I have a new-found horror of the legislation that aims to force transvaginal probes into women because I have had a personal encounter with one. Of course, mine was applied with my consent as part of elective genetic testing. I will not put you through reading a graphic narrative of the unpleasant physiological details, so don’t worry. I will just say that when N. (who was there at the procedure) observed what was happening, he was completely terrified.
“I will buy you a ring!” he exclaimed. (I’m a huge fan of rings.) “With sapphires! And diamonds!”
I can’t wait to see what he will say when he witnesses the C-section. It looks like I’m on my way to making out like a bandit from this pregnancy. (Now is the time to turn on your sense of humor.)
The reason why we needed the genetic testing is very curious. I just found out about this, so I will share it because I’m not sure everybody knows. N. is 36, and that is considered an at-risk group for genetic defects. The longer we live, the more genetic mutations can happen in our bodies. Since men generate a lot more spermatozoa than women produce eggs, the statistical likelihood of a genetic mutation in sperm is a lot more likely than in an egg.
However, there is no need to see the words “genetic mutation” as uniformly negative. They can be both negative and positive. What this means is that children conceived by a man who is over 35 have a higher likelihood of both having genetic diseases and of being especially talented, brilliant, beautiful, gifted, etc. So a Down’s Syndrome child becomes more likely but a genius becomes more likely, too.
Clarissa's Blog 
My mom was 38 and my dad was 36 when I was born. I turned out okay! 🙂
LikeLike
Beautiful and talented, I’m sure.
LikeLike
My dad was 42 and my mom was 32 when I was born. 🙂 See what greatness can come out of such things!
LikeLike
The theory acquires more and more proof in this thread!
At the same time, there is no need to despair if people are under 30. My mother was 22 and my father was 24 when I was born. And . . . well, see for yourselves. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The lack of a positive does not absolutely guarantee that your newborn will be free of genetic diseases. In many cases, there are hundreds of disease-causing mutations, and they cannot test them all. For example, the CFTR gene has over a thousand known mutations, and they cannot test for them all. What they do instead is check for common ones, and, if a relative has the disease the relative’s mutation as well.
If you were found to be carrying an offspring with a genetic disease, would this make you reject your completely erroneous belief that “all diseases are psychosomatic”? Unless you are going to attribute almost supernatural power to prenatal psychology (if that even exists) there is no way something you’re born with can possibly be psychosomatic. Indeed, one genetic disease (actually four closely-related ones that by definition cannot co-occur) is common enough that if your know more than fifteen males, you know someone with it (and probably didn’t even know it!)
LikeLike
There exist gene*environment interactions…
LikeLike
Which is why identical twins don’t look exactly alike. But that’s a different issue from whether a genetic test detects a rare mutation or not.
LikeLike
“The lack of a positive does not absolutely guarantee that your newborn will be free of genetic diseases. In many cases, there are hundreds of disease-causing mutations, and they cannot test them all.”
– Thank you, this is such a kind comment.
I’m detecting so much aggression towards pregnant women – both in RL and on this blog – that it is really shocking.
“If you were found to be carrying an offspring with a genetic disease, would this make you reject your completely erroneous belief that “all diseases are psychosomatic””
– What’s with the sudden and very aggressive disrespect? No, of course, it wouldn’t make me reject my completely correct understanding of the world.
“Unless you are going to attribute almost supernatural power to prenatal psychology (if that even exists) there is no way something you’re born with can possibly be psychosomatic.”
– I find it hard to discuss psychoanalytic notions with people who don’t have knowledge of them. A fetus is a part of of a woman’s body. Hence, it is her psychology that affect it.
LikeLike
“A fetus is a part of of a woman’s body. Hence, it is her psychology that affect it.”
Plants and non-human animals get genetic diseases (I can prove it). You do realize that your own belief about maternal psychology causing genetic diseases requires you to believe that plants like trees and flowers have a psychology, right? After all, according to you, maternal psychology causes them, and therefore it is a logical consequence that plants and non-human animals have a psychology in order to suffer from genetic diseases. The idea that plants have a psychology is, as any botanist will tell you, total nonsense.
Or, if you don’t believe genetic diseases in plants and non-human animals are caused by maternal psychology, than what causes them and why the belief in a different cause for humans?
LikeLike
“You do realize that your own belief about maternal psychology causing genetic diseases requires you to believe that plants like trees and flowers have a psychology, right?”
