Hello Maphesdus Where to begin? This is going to be long, but it was interesting to me. First, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey is this country’s top researcher into brain diseases. I’ve read many of his books, and I find he throws everything at you, challenging you to shift through what is relevant and what isn’t. For instance, he makes the claim in his book Surviving Schizophrenia: A Handbook For Consumers and Families (Or is it the other way around?) that there is an inverse correlation between schizophrenia and arthritis. He mentions a study, gives the figures, but on further investigation, through peer-review the observation of this particular study have been dismissed. For years he looked at a possible autoimmune connection. He challenged the medical profession to do the same. He started the world’s first brain bank in Washington DC. Now, he almost exclusively looks for a viral connection. He looked at a possible viral infection being transmitted by cats. The Washington Post did a brilliant story on his study several years ago. He spent many years looking at that possibility. He is a researcher. He has laid out the case that severe mental illness (primarily psychosis) did not appear in medical evidence in society till around the industrial period. He doesn’t determine why this is --he just throws it out there, along with some hypothesis. That’s where the author of your article just picked it up and thought he had all the answers without doing s lick of research himself. He talks about how Dr. Torrey believes in forced medications. Dr, Torrey deals almost exclusively with severe mental illnesses, and it wasn’t his intent to get in bed with big ‘pharma’ so much as it was his intent to combat the change of laws that occurred in the late sixties that de-institutionalized mental patients, leaving them to fend for themselves. Prior to the introduction of medicines like Clozapine and it wouldn’t have been possible to release these patients. Unfortunately, mental patients are often left to take these medicines on their own. When you got voices in your head telling you that the meds are poison and everybody is out to kill you, or you suffer from a cognitive deficiency that leaves you confused and unable to remember if you took your meds, well...you see the problem don’t you? He also has a life-long personal reason for his research--his sister suffers from schizophrenia. Dr. Torrey is not about the money, and I resent the writer of that article lazily implying that he is. I once talked to Dr. Torrey by phone. Me, a total stranger concerned about a love one at my wit’s end, and he talked to me for a good forty-five minutes without making me feel once I was keeping him from something more important then trying to help me understand schizophrenia.
The author of this article mixes up tribal attributions of the french polynesians with some of the habitants of Papua New Guinea. And I beg to differ with the writer on whether or not tribes in New Guinea suffer mental illness. It is hard to document. Of the thousand or so tribes in New Guinea, many are still animist in practice, believing in sorcery even though a majority of them also practice christian faiths. Prior to the introduction of christianity, many of the tribes didn’t have a concept of theft or murder. If someone went nuts or killed someone it was because of an ‘evil spirit’. Often the murdered person was named the sorcerer who brought an evil spirit in their mist. Brain disease has never been a consideration. Some of these tribes invite the neighboring village over to eat a piece of the dead victim as a act of loyalty and friendship. I’ll skip the pow-wow, thanks. The writer talks about how the tribes don’t fuss over their children like Westerners do.The families of some tribes also don’t count the children as a member of the tribe or considered them ‘born’ until the first tooth comes in. Anthropologists contribute this to the fact infant mortality is a way of life. Parents don’t allow themselves to get attached to their children like we do as a general rule. It’a cultural thing based on the low survival rate among the young. I love Jared Diamond. I read almost everything he writes, however he is not a research psychiatrist, he is a sociologist and and an anthropologist. Schizophrenia is a brain disease. It is more prevalent in western-european descent, and even more prevalent in black skin ancestry especially those with afro-Caribbean ancestry. It’s irresponsible to suggest there is a cultural or sociological reason why it happens without spending decades in the field. The writer of this story is neither a psychiatrist or an anthropologist. Interesting topic, but the article left me shaking my head. It was sadly put together, stepping on the face of giants.
No, thank-you! I think the writer could have looked at the one child policy in China to make a serious attempt to make his point. Each child has six grown-ups focusing completely on his achievements. Mental illness has skyrocketed in that country since the fifties. Suicide in children has tripled. China now has one of the highest rates of schizophrenia outcomes in the world. It’s worth looking at the data, but you have to also take into consideration that the law permits certain groups to have more than one chid. Does the answer lie in one of these waived ethnical minority groups contributing to the increase? Still, good research takes years not google.
