some triggers are noticeable. Places with crowds, bright lighting, or sometimes stress at work. Aripaprazole so far seems to be holding up, no one knows for how long. I hear meds become resistant at some point. I don’t know what future holds. Kids are probably not an option. Although she very much wants it.
I was on so many meds. I can’t even count them. Now I’m not on any, and I consider myself essentially cured after living with it for 35 years.
If she has triggers, that means she does not have a disease , it means she’s a different person that sensitive to different things. If someone who carries the celiac risk genetics, never eats wheat they never get celiac disease. If your partner was never exposed to triggers, you would never know she had a mood disorder. Do you see what I mean?
If you don’t mind sharing, what was your progression towards being cured? Did you do anything different lifestyle wise? I have consulted many psychiatrists but the general consensus seems to be that the management is the only option.
I am also somewhat concerned about the genetic component of it. The general feedback I received from pedestrians is most meds are not safe during pregnancy and postpartum episodes are very likely. And the risk of passing down is also about 10-20%. Her dad’s sister also seemingly had it.
There are many psychiatrist that have different viewpoints, for example I’ve talked to many who see purines as a problem and then you have the whole keto/mitochondrial doctors. There are many psychiatrist that will never change their minds about mood disorders because why do they have to?
I should add as well that there are so many things out of my control that are triggers that I still carry Klonopin with me just in case. It’s the one thing that can stop my psychosis in a heartbeat. I think the glutamate GABA balance is extremely important and unlooked with a lot of mental illnesses. Glutamate are a big trigger for my psychosis.
To me, and I think this can be true for anyone, it’s all about connecting the dots between the triggers and not only mood symptoms, but physical symptoms as well. But obtaining my genetics and also learning about genetics over a 10 year period helped me tremendously. I knew it was in my family because my mother, my brother and my nephew, including myself all had extremely similar experiences and also suicide attempts.
The first thing is, I could not have done this if I did not stop my medication. I’m not recommending anyone stop their medication‘s but it’s going to be really hard to find things that affect glutamate, dopamine and serotonin if you’re taking these drugs at the same time. But being on the same drugs my mother was o 50 years ago did not seem logical to me. And then I started hearing stories about people recovering from mental illness, real stories. Then my nephew hung himself at 13 and that changed everything. I knew it was genetic so I knew that’s the direction I had to go to investigate what was going on with my family.
So I got to know my mother side of the family a bit better both genetically and from stories. It definitely came from my great great grandmother side and it turns out while we all thought that side of the family was Polish, they were actually from Finland.
For myself, my gut was a big indicator and clue. I’ve had IBS-D really bad since I was a child. I managed on my own to find foods that were triggers, but it was not until I discovered I was a FUT-2 non-secretor that thing is really changed. Only 20% of Europeans carry this gene so I knew it was important
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9301175/
Eating a diet heavy in Fucose (not fructose!) fixed my gut. Seaweed, mushrooms, etc.
This was not a cause of my schizoaffective disorder, but it definitely was a trigger. When my gut was bad, I was bad. But there were a lot of times when my gut was good and I was bad as well. So I kept looking for triggers.
Then there was the early heart attacks in my family and my hyperlipidemia. In my genetics, I saw that I had genes that were more like people who were the Inuit when it comes to poly unsaturated fatty acids. At this time, I was a vegetarian. With all the research about how omega-3 helps with heart disease I decided to eat more like an Inuit and what do you know, my cholesterol totally reversed. LDL down and HDL from 30 up to 54. Plus, I was feeling much more stable. Don’t underestimate how omega-3 can control receptor function.
Both my mother and I also had what is called multiple chemical sensitivity. I don’t really like that name but that’s what I’m left with. It’s essentially a sensitivity to a lot of aldehydes. The story here is kind of long and complicated so I’m not gonna go too much into the genetic details but I’m just showing you another of several triggers that helped me find out what was going on. A lot of foods have aldehydes, aldehydes impact flavor of foods and food manufacturers add aldehydes to foods as well as add glutamate and purines to increase our taste but sensitivity to flavors.
And then we could talk about air pollution. Ano...
This is not the medical consensus. Schizophrenia, along with many other mental disorders, are well known to have a complex interplay with not only background genetic/chemical factors, but also the psychological conditions of the patient -- stressors like homelessness, drug use, and lack of sleep very much can trigger psychotic episodes. Suggesting otherwise is to suggest that a sick person not get care that they very well may need.
Yes, I don’t understand your disagreement, that’s the point I was making. That for some of us these things will cause schizophrenia for others. Maybe some other illness like lupus. The problem isn’t the gene. The problem is the environment. If you’re not homeless, don’t use drugs and get good sleep And you don’t get schizophrenia, an we say schizophrenia is a disease? Or is it a symptom of environment that is not fitting for the individual?
