Rewriting Rand is a long article about how Mayhew and others have made changes to the Rand archive material which has been made public. Books like Ayn Rand Answers don't actually present Rand's original words.

Mayhew also left out a bunch of interesting material include this:

To a question about the ideas of maverick psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, Rand replied, in part, “He seems to be for individual rights, but I cannot always follow his argument—I have questions, I have certain serious questions about some of his premises—therefore, I have not read enough to criticize him. All I can say is he’s promising” (Ford Hall Forum 1976, 40:55–41:32).

I like to find comments by my favorite philosophers about each other. They're interesting. I'm glad Rand recognized that Szasz was promising and was in favor of individual rights.

I wonder why Rand didn't write Szasz a letter and ask her questions. I'm confident he would have answered.

Open thread to discuss psychiatry, psychology, Thomas Szasz's ideas, "mental illness", etc. (Szasz book links.)

From Twitter.

Andrew Adams

What are your thoughts on having harsher regulations? E.g., making it harder for mentally ill to access guns, etc?

Elliot Temple

I favor much less regulation of guns. I am especially opposed to "mental illness" laws: http://szasz.com/manifesto.html
http://fallibleideas.com/books#szasz

Andrew Adams

I will read up on him and will get back to you. In meanwhile I'll ask you this question, if mental disorders could be detected like. heart diseases, or kidney diseases are detected, would you favor regulation on people who show signs of severe unstable moods or psycopathy?

[quoting from Szasz manifesto] "Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error". I have to disagree. The brain is a biological organism and the diseases related to it are well studied and well known. Would you give a gun to someone who showed..signs if psycopathy or borderline personality disorder for example?

Elliot Temple

i am open to regulation of medically detectable defects, like requiring someone with testably bad vision to wear glasses when driving.

it would need to be an actual medical test like for cancer, not a person judging someone's mood. preferably detectable at autopsy.

Andrew Adams

I'm glad we agree on that. I come from a human behavioral biology background, and what Szasz claims seems bizzare. I will read his writings.

Elliot Temple

Szasz agrees with that too, FYI. Though he would point out that would be a physical brain illness, not an illness of a mind.

Minds have bad ideas, which are different than illnesses.

Andrew Adams

And why brain, which is a biological organism like heart and kidney, can't cause a problem that can be called a disease? It seems to me that the fact that we can't diagnose mental diseases the way we diagnose other organs, due to its complexity, makes you to believe we can't have mental disorders. Imagine you had diabetes, and for some reason science couldn't yet see what's going on, but certainly we got all the diagnoses that a diabetic person has. Wouldn't be absurd to not call that a disease?

Elliot Temple

There are brain diseases, but they aren't "mental illnesses", they are "brain illnesses". And schizophrenia and autism are myths.

Though, as with many myths, there is some true element: some people behave in socially-disapproved ways and others want to stigmatize them.

With depression: true that some ppl r VERY sad, have MAJOR life problems. False that their bad situation, bad coping ideas, etc, is illness

it doesn't "make" me believe anything, it's one problematic issue, among many, for psychiatry.

"mind disorders" (bad ideas, a disordered mind) is a problem, but is not the same category of thing as cancer.

i think this is too hard to follow on twitter with every message divided into multiple tweets. could you reply on my blog comments?

Andrew Adams

If you hallucinate and hear sounds in your head, is that due to bad ideas? Or the way your brain is wired?

Sure. Under the same page you posted the longer answer?

Elliot Temple

i made a fresh page: http://curi.us/2047-discussion

Andrew Adams

Can we please communicate through the direct message? That's much faster and we can engage each other.

Elliot Temple

i would prefer the blog. i will talk here if you're unwilling and you give me permission to quote anything here.

Andrew Adams

You can quote anything you want.

So let's see. You believe brain is a biological organ right? No souls and superstitious there, correct?

Elliot Temple

yes

Andrew Adams

And a biological thing can get fucked up, as we are seeing with all the other things. RIght?

Elliot Temple

the mind is software and the details of the brain are irrelevant to the mind in the same way that you can run the same software on different PCs.

yes brain damage is a thing, just like e.g. a ram stick going bad.

Andrew Adams

Okay this is where I think you're wrong, with all due respect. I'll explain. The software is there because of the way the brain is wired. It's not something separate built on top of those neurons. Your behavior is due to the wiring. That's why if the wiring gets screwed up, you have no way to upgrade the software. Those two are not independent.

It's like saying to a diabetes, person: man stop it with the insulin thing. It's getting really annoying.

Elliot Temple

How did you find me? Have you read David Deutsch?

Andrew Adams

I found you through Deutsch. I haven't read his books yet, but I've listened to his interviews and are somewhat aware of his positions.

Elliot Temple

The computer's behavior is due to the data on the disks, the wiring of the CPU, etc. It's not something separate either. If you hit computer components with a hammer, it affects the software that's running.

So the cases remain analogous.

hardware and software bugs are different things. both exist. right?

and there are also features which some people don't like and call bugs

Andrew Adams

But software is just instructions for the cpu, which is the hardware. If you damage the cpu, the hardware is not gonna perform as usual. Do you agree?

The software I meant

Elliot Temple

i agree that hitting a cpu or brain with a hammer can screw up the software currently running.

Andrew Adams

The software is not gonna perform as ususal

Okay. Then if the wiring is screwed up due to anomalies that we observe throughout the biological organisms, does that make that make what's happening an illness?

Elliot Temple

if there's physical brain damage, that's an illness or injury.

Andrew Adams

But it doesn't have to be a hammer hitting your brain. It's more subtle than that. The wiring can be screwed up.

It's a biological thing again. Anomalies exist.

Elliot Temple

Yes, for example in my non-expert understanding, Alzheimer's involves some brain damage which causes some memory loss issues.

Andrew Adams

You don't have to hit it from outside to screw it up.

Sure

It's the wiring that gets screwed up, hence bugs in the software.

Environment can influence your wiring.

Elliot Temple

for example, an environment with radiation. sure.

Andrew Adams

But some disorders have proven to have like 80% genetical cause.

Elliot Temple

correlation isn't causation.

Andrew Adams

It's a causation study.

Elliot Temple

have you read the studies you're referring to?

Andrew Adams

yes

Elliot Temple

ok link one you think contains no flaws.

which involves a typical "mental illness"

Andrew Adams

Behavioral geneticists did experiments with schizophrenia. They did it on twins that were adopted at birth.

I'll find the links and send it to you

Elliot Temple

i've read studies too, as has Szasz. Schizophrenia will work fine.

just one, please.

Andrew Adams

I mean even if it's done by environment, doesn't make your argument stronger. Do you agree? No matter the cause, something is screwed up up there.

Sure.

Elliot Temple

i don't think i've stated my case. i began earlier by saying that hardware and software problems are different categories of things, and both are real. do you agree?

Andrew Adams

I don't thing software is separate from hardware in the brain. All the behaviors we have is due to neurons connections to each other. As I said, software is just a set of instructions for the cpu, but the difference in the brain is that the software is not programmed separately, but also hardwired in the neurons. Say you're kind person, right? I can theoratically open your mind, change a few neuron, and you become evil. We could do that if we had the technology right?

And again, whether the behaviour is shaped by genes or environment is irrelavant.

Elliot Temple

you can also open up a computer and edit stuff to change what it does. that's the same thing.

Andrew Adams

So do you agree neurons getting screwed up is not really different from brain damage?

Elliot Temple

you can arrange your neurons in a bad configuration by forming bad ideas. you can make unwise life decisions, believe a bunch of crap from a cult, and it physically affects the arrangement of your neurons. this – people having ideas, for better or worse – is different than Alheizmers or brain cancer.

Andrew Adams

No!!! You shouldn't be an evil person to have your wiring screwed up!

Elliot Temple

the data in a computer can be screwed up due to a hard disk malfunction or due to software that writes bad data. one is a hardware error, one is a software error. they are different things.