– Please read my text carefully. The only person who expressed this idea here is you. If you fail to see a difference between “affects” and “causes”, that is hardly my problem. I suggest using a dictionary.
“The idea that plants have a psychology is, as any botanist will tell you, total nonsense.”
– I really adore it when people ascribe completely weird ideas to me and then proceed to argue with them passionately. I’m sure it serves some purpose for them.
“Or, if you don’t believe genetic diseases in plants and non-human animals are caused by maternal psychology, than what causes them and why the belief in a different cause for humans?”
– Plants and animals should be discussed some place else since I have no interest in them. In what concerns humans, I suggest this introductory reading.
Now that I have answered your questions, I will reiterate mine: What’s with the sudden and very aggressive disrespect? What is it to you how I choose to organize my worldview and explain my ailments to myself? What is it that you find so threatening in the idea that I have my own worldview that it makes you erupt in very uncharacteristic aggression?
LikeLike
“Now that I have answered your questions, I will reiterate mine: What’s with the sudden and very aggressive disrespect? What is it to you how I choose to organize my worldview and explain my ailments to myself? What is it that you find so threatening in the idea that I have my own worldview that it makes you erupt in very uncharacteristic aggression?”
You belief that all diseases are psychosomatic is dangerous. If someone else comes to believe it and foregoes treatment, they might die or suffer due to preventable causes. Basically, I see it as a threat to public health. I’ll support your right to refuse all medical treatments, but I’ll also criticise you for your dangerous belief, or if your belief threatens someone else’s life or health. Fortunately, at least, belief that all diseases are psychosomatic is far less common a nonsense than faith healing or anti-vaxxerism.
“Please read my text carefully. The only person who expressed this idea here is you. If you fail to see a difference between “affects” and “causes”, that is hardly my problem. I suggest using a dictionary.”
“I really adore it when people ascribe completely weird ideas to me and then proceed to argue with them passionately. I’m sure it serves some purpose for them.”
If maternal psychology “affects” human genetic diseases, than either of the following must also be true:
(1) Maternal psychology also affects genetic diseases in non-human species like animals and plants. If this is true, than it is a logical necessity of the above that you believe that non-human animals and plants have psychologies. To do otherwise is incoherent.
(2) Maternal psychology doesn’t affect genetic diseases in non-human animals and plants (or maternal psychology only affects genetic diseases in certain non-human animals and plants; there is a boundary between affects and doesn’t affect somewhere). In the case of the boundary, picking any one is arbitrary, and therefore raises the question of “What is so special about that location?” Any boundary encroaches on the fallacy of special pleading. Furthermore, genetic diseases in non-human animals have the same effects as those in humans. For example, in humans, albinism causes reduced visual acuity and (usually) a lack of the pigment melanin. In non-human animals, the exact same thing happens. If albinism has the exact same effects in humans and in non-human animals, what exactly is the point of positing that there is also an effect from maternal psychology in humans? It’s claiming there is some difference that makes no difference.
LikeLike
“You belief that all diseases are psychosomatic is dangerous. If someone else comes to believe it and foregoes treatment, they might die or suffer due to preventable causes. Basically, I see it as a threat to public health. I’ll support your right to refuse all medical treatments, but I’ll also criticise you for your dangerous belief, or if your belief threatens someone else’s life or health.”
– Are you serious? This is one of the unhealthiest statements I have ever encountered in my life and I have seen a lot. Who on earth suggested that psychosomatic causes mean people should forego treatment? Anybody with an ounce of intelligence realizes that if all diseases are psychosomatic, then treatment should absolutely NOT be avoided. This is a leap of logic that even a small child can make. Who told you that psychosomatic nature of diseases and treatment are mutually exclusive, instead of complimentary, things?
What kind of an arrant idiot makes medical decisions based on what they read on blogs? How can somebody’s beliefs threaten people’s life? Who said that all medical treatment should be refused or that I refuse it? Haven’t I made it extremely obvious from dozens of posts that I do visit a doctor’s office regularly?
Are you feeling fine? I’m sorry, I don’t want to offend, but you sound very disturbed. You are scaring me. You are writing in a thread where i described a visit to a doctor and say that I refuse medical treatment. It scares me when people start having such strange fantasies about me.
“Fortunately, at least, belief that all diseases are psychosomatic is far less common a nonsense than faith healing or anti-vaxxerism.”
