Hacker News: where a very human story of empathy and healing immediately turns into a discussion of what this can tell us about the brain's computational architecture.
That's how problems like this get solved.
I get that, but you gotta think about how it comes across. A bunch of computer nerds treating a mental disorder like a math problem. It's seen as insensitive to dive into the problem like that, without a little acknowledgement of the human side of the equation. That's how it comes across to an outsider reading this.
But don't get me wrong, empathy won't always lead to better treatment. Science will. And we should ask these questions. Although you're comment "that's how problems like this get solved" is too optimistic. HN is not a forum for neurologists. I doubt a bunch of programmers on a comment section are going to to make a breakthrough in understanding this disease.
Because I'm a computer engineer I naturally tend to look at the brain in terms of how computers work. I hope I'm not being disrespectful, but this thing sounds eerily like memory corruption. I mean like corrupted pointers that lead to a garbage addresses. If it's something like that I can well imagine why it's so difficult to deal with - after all you can't 'reinstall' a person's mind. Maybe in the future, if/when we…
Like I said in a previous post, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Think of it like a kernel driver that monitors the currently running application. If it detects that the application would overheat the CPU it swaps it out to disk and runs another one that could handle the situation better. Now, this is a very bad analogy, but at least it should give you the sense that it is a coping mechanism, not a flaw. I'd suggest t…
For the record, I'm completely in agreement with "feature, not a bug". For myself and many people I know, mental health stuff makes more sense when looked at like that, and it also matches up with core concepts of Cogitative Behavioural Therapy. At some point your brain needed certain bits of code to survive, but unfortunately the brain can't be cleanly patched once those times have passed (which is also an awful analogy, but works enough for this).
That is an incredibly moving story, and it's wonderful how well it turned out. But the author acted irresponsibly. As soon as he realized that his friend was dissociating, in the taxi, he should have called 911/999/whatever and informed the driver of the situation. If this had been a stroke or heart attack, that would have been the obvious move. Why not for dissociation?
The girlfriend gave him very specific instructions about what to do if/when it happened, and reinforced them just before it happened with " Promise me that whatever happens, you will not let go ". I cannot imagine any scenario in which involving the authorities would have improved the situation and not violated her instructions, which he implicitly if not explicitly had agreed to follow. Most specifically "not let go…
The situation could have gone to hell, and one or both of them could have been injured or killed. Given that risk, his friend's "instructions" were plainly unworkable. If she had run in front of a car and been killed, for example, her estate might have come after him.
If she doesn't want the authorities to be involved, he would need at least a medical power of attorney. And even that would not not protect him from police responding to an apparent abduction. The only strategy to prevent that is to involve them from the start.
The kind of dissociation you may experience driving a car (being on auto-pilot) is definitely not as extreme as DID, but they share the same foundation. This is our current understanding of how it works. If you don't believe me you'll have to take it up with the professionals in the field. Comparing zoning out with DID is like comparing a hill to a mountain. However, I understand where you're coming from. I don't kno…
Please pick up a neuroscience textbook such as this one : http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition-Kand... (here is the camel camel camel page for price comparison: http://camelcamelcamel.com/Principles-Neural-Science-Edition... ) Much of what you say is correct on the first pass, and is better than that of the typical citizen, however, some important details are missing. It seems like you are actually…
"You are very much in control of your own mind, how else would you define what a mind is?"
Immediately after I read this I tried to think about it. After only a few seconds I closed my eyes in the fashion we close our eyes when thinking about a concept "hurts" (I am very tired, been on the front of the laptop screen pretty much the whole day). Which led me to consider "tiredness": I can define what it is but I can definitely not control it - it happens or it doesn't. Care to elaborate a bit more on your thought?
I get that, but you gotta think about how it comes across. A bunch of computer nerds treating a mental disorder like a math problem. It's seen as insensitive to dive into the problem like that, without a little acknowledgement of the human side of the equation. That's how it comes across to an outsider reading this. But don't get me wrong, empathy won't always lead to better treatment. Science will. And we should ask…
Empathy won't lead to a discovery, period. This isn't a forum to discuss our feelings about articles like this. The entire point of the 'hacker' culture is about fixing and changing things through action.
If it was your home and you recognized it, and the people in it, then that is not relevant here at all. You're equivocating between the colloquial use of "dissociate" (as in "marathon runners practice dissociation and association") and the clinical term as it is used in this context for a disturbing disorder which has nothing to do with driving a memorized route on "auto pilot". And, by the way, you'd still hit the b…
> Simliarly, a piano player isn't "dissociating" just because he or she isn't thinking about which finger goes to which key at all times. The piano player example is apples to oranges with driving on auto-pilot example. In the auto-pilot example, you are responding to external stimulus (even without a kid jumping into the road), in the piano player example, he/she is using "muscle memory." Also, the piano player does…
i have. you have to look at others to confirm you played it right after the fact.
i've also done this with kata in my martial arts class, and while playing tetris.
I get that, but you gotta think about how it comes across. A bunch of computer nerds treating a mental disorder like a math problem. It's seen as insensitive to dive into the problem like that, without a little acknowledgement of the human side of the equation. That's how it comes across to an outsider reading this. But don't get me wrong, empathy won't always lead to better treatment. Science will. And we should ask…
So, let's only post comments that offend no one?
And here I was thinking that this was one of the most interesting replies to the article, what a pity.
I get that, but you gotta think about how it comes across. A bunch of computer nerds treating a mental disorder like a math problem. It's seen as insensitive to dive into the problem like that, without a little acknowledgement of the human side of the equation. That's how it comes across to an outsider reading this. But don't get me wrong, empathy won't always lead to better treatment. Science will. And we should ask…
So, let's only post comments that offend no one? And here I was thinking that this was one of the most interesting replies to the article, what a pity.
You're free to offend anyone you like. Just don't be surprised when you do.