Andrew Adams

Why do you assume only evil things are the only environmental factors that cause brain problems?

Elliot Temple

i didn't assume that. i'm trying to say that bad ideas exist. you seem to be resisting this and saying it's all just neurons.

i'm trying to use the simplest, most clearcut cases as initial examples.

people get indoctrinated into cults, and that's not an illness. right?

Andrew Adams

I'm not denying people can believe in bad ideologies and get brainwashed. But for some it's just the wiring that can be genetically or by a certain environment or by nutrition for example screwed up.

Do all people that have diabeties have had bad diets in their life?

Absolutely not.

It's sometimes merely genetic.

Elliot Temple

i'm not trying to say all people, at this time. i'm trying to establish a category exists and some stuff is in it. some people are healthy and join a cult and it's a big mistake and it has some physical affect on their neurons (e.g. they form memories of cult ideas, which then physically exist in their brain), but it's still not an illness or brain damage. it's a different thing. right?

Andrew Adams

If you were born with one of your neurons for example only one centimeter to one side, you could become a more violent person. Do you agree that?

It's just biology.

There was a man that murdered his whole family and then went to street and mass murdered a bunch of people. They opened his brain for autopsy and they found out he had two tumors in is brain.

and tumors are not the only thing that can cause that.

Elliot Temple

can you answer my question?

Andrew Adams

You can be genetically born with some kind of screwed up neurons.

I answered it. I agree that ideologies can change your neurons.

But those are not the only cases.

Some people can't just help it.

It's like saying to a diabetic person to stop it with his insulins

Elliot Temple

And you agree that ideologies are not brain damage or illness, even when a neuron changes?

Andrew Adams

brain damage IS chagne of neurons

Elliot Temple

so you think that all people adopting bad ideologies count as brain damaged and ill?

Andrew Adams

Not all changes are brain damage, but brain damage is a change in neurons

You can change your neurons and become too generous and kind

Elliot Temple

so you agree that a person can adopt a cult ideology, have neurons change, but they are not ill and are not brain damaged?

Andrew Adams

First, the fact that they have done evil things could be due to the way their neurons were wired in the first place. I mean, couldn't choose your original brain wiring could you? Second, there is a difference between adopting cult like behavior and the diseases that are categorized as mentally ill. People get moody, see things, get depressed, get anxious. These are not things you see on TV or cults and adopt.

Elliot Temple

Why won't you give a straight answer?

Andrew Adams

The fact that they first joined the cult is due to the wiring of their brain.

Elliot Temple

do you think most people are brain-damaged or not?

Andrew Adams

Yeah

By that definition

I don't beleive in free will

You are nothing but the wiring of your brain

Elliot Temple

do you think most people have brain illnesses/diseases? and so you would call most people "mentally ill"?

Andrew Adams

and 90% of the environment you grew up in you didn't choose

Most people have different wirings that most don't lead to extreme behavior, but some of them are extereme. So all people are mentally ill, but only some are in the extreme side.

There is no such thing as perfect wiring

Elliot Temple

you're not using words in the way psychiatry in general does, nor the way Szasz does. this makes the discussion difficult.

Andrew Adams

Some are lucky and don't get bad wirings due to anomalies.

Some due

Do you believe in genetics?

Elliot Temple

i believe i have genes.

that question isn't very clear.

Andrew Adams

and do you believe genes determine the wiring of your initial brain?

Elliot Temple

mostly, yes. there may be some other factors in the womb.

Andrew Adams

prenatal effects true. Which you didn't choose.

So if I'm a person who by chance are born by a screwed up wiring.

am i considered ill if my behavior lead to extreme bad causes that is hurful?

Elliot Temple

are you a native English speaker?

Andrew Adams

No

I'm typing very fast too, my spelling and grammar are not as bad

Elliot Temple

I don't think your genes control your whole life. I think people make decisions in their life, and they're responsible for lots of what happens in their life.

Andrew Adams

But the wiring that you originally inherit is genetical, right?

Elliot Temple

Your genes create an initial brain with an intelligent mind. They set that up. If they didn't do that, you'd be screwed. But once you have that, then you have a chance to think for yourself.

The operation of your intelligent mind, not your genes, control most of what happens in your life, such as what ideas you accept.

To understand a person's life, you need to analyze how intelligence works, rather than genes.

And to know much about a person, you usually need to look at their ideas not their neurons.

Andrew Adams

But you are denying that the early years of your life and the original wiring can have huge impact.

If you were born with a set of neurons that made you a little more agressive in school, or a little less IQ, or little more depressed.

Elliot Temple

The original wiring has the impact: creates intelligence software. Your early years have a big impact because your intelligence is actively learning and thinking during that time.

Andrew Adams

Exactly

Elliot Temple

IQ is a myth.

Andrew Adams

Did you choose to be born to your family?

Elliot Temple

no.

Andrew Adams

So those crucial early years that you didn't have control over may set your neurons up in a way that can lead you to join a cult in the future. Or the way your original neurons were determined by your genes.

Elliot Temple

Having bad parents is hard and I think they can have some partial responsibility for what their children do, especially at younger ages.

However, you can still make good life choices even if you have bad parents. Especially once you're an adult and free to control your own life.

Andrew Adams

Is it possible that someone is born with a brain that is genetically wired a little screwed up?

Elliot Temple

You have power over what happens in your life. Everything isn't determined by fate.

Andrew Adams

Not fate, but genes and the environment you were didn't choose at early lives.

Elliot Temple

I don't think anyone is born a little screwed up, no. Either you have functioning intelligence software or you don't. There's no such thing as 95% intelligent.

That's not Szasz's idea btw. It was developed by David Deutsch and I.

Andrew Adams

What kind if reasoning is that? Are all people the same height or midget?

The brain is biological

Elliot Temple

It has to do with universality, which is covered in DD's books.

Andrew Adams

What universality?

Universality of computation?

Elliot Temple

there are other types of universality besides computation, such as universal knowledge creators (intelligences).

Andrew Adams

If you were born autistic, could you be the person you are now?

Elliot Temple

i think autism is a myth.

Andrew Adams

In what sense?

Elliot Temple

some parents don't like their children, and fight with them. they call those children "autistic" to stigmatize them.

Andrew Adams

What?! Are you serious?

Elliot Temple

it has nothing to do with a brain problem. it's just a disagreement, a moral conflict.

this is DD's view too.

Andrew Adams

Have you met an autistic person?

Elliot Temple

i have met a person who has been called autistic, yes.

Andrew Adams

Well, attributing all your ideas to DD doesn't make them right.

So you think a moral conflict caused that?

Elliot Temple

why don't you read this and point out which statement is false? http://web.archive.org/web/20030620082122/http://www.tcs.ac:80/Articles/DDAspidistraSyndrome.html

DD's views are not automatically true, but you shouldn't call them unserious.

Andrew Adams

Asperger is not autism

Elliot Temple

so do you think DD is correct about everything in that article?

Andrew Adams

what year was this written?

Elliot Temple

1997 like it says

it doesn't matter.

Andrew Adams

It matters!

https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/tc/aspergers-syndrome-symptoms#1

Read this

20 years ago

Elliot Temple

what about it?

Andrew Adams

Totally different symptoms than what dd was mocking 20 years ago. A lot has changed.

Elliot Temple

no, it's the same thing as before, e.g. "Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized." is exactly the kind of thing DD was mocking.

how is talking a lot about your favorite subject an illness?

Andrew Adams

Asperger they say is a mild case of autism, so symptomes are the watered down symptomes of autism. If you have ever seen an autistic child, how could you say it's due to a moral conflict?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-18-new-autism-linked-genes-may-point-to-new-treatments/

Scientific american 2017

Elliot Temple

what exactly do you think could not be a parent-child conflict?

Andrew Adams

regarding autism

Elliot Temple

by autism-linked genes they mean correlated. as before, if you have a causation study, provide a link.