– Have you tried spending time with literate people? Or maybe even ones who have learned to use a dictionary every now and then? If you do, you will soon discover that most educated people are not as brainwashed by the Big Pharma as you are. I am yet to encounter a doctor who doesn’t know of the connection between the psyche and the physical health.
‘If maternal psychology “affects” human genetic diseases, than either of the following must also be true:
(1) Maternal psychology also affects genetic diseases in non-human species like animals and plants. If this is true, than it is a logical necessity of the above that you believe that non-human animals and plants have psychologies. To do otherwise is incoherent.”
– Do you have a college education? Have you ever taken any courses in formal logic? As for incoherence, have you tried reading your comments in this thread?
“Maternal psychology doesn’t affect genetic diseases in non-human animals and plants (or maternal psychology only affects genetic diseases in certain non-human animals and plants; there is a boundary between affects and doesn’t affect somewhere). In the case of the boundary, picking any one is arbitrary, and therefore raises the question of “What is so special about that location?” Any boundary encroaches on the fallacy of special pleading. Furthermore, genetic diseases in non-human animals have the same effects as those in humans. “
– Human beings have consciousness. Try looking up the etymology of the word “psychology” and you will realize how misplaced your rantings on the subject of plants’ psychologies are.
Nothing is scarier than an American who has convinced himself that somebody is coming to take his happy pills away. It’s OK, you can keep guzzling them as much as you like. You can even go guzzle some right now.
LikeLike
And now, Rob F., I will explain to you what your kindergarten teachers failed to do and tell you the difference between plants an animals. Try to concentrate real hard and I’m sure you can figure this out.
If you see drops of clear liquid rolling down the trunk of a birch tree this probably means that somebody has cut it with a knife. However, if you see drops of clear liquid rolling down a human being’s face, this might mean that the human beings is watching a touching scene in a movie, remembering sad events from the past, or reading a book. A tree cannot produce any reaction to a movie, a book or a memory. A human being can. Very similar phenomena in a human and a tree have completely different causes. And you know why? Because – and this is the shocking news – human beings have consciousness.
So when a tree has a genetic disease and when a human being has a genetic disease, these diseases can be triggered by completely different causes.
The system of primary education in the US sucks dick.
LikeLike
I’m a Canadian, as I’ve mentioned here before.
“- Are you serious? This is one of the unhealthiest statements I have ever encountered in my life and I have seen a lot. Who on earth suggested that psychosomatic causes mean people should forego treatment? Anybody with an ounce of intelligence realizes that if all diseases are psychosomatic, then treatment should absolutely NOT be avoided. This is a leap of logic that even a small child can make. Who told you that psychosomatic nature of diseases and treatment are mutually exclusive, instead of complimentary, things? ”
You yourself have written:
This reads an awful lot like attributing these people’s recovery to their having their psychological problems resolved. It does not read like attributing their recovery to chemo/radiation/surgery/whatever.
“What kind of an arrant idiot makes medical decisions based on what they read on blogs? How can somebody’s beliefs threaten people’s life? Who said that all medical treatment should be refused or that I refuse it? Haven’t I made it extremely obvious from dozens of posts that I do visit a doctor’s office regularly?”
I never said that you refuse all treatment. I said that “I’ll support your right to refuse all medical treatments” and that “You belief that all diseases are psychosomatic is dangerous. If someone else (emphasis added) comes to believe it and foregoes treatment, they might die or suffer due to preventable causes.” Where in these am I saying you refuse treatment?
And people share experiences with medicine all the time. People review doctors, share home remedies, etc. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that someone with poor critical thinking skills would read a blog and use that to base decisions on. People review books, movies, etc, and those reviews probably influence other people’s decisions on whether to read/watch them.
“Human beings have consciousness. Try looking up the etymology of the word “psychology” and you will realize how misplaced your rantings on the subject of plants’ psychologies are.”
Let’s use my previous example. What is maternal psychology doing, that somehow affects a human with albinism? If maternal psychology is affecting something, it means that that something is somehow different from how it would be without the influence of maternal psychology. What is the resulting difference? If there is no difference in effect between human and non-human albinism, maternal psychology cannot be having an effect.
“If you see drops of clear liquid rolling down the trunk of a birch tree this probably means that somebody has cut it with a knife. However, if you see drops of clear liquid rolling down a human being’s face,…”
The liquid from a tree is its sap. It carries minerals, water, sugars, and some other stuff around the plant. The closest analogue in humans (and most animals) would be blood, not tears.
