Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#161

Post by cperciva »

renewiltord wrote: post #140
cperciva wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man deserves true freedom. To self diagnose if one so desires, to kill oneself through incorrect prescriptions if one so desires. The thing is, none of the rules you mention exist to stop patients from doing anything. Rather, they exist to protect desperate patients from con artists selling (sometimes literally) snake oil "cures". I'm reminded of accredited investor rules -- which also chafe at times, but are equally…

Indeed, but the accredited investor rules do have a relatively easy escape. The corresponding escape for medicine is really hard.

For medical devices we have "for scientific and recreational use only".

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#162

Post by deltaonetwo »

jamincan wrote: post #137
deltaonetwo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was to consider the validity of such a statement as something worth considering. What you say is technically true but you made it kind of pedantic here and steered away from the heart of my point. Let me reform it to fit with your logic: "Homosexuality as a trait is not selected for by evolution for humans." There this statement is not definitively false. There is a realistic possibility that it's true. Als…

The context, though, is that the assertion you are saying is worth consideration (homosexuality cannot be selected for and is therefore a disorder) was the orthodox scientific position not too long ago, was then thoroughly debated, debunked, and only now is summarily rejected. This does not reflect a bias, but instead reflects that there is very little value in revisiting an exhausted question without bringing more i…

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin...

It's not rejected. Homosexuality is rejected as a medical "disorder" by the medical establishment. However that's entirely different from what the anthropological and biological community thinks about the origins of homosexuality. It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."

Right now the real conclusion is inconclusive as shown in the research study above. It is actually not an exhausted question to people in this area of research.

It is only exhaustive for people outside of academia trying to paint a picture of the biological world according to a social ideal rather then a scientific truth.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#163

Post by deltaonetwo »

sterlind wrote: post #99
deltaonetwo wrote: post #45

You don't know the extent of human bias. All humans are ruled more by bias than by logic, doctors included AND you included as well. What's especially worse is that Doctors are trained to mistrust a patient. They view patients as lower ranking simpletons so they trust established knowledge more than they trust a patients description of an anomaly. The key here that you have to realize is that what the doctors are doi…

uh, homosexual behavior is found in a wide variety of animal species. if it were a "disorder," it would have already been selected against. your analysis is just overly simplistic - there are a lot of traits that confer advantage to a group while reducing reproduction by an individual.

Sure, that's a valid point. But another valid point is the causative agent for homosexuality in humans is the same causative agent for homosexuality in animals and this would invalidate your point if it were true.

Anecdotally, and this is sort of a alternative guess. Within a population of equal size, much more humans will be homosexual than animals. I mean gay people are really abundant but I can't say the same for gay lions in Africa.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#164

Post by deltaonetwo »

inglor_cz wrote: post #103
deltaonetwo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't the point. The example was a device to throw people off guard and pull them back for the purpose of promoting self awareness. Personally, I have no stance on the causative origins of homosexuality; But judging from the replies I'm afraid it might have been too successful and pulled people too deep into that cancel culture frame. Think about it this way. Yes, Social groups can evolve with a percentage of h…

"Another thing to consider is, why did you address my example instead of addressing my main point? " Because I felt like it, that is all. I am interested in similar topics. I think people generally underestimate how non-straightforward natural selection is, especially when epigenetics is taken into account. Living beings carry around a lot of dormant genes that can spring to life under specific conditions.

>I think people generally underestimate how non-straightforward natural selection is, especially when epigenetics is taken into account. Living beings carry around a lot of dormant genes that can spring to life under specific conditions.

Yes but that does not mean you discount the straightforward answers either. A more complicated and creative answer does not make it more right then the simple answer. That is one aspect of the bias a lot of people have for the topic.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#165

Post by deltaonetwo »

rscho wrote: post #96
deltaonetwo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually a researcher in academia in this area. I'm more well informed then medical professionals on this topic. I am sorry to say that you, like everyone else jumped to a conclusion here. Why don't you look at my other reply, there's more nuance there, and it might break you out of your own bias.

You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one. This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs. Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic view of their own field.

> This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs

I disagree. I feel this is true for over 50% of docs in my anecdotal experience. Of course in surveys 0% of docs will admit to this so we can't really prove it either way.

>You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one.