Andrew Adams

Let's say even it is due to parents. Does that make the person ill due to his parent's actions that he didn't choose?

Elliot Temple

in order for something to be shown to cause autism, autism would also need to be carefully defined.

Andrew Adams

How about the way they all look and act?

Elliot Temple

i don't see what hating your parents, and not being a total conformist, has to do with being ill.

Andrew Adams

that's due to moral conflict too?

Elliot Temple

i don't know what looks and actions you're referring to.

Andrew Adams

But you were saying everyone can choose the right path and stuff

Elliot Temple

in my understanding, the people called "autistic" look and act in a wide variety of different ways. they aren't all the same.

Andrew Adams

Just watch autistic kids on youtube

Elliot Temple

i have

Andrew Adams

And you think they are all due to bad parentin?

parenting?

Elliot Temple

in short, yes.

Andrew Adams

Okay even let's say you're right and autism is 0% genetical and due to moral conflict of parents.

Elliot Temple

and in many cases, i don't think anything is wrong with the kid.

i think the kid is fine and the parent just doesn't like him.

Andrew Adams

They can't have eye contact, they don't react facially or understand emotions, they can't think big picture,

I've met them and they all had the same problems.

You can't deny it's problem

Elliot Temple

some people don't like to make the socially normal amount of eye contact. i don't see anything wrong with that.

Andrew Adams

Do you believe they are abnormal?

Elliot Temple

some people called autistic seem completely normal in the videos on youtube. others seem abnormal, yes, but i don't see anything bad about not making eye contact.

i don't think everyone should be a conformist who spends their whole life trying really hard to fit in and be normal.

learning what facial expressions to make, in what situations, so that people think you're normal is a skill. some people are more interested in other skills.

Andrew Adams

Is there any mental disease that you attribute to genetics?

Elliot Temple

no. all the ones with genetic, disease or injury causes are already called regular illnesses, like Alzheimer's, not "mental illnesses" like schizophrenia and autism

Andrew Adams

How about down syndrome?

Elliot Temple

that's a defective chromosone. regular illness.

Andrew Adams

So genes can get screwed up but not neurons in the brain

?

Elliot Temple

people are very mean to down syndrome persons similar to how they treat "autistic" people, though. that part is similar.

Andrew Adams

So genes can get screwed up but not neurons in the brain?

Elliot Temple

bad ideas aren't caused by genes.

good ideas also aren't caused by genes. genes set up intelligence software. from there, you have to look at how intelligence and ideas work, not at genes.

it's like if you buy a house, you don't blame the construction workers for when you yell at your wife in the house.

the genes are the construction workers.

they built the brain in the first place, but that doesn't mean they're controlling it later.

Andrew Adams

So a gene can make you like a down syndrome kid but the same gene structure that code for neurons can't in any way make you more aggressive or psychopathic?

Why do you assume that?

Elliot Temple

i'm not assuming it, it's implied by what's currently known about epistemology, computation, science, etc

i've studied it extensively.

Andrew Adams

Send me a study that says genes have no affect in how the neurons function later in life

Elliot Temple

my argument doesn't consist of a study.

it consists of understanding concepts like universality.

and putting them together to help you analyze and interpret various evidence, studies, behaviors, etc

why don't you send me a correct genes cause (not correlated) mental illness study? you said you had one. i don't think they exist. prove me wrong?

Andrew Adams

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-06924-001

Elliot Temple

if you want to understand my argument, you should start by reading DD, szasz and http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html

Andrew Adams

I just sent you a scientific study

You are taking two people and denying what the whole community of geneticists and neuroscientists beleive

that genes have affects, if not most

You believe a down syndrome kid can be born like that due to a single gene, but the millions of genes that code for intelligence have no way of affecting the way nerurons will function in future life

Elliot Temple

i'm not judging which people have how much authority, i'm looking at arguments

i've gotten a copy of the study you sent and will take a look

Andrew Adams

Just read the abstract

Elliot Temple

did you read the whole paper?

Andrew Adams

I'm not saying genes are 100%

Yeah. I even studied that in class at stanford

Elliot Temple

ok, why would i only read the abstract?

i don't understand

Andrew Adams

but even if they are 5%

Ok read the whole thing if you want.

Elliot Temple

not everything comes in amounts. let's talk about how many houses are haunted by a ghost. you can't just say "well it may not be 100% but at least 5%"

Andrew Adams

But you are the one who says the affect is zero

I'm just saying even if that's the case, that it's zero percent, that most scientist would caught at you because of it, can lead to mental illnesses that are not only caused by your actions.

5% i meant here*

laugh*

The same way a single gene can cause down syndrome

why is brain an exception to biology?

explain that to me?

Elliot Temple

i read the abstract. it says it's a meta correlation study. that's what "concordance" means. i also looked at the start and it doesn't attempt to define "schizophrenia".

i agree that many people would laugh at me. that's not an argument.

Andrew Adams

tell me why a singel gene can cause down syndrome but not affects neurons?

Elliot Temple

down syndrome is different than you think.

let's try to stick to one thing at a time. this study first.

Andrew Adams

No you refused to give a study so let's talk

Elliot Temple

i'm talking about the study you gave.

Andrew Adams

yeah what about it?

Elliot Temple

you said it was a causation (not correlation) study, but the abstract says it's a correlation study.

Andrew Adams

How is it correlation?

Elliot Temple

it studies concordances (correlations) between genes and being diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Andrew Adams

They separate twins at birth, and measure if they both get schizophrenia

how's that correlation?

Identical twins

But you didn't tell me how down syndrome is different

Elliot Temple

the point of a twin study is to say they have the same genes, so if they both get schizophrenia that's evidence that schizophrenia is caused by genes. right?

one thing at a time please.

Andrew Adams

Ok

yeah

Elliot Temple

and they separate them. cuz if they are raised by the same parents, you could blame the parents.

Andrew Adams

Sure

Or the environement

Elliot Temple

that's what a correlation study means.

it's saying "when X happened, Y happened".

or when X happened, Y is more likely to happen

X is having certain genes, and Y is being diagnosed with schizophrenia

Andrew Adams

So two identical twins get separated at birth, and most get schizophrenia later on.

Is it chance that all those parents raised them schizophrenic?

Elliot Temple

it's wrote down when X happened, and wrote down when Y happened, and we analyzed the data and then we found a correlation.

do you understand that this is a correlation study?

Andrew Adams

It's a correlation yeah. But controlled.

How can you explain this study?

Elliot Temple

ok, so why did you tell me it wasn't a correlation study?

did you not know what correlation means until today?

Andrew Adams

Why does it matter?

tell me

How do you explain the study?

Elliot Temple

you were mistaken. i'm trying to find out what happened.

Andrew Adams

Of course they're not gonna find out genes by twin separation

Elliot Temple

we're having a debate, and you were wrong, and then you don't want to talk about it at all?

Andrew Adams

So my mistake of saying causation ruins the whole study for you?

Explain the study to me

Elliot Temple

i'm trying to find out what's going on. why did this mistake happen? i don't know what it means yet.

if you didn't know what a correlation is before today, then your understanding of every study you read in the past is unreliable.

regarding correlations, you should read this: http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html

Andrew Adams

Explain the study

Elliot Temple

this article will explain to you a lot of things about correlations so you can understand the study better.

Andrew Adams

You lost the debate so you're trying to attack me personally

Explain teh study

Elliot Temple

i can't explain it to you because you don't have the background knowledge to understand the issues. you need to learn more. when i tried to give explanations earlier, you didn't understand. you need to read more. read this to find the answer to the study: http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html

Andrew Adams

You're the one who said you don't go by scientific studies and you have your own rules.

Elliot Temple

i don't go by flawed studies when i know the flaws.

the webpage explains some of the flaws with correlation studies.

Andrew Adams

Explain the study to me then

Why when they're separated they still get schizophrenia?