“So when a tree has a genetic disease and when a human being has a genetic disease, these diseases can be triggered by completely different causes.”
Also, crying/watery eyes, by itself, is not a disease.
LikeLike
“You yourself have written:
I do believe that all illness is psychosomatic in nature. I also know 3 people who were diagnosed with terminal cancer respectively 22, 17 and 7 years ago and who addressed the disease through resolving their psychological problems. They are all alive and well today even though the doctors only gave them months to live.
This reads an awful lot like attributing these people’s recovery to their having their psychological problems resolved. It does not read like attributing their recovery to chemo/radiation/surgery/whatever.”
– If you reread my very simple paragraph, you will realize that it states that doctors gave up on these patients after chemo/radiation/surgery/whatever. Can you read simple sentences? Doctors told them they were going to die. What should they have done to please you? Gone and died?
“And people share experiences with medicine all the time. People review doctors, share home remedies, etc. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that someone with poor critical thinking skills would read a blog and use that to base decisions on. People review books, movies, etc, and those reviews probably influence other people’s decisions on whether to read/watch them.”
– You are boring me with this incoherent and meaningless blabber. If a person is so delusional that they see a suggestion to forego treatment in the statement that diseases are psychosomatic, that person can just as easily see a suggestion to forgo treatment in the statement “Today is Thursday.” Once again, for the especially dense: The psychosomatic nature of diseases doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be treated. It means the opposite.
“Let’s use my previous example. What is maternal psychology doing, that somehow affects a human with albinism? If maternal psychology is affecting something, it means that that something is somehow different from how it would be without the influence of maternal psychology. What is the resulting difference? If there is no difference in effect between human and non-human albinism, maternal psychology cannot be having an effect.”
– Such issues can only be addressed individually. If you want me to “diagnoze” an imaginary story online, you have problems.
“The liquid from a tree is its sap. It carries minerals, water, sugars, and some other stuff around the plant. The closest analogue in humans (and most animals) would be blood, not tears.”
– So? How is this truism contributing anything to the discussion? Please, try to follow what is being said. People can slash their wrists because they want to die, or to scare somebody, or to attract attention, or to avoid being drafted – all this because a human being has consciousness. A tree, however, is incapable of any such things because a tree does not have consciousness. Are you disputing the contention that a tree doesn’t have consciousness? Or what are you disputing here?
““So when a tree has a genetic disease and when a human being has a genetic disease, these diseases can be triggered by completely different causes.”
Also, crying/watery eyes, by itself, is not a disease.”
– Back to the question of logic. If you think making these trivial observations somehow obscures the fact that you have nothing to say on the subject and can’t defend your own aggressively delivered opinions, that is only your problem.
Now I will repeat my very simple questions. Please concentrate and answer them: Who on earth suggested that psychosomatic causes mean people should forego treatment? Who told you that psychosomatic nature of diseases and treatment are mutually exclusive, instead of complimentary, things?
And now the crucial question: Anybody with an ounce of intelligence realizes that if all diseases are psychosomatic, then treatment should absolutely NOT be avoided. This is a leap of logic that even a small child can make. Have you managed to make that leap of logic and understand why if all diseases are psychosomatic, then treatment should absolutely NOT be avoided
LikeLike
“I’m a Canadian, as I’ve mentioned here before.”
– May this be a lesson to all Canadians who are addicted to American TV.
LikeLike
Great responses, Clarissa! I find that it is extremely common for males from Northern America to try to use logic to do the role that religion otherwise plays for them. In effect, they misunderstand the nature of logic because they assume that it can furnish them with a world view and confirm the difference between absolute truth and absolute error. In actual fact, logic doesn’t quite work in this way. Rather, it is a method to assure consistency between various statements one may make. If one’s world view is already messed up or nonexistent, pure logic cannot give you a world view. It’s not a means to define what is real and what isn’t. In fact the logical positivists were severely let down when they tried to use it in that way. They grappled endlessly with the statement, “Pegasus doesn’t exist.” They went mad over it, because they had a very significant problem with trying to get language to do all the work of defining reality for them when language was already capable of asserting a fantastical creature’s existence (despite retracting the sense of its existence with the word, “not”.) If one can use a word, then that means it is necessarily indicative of part of absolute reality — so reasoned the logical positivists. But they were mistaken. Language is a relativistic structure or what Nietzsche calls “a mobile army of metaphors”.
