i'll critique the absurdity of basing any suposedly scientific theory on gender essentialisim. Mommie gives baby biological hysteria while daddy gives baby biological emotional detachment? gimme a break!!

Quite. They're groping in the dark; ignoring the obvious: *all* behaviour, no matter how bizarre or grotesque, is learned. The way a person behaves says more about the people who have taught that behaviour, than it does about the person.

But if all behaviour is learned, then all of a sudden it's no longer the responsibility of the individual; it's the responsibility of society, and society isn't equipped to deal with that simple truth.

Matt

My favorite part of the article is this:

"At a time when the search for the genetic glitches behind brain disorders has become mired in uncertain and complex findings, the new idea provides psychiatry with perhaps its grandest working theory since Freud, and one that is grounded in work at the forefront of science..."

This sentence from a paper who, in pretty much every article about everything from child bipolar to schizophrenia to depression to adhd to ptsd to ocd, mentions as an aside that it's an established fact that mental illness is genetic even though that sentence more or less correctly dismisses everything since Freud, tossing mainstream biopsych in the trash correctly of course, I won't hold my breath for a retraction of the brutality with which the paper treats people labeled as schizophrenic et al. It is notable however that even the NYT is well aware that there is no proven genetic basis for mental illness.

I do wonder though, if it's only mental illness they see on this spectrum from autism to schizophrenia or if "normal" also is in the middle or does normal have it's own "spectrum."

i wonder if this is why doctors call my daughter a "morph".

yeah, I'm with Jenna, this sounds like bad creative writing.

Dear Philip:

I just love these researchers that take one small thin slice of the pie, and draw grandiose conclusions from over analyzing a flawed concept. This type of wasted energy and so called science takes away from the unraveling of the puzzle; more than it does in truly understanding it.

It’s like deriving theories and proclamations about the universe locked in a dark closet. After some time working with both autistic and psychotic/schizophrenic populations upon my long road of keen and admittedly/obviously limited observation and experience (some patients I have worked with which had a diagnosis with one or the other, and sometimes both simultaneously or separately in the course of their mental health journey). I would gander to believe they (autism and schizophrenia) are more closely related to one another in actuality, than separated by genetic sexual predisposition. Yet, we still get these so called experts than single out a single genetic component and theoretical basis, while discounting all other possible cause and effect scenarios.

I’m always dumfounded and suspect of such claims and research conducted in this fashion. I think both the time and money could be better spent on just understanding the organ called our brain and how it functions first; before they start pulling this cart before the horse types of conjecture, and start throwing this manure at us to consume.

Yours truly,
Stan

Aside from the "novel" nature of the theory the only part I liked was "The theory has no use for psychiatry’s many separate categories for disorders."

My father has Asperger's.

Schizophrenia runs in my mother's family.

Coincidence? Well, I used to think so, anyway ...

Nonsense.

Is it too obvious to observe that if all behaviour (including behaviour that amounts to mental illness), is learnt, then it would be very easy to assume that mental illness was genetic, because in our formative years, we are learning from our parents? If our parents have acquired a series of behaviours that are "mentally ill" (presumably from their own parents), then they are teaching us to be mentally ill, too. The behaviours would run in the family, then. Ergo, mental illness is genetic. Or not. What we are talking about here are observable phenomena (the mentally ill behaviours), and engaging in conjecture as to the cause.

Perhaps the conclusions that we are coming to are being drawn to suit our own agendas. Perhaps only the theories that suit are permitted publicity. Perhaps information is controlled in this paranoid manner, because an alternative reading of the observable pheomenon is in nobody's interests? Who knows? And who cares? Well, I do, as it happens, seeing as accusations of mental illness is a means of discrediting that has been used on me. I'm very angry about that, oddly enough.

In any event, let's suppose that mental illness is genetic. How does that help us find a solution? Are we going to isolate an OCD gene, or something, and remove it? And what will the consequences of that be? Jesus, it beggars belief!

Now, you witchdoctors and snake oil salesmen: pick the bones out of that!

Matt

Larry, my daughter is dx asperger's/PDD autistic, and chronic psychosis (one doc has said schizophrenia)then 2 other doctors called her a "morph"; I wonder if there will be any concrete answers to these things....ever.

is this psychiatry's "grandest working theory since Freud's"? Or just its most grandiose? There is a difference....

Now let's see...Autism is from Mars; Schizophrenia is from Venus.

Have I got that right?

How creative of them. Not.

that is the most ridiculous thing i've read in a while. female equals hypersensitive and male equals callous. if this were true, wouldn't bipolar disorder be more predominant in women instead of equally distributed between sexes? the nyt article did comment that a flat affect often goes hand in hand with psychotic disorders, seemingly invalidating their claim attributing it to emotional oversensitivity. what "experts" actually support this theory?

I can't hardly wait for the genetic pre-natal test that will finally eradicate mental illness from this world.
It will be great to have a world with normal people everywhere.
I just don't understand why so misery in this world since there are no nuts on the political arena.

I also hope that they find a way to genetically manipulate all diseases.
Than humankind will finally be perfect.
I have no idea what on earth "perfection" means but thank the Lord scientists know it damn well.

How on earth did they manage to get funding for this research? For one, the genetic route to autism, (amongst many other neurological problems), is only ONE route. As much as gene expression can cause neurological dysfunction which produces conditions like autism, so can brain injury. Aslo, no consideration is given to the single biggest determinant of human neurological functioning; - the environment in which the individual grows and develops.

Seems to me like this is a very narrow minded, shallow theory and one which will be sunk without trace by any half decent academic.

Hey Philip,

I agree with the above commenters - it really seems like a way to provide biological "credence" for the insultingly oversimplification that autism is from mars and schizophrenia is from venus.

It honestly reminds me of Brian Green's "String theory". Yeah, it would be nice if all matter was composed of "tiny vibrating strings". It would give us the psychological satisfaction of having an underlying order, a unified principle.

But without evidence, it is merely another religion, trying to make sense of a world in which there may be none, at least in the limited way humans can understand.

I must respond to the last commenter that this ill thought out theory of mental illness being proposed has nowhere near the sophistication and support that string theory has (which I would not consider a "religion"). These two "experts" seemed to have pulled this sexist theory out of nowhere and since science writers seem to be scientifically illiterate, it was written about.

It's just particularly amusing since "autism" is one of the original four "A" symptoms OF schizophrenia. Obviously I mean the general definition of autism as withdrawn, not the condition.

Also, if this were the case, adoption studies would have more robust numbers. But they don't.

Daddy's genes make you want to play with mechanics, mommy's genes make you moody. Very original.