Hmmm, you make a good argument there. I admit I haven't read any of the books by the aforementioned doctors, nor done any research into the field at all. I just happened to stumble across the article while web surfing, and I thought it was interesting and that it might appeal to the people here due to its premise of social coercion. If the premise of the article is faulty, then I apologize.
No apology necessary. Perhaps you know of students who insist on studying psychology in an effort to be helpful to their fellow man when they obviously have their own demons to exorcise? I met many through the years. Usually they change their major or dropout before they get a degree. The writer of this article seem to me to be an example of the consequence when one of those more unstable-minded sorts sticks it out and actually gets their degree. Everyone should read or watch Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. I was mistaken. Of Dr. Diamond’s nine degrees, sociology is not one of them. Lol. In Guns, Germs, and Steel he lays out an argument for why and how Western Europeans gained so much control of the globe. He explains it showing the geographic conditions that contributed to the growth of western civilization. It was his work with tribes in Papua New Guinea that got him thinking about the evolution of societies. I think you can watch it for free on youtube or at PBS online. It’s three parts. It’s brilliant.
I think I've actually seen that. It was a really good documentary. Though if his thesis is correct that western civilization's technological growth is primarily the result of simply having a lucky mix of favorable resources, climate, crops, and animals, wouldn't that undermine and refute Ayn Rand's belief that resources come from the mind of man? After all, if access to natural resources is necessary for technological advancement, and New Guinea is truly an island with no natural resources as Dr. Jared Diamond claims, then how can any man, even a highly intelligent one, pull any natural resources from the ground? After all, you obviously can't gather resources where none exist, regardless of how smart you are. The fact that the entire population of New Guinea retained its existence as a primitive hunter gatherer society clear up until the 1800s (and even until today, apparently), seems to me to be irrefutable proof that resources do not come from the mind of man, but rather that resources come from the earth, and man's mind is simply the tool by which a method of extracting the resources is conceived, and not actually the source of those resources. I dunno, what do you think?
I think I have been staring at the computer screen for too many hours today.:) Brain-freezing here... I can’t answer you truthfully because I don’t have a deep understanding of objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I can reason with my mind that many of the things attributed to her as saying, whether directly or through her characters, speak to my belief that I’m not in this world to live up to others expectations. So, I come here and read others opinions of her philosophy and try to get a broader understanding. I loved the first two movies, and I only recently read Atlas Shrugged. I actually wanted to wait till the third movie came out but everybody here kept pushing me to read AS. I found Ayn Rand’s writing style a little jarring. It seemed to me she spent way too much time explaining the what, why, and how instead of showing me the exposition like a more polished writer would have. Even so, she accomplished what she set out to do --write a fictional story that explains her philosophy. It’s a cautionary-tale that she selfishly in the end works out to suit her. That’s just my opinion. AS, blew me away. I admire Ayn Rand. I admire the film producers for sticking with this project. Being able to see the story visually has made all the difference in understanding the complexity of her theme. I admire many of the posters here, and get a kick out of the rest, including you. ;) She was fond of making statements that implied a man’s ability to reason was his greatest resource. Do you think that is in direct collision with Diamond’s hypothesis, or is it possible the dynamics, the two trains of thoughts, don’t run on the same track? To me, one was a philosopher exploring the essence of a man, while the other, a scientist, was exploring the existence of a man.
Where to begin? This is going to be long, but it was interesting to me. First, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey is this country’s top researcher into brain diseases. I’ve read many of his books, and I find he throws everything at you, challenging you to shift through what is relevant and what isn’t. For instance, he makes the claim in his book Surviving Schizophrenia: A Handbook For Consumers and Families (Or is it the other way around?) that there is an inverse correlation between schizophrenia and arthritis. He mentions a study, gives the figures, but on further investigation, through peer-review the observation of this particular study have been dismissed. For years he looked at a possible autoimmune connection. He challenged the medical profession to do the same. He started the world’s first brain bank in Washington DC. Now, he almost exclusively looks for a viral connection. He looked at a possible viral infection being transmitted by cats. The Washington Post did a brilliant story on his study several years ago. He spent many years looking at that possibility. He is a researcher. He has laid out the case that severe mental illness (primarily psychosis) did not appear in medical evidence in society till around the industrial period. He doesn’t determine why this is --he just throws it out there, along with some hypothesis. That’s where the author of your article just picked it up and thought he had all the answers without doing s lick of research himself. He talks about how Dr. Torrey believes in forced medications. Dr, Torrey deals almost exclusively with severe mental illnesses, and it wasn’t his intent to get in bed with big ‘pharma’ so much as it was his intent to combat the change of laws that occurred in the late sixties that de-institutionalized mental patients, leaving them to fend for themselves. Prior to the introduction of medicines like Clozapine and it wouldn’t have been possible to release these patients. Unfortunately, mental patients are often left to take these medicines on their own. When you got voices in your head telling you that the meds are poison and everybody is out to kill you, or you suffer from a cognitive deficiency that leaves you confused and unable to remember if you took your meds, well...you see the problem don’t you? He also has a life-long personal reason for his research--his sister suffers from schizophrenia. Dr. Torrey is not about the money, and I resent the writer of that article lazily implying that he is. I once talked to Dr. Torrey by phone. Me, a total stranger concerned about a love one at my wit’s end, and he talked to me for a good forty-five minutes without making me feel once I was keeping him from something more important then trying to help me understand schizophrenia.
