View Single Post
 
Old Feb 09, 2015, 01:16 PM
Axiom's Avatar
Axiom Axiom is offline
Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apotheosis View Post
i'm currently reading a book by a well respected psychiatrist/neurologist - who cites 10% of cases of schizophrenia in which he considers the primary aetiology is genetic/brain developmental - not negating physiological aspects within other cases.

He also takes a more integral view - But is also very much coming at things from the orthodox as well.

The book is from 1994 - so may well be dated - i'm not up or well read on current neurological/genetic theory/research, concerning psychosis/schizophrenia - other than the general press release articles. & i take serious issue with primary 'materialist'/biomedical (brain is mind) assumptions.
That's really interesting!
However, as I said about my mind - not top notch today, I think what I said was incorrect. I don't think the 80% I read about and this are necessarily contradictory. Please forgive crappiness of the following sentences:

What I read about was an answer to the question "how much can you explain with genes", i.e. not 80% of cases are explained completely by genes, but genes account for 80% of the variation. It's what's called heritability in psychology. Most or all cases are best explained by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. And also, even though 80% of the variation (hope I got it correct this time) could possibly, assuming that number is correct, be explained by genes, that doesn't mean that environmental factors aren't more important. It could be that all cases of schizophrenia could be prevented by changing the environment for those who are at risk. So it's not a static number. Heritability is a difficult concept and I doubt I did it justice in this paragraph so feel free to correct me. It's been a while since I read about heritability so I reckon some of what I've written here might be incorrect.

I hope this is more correct than what you quoted from my first post here. Because that was obviously incorrect. Sorry if I have confused anyone with my contradictory statements.

For those who are interested, this is just a google search I did but the top results seem like good sources. I see It's also mentioned on Wikipedia:
Click for Google