In any case, language and logic can’t do all the work for us of furnishing us with a world view. Our reason is not bestowed from above, but emerges from our humanity. To think otherwise is to embrace a quasi-religious perspective, without realizing one is doing this.
Indeed such quasi religious perspectives may present a clear and present danger to public health, if one happens to be sucked into the vacuity that is North American “thinking”.
LikeLike
“If one’s world view is already messed up or nonexistent, pure logic cannot give you a world view.”
– Exactly! See how my interlocutor took completely unconnected sentences, placed meaningless jargon of “this must absolutely definitely totally necessarily mean that” and has tried selling it as his worldview. In reality, however, all there is in his statements is a terror of somebody who has a worldview and it is worldview that is not based on sappy American TV shows. I also feel like he has seen some images on TV, has identified me with one of them and is now ranting against that image. There was this show about a person who was treating cancer with apricot seeds or something. I think this is the role he wants me to play.
LikeLike
I think your diagnosis of his disorder is absolutely correct. Unfortunately this lazy incapacity to confront reality for oneself, but to demand it be bestowed authoritatively from somewhere else — whether from TV, or from capacities falsely attributed to pure logic, or from Rush Limbaugh (the list goes on) — is pure USA in all its gruesome magic.
Laziness disguised as absolute authority and absolute truth (in other words, disguised as its opposite).
Anyway, I’m impressed that you can see through this rubbish, because honestly, it took me a thousand years (well ten, at least).
I really thought there had to be more to it, because I never imagined such intellectual laziness could exist.
LikeLike
“I think this is the role he wants me to play.”
I’ve also had people who ought to have known much better treating me as if I were a new age moon goddessy type because I embraced the views of Nietzsche and Bataille from a shamanic perspective.
Notably, it was Americans who drew this conclusion, despite having ample opportunities to get to know me very well. They proved to be extremely poor observers. I think North Americans struggle with empiricism. They can’t seem to manage it at all.
LikeLike
“Mutation” is a scary word, but all it really means is variation. Blond hair, green eyes, and dark skin are as much mutations as Down’s Syndrome is.
LikeLike
I had some kind of observation of my ovaries, using an inserted Z-ray machine. It wasn’t particularly uncomfortable physically. I did expect worse.
The Mirena insertion was extremely uncomfortable, though. I felt a huge pressure on my bladder and then they had to pin the uterus three times, before insertion, which was like some kind of attack. Then the nice doctor said the worst part was over, but that was a lie. The actual insertion was like touching a heavily electrified wire. It was abominable — but only for about four seconds.
LikeLike
Sorry, X, not Z.
LikeLike
What the fuck is all this shit, Rob? If you don’t address any psychological issue, the treatment would be incomplete!
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I’m saying. If one has persistent blood pressure, for example, one can go through life getting bigger and nigger prescription for the issue. Or one could also try to figure out why it is so high and deal with the cause, making the medication eventually unnecessary. What is so horrible about this scenario, other than the loss of profit for a pharma company?
LikeLike
I wonder how someone goes from seeing someone reject the position (1) “all diseases are psychosomatic” to concluding that that someone rejects the position “some diseases are psychosomatic”. If someone interprets “psychosomatic” as meaning “influenced by psychological or mental factors” (And not as “all in your head”) then it entirely possible to accept that some diseases (namely, fewer than all of them) are. For example, around 80% of stomach ulcers are caused by Helicobactor pylori infection. However, since most people are infected with H. pylori, and most of them do not get ulcers, some other factor is clearly in play. It is generally accepted that stress is one of those factors. It is therefore correct to believe that gastric ulcers are (in part) psychosomatic. But it does not follow from that that all diseases are psychosomatic.
The guts of mine and Clarissa’s disagreement therefore boils down to what percentage of diseases are psychosomatic. By believing that “all diseases are psychosomatic”, Clarissa thinks that the percentage is 100%. I reject the 100% claim, and, as I implied above, also reject the position that 0% (namely, none) are psychosomatic. I believe that the actual number is somewhere in the middle.
LikeLike
More completely meaningless blabber. All to conceal the utter incapacity to answer my questions.
” It is generally accepted that stress is one of those factors. It is therefore correct to believe that gastric ulcers are (in part) psychosomatic.”