The author of this article mixes up tribal attributions of the french polynesians with some of the habitants of Papua New Guinea. And I beg to differ with the writer on whether or not tribes in New Guinea suffer mental illness. It is hard to document. Of the thousand or so tribes in New Guinea, many are still animist in practice, believing in sorcery even though a majority of them also practice christian faiths. Prior to the introduction of christianity, many of the tribes didn’t have a concept of theft or murder. If someone went nuts or killed someone it was because of an ‘evil spirit’. Often the murdered person was named the sorcerer who brought an evil spirit in their mist. Brain disease has never been a consideration. Some of these tribes invite the neighboring village over to eat a piece of the dead victim as a act of loyalty and friendship. I’ll skip the pow-wow, thanks. The writer talks about how the tribes don’t fuss over their children like Westerners do.The families of some tribes also don’t count the children as a member of the tribe or considered them ‘born’ until the first tooth comes in. Anthropologists contribute this to the fact infant mortality is a way of life. Parents don’t allow themselves to get attached to their children like we do as a general rule. It’a cultural thing based on the low survival rate among the young. I love Jared Diamond. I read almost everything he writes, however he is not a research psychiatrist, he is a sociologist and and an anthropologist. Schizophrenia is a brain disease. It is more prevalent in western-european descent, and even more prevalent in black skin ancestry especially those with afro-Caribbean ancestry. It’s irresponsible to suggest there is a cultural or sociological reason why it happens without spending decades in the field. The writer of this story is neither a psychiatrist or an anthropologist. Interesting topic, but the article left me shaking my head. It was sadly put together, stepping on the face of giants.
Everyone should read or watch Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. I was mistaken. Of Dr. Diamond’s nine degrees, sociology is not one of them. Lol. In Guns, Germs, and Steel he lays out an argument for why and how Western Europeans gained so much control of the globe. He explains it showing the geographic conditions that contributed to the growth of western civilization. It was his work with tribes in Papua New Guinea that got him thinking about the evolution of societies. I think you can watch it for free on youtube or at PBS online. It’s three parts. It’s brilliant.
I can’t answer you truthfully because I don’t have a deep understanding of objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I can reason with my mind that many of the things attributed to her as saying, whether directly or through her characters, speak to my belief that I’m not in this world to live up to others expectations. So, I come here and read others opinions of her philosophy and try to get a broader understanding. I loved the first two movies, and I only recently read Atlas Shrugged. I actually wanted to wait till the third movie came out but everybody here kept pushing me to read AS. I found Ayn Rand’s writing style a little jarring. It seemed to me she spent way too much time explaining the what, why, and how instead of showing me the exposition like a more polished writer would have. Even so, she accomplished what she set out to do --write a fictional story that explains her philosophy. It’s a cautionary-tale that she selfishly in the end works out to suit her. That’s just my opinion. AS, blew me away. I admire Ayn Rand. I admire the film producers for sticking with this project. Being able to see the story visually has made all the difference in understanding the complexity of her theme. I admire many of the posters here, and get a kick out of the rest, including you. ;) She was fond of making statements that implied a man’s ability to reason was his greatest resource. Do you think that is in direct collision with Diamond’s hypothesis, or is it possible the dynamics, the two trains of thoughts, don’t run on the same track? To me, one was a philosopher exploring the essence of a man, while the other, a scientist, was exploring the existence of a man.