Live data from Hacker News

Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

bloomberg.com

301–304 of 304 posts

Re: Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

#301
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like "just following orders" with extra steps.

I'm certainly not trying to defend the guy. If anything, I think a lot of people in the "autism community" want to defend him (even if only to a degree), in part because they feel some emotional attachment to the label of "Asperger's" and are trying to shoot down the argument "we shouldn't use that label because it is named after a Nazi collaborator" For all of Asperger's sins, he was too humble to actually name a di…

I myself am of two minds about it. On the one hand, I'm very appreciative of shows like Extraordinary Attorney Woo and the contemporary diagnostic criteria which does seem to assist many people who otherwise wouldn't get very far in this world. There is definitely some sort of disorder called "autism," and you know it when you see it.

On the other hand, Autism Spectrum Disorder basically doesn't exist, it was designed specifically to cover as many possible definitions of Autism such that nearly anyone, under the right circumstances, could be labeled as Autistic and be given expensive treatment, and I think there is something dangerous in people self-identifying with this label as it only feeds into the larger psychiatry-industrial complex. It's similar to depression--some people legit can't get out of bed in the morning, but the drugs we use to treat it are handed out like candy, are not approved to be used for the terms that they are, and don't even perform better than a placebo.

The problem isn't that some people are "neurodivergent" and others aren't, and neurodivergent people shouldn't be ashamed and should embrace their label. The problem is that everyone is neurodivergent--everyone is "perverse," as Freud famously elucidates in his theory--its just that those who are labeled as "other" under the system get exploited, and everyone else, for fear of the same fate, hide all their psychological proclivities from everyone except from their most intimate acquaintances. And there are some who are lucky enough to avoid both fates, but they are rare among the ruling class, and the commonality of ostensible abnormal psychology among the working class is considered a "problem" to be solved by endless mental health facilities, treatment programs, etc. meanwhile the real pains of being a working class American forces many into addiction, and what they are offered can do nothing much to alleviate the underlying problems which led them there (often times problems, as in the case of the opioid crisis, generated by the very corporate structure which also drives people to treatment for their addiction).

I learned about all what you discuss because I wanted to find a genealogy of "Autism" as a why of critiquing it as a medical category. But I don't know, as I said there is definitely some constellation of symptoms and ways of treating them that would fall under an Autism diagnoses, its just that how such a diagnoses came to exist was not through some pure empirical scientific process but a historical, social process that can't be disassociated from the other socio-economic realities.

Re: Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly not trying to defend the guy. If anything, I think a lot of people in the "autism community" want to defend him (even if only to a degree), in part because they feel some emotional attachment to the label of "Asperger's" and are trying to shoot down the argument "we shouldn't use that label because it is named after a Nazi collaborator" For all of Asperger's sins, he was too humble to actually name a di…

I myself am of two minds about it. On the one hand, I'm very appreciative of shows like Extraordinary Attorney Woo and the contemporary diagnostic criteria which does seem to assist many people who otherwise wouldn't get very far in this world. There is definitely some sort of disorder called "autism," and you know it when you see it. On the other hand, Autism Spectrum Disorder basically doesn't exist, it was designe…

I see some overlap between what you are saying and the viewpoint of Laurent Mottron, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.2494

He criticises the "autism spectrum" saying that it "is a convention that changes over time and belongs more to the history of science than neurobiology" (a rather scathing remark but put it in an understated way)

On the other hand, he insists that "prototypical autism" should be retained as a real target of scientific investigation, and he proposes that our failure to discover its causes (despite immense research funding into the project) is largely due to going astray by broadening its definition (through the "autism spectrum") to the point that it is approaching meaninglessness

For a different viewpoint, see Lynn Waterhouse et al – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x – who argue the whole category of "autism" (whether a broad "autism spectrum" or a narrow "prototypical autism") is a dead-end, and researchers ought to abandon it and look for new concepts to replace it with. In her book, she proposes (as a temporary measure) replacing "autism" with phenotypes of neurodevelopmental social impairment – which unlike "autism"/"ASD", are only defined in terms of deficits in the social communication domain, but allows those deficits to coexist with deficits in other domains (repetitive behaviours, restricted interests, impulsivity, attention deficits, dyspraxia, dyslexia, epilepsy, intellectual disability, etc)

And then there's Sami Timimi et al's book "The Myth of Autism" which, as well as criticising the science of "autism" (as Waterhouse and, to a lesser degree, Mottron do), goes beyond that to criticising it as a cultural construct, arguing that the harm it causes outweighs its benefits

> The problem isn't that some people are "neurodivergent" and others aren't, and neurodivergent people shouldn't be ashamed and should embrace their label. The problem is that everyone is neurodivergent

To quote Timimi, "We are all (humanity) simply neurodiverse" – https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/04/the-scientism-of-autism...

Re: Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

#303

n=1, in high school I was smoking a lot of weed, and started having what I discovered years later are called "ideas of reference," where you start getting the sense that the people around you are talking about you, but secretly. At face value, there's nothing you can point to as evidence of this, because it all appears to be normal conversation, but there's a secret meaning that only you can hear. You're basically pr…

You may have an MTHFR polymorphism that leads to low folate/B12, those SNPs are correlated with autism, schizophrenia, among other things. I have the homozygous C677T SNP and recently started taking methyl folate and methylated B12 and noticed I get much better sleep and less brain fog.

I thought the same but checked all the known SNPs for my genome and did not find any. Maybe I should check again.

Re: Heavy marijuana use increases schizophrenia in men, study finds

#304
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll save everyone a click: yes, this is a case of 'correlation != causation'. The authors (whose freshman stats classes were presumably as good as yours) were evidently well aware of this distinction - which is why they took the trouble to say 'association' rather than 'causation' in the title. So the pedantry here seems rather misplaced.

No, my pedantry is not misplaced. Let me again repeat: we know the correlate is confounded. This isn't a hypothetical. It is a known fact established from many different methods triangulating the same result: the naive SCZ/marijuana correlation is confounded, and quite substantially so. Their entire analysis is predicated on an assumption which is substantially false. And I agree they know what they're doing, which i…

Okay then - I agree with you that wording in the article seems rather shifty on this point. Like the way they start off in the title using neutral language, but then throughout the article they do seem to be spinning in such a way that it seems they want the reader to feel that in fact the relation is (or "may be") mostly causative. And that, for not addressing the elephant in the room (the correlative confound) overall the article can be said to be somewhat disappointing.

What I'm not so sure about is to what extent we can, starting from that -- make inferences about the authors' broader motives, or to speak of their "gall" and how unmitigated it was. And frankly, I don't particularly care.

Not that you shouldn't care, though. But if you want to criticize them "personally", perhaps a letter to the original journal would do the trick? Or at least get it it of your system? Because I kind of doubt they're taking the trouble to dig into the fine print of this thread, or to otherwise allow their morning coffee ritual to be upended by this withering analysis of yours.

Post reply on HN