Elliot Temple

there are lots of possibilities. i can't tell you exactly what happened. it's not known.

if you read the webpage, http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html then you can find out what some explanations of the study are.

Andrew Adams

And you still haven't answered why down syndrome can be caused by a single gene but genes have no affect on your neurons' functions in future life.

Elliot Temple

we're still talking about this.

and the answer has to do with universality, which you haven't read about yet.

Andrew Adams

Sure because you can't answer that

Tell me about it

Elliot Temple

i think you're getting angry and impatient, and it's very hard to give you a lecture covering thousands of pages of material, requiring years of study, when you're in a bad mood and hostile.

Andrew Adams

So neurons are not bound to biology because of universality?

Elliot Temple

minds are universal knowledge creators. there can't be minds with 99% of the universal repertoire b/c there is a jump to universality.

but you don't know what this means. it's in BoI.

Andrew Adams

Minds are just a biological organism that can get flawed due to genes.

Elliot Temple

that isn't a counter-argument. it doesn't say why my understanding of the jump to universality is wrong, or my epistemology is wrong.

Andrew Adams

So you can't summarize your universality argument in 2-3 sentences?

Elliot Temple

minds are universal knowledge creators. there can't be minds with 99% of the universal repertoire b/c there is a jump to universality.

that is 2 sentences.

Andrew Adams

Okay

Elliot Temple

i can't teach you the contents of the book BoI in 2-3 sentences.

Andrew Adams

Alright. Well, I enjoyed the conversation. I'll read that. I had no intention of fighting or something like that. And I don't debate to win.

I admit that my knowledge is limited and I can be wrong. So what you say might be right.

I'll read it

Elliot Temple

you should read this to learn about correlations http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html

it's very important to this field.

Andrew Adams

Are you angry?

Elliot Temple

no

Andrew Adams

Okay

Elliot Temple

in a gene-environment interaction, sometimes it wouldn't happen at all unless BOTH the gene and that part of the environment were there. in that case, it's incorrect to say the gene causes 40% of it. it couldn't happen at all without the environmental factor. what you have to do is figuring out what the gene actually does, and what part of the environment is involved, what the causal mechanism is.

the problem with the twin studies is they don't do this. they don't know the answer.

plus they are correlating with schizophrenia diagnoses, which is different than schizophrenia (which isn't even defined)

there are no studies which do this with autism or schizophrenia. all the published studies are just correlations without understanding it.

an example of a gene-environment interaction is: a gene makes infants cry more during the first 3 months, and then does nothing. parents in our culture are meaner to infants that cry more. this meanness results in higher rates of ADHD diagnoses in school later. correlation studies would report this as finding a gene for ADHD, but that's incorrect.

Andrew Adams

I understand the study is not perfect and it's a correlation. You didn't expect them to find the actual genes in a twin studies did you?

Elliot Temple

you said you had a study about the causes.

i knew there aren't any. that's why i challenged you.

Andrew Adams

And I didn't quote this studies as the final truth, but a little bit of evidence that genes play some role.

Elliot Temple

it isn't any evidence. it's the same as the ADHD study example.

there are many other problems with correlation studies, which you can learn about at the link.

Andrew Adams

To say that correlation study completely meaningless is absurd. It sheds some lights on the topic for furthur studies.

Elliot Temple

calling something absurd isn't an argument.

look at the ADHD example. it sheds NO light on ADHD

Andrew Adams

I explained why it's absurd in the nest sentence

next

Elliot Temple

claiming it sheds light is not an argument that it sheds light. that's an assertion.

Andrew Adams

I'm not here to defend that study again. You've gotten preoccupied with that and have ignored all other things I've said.

Elliot Temple

you are defending that type of study

Andrew Adams

You told me about universality and how it makes brain different from other organisms

Elliot Temple

but you don't have any arguments which address what i said or the link i gave.

Andrew Adams

I'm gonna study that

Elliot Temple

ok

Andrew Adams

So universality will explain to me why down syndrome is affected by a gene by neurons' functions in the future life of a person are not affected by any gene. I'm not challenging it. Just making sure that's what you're saying.

but*

Elliot Temple

it is a part of the explanation. there's a lot of things to understand.

Andrew Adams

What else?

Elliot Temple

i think it works better to start with IQ and why that's wrong.

Andrew Adams

Why IQ?

IQ is just a test

Elliot Temple

because the idea behind IQ is that some people are 10% smarter than other people.

Andrew Adams

What does it have to do with mental illness?

Elliot Temple

and this is due to genes or hardware.

and we can use universality to see that that is false.

it's a simpler argument than trying to talk about down's syndrome.

Andrew Adams

Some people could be wired to be faster at learning or doing mathematical computations but I don't believe in quantifying it the way IQ does.

Elliot Temple

from understanding universality, we can find out that all people are capable of learning the same things.

that includes people who are claimed to have lower IQs or down syndrome.

their genes gave them the same capabilities as everyone in else in terms of what things they can learn, what knowledge they can create, what they can think of.

Andrew Adams

But can it be harder for some people?

Elliot Temple

no

it's harder for people with brain damage like alzheimer's. and it's harder for people after they have bad ideas.

Elliot Temple

but they aren't born with it being harder for them (except in RARE cases of being born brain damaged)

Andrew Adams

And what's the evidence for universality?

Elliot Temple

it's more a logical argument. but we have built universal computers.

Andrew Adams

Right

But we have faster computers, right?

Some have better specs

Elliot Temple

this makes almost no difference to the lives of most people

Andrew Adams

But you just said all people learn at the same rate

Elliot Temple

no, i said they are capable of learning the same things

and most people don't max out their CPU

they use maybe 10% of their brain's computing capacity

Elliot Temple

so it doesn't matter if it's slightly slower or faster.

Andrew Adams

Oh okay I get what you mean by universality

Elliot Temple

b/c there is more they aren't using

Andrew Adams

All things that compute are eventually capable of learning all things that there is

Elliot Temple

and no one cares if you write a great book in 37 months or 36 months. being slightly faster isn't what makes a genius.

Andrew Adams

So the fact that some people are faster is biological?

Elliot Temple

that is possible, but it doesn't really matter.

stuff like "autism" isn't thinking 3% slower than someone else.

Andrew Adams

Oh okay.

Elliot Temple

and bad ideas make people 1000x better or worse at thinking.

or good ideas

so it's the ideas that are important

Andrew Adams

Gotcha

Thank you

Elliot Temple

sure

:)

Andrew Adams

I'll read more on it

Elliot Temple

i don't know a lot about down syndrome. it's possible they think significantly slower and it matters. more likely, i think, is that a brain defect causes random errors. genes can't control you like telling you to be a Republican, but if genes build your brain wrong it can cause random data to be deleted or changed sometimes which makes it harder and slower to think (you have to spend more time double checking things, kinda like using checksums)

random error doesn't make someone have certain opinions or be aggressive.

i don't think stuff like "autism" and "schizophrenia" is related to physical brain problems, but down syndrome could be.

i don't think it's like the "mental illnesses" from what i know.

it's more objective and consistent, and has a medical test.

instead of just talking to someone and then lots of different psychiatrists would reach different conclusions about the same person.

Andrew Adams

I see

watch this please and let me know what you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5fN6KrDJE&index=7&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

Elliot Temple

90 minutes? hmm. will you sign up for my newsletter and discussion forum in return? :)

Andrew Adams

First 40 minutes would suffice actually

Sure!

Elliot Temple

awesome

fallibleideas.com/newsletter

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/info

i may not watch for a few days. i'll post some comments to my forum or blog.

i will also get this conversation posted somewhere

Andrew Adams

Just signed up for the newsletter.

Cool!

Do I have to have a yahoo account to join the group?