Yeah I dropped that bomb because people were calling me ignorant. I usually don't rely on my credentials or authority but the amount of "violence" and blood in the replies made it seem like it was necessary for people to even consider my points.

>Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic view of their own field.

Why don't you read all my responses in this thread. You will find I am promoting open consideration of SEVERAL hypothesis including my opponents, Meanwhile other people are promoting complete dismissal of the hypothesis that I introduced.

I would say by definition my view point is less myopic.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#166

Post by deltaonetwo »

jhrmnn wrote: post #91
deltaonetwo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ingenious and a incredible way to display how illogical a doctor (and people in general) can be. It's completely obvious that the doctor isn't going to really read the paper (he's too busy). You just present a paper and suddenly the doctor will trust you more. Literally it's deference to Authority being employed by the doctor here; nothing going on with rationality or logic. Don't present a single logical arg…

Science is built on deference to authority. You cannot possibly derive all known physics laws yourself, or verify all the known biology yourself. You have to trust to a certain degree all the scientists that came before you, collectively. You can question some bits here and there but you don’t have time to question everything. The doctors cannot possibly evaluate all the arguments brought in by patients, they don’t h…

I would say the logical thing to do for the doctor is Not to trust the patient peer until AFTER the doctor has actually read the article himself. The problem here is the doctor will likely trust the patient without ever reading the article.

There has to be some degree of verification regardless of how complex the world is. At the very least he should read the paper. Because not doing so is hypocritical. Doctors treat patients as dimwitted idiots but suddenly the patient is smart because he has a paper? No, you can't make that judgement unless you read the paper.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#167

Post by rscho »

deltaonetwo wrote: post #165
rscho wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one. This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs. Just like it's true that some researchers have a very myopic view of their own field.

> This statement that docs consider their patients dimwits is wrong. It may be true for some docs I disagree. I feel this is true for over 50% of docs in my anecdotal experience. Of course in surveys 0% of docs will admit to this so we can't really prove it either way. >You may be a researcher in the area but you are also a very pretentious one. Yeah I dropped that bomb because people were calling me ignorant. I usua…

I did read all of your answers. From them, I was at least able to understand that you've got a personal problem with docs. No shame in that, many people are the same. That must be part of a bias such as those that you talk about so often.

Now, you associated "I am a researcher in that field" with "docs think their patients are inferior beings". So, how about a reference supporting your statement? Or were those statements accidentally associated?

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#168

Post by dang »

deltaonetwo wrote: post #45

You don't know the extent of human bias. All humans are ruled more by bias than by logic, doctors included AND you included as well. What's especially worse is that Doctors are trained to mistrust a patient. They view patients as lower ranking simpletons so they trust established knowledge more than they trust a patients description of an anomaly. The key here that you have to realize is that what the doctors are doi…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524853.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#169

Post by catblast01 »

deltaonetwo wrote: post #162
jamincan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context, though, is that the assertion you are saying is worth consideration (homosexuality cannot be selected for and is therefore a disorder) was the orthodox scientific position not too long ago, was then thoroughly debated, debunked, and only now is summarily rejected. This does not reflect a bias, but instead reflects that there is very little value in revisiting an exhausted question without bringing more i…

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin... It's not rejected. Homosexuality is rejected as a medical "disorder" by the medical establishment. However that's entirely different from what the anthropological and biological community thinks about the origins of homosexuality. It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal." Right now the real conclusion is inconclusi…

> It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."

This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it. How do you define “normal”? Once you have picked a suitable definition, what do you intend do to with that information?

Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.

Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.

Re: A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy

#170

Post by dang »

catblast01 wrote: post #56
deltaonetwo wrote: post #45

You don't know the extent of human bias. All humans are ruled more by bias than by logic, doctors included AND you included as well. What's especially worse is that Doctors are trained to mistrust a patient. They view patients as lower ranking simpletons so they trust established knowledge more than they trust a patients description of an anomaly. The key here that you have to realize is that what the doctors are doi…

> Thus homosexuality must be an recent anomaly as an evolutionary trait as it would have naturally selected itself out eons ago if it was a natural trait. All this wall of text proved is that your verbal skills are tedious and you’re bad at math.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Personal attacks and name-calling will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please read the rules and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.

Post reply on HN