People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia(theconversation.com)

16 pointsby debo_4 hours ago4 comments

2 hours ago
undefined
altairprime2 hours ago
Huh. I wonder if that means my inability to visualize mentally means I’m partly/fully defended against it? That would explain a subgroup prevalence!
- 2ndorderthought6 minutes ago
  Probably not you are likely an afantist though
- 41 minutes ago
  undefined
hyperhello3 hours ago
Off topic, but do deaf people ever hear voices?
- theturtletalks3 hours ago
  I’ve heard they actually see people signing at them. Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard.
  - 2ndorderthought43 minutes ago
    Contrary to popular belief not all delusions and hallucinations are horrifying. Similarly, not all of them compel people to do bad things. There are cases of schizophrenics who had voices and hallucinations telling them to be good to people and go out of their way to help strangers. There's definitely all sorts though it's not like one or the other or that a person only has one type.
  - solumunus3 hours ago
    > Also, in India, the voices are actually nice and encouraging I’ve heard.
    And you’re not as skeptical of this claim?
    hyperhello2 hours ago
    I’m not, actually. I think we all have inner voices if we listen, and it’s possible that different societies have different characteristics. One of them could be whether the environment is on the individual’s side or not. A more compatible inner voice could do better in either situation.
    4gotunameagain2 hours ago
    And the environment in India is on the individual's side ? Where people starve in broad daylight and corpses float on rivers ?
    hyperhello2 hours ago
    I didn’t say inner voices are scientifically correct. I think they’re an adaptation. Maybe if India had more functioning depressives it wouldn’t be in that situation, who knows?
lurquer3 hours ago
“…tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did.”
Using this data, one would expect to see only 0.25 cases in those 66 blind kids.
Stated differently, there is around a 78% chance of having 0 cases in those 66 by random chance alone.
Dumb.
- 2ndorderthought35 minutes ago
  I got all interested and you are right. The math isn't mathing. For social science though this is what they have to do to fund more research. At least there isn't a greater incidence? ... ? ... ?
- xdavidliuan hour ago
  this is the type of math they should be teaching in high school, not trigonometry and calculus (which should be electives)
- yladiz3 hours ago
  Can you explain how you got that number from the quote? I don’t follow.
  - bhattid2 hours ago
    Not the original commenter, but the math is (making some implicit, but arguably reasonable assumptions):
    Probability that someone in the population has schizophrenia = (1870/500000) = 0.00374
    Probability that someone does NOT have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)
    Then if we assume that blind people have the same rate of schizophrenia as the population, Probability that 66 blind people ALL don't have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)^66 = 0.78
    lurquer38 minutes ago
    The sad thing is that IF — by chance — one of those 66 had schizophrenia, the headline would undoubtedly read “Blind children are FOUR TIMES more likely to develop Schizophrenia!”
  - wizzwizz43 hours ago
    1870/500000*66 = 0.24684. However, it's "nearly half a million", so let's call it 30000 as a conservative estimate: that's still 0.4114 children in expectance, which isn't very many.
- solumunus2 hours ago
  “That sample of blind children is small, but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence: not a single congenitally blind person with schizophrenia has ever been reported.”