Live data from Hacker News

The terrorist inside my husband's brain

m.neurology.org

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a really amazing book by Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor (and a followup she wrote in the late 80s called "AIDs and its metaphors") which talks about this need to speak about disease as a conflict or fight, or as a foreign invasion or corruption. It's a fascinating book also because it compares the 20th century ways of talking (or not talking) about cancer with how tuberculosis was discussed in the 19th cen…

Except that cancer and infectious disease really are conflicts and invasions, no metaphors needed. At the cellular level you really do have cells killing cells based on recognition of whether they are not they are recognized as "self".

You are defending the metaphor by using metaphors based on the metaphor you are defending.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#82
post #39
post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

"the sad Zeitgeist of our time notwithstanding" This sounds like one of those sentences that sound deep but don't mean anything. Can you explain?

Zeitgeist has the meaning not only of "the spirit of the times" (literal translation), but of the sense of a binding or constraining dominant ideals and beliefs of a time, which can be viewed as proscribing a cage within which a set of contemporaneously accessible ideas are constrained.

The idea was promoted by Albert Szent-Gyorgi in a 1970 book, The Crazy Ape.

There's a good overview of the concept in this VSauce2 video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOFQcNZiFk&t=9m43s

I'm finding the top-level complaint registered, its note, and significance on this discussion overstated and distracting.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#83
post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network o…

I looked up entrée, and the Wikipedia page says that the American usage of the word is actually older than the contemporary French meaning of a dish served before the main course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#84
post #26

A common failing I've noticed in complicated multi-symptom diagnoses like this disease is that doctors tend to treat each symptom individually instead of trying to connect the dots of all the symptoms. As a programmer used to debugging complicated systems it makes no sense, my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause.

Lack of systemic thinking across a great many areas is unfortunately overly common. Including in software and technology, but hardly limited to that.

Answering the criticism raised in several responses, it's not that a deep and systemic understanding is specific to software, and inapplicable elsewhere. Yes, the fact of a human-constructed system may make the intention of a system clearer, and its detection easier, but the entirety of existance, at least as our brains are fundamentally equipped to make sense of it, is a system. Primary phenomena are rooted in underlying systems, prerequisites, causes, and interactions. "Five whys", or any other set of inductive explorations, is not a privilege of software systems and workers alone.

The asystematic approach is one that is, paradoxically, a result of increasing complexity of knowledge itself. Rather than individuals spanning multiple disciplines or even subdisciplines or specialties, they're are trailed off into individual leaf-nodes of research, skill, and application, and efforts to break out of this pigeon hole are obstructed at virtually all levels of the system.

Pay and reward are largely commensurate with specialisation. Reputation is contingent on specialisation. Procedure compensation is contingent on specialisation. Access to diagnostic equipment is contingent on specialisation.

And so forth.

Each individual member associated with treatment has their own very small aspect as their particular area of concern.

In software, it's like the person who resolves a bug in medical pricing codes by simply applying the value that was expected in that specific instance for a price, rather than, say, fixing an algorithm or lookup table such that the right answer appears regardless of specific circumstances (I'm paraphrasing from an actual bug/fix story seen recently). From the point of view of a naive management system, that worker has a very high bug resolution rate -- but they're treating the symptom only of an underlying software deficiency.

In a similar vein: you can "fix" a water spot on a wall by repainting the wall.

Or you could replace the plaster that's been waterlogged.

Or you could seal the exterior wall leak that's allowing water in.

Or you could shore up the foundation that's settled, allowing the wall to leak.

Or you could address the underlying geology -- a sinkhole, ground subsidence, a fault line -- that's causing the foundation to move.

Paint is cheaper than plaster is cheaper than siding is cheaper than concrete is cheaper than earth-moving equipment. And there may be an appropriate level of fix. But walking through the problem to its fundamental source(s) provides a full understanding of the problem.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#85
post #72
post #26

A common failing I've noticed in complicated multi-symptom diagnoses like this disease is that doctors tend to treat each symptom individually instead of trying to connect the dots of all the symptoms. As a programmer used to debugging complicated systems it makes no sense, my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause.

> my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause. The problem is that programmers can make a hypothesis and then test while doctors can't. Doctor's are effectively engaging in "shotgun debugging" because they don't have good "this cause to this effect" for a lot of systems. The drugs they have to effectively "unit test" don't have narrow effects, so those add…

Bayesian techniques are really good at this problem.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#86
post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network o…

> This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals.

Terrorists are criminals whose main motivation is political. The main motivation of other criminals is not. One term is more specific, so they are not interchangeable, and the term terrorist carries useful information when used properly.

Of course, diseases are not politically motivated, so that analogy is not great.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#87
post #41
post #26

A common failing I've noticed in complicated multi-symptom diagnoses like this disease is that doctors tend to treat each symptom individually instead of trying to connect the dots of all the symptoms. As a programmer used to debugging complicated systems it makes no sense, my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause.

What you call a complicated system is trivially easy compared to the complexity of the human body. The truth of the matter is that humans alone are simply not good at this. There is way too much information that needs to be considered both about the individual patient as well as medical knowledge of diseases. What is necessary is to force the medical community to build up better tools for medical diagnostics and the…

Clinical systems interoperability has improved a lot in the past few years. But decision support and automated diagnostic tools (like IBM Watson) are still constrained by lack of complete and accurate patient symptom data. It takes a lot of time and expertise to correctly observe symptoms and enter them in a way that computers can understand. I don't think that automated diagnostics will be widely used until computer vision, pattern recognition, and natural language processing advance far beyond the current state of the art.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#88

The problem with diseases like this is doctors having nothing to offer at all. A relative of mine had this condition and they had so much trust in their doctors. They'd go to the doctor regularly and every time the doctor tells them they're sick after giving them a few trivial tests, sends them home and sends them a bill. It's a real farce. They could try some radical therapy, like stem cells, but they don't. Instead…

What do you expect? Medical professionals are not witch doctors or snake oil scammers. The first rule is "do no harm". It would be wildly irresponsible to inject a patient with stem cells or whatever just for the sake of trying something. If there's a reason to suspect that stem cells might help then encourage them to conduct a properly controlled clinical trial.

Many hospitals do have chaplains (priests and others) on staff. Some patients find them to be a great source of comfort.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#89
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network o…

I looked up entrée, and the Wikipedia page says that the American usage of the word is actually older than the contemporary French meaning of a dish served before the main course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

The contemporary American meaning (the main course) doesn't seem really older than the contemporary French meaning.

> The word entrée maintained this meaning of a substantial meat course served after the soup/fish and before the roast in Britain, France, and America until well after the first World War.

http://languageoffood.blogspot.ch/2009/08/entree.html

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network o…

> This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Terrorists are criminals whose main motivation is political. The main motivation of other criminals is not. One term is more specific, so they are not interchangeable, and the term terrorist carries useful information when used properly. Of course, diseases are not politically motivated, so that analogy is not great.

So Henry Thoreau and Richard Nixon were terrorists?

I'd really prefer more specific (and disrespectful) terms like "violent troll". "Terrorist" helps feed the phenomenon it's naming.

Post reply on HN