Elliot Temple

no, you can also send a blank email to [email protected] and then confirm

Andrew Adams

Awesome just joined the group too

I look forward to your thought on the video

Elliot Temple

ok :)

Andrew Adams

Hi, this just crossed my mind. What do you think of savants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2HiLtgGdVg

Like these two guys for example

Elliot Temple

brains are computers. mostly "savants" do stuff that's actually pretty easy to do with a PC like memorizing things or math. it's just a bit of a quirk to organize their mind differently than most people and are able to use some hardware features that other people are bad at using.

most people don't want to do the things savants do. they aren't interested.

some people memorize hundreds of pokemon names and various facts about them all. but if you do digits of pi, people get way more impressed for some reason.

others memorize hundreds of bible quotes. remembering lots of stuff is actually pretty common.

Andrew Adams

I see. Thanks.

This conversation, from Feb 11, 2018, relates to my video:

Scholarly Criticism: Jordan Peterson’s Sloppy Cite (+quotes, research)

The conversation was with the admin of Real Peer Review, which posts criticism bad scholarship in academia. They posted my video and we got into a discussion about a point of disagreement. It was a friendly debate and they thanked me for the discussion at the end.

Unfortunately, the admin account was banned the next morning (fuck Twitter) before I could save the conversation, which deleted all their posts. So here's just my side of the conversation. I think it's interesting enough to post even though there are parts missing. Most of it should still make sense.

Yes! I wrote JP a letter related to that! https://t.co/OEwLwF21sR I particularly dislike JP's repeated comment, in multiple venues, that you can tell if anti-depressants work for you by taking them for a month. (That's anecdote, not science.)

If either of you can point me to a correct rebuttal of Szasz (who wrote The Myth of Mental Illness), let me know...

People have mind-related problems, but they are not illnesses, they are different things. It's a category error – which psychiatry has used to try to justify the use of force outside of the criminal justice system.

There are, of course, genuine illnesses of the mind, like Alzheimer's. Those are not called "mental illnesses", just illnesses. It's only called a "mental illness" when it's not a medical issue.

I agree they are medicalizing morality and this confuses the issues. What was Szasz wrong about, though? You said some of his points are valid and seem to suggest some are mistaken.

I think he was right about everything, all his books are wonderful, and no one has refuted what he said. Non-specific accusations of excesses, written down by no one, are not a serious way to figure out the truth of the matter – which I care deeply about.

"Mental illnesses" are "diagnosed" by looking at and judging behavior (including communication), not medically. Life problems, including (mis)behavior and genuinely self-destructive deviance, are not biology or medicine. Do you have a counter-example which refutes a Szasz quote?

It's hard to comment on everything claimed by any psychiatrist. For now, let's stick to: depression, schizophrenia, autism, anxiety. Hopefully we're on same page about major topics here. So what's the logical argument that depression or anxiety must be biological and/or genetic?

Szasz and I deny your premise and empirical claim. You could give a cite, but I'll reply that 1) correlation is not causation 2) you don't have a medical test to identify schizophrenia 3) you can't identify schizophrenics at autopsy ... 1/2

4) you can't even correlate ventricles to schizophrenia without a way to determine who has schizophrenia (but psychiatrists disagree about that b/c the diagnostic criteria are vague – schizophrenia is under-defined).

If you'd like to discuss the matter in detail, to a conclusion, on a real forum, I'll be happy to. You just changed the topic from your claim about current evidence to about potential future evidence. 1/2

I would rethink things if unexpected facts came up. I don't expect certain facts in future. Like we don't expect to discover that gravity stops in the year 2022, but we'll both update our thinking if that happens. What'd change my expectations is addressing the reasoning for them

Szasz and I have evaluated that evidence differently than you have. We have a different framework, a different way of thinking. That's the thing which is really at issue.

suppose i'm right that schizophrenia is (mis)behavior, deviance, unwanted behavior, etc. in that scenario, would you expect it to have any correlation with some other things, including medical problems? (answer: yes!)

For those who want to read more, @DM_Berger and I have continued the conversation at https://t.co/jjeGatSDnN

can't fit my reply on twitter: https://t.co/OMZ4Qlmvkn

a few hardware bugs doesn't change the fact that many apps can be run on millions of different pieces of hardware, successfully. there is massive scope for hardware details (aka biology) to not matter to results.

if an adversary was programming something to take advantage of human brain hardware bugs, i bet they could come up with something. that doesn't stop most brain software from being best understood by looking at the software level rather than at hardware.

(i am a programmer too)

There are complex, poorly understood brain hardware glitches. But that's not what psychiatry is about. It's about stigmatizing, suppressing and controlling unwanted behavior with the authority of medical-scientific credentials. It's about social and moral issues.

Many medical interventions 4 life problems r unwise. Ppl use icecream 4 breakups, but that doesn't use reason to resolve issues. As long as it's 100% voluntary, whatever. Voluntary SSRIs merely fail 2 solve problem of getting better moral knowledge. Involuntary psychiatry is evil

For example, Rosemary Kennedy's unwanted behavior was living her life in a way that could potentially harm the family reputation. This was unwanted by Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who got her lobotomized. Unwanted is a moral value judgement, which can be mistaken in ways bugs aren't.

yes portability can take effort, but it does work well in many cases (e.g. different ios devices with different cpus). it's always possible b/c, key point, computation is a thing in and of itself, with its own properties.

you can write an idea in a book. this demonstrates some independence!

what things of the past? they do e.g. lobotomies and electroshock, today, slightly renamed and slightly modified. https://t.co/gdqTLI3VP5 https://t.co/6jO3HOqOqR https://t.co/1BQbawn0zK

U can't judge things by non-blinded anecdotes w/ sample size 1 & no rigorous methodology for tracking results. There are other interpretations of such experiences besides antidepressants work, e.g. ppl may try harder 2 get life together at same time they take antidepressants

twitter UI sucks. i put 3 links. third one turned into preview. u expected the last link to be the one previewed, but twitter had edited my msg text confusingly. Anyway, ECT is not problem solving. It doesn't use reason. And there's no good explanation 4 what it fixes.

I also believe many uses of ECT which are claimed to involve "full patient consent" do not actually involve full, voluntary consent. No problem if you don't want to get into that though, we can focus on genuine voluntary cases.

No I'm not. I just got one PDF linked. That's it.

Theres many causal mechanisms where antidepressants play role. E.g. makes u itchy, u enjoy scratching itches, cheers u up a bit, starts ball rolling 4 progress. Theres hundreds of stories like this, some plausible. Correlation can't differentiate these stories from standard story

No I'm not a dualist just cuz I said hardware and software are different.

There are good reasons for people to (classical) liberalize their religions. There are all kinds of connections between rational thinking and good life outcomes. People run into pieces of that – their current approach leads to problems – so they try to make some improvements.

Yeah those ideas were dumb and based on bad ideology such as ageism and anti-technology mindsets. If you could point to a falsification of anything I believe, I'd appreciate it.

Nasty, controlling memes don't control all aspects of life or thought, and there are transmission errors anyway. And over time human cultures have created some defense mechanisms, figured out some ways to use reason. That's a major part of what civilized society is.

I'm happy to extend criticisms. I don't like any of the talk therapies either.

Trials are inadequately blinded (if it actually works you can't do blind trials, ppl will notice being happier & an active placebo would be a treatment). & if you don't know causality you can't tell what differences in patient situation or societal environment will change results

Ppl like all kinds of things, including cutting themselves, so why not mind-affecting drugs? Some people do like other mind-affecting drugs! The reason the success rate on antidepressants appears higher is b/c of massive pressure, bias, selective attention, limited alternatives

Negative views of video games and porn aren't mainly coming from self-reports. & self-reports of children in particular – the main victims of screen time limits, TV and video game ratings, etc – are unreliable (often manipulated by others).

Yeah I think there's lots of scope to think outside one's culture, make objective progress, etc. Also plenty of room to be passive and irresponsible and coast, go with the flow, let cultural memes run your life.

