Genetic Basis for Mental Illness

[Anonymous No.11433973]

Hi /sci/, I'm interested in this topic

If someone has had a bout of mental illness, do you think it's worth getting your genes checked?

Genes are thought to increase your risk although it's not deterministic (some people with genes associated with schizophrenia don't develop the condition). BUT I have always had doctors say to me "oh maybe it's your genes" but they have produced no EVIDENCE. Unless you test someone's genome, you have no idea what genes they have, right?

Also for major depression, genes are apparently thought to cause 37% of your risk. Which is only just over a third. But it would be interesting to find out what genes one has, right?

(For schizophrenia it's postulated to be higher at 80%, and for bipolar apparently it might be between 70 - 90%, but I'd take all this with a grain of salt because it's only twin studies and we don't really know what genes cause these conditions as far as I know.)

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder#Genetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Genetic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

[Anonymous No.11433974]

>Mental Illness
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11433983]

>>11433973
>Unless you test someone's genome, you have no idea what genes they have, right?
Not exactly, a familial history of a particular disorder is also indicative of the genetic risk. Say, your mother, grandfather on your mother's side, and great grandfather on your mothers side, all had schizophrenia, then there's a relatively high likelihood that you're also genetically predispose to develop schizophrenia.

>do you think it's worth getting your genes checked?
In addition, the traits were talking about are not as simply determined as let's say eye color. They're complex behavioral traits (by definition) and any genetic contribution to them is likely to be polygenic (i.e. involve lots of genes and their interaction with each other and the environment). There are of course individual genes that are associated with higher risk, but typically such individual genes account for a relatively small faction of the phenotypic variance in the population. This means that 'getting your genes checked' is of comparatively little use relative to standard risk assessment strategies.

[Anonymous No.11434010]

>>11433974
Using greentext, go back to >>>/pol/ you /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.11434012]

>>11434010
good goy

[Anonymous No.11434014]

>>11433973
No reason not to do so.

[Anonymous No.11434091]

>>11433974
Based and Szaszpilled

>>11433983
>a familial history of a particular disorder is also indicative of the genetic risk
And it's also indicative of bad habits being learned by each generation. 63% of your risk of major depression is thought to be non-genetic.

The fact is that it is purely SPECULATION to postulate that someone has bad genes. Until you test their genes it's speculation.

Imagine a doctor diagnosing diabetes on the basis of a few symptoms, without actually checking to see if you actually have diabetes.

[Anonymous No.11434105]

Doctors don't know shit
The next time a doctor speaks to me I'll knock them the fuck out

[Anonymous No.11434131]

>>11434091
>>11434105
<-- your face

[Anonymous No.11434171]

>>11434091
>purely SPECULATION
>purely
Wrong. Just as with diabetes, familial history is indicative. It increases the probability that genetic risk exists. Do you not know how to think in probabilities?

>bad genes
The fact that you still think that it's this simple implies that you understood literally nothing of my previous post. There's no single gene that is responsible for complex behavioral traits. A gene can do one thing in isolation but result in a completely different phenotype if you place it in the context of other genes, or in a different environment. This is why we haven't found a 'depression gene' or 'schizophrenia gene', and the consensus is that this search is pointless. And if it isn't obvious, this absolutely does not imply that the genome is unrelated to behavioral phenotype. Only that a genetic screening for behavioral phenotype will be unreliable.

[Anonymous No.11434197]

>>11433983
>In addition, the traits were talking about are not as simply determined as let's say eye color. They're complex behavioral traits (by definition) and any genetic contribution to them is likely to be polygenic (i.e. involve lots of genes and their interaction with each other and the environment). There are of course individual genes that are associated with higher risk, but typically such individual genes account for a relatively small faction of the phenotypic variance in the population.
Confirming that it's even more dubious and, in my view, unethical for a doctor to SPECULATE that you have bad genes. Of course you MIGHT have bad genes, but without testing, there is no way of knowing.

Would a doctor diagnose a broken leg without actually doing a physical check to see if you do (x-ray in this case)? No. So why should mental conditions be any different?

[Anonymous No.11434273]

>>11434197
Fucking hell you're even dumber than I thought.

>Would a doctor diagnose a broken leg without actually doing a physical check to see if you do (x-ray in this case)? No. So why should mental conditions be any different?
Would a doctor do a fucking sequence of your genome to diagnose type 1 diabetes? The same exact things hold, genetic predispositions exist and are indicative to form hypotheses, but are not tested for since more easily accessible and informative diagnostic criteria exist.

>you have bad genes
no doctor will tell you this you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11434279]

>>11434171
>Just as with diabetes, familial history is indicative.
BUT DIABETES IS STILL CONFIRMED WITH PHYSICAL TESTS YOU STUPID FUCK

THEY DON'T JUST LOOK AT FAMILY HISTORY AND SAY "COULD BE DIABETES, YEAH WHATEVER, WE'LL SAY IT'S DIABETES" WITHOUT FUCKING CHECKING YOU STUPID FUCK

>A gene can do one thing in isolation but result in a completely different phenotype if you place it in the context of other genes, or in a different environment. This is why we haven't found a 'depression gene' or 'schizophrenia gene', and the consensus is that this search is pointless.
The search is NOT pointless, and yes it's in its early stages, but it isn't pointless. Wikipedia links to a couple studies done in the last couple years, looking for genes associated with depression.

