←back to thread

262 points Anon84 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.817s | source
Show context
alganet ◴[] No.44408986[source]
Completely anectodal:

Right after the time I was diagnosed (~36), I started to become weirdly good at some stuff.

Music, for example. I've been playing for almost two decades and couldn't progress after a certain level. This changed almost overnight, and I started to learn new instruments very quickly (now I play guitar, bass, drums and piano). I'm not a genius at them, it's not what I'm trying to say. It's just that the pace at which I learn is very different from when I was younger, I can do things I never imagined being able to do.

Somehow, I also acquired some ambidextry. This might be due to learning the instruments. I now can write with both hands (not at the same time, dominant hand is still faster and more acurate). I also developed a second, completely different handwriting (now I have two "fonts" I can use naturally).

I got worse at dealing with people. Everyone seems to be in a haze from my point of view, and it discourages any kind of meaningful relationship. I can pretend though.

I am highly skeptical of the idea that any genetic component is involved in all of this (my father was ambidextrous though, but he acquired it in childhood), it seems purely psychological. I am also skeptical about the stereotypical triggers people often associate schizophrenia to.

Last year I was reading about Havana Syndrome. That was the thing that most resonated with the kinds of psychotic events I had. Weird sounds and voices that seem to come from nowhere, dizziness, balance problems, insomnia, headaches. By the time I got to a doctor, these effects were not there anymore (they last a very short time, at least for me). I was diagnosed by describing them to the psychiatrist. Since the first episode, it has happened again a handful of times. I have learned since that Havana syndrome is not a thing anymore, but there are no official explanations other than "it's likely to be psychogenic". I also wouldn't qualify for it (apparently, only diplomats and spies had it).

replies(3): >>44409158 #>>44409177 #>>44410219 #
1. Nevermark ◴[] No.44409177[source]
> I am highly skeptical of the idea that any genetic component

Something can still be (weakly or strongly) genetic, but not inherited in any direct way. I.e. due to a particular mix of genes.

replies(1): >>44409597 #
2. alganet ◴[] No.44409597[source]
The kinds of genetic claims people usually make about schizophrenia are of the hereditary kind (including the post article), not random mutations.

I attribute this to how the illness is researched: finding a genetic factor would be a major breakthrough, so lots of people do studies on that, and eventually force their way into a discovery that represents a narrow subset of the illness but ultimately fails to explain it. It's all over the place.

This makes me extra skeptic regarding the validity of some of these studies.

replies(1): >>44420607 #
3. Nevermark ◴[] No.44420607[source]
Yeah, I was referring to a mix of genes not mutation.

Some things happen only with the right set of genes, which don’t come together through any obvious combination of parents or ancestors and may also be unlikely to pass on as a set to children too.

Even more complicated, there may be alternative genes, making identifying which genes are a factor and which are not very difficult.

But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.

But it appears making any progress there has been difficult.

replies(1): >>44426239 #
4. alganet ◴[] No.44426239{3}[source]
> But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.

I guess I'm genetically predisposed to not give much credit to genetics then. Nothing you can do about it, I will always be skeptical regarding these sorts of claims.