We don't have the final, perfect explanations about those things, but we do have (flawed, partial) explanations related to the causal mechanisms. These explanations have some nice features like there's no known decisive, logical refutation for why they can't possibly work.

No, the blinding problems with various internal illnesses are not the same as the blinding problems with antidepressants. When the drug is supposed to cause a mental state, and that's the point, you can't blind properly.

People with certain problems are pressured to take antidepressants and pressured to make it work somehow (or appear to work). Both by friends/family and by "medical" authorities. You have to hide behavior people think signals depression or get pressured to do normal "treatments".

They are claimed to have noticeable effects before research outcomes get surveyed. Blinding is a big problem with pain med research. But not for all drugs.

Looks like what most people believe, and doesn't address what I believe.

Of course it's an issue worth resolving. Where is the contrary claim coming from? I expressed skepticism of a dangerous category of solution about which a lot of big claims are made, based on correlation research with little regard for good explanations of causes.

There are many, many possible interventions. What exactly is the argument that partially-brain-disabling drugs are a good intervention? People were told it would work by authorities and some of them then said it worked. Not good enough! Need to discuss causal mechanisms.

I'm in favor of rational problem solving – figure out actual problems in one's life and use reason to figure out things to do about them. But most people don't really like that – it requires e.g. criticism – so they get to muddle through life with whatever else.

The purpose/function of anti-depressants is to disable some aspect of normal brain functioning. That's why they have words like "inhibitor" in their names. No one has identified the problem at a hardware level, so have no clue how to fix it medically, even if that's possible.

It's crucial 2 figure out why someone is "depressed". What has gone wrong in their life? Typically there's a million problems & poor introspection & reasoning skills. Life is hard but ppl can get better at it. & they can tolerate most problems, as all antidepressant takers do

If someone wants a more spectacular or memorable change, they have many options. Which to use depends on their preferences. Many people want to put the problem in the hands of some experts instead of taking personal responsibility for figuring it out. That often means drugs.

There are many, many different ways of talking – and thinking. Most of them aren't very good. And I certainly don't expect people to magically change their values, preferences or habits the moment they become aware of them. That's not how reason works.

That is a narrative which many people currently find comfort in. But it isn't an approximate, incomplete model of the mind plus explanation of how antidepressants could possibly do what they are claimed to.

I have a (non-final) model and explanations. All the rivals including antidepressants do too! They couldn't have decided to try those drugs instead of random substances without some reasoning. But they mostly leave the explanatory models unstated to make it harder to criticize!

Other lifestyle changes were not tracked with scientific rigor. If you can state the model which is compatible with antidepressants working as claimed, I could point out why it isn't merely incomplete but can't possibly be right.

Look the standard model is "the brain has a bunch of different workstations which are specialized to different tasks. depression is when some fuck up. antidepressants cause some results in the brain which are similar to what the functioning workstations cause".

that is not a very good story about how antidepressants work. there are better ones. but they aren't the main focus. focus is correlation research instead of improving these stories to actually make sense and give a framework to fit research into.

to make progress on these things, one must consider tons of ways to improve that story, & subject them to meticulous criticism, esp 4 decisive flaws (e.g. logical issues). Also question incomplete parts for any story that could possibly fill in the gaps better than "idk, somehow"

one of the problems with the model is the different workstations part, which conflicts with certain epistemology ideas about universality and general intelligence. these can be considered independently and, if accepted, have consequences.

i don't think empirical research is the right way forward on this issue. research always takes place within an intellectual framework. there are framework problems in need of fixing.

whether they are singletons of modular depends on the level of abstraction you're looking at. same with brain. many ppl believe in e.g. language learning center of brain (high level of abstraction module).

"since you like the brain/computer analogy" this is why i stated: "Preemptively, because I always get the same reply about this: I am not talking about brains being metaphorically like computers, and human intelligence being analogous to software. I am speaking 100% literally."

single things or modular. "of" is a typo.

If you want to present a story without modularity, that's fine. Those exist. The story needs to be written and critically considered.

A key epistemology problem is: how can knowledge be created? The only known answer is evolution. Evolution as the method of human intelligence is a single general purpose method. Its form is: guesses and criticism. This has no built in topical limits.

No, most bad ideas are rejected without testing b/c they have internal contradictions, bad explanations, etc. Testing only makes sense when you have a coherent thing which survives other criticism and says testable stuff. Psychiatry isn't there yet.

In order to say they are being helped by drugs, you need to know what you mean – have a story of what the drugs do and how it could possibly help. Otherwise you don't know the meaning of the empirical data – haven't yet comprehended it.

All data sets are logically compatible with infinitely many explanations, including ones that contradict whatever your conclusion is. This epistemological problem has to be dealt with before one can move on to focusing on research.

What else could possibly account for the behavior of squirrels and wasps other than computation? Where are the alternatives? Computation is not a thing that has any rivals, it's a basic part of physics.

The correlation of the molecule and the positive reports is logically compatible with the molecule controlling reporting behavior, or doing so much unrelated harm that people have to develop robust coping mechanisms that often work for original issue too, etc, etc.

The solution to this logical issue is to look for good explanations and create criticisms of large categories of explanations of the data. But without stories about what's going on, there's no way past the basic logical issues.

The people in the field broadly don't know or ignore this, & therefore don't make progress. They aren't doing the required next step – serious explanatory story analysis – b/c of ignorance of epistemology – the field that says how to create knowledge of anything including science

Philosophy, including e.g. scientific method, is mostly not empirically falsifiable. It is criticizable though. Putting forward testing claims or actionable advice is not my goal here. My goal is to analyze the fundamental issues properly.

As a matter of logic, of course lying is possible. It's not the only mechanism but it suffices. You can't get around fundamental epistemological-logical issues without doing philosophy. More controls and reports for experiments can't fix this for you.

Sure that one is extravagant. That has no bearing on whether or not it demonstrates the logical point. I will be happy to discuss more plausible stories after basic logical issues are settled and we have some shared understanding of what kinds of stories we should even be seeking

rejecting it as non-falsifiable is the wrong level of analysis. i said any data set is logically compatible with infinitely many causal explanations, including ones that contradict your conclusion. this is true. that you can criticize some sample explanations is irrelevant.

i was giving examples of explanations which do not contradict the data. the point being the data doesn't do all the work for you. you need things other than data. which means you need to take steps like listing and analyzing them.

i agree. systematic lying is one of the many things best addressed using non-empirical arguments. that is, one needs an epistemology in addition to their science research. and it better be stated and subjected to critical scrutiny.

there's no way around this. & the standard thing scientists do is refuse 2 take personal responsibility for epistemology issues (not their field), & also refuse 2 outsource the matter 2 any specific philosophy experts/papers/claims. so theres no real way to debate it or fix stuff

they already know most philosophy is crap. they don't have the solution. they try to get on with their research anyway. but their research depends on epistemology, whether they state and consider the epistemological assumptions they make or not.

Self-reports can be used when you have an explanation of why they're an adequate proxy for the thing you want to measure. The explanation of what's going on must be written down and critically analyzed (e.g. for bias problems). It's an important source of error, not a side issue.

My proposal seems nebulous to you b/c it'd take millions more words to seriously explain the details of what I mean. And my goal here isn't to propose something.

I've been trying to make some fundamental logical points in epistemology. There ARE solutions in epistemology. I'm not saying there's no solution. I'm saying that those solutions are the right starting point, and they matter and have implications.

If you gloss over epistemology with common sense and pragmatism, you will go wrong. Epistemology matches current common intuitions in some ways and is very counter intuitive in other ways.

There are multiple epistemological approaches to addressing potential lying or magical explanations. Some are wrong, some have consequences or requirements other than simply letting you ignore the issue and move on.

If there was no solution besides a technology we don't have, we would be screwed. You are motivated to try to gloss over and ignore these issues b/c you think they are insoluble. I am not b/c I know Karl Popper (primarily) solved them.