– Maybe you should not participate in these complicated discussions if psychosomatic to you means “caused by stress.” It is sad to see such ignorance. We’ve been arguing all this time only to discover that you have no idea what the word psychosomatic even means.
LikeLike
” If someone interprets “psychosomatic” as meaning “influenced by psychological or mental factors””
– Yes, somebody here definitely is laboring under a huge mental factor. You should have simply said form the start that you have no idea what psychosomatic means and not wasted my time.
LikeLike
From WP (my emphasis):
“Mental processes act as a major factor affecting medical outcomes” means “influenced by psychological or mental factors”.
WP also gives gastric ulcers as an example of a psychosomatic illness, which is the same one I used (again, my emphasis):
I think WP is correct.
LikeLike
After “psychosomatic means caused by stress” I agree with you that Wikipedia represents the ceiling of your intellectual capacities.
No answers to my very simple questions are forthcoming, I gather?
LikeLike
Consider this argument:
“Three people were terminally ill with cancer.
“They had their psychological problems resolved.
“They got better (since they are still alive as of a few months ago).
“Therefore, resolving their psychological problems ‘cured’ their cancer.”
Now, that argument above is fallacious (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Just because one event took place after another, it does not follow that the first event caused the second one. Those people getting better could have been due to any number of factors, including (finding a doctor that would treat them, spontaneous remission, incorrect belief that the disease was terminal, etc). However, you won’t believe the number of people who don’t know this is a fallacy, especially if the connection seems (superficially, at least) plausible. Therefore, it can easily make someone think that getting psychological problems resolved can “cure” cancer, even is that is not one’s intent. This might make those people
“Such issues can only be addressed individually. If you want me to “diagnoze” an imaginary story online, you have problems.”
Sounds an awful lot like dodging the question. If you knew what the effect the affect of maternal psychology had, you’d be able to give it or give an example of what effect it supposedly had
“So? How is this truism contributing anything to the discussion? Please, try to follow what is being said….”
Your analogy was incorrect.
“Back to the question of logic. If you think making these trivial observations somehow obscures the fact that you have nothing to say on the subject and can’t defend your own aggressively delivered opinions, that is only your problem.”
You used a tree leaking sap/people crying as examples. You brought them up, and used them to support your claim that “So when a tree has a genetic disease and when a human being has a genetic disease, these diseases can be triggered by completely different causes.” And if you claim that genetic diseases in people are “triggered by completely different causes” (namely, no similarity in cause whatsoever) than those in trees then, what exactly is triggering them, if not mutations (either inherited or de novo)?
“Who on earth suggested that psychosomatic causes mean people should forego treatment? Who told you that psychosomatic nature of diseases and treatment are mutually exclusive, instead of complimentary, things?”
I never said that “psychosomatic causes mean people should forego treatment? Who told you that psychosomatic nature of diseases and treatment are mutually exclusive, instead of complimentary, things?” I said that (my emphasis): “If someone else comes to believe it and foregoes treatment, they might die or suffer due to preventable causes.” I never said that I believed it. In other words, some third party, who is not me and not you, might, after seeing anecdotes, incorrectly conclude that all diseases are psychosomatic and forego non-psychosomatic (which I’ll call conventional) treatments.
I also think medical treatments should be necessary. And since some diseases (like genetic ones) do not have psychosomatic factors and are not affected (having a difference made) by maternal psychology, I don’t want people to do unnecessary things. It’s the same reason I’m against doctors giving antibiotics to people with colds or the flu “just to shut them up”. They will have no affect on virus and furthermore, this misuse contributed to antibiotic resistance, which does harm people for whom
LikeLike
Consider this argument:
“Three people were terminally ill with cancer.
“They had their psychological problems resolved.
“They got better (since they are still alive as of a few months ago).
“Therefore, resolving their psychological problems ‘cured’ their cancer.”
– This was not my argument and you know it. You cut up my statement blatantly and shamelessly in order to adapt it to your goals. This is a trick of somebody who has lost an argument and is too weak to admit it. What I actually said was: “I do believe that all illness is psychosomatic in nature. I also know 3 people who were diagnosed with terminal cancer respectively 22, 17 and 7 years ago and who addressed the disease through resolving their psychological problems. They are all alive and well today even though the doctors only gave them months to live.” How cute of you to excise the fact that doctors gave up on these patients from my account. Shame on you.
“Just because one event took place after another, it does not follow that the first event caused the second one. Those people getting better could have been due to any number of factors, including (finding a doctor that would treat them, spontaneous remission, incorrect belief that the disease was terminal, etc).”
