21
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2689 readers
174 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
i think there's a lot of truth to your post, but this in particular is something i want to challenge because it is a pillar of bourgeois psychiatry.
as dialectical materialists, we know that all things are subject to change. but, out of all of the organs and systems of the human body nothing is as subject to change as the brain. neuroplasticity is backed up by plenty of research and is a scientific fact: if you haven't read norman doidge's "the brain that changes itself" i would highly recommend it, there are several incredible stories.
and so, pointing to the fact that some disorders are associated with physical changes in the brain is not the slam dunk you might think it is. correlation does not equal causation. for example, i was recently researching the neurobiology of those with bipolar disorder, and while there is a lot of variance in how the disorder presents both physiologically and behaviorally, it's commonly accepted that those with bipolar disorder are more likely to have less-developed regions of the brain associated with emotional regulation, and that those regions of the brain are less likely to be as connected to other regions of the brain.
neurons that fire together wire together, but by the same token neurons that don't fire together don't wire together. and so, it is perfectly plausible to suggest the hypothesis that, in the case of bipolar disorder, a lack of emotional regulation skills (especially in early life) leads to a less-developed and interconnected brain, which can then lead to what we call bipolar disorder. this may or may not be true, but it is a hypothesis worth testing. bourgeois psychiatry does not even consider testing this hypothesis, its mechanical materialist framework ignores the fact of neuroplasticity and still treats the brain as immutable, as something primarily derived from DNA, if not entirely. in addition to the fact that the profit motive gives them no material incentive to test such a hypothesis.
like all bourgeois science, i think bourgeois psychiatry is both fundamentally progressive and fundamentally flawed, it's just a matter of piecing which parts are which. i feel like this, the idea that physical changes or abnormalities in the brain are necessarily inherent to someone's genes, and furthermore that these changes are necessarily immutable (i.e. irreversible), is a fundamental flaw because it flies in the face of basic neurobiological research. it is an idea worth challenging, but it will never get challenged by bourgeois psychiatry.
I sort of agree and disagree. That bourgeois science and psychology is not informed by a dialectical materialist view is a problem. That part I 100% agree with and I don't think it's necessarily obvious at a glance to what extent all of the consequences of this are.
Well, this is a complicated thing to get into, isn't it? First, in my impression of it, even bourgeois science does not think it is immutable, but rather liberalism and individualism blanch at the idea of forcing someone to "not be themself" in matters of personality and the like. This isn't necessarily a bad thing while we're stuck under a system like capitalism because if liberalism went full "we can change your brain", what happens? "Radicals" get targeted for making changes. Historically marginalized groups in mental health (such as those with autism) get targeted for making changes. Predispositions which may not be inherently a bad thing, but get associated with the development of disorders, could get targeted and then we're starting to get into eugenics-like territory.
I don't think there's any denying that predispositions are a thing and that types of them get passed down genetically. To what extent this informs anything we call a mental health disorder in modern day is more difficult to say. Partly because it's such a touchy subject to be getting into people's behavior, personality, and so on. If somebody has a genetic condition that effects them physically but not mentally in a noticeable way, people don't tend to bat an eye about the implications of that in the same way because the tendency to view the brain and body as separate means we're just talking about the mechanical part, not the "soul" part. It may be this is a very flawed view of a human being, but that's what tends to happen.
I think I have mentioned this on here before, but I remember reading years back about this person who grew up in a communal culture, who "heard voices" (in the sense associated with schizophrenia) but for them the voices were helpful and supportive. It's been so long, I don't even know where I'd begin with finding the source, so take it with a grain of salt. But I bring it up because it is a good example of how predisposition does not mean deterministic in outcomes.
That said, the reason I used ADHD as an example is because the research makes me doubtful that an ADHD person can simply apply therapy tactics and "fix" their brain. It is theoretically possible from the dialectical materialism view of change that the brain (perhaps with some future technology/medicine) could somehow be changed sufficiently in order to make the symptoms permanently go away, but there are more complicated questions tied up in that, like: would the person still be the same in personality or would they seem like a different person now and what are the ethical and societal implications of this? Is it possible to isolate the areas that cause them abnormal distress and heal those without impacting other areas of cognition? What even is abnormal distress under a system like this?
It gets fucky fast and I don't trust the shameless fascists standing nearby the hokey liberals, salivating over the idea of eugenics and the like.
well, thankfully i don't think it's possible to 100% agree on anything or else we would be the same person! but, i do want to continue to challenge some of your assumptions
see, but the example i provided you of the neurobiology of bipolar disorder clearly and directly demonstrates bourgeois psychiatry's view that the brain is immutable. the fact of emotional dysregulation in bipolar is in interpreted as though the patient was necessarily born with this brain abnormality, and furthermore that this brain abnormality will necessarily persist for the entirety of the patient's life, i.e. that it is immutable. again, this flies in the fact of neuroplasticity, i.e. the fact that our experiences in life literally change the physical structures of the brain. why isn't there, for example, longitudinal research that finds those with a high risk of developing bipolar at a young age (whether as dictated by genes, material circumstance, or both), conducts regular brain scans to check the development of the brain, and correlates differences in development with differences in experiences of the patients? this is just one example, and it's not like i'm a scientist or a researcher, but in my research i've found no such studies conducted, because the brain is seen as a mechanistic machine.
this is an interesting idea, but is this actually supported by the way that those with neurodivergence, disability and extreme mental disorders are typically treated under liberal societies? i certainly don't think so, even though this is a claim that liberalism constantly makes. disability is literally the extent to which those different from the norm (for a variety of reasons) are excluded from society. those who experience things that are outside the realm of "normal" or "rational" are not accepted but controlled by liberal society. the way in which medication treats symptoms (often poorly) instead of underlying problems (brain structure) is itself a rejection of neurodivergence imo: people are reigned in from their extreme experience instead of being prompted to explore it and identify why they experienced something in the first place. i'm not saying there's absolutely no place for medication, but in bourgeois psychiatry it is seen as a long-term solution instead of a tool to help facilitate actual healing and brain development.
exactly what research gives you this impression and why? i've honestly done very little research so far, but have found several examples of people with conditions that are typically considered permanent fully recovering.
i think it makes sense for you to have reticence towards the liberal anti-psychiatry movement, in that it totally rejects everything in liberal psychiatry and is therefore open towards eugenicist claims towards those with autism, for example. but, i think the way in which those with disability and neurodivergence are treated under liberal society have much the same problem: leaving those on the fringes with at best extreme hardship and at worst death is eugenicist to me too. furthermore, i don't claim that all examples of permanent neurodivergence as dictated by liberal psychiatry are actually impermanent and treatable, just that some are. and, the only way to actually distinguish that difference is to conduct socialist research that bourgeois psychiatry is incapable of conducting.