Many issues cannot be settled scientifically. That doesn't make them hopeless. There are rational methods for considering ideas besides the scientific method. The short answer is: demand explanations and criticize them. Magic and arbitrary lying are short on good explanations.

This approach, once accepted, has consequences like using it to analyze everything including "SSRIs work somehow" (which is like "work by magic"). So either the explanation can be improved beyond "somehow" and then considered, or the idea can be rejected along w/ sapient gravity

heavy lying claims, outside of some exceptions (e.g. known biases), tend to contradict our explanatory mental model of what society is like and what people are like. it contradicts our overall understanding of the world. this sort of conflict with other knowledge is typical.

it could logically be that most things we think we know are mistaken. normally we don't question everything (too much work), but we can question any given thing. it's instructive to take questions and doubts further sometimes.

the scientific method is not falsifiable. empirical falsification has limited value when dealing with philosophy, logic, morality. falsification is not an intellectual starting place, it comes from epistemology which is prior.

the correctness of the method "demand all ideas be falsifiable or reject them" is not itself open to empirical falsification. that approach is self-refuting.

getting back to lying: you need an understanding of people. when and why do they lie? if you had zero understanding then you wouldn't have any way to judge if they are lying in reports. all kinds of background knowledge gets drawn in here to address the matter.

given various background knowledge about people, & various methods of thinking/reasoning, then you can reject "lots of lying" in many cases. e.g. ask where is the explanation of why they are lying or how they decide which lie to tell? this criticizes a naive "maybe lying" claim

i am not claiming they are lying, i am claiming that none of the research data is incompatible with them lying. it takes more than data – it takes philosophical method – to reject lying or magic. the point was then to pivot into discussing methods.

& to get from there to explanations mattering – which is the thing i opened with. you've now started to talk about some explanations related to depression. but without yet enough detail for careful analysis. got a reference which lays one out well which you see no refutation of?

i happen to think self-reporting is plagued by biases and lies, primarily b/c ppl lie to themselves all the damn time, but also b/c they commonly try to avoid communications to others that others disapprove of. (e.g. some ppl didn't want to say they are trump voters to pollsters)

however i have explanations of what people are like & why – mental models and stories – which are independently checked against many other things i know, fit many principles, etc. arbitrary "maybe lying or magic" stuff, without detail, is easy to criticize for lack of reasoning.

when more detail is added, then those details can be criticized. making up viable stories, while being wrong, is actually hard when every aspect is getting criticized.

Logical compatibility with data is not the proper standard for belief. Instead it's roughly: what problem does this idea solve? how does it solve it? any criticism saying why it can't work? any criticism that's a bad problem to solve?

all 4 of those things are explanation oriented. empirical falsification is less fundamental, it's governed by a prior framework. it comes up e.g. in a "why it can't work" reason. e.g. "your idea relies on X theory of physics to work, but X was refuted by experiment Y".

antidepressant research focuses too much on correlation – on finding some data that doesn't contradict their claims – which isn't useful. instead of on carefully writing out what causal mechanisms are imaginable (given, yes, existing science) & using logic 2 start ruling some out

Story: it's a culture where lying is highly stigmatized, so most ppl don't lie most of the time. So, unless special exceptions are brought up, it won't be 62% liars. Much less. This is independently checked in various ways, e.g. the infrequency of ppl being caught lying

where r carefully considered proposed mechanisms written down, good enough 2 survive non-empirical criticism & b worth testing? & every study of "we drugged ppl, they self-reported it worked" is finding some correlation data that doesn't mean anything without explanatory context

if you want a fuller answer to that matter you could read Popper and Deutsch https://t.co/aj7zu3XInD or ask on the FI forum ("Discussion" link on top) which is more suitable than tweets.

is there one you don't see anything wrong with and can link to details of?

The appropriate thing to do in that case in write down what things from what columns, which is then itself an explanation, in its own right, which may or may not be any good.

This link doesn't address the basic issues: what is depression? what are the actual problems and observed human behaviors and symptoms? how do monoamines affect that? what is the causal chain to get from the chemicals to high level stuff? it doesn't lay that out.

brought about how? you're not giving any explanation of what's going on.

Yes. You can simplify some parts with unknown as long as the category of thing you're saying can account for the results and makes sense. But you need to actually explain it in order to have some context in which to interpret research data, and to provide a target for refutation.

The hardest part is how it gets from signals outside the mind to changes in the mind (in other words, how it crosses the gap from hardware to software). This is actually easy in general b/c you just program the software to check certain inputs and do things based on them.

But humans are trickier b/c they interpret all inputs according to changeable ideas. Different people interpret the same inputs in different ways. So the explanatory story has to get into culture, ideas, etc and relate them to the chemicals. Or deny that and give alternative.

It's logically impossible to interpret data without an explanation. Your choices are to try to state the explanation and make it not suck, or to hide it and assume it without analysis.

You're having trouble giving an explanation b/c you're focusing on certain difficult details which are not necessary to a simplified, bigger picture explanation.

maybe. but that's your problem, not mine. i'm not the one claiming biological explanations are the answer here. i think depression is ppl getting overwhelmed with life, having hard problems, getting stuck, that kinda thing. my explanation starts and ends in the mind.

no research refutes this, & it has no crucial explanatory holes where we can't figure out how it could work. meanwhile you want to claim some complicated stuff with brain chemistry, etc, etc. ok but then it's on you to figure out how that could work. (or on the experts saying it)

e.g. u could say: we aren't born with a blank slate. we have some preprogrammed interpretations of different inputs to the brain. we can change these, but most ppl are lazy and leave the defaults. they build up complex emotional-behavioral reactions on top of the defaults

depression is when there is a hardware malfunction that causes certain inputs to the mind which are viewed and reacted to very negatively. the complex interpretation was developed in the past when those signals were rare, and wasn't designed designed to be changeable.

the reason it works across different ppl semi-reliably is b/c so many ppl (not all) stuck to the inborn defaults. antidepressants get the brain hardware to stop sending the negative signal (or lack of positive signal, whatever).

there are various things wrong with this explanation, but at least it is an explanation. it's the type of thing needed at the very start.

I haven't tried to produce a method, let alone done testing, and I don't agree efficacy has been measured very well. Again: you cannot judge victory via mere correlation, it requires explanation.

You don't see any connection between unsolved problems + pessimism about solving them and being sad/unhappy/etc? People like success and dislike failure. A problem is an unwelcome thing; a solution is better by their own values. Basic stuff. I think you know this.

yes, making a viable explanation of depression involving biology is hard. i was just trying to demonstrate what an explanation looks like, not make a correct one. i don't know a correct one and i have theory reasons not to expect one ever.

where is the better one than the crappy example i wrote?

you literally don't even know what you did or didn't get – or should or shouldn't want – without an explanatory framework to interpret those things within. you are constantly using hidden, unstated explanations which are being shielded from critical discussion.

this is 100% the norm and is one of the reasons 90% of science is trash.

sure. lots of ppl don't get depressed so that doesn't contradict what i'm saying.

i wasn't trying to give an explanation of how things inherently must be, just of a somewhat common thing that comes up for some people in our culture. lots of people, for cultural reasons, take various kinds of adversity, failure, struggle, etc, quite badly.