Anyway - telling someone they have bad genes without confirming it is HIGHLY UNETHICAL. Why shit on that person's dreams? Their parent's/parents' or grandparent's/grandparents' depression, let's say (could just be one ancestor, could be a few) could have been due to perfectly understandable environmental reasons. E.g. abuse as a child, let's say. So the whole idea of chalking it all up to genes and trying to tell a patient they have bad genes WITHOUT EVIDENCE PROVING THIS is HIGHLY unethical.

The only reason the docs want to get you on the drugs is because they don't give a shit about your dreams, and why would they? And once you're on the drugs, you'll probably abandon your dreams, because the drugs make you apathetic. It's ridiculously unethical.

[Anonymous No.11434286]

>>11434273
>Would a doctor do a fucking sequence of your genome to diagnose type 1 diabetes? The same exact things hold, genetic predispositions exist and are indicative to form hypotheses, but are not tested for since more easily accessible and informative diagnostic criteria exist.
Diabetes is still diagnosed by physical checks. Mental conditions aren't. Which is why it's ridiculously dubious to suppose that someone's mental state has a physical basis (genes) when really the events in their life could be a far bigger contributor.

>no doctor will tell you this you fucking retard
AND YET THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A DOCTOR TOLD ME, "hurr durr you have shit genes because someone in your family got depressed once". And then this doc was saying "my family has it too, my 14 year old kid has to take antidepressants".

And I thought, that kid doesn't HAVE to do fucking anything. We can resolve something like depression through LIVING YOUR LIFE BETTER, having the confidence to pursue your dreams, all of that.

The medicalisation of low feelings is UTTER CRAP, and morons like you support it. You really are a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11434295]

>>11434279
>HEY DON'T JUST LOOK AT FAMILY HISTORY AND SAY "COULD BE DIABETES, YEAH WHATEVER, WE'LL SAY IT'S DIABETES" WITHOUT FUCKING CHECKING YOU STUPID FUCK
>full caps, twice the retard
This is also not how they diagnose metal disorders, you stupid fuck.

>The search is NOT pointless, and yes it's in its early stages, but it isn't pointless.
If you'd actually take a look a those studies you'll see that, as I wrote in my first fucking post in this thread, these individual genes account for a low amount of phenotype variance. This is why GWAS studies for DSM disorders aren't funded much anymore. Because they're pointless.

>WITHOUT EVIDENCE
Wrong. A diagnosis is made on criteria other than the genome, because genetic criteria would be unreliable. That does not mean that no criteria are used whatsoever, you fucking retard.

Sounds to me like you've been diagnosed with some disorder (clearly rightfully so) but just don't like the diagnosis. I'm leaving because the i'm getting stupider by the minute just talking to you, enjoy your 404.

[Anonymous No.11434322]

>>11434295
>This is also not how they diagnose metal disorders, you stupid fuck.
It's the attitude they take when trying to imply that your mental health is GENETIC.

What you said before is right - it's polygenic, there are all sorts of genes. And also, genes are not fate. Genes do not determine that you are DESTINED to depression.

But telling a young person that they have these bad genes gives them the impression that they're destined to have a shit life, and therefore they have to take the mind-numbing pills.

It's bollocks. A young person should not be worried about their fucking genes. Youth is a time to BELIEVE IN YOURSELF. And literally, self-belief is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT. At school, do the teachers ever say "Billy, you're shit at maths, it's probably genetic, you'll only do well if you take a mind-numbing medication"? No, they say "Billy, believe in yourself, study hard, and you will get better at maths".

>I'm leaving
Because you lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.11434343]

>>11434322
> trying to imply that your mental health is GENETIC
It partially is you fucking moron.

> Genes do not determine that you are DESTINED to depression.
No fucking doctor will tell you that either shithead.

The simple fact is that familial history IS evidence of genetic risk. You're getting your panties in a twist over this because you do not understand the difference between risk and determinism.

>Because you lost the argument.
I didn't lose shit, you're simply too stupid to get the point.

Enjoy the 404.

[Anonymous No.11434582]

>>11434343
>No fucking doctor will tell you that either
I'm already telling you they do, but you're so fucking stupid that you can't read.

You lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.11434597]

>>11433973
How do you know whether or not the genes are "causing" the mental illness, versus the environment is causing the mental illness and the genetic traits observed are simply common among individuals with similar reactions to the environment?

Thus, how do you avoid a situation where:

"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make
them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness.
Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own
society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly
increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of
the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59–76. But even if we are
wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of some
conditions that exist in today’s society. Instead of removing the conditions
that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant
drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s
internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions
that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression
is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in
which environment plays the predominant role.)"

--Industrial Society and its Future, Paragraph 145.

