From the same page, “the logic that childhood trauma causes insanity has a serious flaw: If the claim was true, the abuse of millions of children over the years should have caused higher prevalence rates of mental disorders than the literature reveals.”
This is similar to the problem with cannibis which many psychiatrists view as the primary causal factor for schizophrenia and psychosis.
This is a methods problem in my opinion. See for instance this[1]. There are so many cannibis users and so many people who have been traumatized in some way, while the number of those developing schizophrenia is relatively much smaller.
But ask a psychiatrist how many of their psychotic patients used cannibis regularly and you get a pretty clear answer. The psychiatrists don’t get to talk to the millions of cannibis users that don’t develop schizophrenia and so they tend to form their own non-scientific opinions on the origins of schizophrenia. Same with trauma. How many people get to adulthood without some traumatic event occurring. Even on this board it’s got to be a small minority.
> From the same page, “the logic that childhood trauma causes insanity has a serious flaw: If the claim was true, the abuse of millions of children over the years should have caused higher prevalence rates of mental disorders than the literature reveals.”
This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. 40 million Americans now take psychiatric drugs for depression, anxiety and psychosis, about 1 in 6, most of them longterm. How many millions more need to take drugs before this would qualify as a high enough prevalence rate?
Most psychiatrists I talked rejected the notion that cannabis causes schizophrenia. They mostly claim genetic causes. My personal opinion from observing close people to me is that if you have predisposition, a psychoactive substance can be enough to nudge you over the edge into psychosis. It's a snowball effect. Of course, more likely is it would be something that raises your dopamine levels, like speed (amphetamine) or cocaine.
I’ve had the opposite experience but maybe it depends on the demographics of the patients that those psychiatrists see. As this peice points out, clinicians are increasingly likely to see the causal link even if researchers are having a hard time establishing that link.[0] I think a large part of that is due to measurement issues and methodological difficulties I alluded to. It took many years to establish the link between cigarettes and cancer. There are scientists who argue against global warming too. So much of science is driven by bias and group think and the pendulum has perhaps swung too far on cannabis. You might ask the psychiatrists you talk to what percentage of their patients with bipolar/schizophrenic type disorders are regular cannabis users.
This is similar to the problem with cannibis which many psychiatrists view as the primary causal factor for schizophrenia and psychosis.
This is a methods problem in my opinion. See for instance this[1]. There are so many cannibis users and so many people who have been traumatized in some way, while the number of those developing schizophrenia is relatively much smaller.
But ask a psychiatrist how many of their psychotic patients used cannibis regularly and you get a pretty clear answer. The psychiatrists don’t get to talk to the millions of cannibis users that don’t develop schizophrenia and so they tend to form their own non-scientific opinions on the origins of schizophrenia. Same with trauma. How many people get to adulthood without some traumatic event occurring. Even on this board it’s got to be a small minority.
[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/04/de...