OK. Not an issue for me. I don't think depression is due to inherent reasons.

it's not mysterious. you stated why. b/c they have a different attitude ("BANZAI"). some ppl interpret a problem like "oh no, now i'm gonna suffer" and some ppl are like "ok a challenge, i can do this, or at least die trying". different attitudes, different results.

this isnt exactly it. this is low resolution version of type of thing going on. this is a type of thing that could possibly have results like those observed. there is no gap here where you can't see any way it could possibly work at all. whereas biology story isn't that developed

ppl learn attitudes from parents, schools, books, tv, etc. also think of their own. result is: complex, varying ppl with some commonalities of attitudes across portions of groups. what's the problem? u know how this works. u cud easily tell example stories about ppl getting ideas

we could zoom into details about how Joe was bullied at school and didn't have control over his own life to solve the problem (e.g. stop going to a school which permits violence), and then what sort of rationalizations joe developed to cope with life.

life is so complex u need to look at overview and also survey some details. takes too long to cover anything. you can check any areas you suspect of being problematic though.

the results of people encountering certain ideas has significant variance, but it's not purely arbitrary and random either. the ideas have some content which can be evaluated using e.g. reason. the ideas can be more or less logical which affects uptake. can have some manipulation

ppl's paths vary. i can only give examples of the kinds of things that actually happen, not someone's full life story. u keep saying it doesn't have to happen that way. true. so what? that doesn't stop it from happening and doesn't prevent there being reasons for that to happen.

you're just refusing to take on board the logical issues with correlation and causation (you took X drugs and felt better at a later time – and you assume the drugs worked)

i think depression is cultural (an attribute of some but not all cultures), not an inherent thing about all minds. so no it doesn't have to be that way.

getting into where our culture's ideas come from, and why they are this way instead of some other way, is a big topic but there is a lot known about it, and it doesn't suffer from a retreat from explanation like the SSRI ppl.

some ideas contain persuasive arguments which persuade people. some ideas are backed up by pressure. do you understand these mechanisms for why a person might take on board an idea? do you see they are not arbitrary or random, even if not super consistent?

you can't tell me how they work in the most basic overview. just "it works somehow". no better than "god did it".

that is not a refutation of my position, nor an explanation of yours. so it doesn't matter. (and i meant logically possible cultures, not current ones on earth. and having an allele isn't cultural!)

we don't reliably know every detail of everyone's life. but there's no fundamental mystery here where we don't see how something could happen at all. that's a step up from having no explanation at all.

i did not make empirical claims about that. you're attacking stuff i already disclaimed. and why on earth would learning about violence make you violent? prima facie, the more you know about violence, the more you'll reject it! violence sucks.

you have to consider the mechanisms that will get someone to accept an idea. exposure to violent TV doesn't even present the idea "you should be violent" let alone e.g. give a persuasive argument or pressure ppl into it.

at low level, ppl do information processing of incoming ideas, and have some initial inborn (but changeable) ideas/algorithms/etc (which include some RNG). u can easily come up with pseudocode for how this stuff could work. not unimaginably mysterious.

at higher levels of abstraction we run into human concepts like logical analysis of ideas to see if they will work to accomplish our goals. so you can see, in the context of a person with certain understanding of logic, certain goals, etc, how they could analyze an idea.

you can drill down on the context and look at where they learned their understanding of logic, what alternatives they considered, etc. it's hard to track IRL but it's not mysterious to check what their teachers said, what ideas about it kept getting implied on TV, etc

overall, understanding the world takes effort and requires sophisticated tracking of different levels of abstraction and organizing the information. and we won't know everything, but that doesn't stop us from having some real understanding.

you're presenting a bunch of skepticism of understanding of much of anything about humans as a biased tool to defend the glaring lack of explanation for your favored ideas. but u don't really mean it. you deal with ppl and understand all kinds of things about them.

it doesn't require that. it's a shortcut b/c our culture knows a lot of stuff that is transmitted as common sense. you can replace particular pieces of common sense, if you want, with carefully thought out analysis. i've done this in various cases.

we know they're somewhat stable b/c approximately all the ppl have functioning general intelligence. this makes sense evolutionarily – the selection pressure was to get intelligence working.

you mean i related my ideas to existing knowledge which many ppl agree with and have thought about and failed to refute? yes that's a good thing.

while i don't know everything, i could spend literally months telling you how this stuff works in increasing detail. meanwhile you can't even get started with an initial explanation for your claims.

corporal punishment is not reason. it doesn't seek the truth about the right outcome and make that happen. it doesn't treat the conflict as a disagreement. all this stuff is irrational and is teaching the kid that irrationality is how life works and there's no escape

this gets into connections with epistemology, liberalism, and other major areas of knowledge. you can learn about all of them and put it together to understand what's going on and why. i have.

i am not claiming everyone is the same, so who needs "stable" (by which i think you meant the same for different ppl). biochemical is related to e.g. building the brain in the first place and setting up initial programming, and that is done based on genetic knowledge.

but that doesn't mean that genes are destiny. the genes program a flexible platform that allows for the creation of new knowledge – e.g. Critical Rationalism – that is not in our genes or chemicals.

all of those ppl are in different situations, not identical situations. of course you should expect variance, even if you don't believe in free will on RNG internal to the mind.

i think you're asking "why" at the wrong levels of abstraction (too low level). looking at higher level concepts is more enlightening here. low level matters you get answers like "b/c the laws of physics say so" (and why is physics that way? i don't know).

the original issue wasn't even why but how – what sort of mechanism enables it to happen at all? not "why did the mechanism get X result instead of Y result in this case?" but merely what is a reasonably typical scenario where X happens?

that's either incorrect or leaving out a dozen layers of abstraction and complexity which make all the difference to actual outcomes.

genetic evolution didn't program the way adults think. if that was in our genes, what would we have school for?

ppl create and refine methods of thinking, and use them to learn all kinds of things which they then factor into future thinking, in ways that are not determined by our genes. if u wanna think of it like a neural net, fine, but a generic general purpose one.

genetic evolution gives us the most basic API of function calls for thinking, on top of which we put dozens of layers. and our biology doesn't know how those layers work, so SSRIs can't control high level thoughts (thoughts in terms of layers near the topic of the complexity)

memes had selection pressure to figure out how to gain control of minds so they could control enough behavior to ensure passing on the memes to the next generation. in the past the world was full of static societies where ppl were controlled by memes, not genes.

hardware + initial OS installation doesn't have a chance at controlling much when there's very highly adapted software that is running on top of it, exploiting security flaws, calling whatever functions it wants, etc, etc

no they can't. that's like saying you could bias what my web browser does, without knowing anything about it, by changing some low level detail. you'd have no idea what to change to get what effect.

read "antidepressants" or "drugs" or whatever instead of SSRIs. same logic applies.

logic and good explanations have some level of stability to the kinds of variance you're talking about. there's convergence to truth, it's not all arbitrary.

genes can code for things like more/stronger pain signals when the butt gets a physical impact. but they don't know anything about higher level concepts like spanking or how to deal with parents. they can only affect basic stuff which has many layers of interpretation on top

you wouldn't be able to bias it in a designed, goal-oriented way if you couldn't read that code and figure out how it works. if you had to design your bias before the code was written, and you didn't even know what kind of app it would be, then you'd have very limited options.

genes are older than memes, let alone older than the 20th layer of memes. genes are so indirectly relevant, it's like an API you abstracted away so long ago you forgot everything about it. and the memes have code to handle gene variations and adjust the API to fit.

no good, you have to design everything before the browser has ever run. the vast bulk of gene evolution is very old.

converge to truth can increase without limit. we're making ongoing progress. but there are many open disagreements, unknown things, errors, etc, which limit convergence so far.

what really limits it is you only get to do things there is evolutionary selection pressure for, and once memes exist, very little of that (b/c they meet the selection pressures first). so basically you just get to exist, and then get pwned by memes, and that's it, no competition

why? which part?

the arguments for objective truth are not a matter of evidence. you can read books about them if you like.

i'm saying the right comparison involves you finalizing the CPU before the browser exists. of course you can exploit the browser, even through 50 intermediate layers, if you get to do a bunch of testing and use creativity to figure it out.

memetics as a field in general is utter crap, but that is not a criticism of what you get if you actually understand evolution and think things through logically, and read @DavidDeutschOxf

it's way too complex (& with too much variation in higher level software complexity btwn ppl) to realistically random walk to anything that works. would need a better dev and serious coding work environment to deal with the complexity level.

memes are within my expertise and are the kind of thing i've been making strong public claims about for over a decade which no one can/will refute.