[Anonymous No.11434603]

Why do jews have so many mental health problems?

[Anonymous No.11434609]

>>11434603
this isn't intended as a /pol/ type question they do seem to suffer more mental illness I just wanted an answer.

[Anonymous No.11434619]

>>11434597
Genes are thought to increase risk, but they don't cause the condition. Triggers in your life are what cause the condition. Apparently. Because some people with schizophrenia genes (genes associated with the condition) don't develop the condition.

[Anonymous No.11434620]

>this thread
>5 posts in and OP already seems like an obnoxious cunt
if you ask a question and then get butthurt when the answer isn't the one you wanted, why ask the question to begin with bro

[Anonymous No.11434629]

>>11434619
You've completely missed the point.

[Anonymous No.11434634]

>>11434597
>Quoting the unabomber
Watch out for all that edge kids

[Anonymous No.11434640]

>>11434634
Was Ted wrong?

[Anonymous No.11434649]

>>11434640
Yeah, about a lot of things. But you're the type of person who thinks that someone who believes that mailing bombs to people will make society abandon all technological advances and 'return to nature' should be taken as an authority on how to deal with mental illness, so I'd be wasting my time trying to explain to you all the ways in which he was wrong.

[Anonymous No.11434663]

>>11434649
from a guerilla's perspective it is an effective way to spread your ideas
look at the chebok schooldgirls that were kidnapped in Nigeria a few years ago, they'd been slaughtering schools full of boys for years and only targeted the girls as a PR stunt.

[Anonymous No.11434679]

>>11434663
>it is an effective way to spread your ideas
Yes, so effective it got him life in prison without effecting any societal change whatsoever. This is a person you see as an authority on mental illness. Kys

[Anonymous No.11434684]

>>11434679
No I'm merely commenting on your responce to the guy who posted his ideas.
I asked if Ted was wrong I'm neutral on the man but acknowledge that terrorism is an effective way to spread a message fast. and he has likely had a long term impact on the field.

[Anonymous No.11434692]

>>11434684
>terrorism is an effective way to spread a message fast
Sure, but this only demonstrates that he was an exceptionally poor terrorist.

[Anonymous No.11434693]

>>11434012
Get the fuck off of /sci/ anti-semitic neo nazi you aren't welcome here

[Anonymous No.11434696]

>>11434693

[Anonymous No.11434699]

>>11434693
How do we deal with the reality that facts are often antisemitic?

[Anonymous No.11434702]

>>11434699
what the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11434706]

>>11434702
Don't feed it

[Anonymous No.11434725]

>>11434706
ok lol

[Anonymous No.11434729]

>>11434699
what really is antisemitic? I've seen the word abused so systematically that it almost loses meaning, same with Nazi, for some they perceive or at least disclaim any criticism or challenge to their ideas as antisemitic.
but that seems more akin to fragile individals attempting to abrogate and deflect.

[Anonymous No.11434825]

>>11434684
He won't impact shit because nobody except losers want to destroy the world to have a 1/100000 chance of being the people who survive so they can shit in the woods, and if losers could pull that off they wouldn't be losers and thus fairly happy

[Anonymous No.11434861]

Mental illnesses are pretty dang heritable. The correlation between schziophrenia between parent and child is super high, I think 0.8 last I checked (which controls for environment).

[Anonymous No.11434867]

>>11434619

> Triggers in your life are what cause the condition.

Nope. Totally wrong.

> Because some people with schizophrenia genes

Totally irrelevant to whether or not it is largely caused by genes. For every trait there are many relevant genes. Because I have _some_ genes that make me taller would not suggest that I am definitely tall, or that if I were not tall the other causal factors were non-genetic. In fact,

[Anonymous No.11434898]

>>11434861
For schizophrenia yeah, for depression only 37% of your risk is thought to be genetic

[Anonymous No.11434934]

>>11434825
your reading comprehension is kind of poor or at least your ability to extrapolate your own conclusions.

[Anonymous No.11435093]

>>11434629
There's a reason I didn't read your schizo posting you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11435096]

>>11434620
>give a fucking retarded answer
>get correctly called a fucking retard and have it explained WHY you're a fucking retard
Wow, do people really?

[Anonymous No.11435102]

>>11434867
So what does trigger it then you fucking retard?

Only schizophrenia and bipolar can be called mostly genetic based on research - depression is mostly non genetic. Only 37% genetic.

[Anonymous No.11435125]

bipolar fag here

I have a cousin who is schizophrenic and I've heard some interesting rumors about my maternal great grandfather

this shit is incontrovertibly genetic

[Anonymous No.11435157]

>>11435093
right, that's what I thought. you don't have any reasoning, only ad hominems and name calling.

[Anonymous No.11435366]

>>11434898
>>11435102

> only 37%

37% is a ton. You know how much all of parenting is? 0%. Diet is 0%. 37% is larger than anything else you will consider.

Genes, noise, and the chaos of diagnosis- but no environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.11436038]

>>11435096
lel, I'm not even the person you're replying to but you look like the retard here