And in fact, schizophrenia is not a disease, it’s classified as a disorder.
I’m assuming this is due to life complexity? If it’s generic fear, you could consider adopting (although that also has the potential to be difficult in it’s own way).
Also wanted to +1 to the other comment, you seem like a wonderful person, thankyou for making the world a better place. I hope I “grow up” to be like you :)
Like many (but not all) people, my bias is love of children. But extend that love to your dearest future hopes. A marriage will be a serious test of commitment and stable teamwork every day — for decades. Otherwise it is likely to crumble and the children will be victims too.
Even as an optimist, I will say to a HN brother... there are short hikes, but for the longest you choose your ascent, your kit, and the weather conditions.
Schizophrenia has a strong genetic component, so think twice about making a children as well.
Isn't this risk mitigated if the respective person is (also) an anti-psychiatry activist? ;-)
Currently dealing with a schizophrenic brother-in-law randomly calling for the death of his wife. They have a 2-year-old. I have high hopes for her though, but not for the ability for HN commenters to be able to make empathetic comments instead of random barking.
[0] https://www.chrispalmermd.com/chris-palmer/
But I think environment plays a bigger role in modern society to increase the risk of mood disorders than genetics alone.
https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/the-evolutionary-genetic...
In any case, a fascinating read and well-worth it to explore the linked citations, especially by Crow and Nesse.
It also does not take into account the huge amount of human relocation that’s taken place over the last 200 years. For example, we have a large number of Africans that are now living in climate that are much colder than what they evolved to live in. The same as truth for northern Europeans, who lived in cold, cloudy climate now living in sunny, warm climates. Does anyone hear really think that that wouldn’t affect the populations mental health?
We know schizophrenia genes are almost always risk genes, meaning their polygenic, or they don’t cause schizophrenia, and everyone who carries the genetics. There are a very few number of cases of people who carry genes that directly caused schizophrenia.
So it’s quite possible that schizophrenia did not exist as frequently as it does in the modern world, a world filled with pollution, stress, drugs, aldehydes, bad food, and on and on and on.
But let’s just take migration. It is a well-known risk factor for schizophrenia. See the paper below.
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.1....
So no schizophrenia is not the price we pay for mine poison near the edge of a cliff, it’s the price we pay for technology. The technology that enabled not only all the wonderful things to get, but also all the horrible things that come with it.
I had schizoaffective disorder, and I have essentially cured it. But I really can’t say it’s a cure because what was happening was there was a Mitch match between my genetics in my environment. It’s like curing yourself from celiac by not eating wheat. Celiac is only a disease if you eat wheat.
So I am one of these involuntarily relocated people because of capitalism. My great great grandparents on my mother side were Sami and I still carry those genetics. Changing my environment and changing my diet changed my life. Frankly, I’m tired of these articles saying that there’s no cure for mental illnesses and it’s just a price we pay.
Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation. You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
I think that's what GP was saying?
> You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
I think... that's what GP was saying?
If you are switching one low survival gene for another there is no net benefit.
During that period I spent an unhealthy amount of time alone. I also spent tons of time reading. During that time the ability of my brain to free-associate seemed to absolutely explode. I felt like I could see a pattern or form a connection between almost anything whatsoever. I read symbolism in everything. The few times I did see friends during that time, I remember them being kind of shocked at the callbacks, linkages, etc. that I was able to fire off instantaneously at the board game table.
My brian no longer works like this. I underwent several lifestyle changes and it seemed to really rewire me. I'm much more logical in my thinking now, but it's taken practice, and the shift was gradual. Every now and then I kind of miss the "semiotic aptitude" I had in those days, but I wonder if I was really just teetering on the edge of a cliff. Maybe a few more months of isolation would have pushed me over the edge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_chaos
https://www.humanfactors.lth.se/fileadmin/lusa/Sidney_Dekker...
how much schizophrenia is actually going to manifest in peak procreating years?
According to Wikipedia, creative people are 25% more likely to have a mental illness.
As for why so many bipolar people are famous, manic episodes can be very productive.
For myself, being bipolar has given me several lifetimes of perspective to inform my writing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_and_mental_health
I suspect (with nothing to support it) that there is a range where people with mental illness are able to interpret the world differently than normies (and thus make connections that normies do not), but also a point where that perception gets so out of joint that they can no longer function in reality. So in the former case, it may help in creative pursuits, but the latter may hamper it.
All schizophrenics I know didn’t start as obvious psychopaths, but rather have their personal „cliff“ usually around an age associated with hormonal changes (eg early twenties, menopause).
So in other words the negative selection effects aren’t there until after reproduction.