– You are discussing people you have never met. This is a very idiotic thing to do.
““Such issues can only be addressed individually. If you want me to “diagnoze” an imaginary story online, you have problems.”
Sounds an awful lot like dodging the question. If you knew what the effect the affect of maternal psychology had, you’d be able to give it or give an example of what effect it supposedly had”
– There is no uniform effect. Psychology is always an individual issue. There is never a single response to give in all situations. Nobody can diagnoze people on the basis of some weird story somebody comes up with online.
““So? How is this truism contributing anything to the discussion? Please, try to follow what is being said….”
Your analogy was incorrect.”
– Are you incapable of following the discussion at all? I will repeat what I said: Please, try to follow what is being said. People can slash their wrists because they want to die, or to scare somebody, or to attract attention, or to avoid being drafted – all this because a human being has consciousness. A tree, however, is incapable of any such things because a tree does not have consciousness. Are you disputing the contention that a tree doesn’t have consciousness? Or what are you disputing here?
“You used a tree leaking sap/people crying as examples. You brought them up, and used them to support your claim that “So when a tree has a genetic disease and when a human being has a genetic disease, these diseases can be triggered by completely different causes.” And if you claim that genetic diseases in people are “triggered by completely different causes” (namely, no similarity in cause whatsoever) than those in trees then, what exactly is triggering them, if not mutations (either inherited or de novo)?”
– Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? This question has been answered fifteen times.
“I said that (my emphasis): “If someone else comes to believe it and foregoes treatment, they might die or suffer due to preventable causes.” I never said that I believed it. In other words, some third party, who is not me and not you, might, after seeing anecdotes, incorrectly conclude that all diseases are psychosomatic and forego non-psychosomatic (which I’ll call conventional) treatments.”
– This is getting boring. The third party you describe must be completely delusional. Delusional people will see whatever they want to see in any statements whatsoever. You are projecting your own severe intellectual limitations onto imaginary readers. You chose to see a suggestion that medical treatments should be avoided in my writings because you needed to see it. That need is so powerful that you are rendered literally incapable of reading and processing a short paragraph. And that is exactly what psychosomatic means.
“And since some diseases (like genetic ones) do not have psychosomatic factors and are not affected (having a difference made) by maternal psychology, I don’t want people to do unnecessary things.”
– You now have delusions of grandeur? Who are you to want or not to want people to do anything? Also, please stop using the word “psychosomatic”. We have already discovered that you have no idea what it is and see no difference between “psychosomatic illness” and “psychosomatic medicine.”
LikeLike
This is a really great paragraph:
“…. Delusional people will see whatever they want to see in any statements whatsoever. You are projecting your own severe intellectual limitations onto imaginary readers. You chose to see a suggestion that medical treatments should be avoided in my writings because you needed to see it. That need is so powerful that you are rendered literally incapable of reading and processing a short paragraph. And that is exactly what psychosomatic means.”
It gives a really succinct reply to a certain kind of syndrome I’ve done battle with over the years, where people have powerful needs to read their own ideas into what I’ve said to the extent that they delude themselves they’ve understood me. I had an ongoing dialogue with one guy over ten years. I really couldn’t believe he didn’t grasp what I was saying as I had repeated the same things in all sorts of ways, numerous times.
Eventually I realized he was intellectually limited and only capable of hearing his own views in an echo chamber.
When I understood that his problem was only being able to understand himself to the exclusion of others, it all made sense and I abandoned any attempt to convince him of anything he wasn’t already inclined to accept.
LikeLike
Here we can see how somebody actually modifies my text, a text that is right here and that everybody can easily see, to fit his completely baseless theory. This is how profound the anxiety caused by the incapacity to step out of his intellectual dead-end is.
“It gives a really succinct reply to a certain kind of syndrome I’ve done battle with over the years, where people have powerful needs to read their own ideas into what I’ve said to the extent that they delude themselves they’ve understood me.”
– This is exactly what is happening here. There is some completely imaginary strawman Rob F is trying to battle and I’m getting in his way with my logic and arguments.
LikeLike
Another part of North American maleness no doubt. They need to vanquish monsters of all sorts. They are certainly unafraid of windmills no matter how tall or imposing they happen to be. If you don’t combat that windmill you will lose self-image and become ordinary…womanlike, perhaps?
LikeLike