233
People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia
(theconversation.com)
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 09 May 2026
233 points (96.0% liked)
science
27229 readers
789 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Everyone is so cynical in this thread. It might not be conlcusisve evidence of a direct connection between the two but it does look like an interesting observation.
Suppose my reaction to that is "Really? No known cases of schizophrenia among those blind since birth? They should study that."
Literally how the scientific process works....
Skepticism ≠ cynisism. Otherwise no one would try to reproduce studies.
....
No, skepticism isn't enough.
It's the cynicism and frustration from knowing someone is clearly and obviously wrong and putting in the effort to prove it that drives science.
"Curiosity" is a bullshit narrative they tell children in grade school because children are curious and adults want them to like science
Cynicism and often outright spite is what has always driven scientific progress. Someone makes a claim that is clearly wrong but is too overconfident to be convinced unless empirically proven wrong so everyone else changes their minds.
It's literally the only reason I put the time in to type this, and you and lurker get to reap the rewards if that. Perpetuating the cycle.
As a scientist this is absolutely not how I live my life.
You seem bitter and full of shit.
Cool...
I do want to congratulate you on making a comment longer than five words, best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Full of shit it is, then.
What a bitter asshole. 😂
Ahh yes, nobody ever did science because they wanted to find out how something worked.....
What a load of shit.
I'm inclined to respond. Not because I'm cynically and spitefully driven to fight you or prove you wrong.
But because I'm skeptical that you are this naive and unempathetic to how other people can function differently from you.
I've been aware I'm statistically insignificant for decades, maybe longer than youve been alive...
I'm never surprised or unaware some people think differently, because everyone thinks on a fundamental different level than me.
For fucks sake, that's why I was asking questions, I was asking why people were failing to notice, and you legit came back with "I don't think you know people are different"...
Why would I be asking if I didn't understand people can't think like I do?
So yeah, I vent online. You have no fucking idea what it's like to be Not Sure in real life. And you've lost what might be your only chance on the fedicerse to ask someone....
If you accept that other people function differently, then why do you exclaim absolute points about how no one does research out of curiostity and everyone does it out of cynicism and/or spite? This thread is not the one where you asked questions which I agree with that comment. This is the thread about why people do science and question others science
...
I said:
You took that as "the reason everyone does any type of research"...
They're two completely and totally different things
I'm talking about what causes large leaps and breakthroughs, the shit that if that person is insanely luckily they'll see the scientific community finally come around before they die. Like Roger Penrose predicting conciouness had a vital quantum component like 30 years ago and everyone else in the scientific community dismissing his theory as crazy until it was proven possible maybe 3 years ago? Einstein wasn't as lucky, he died before Penrose finished Einstein's ideas and moved on to his own.
The people who come after, may research out of curiosity.
But that's because they're curious if the shit they've already heard is real, that doesn't drive science, it literally can't be the driving factor.... What drives something is what's at the forefront, bleeding edge stuff.
I'm talking about the lone guy that walks in a random direction in the woods because he knows that's a better way and is tired no one takes his word, you're talking about the people who turn a walking path into a freeway, both have a purpose, but they're drastically different in almost every respect.
I just don't know how to explain that in a way the average person can understand apparently.
The crux is you think all science is equal, and that is a wild and fundamental misunderstanding of the entire process.
Why do you think all these people were driven by cynicism? Why do you hold yourself to be so above "the average person" that you can't even communicate with them? Why do you consider cynicism such a strong driving force and curiosity so weak? Also your example of a person walking in a random direction in a forest is peak curisity behaviour. Curiosity is walking where no one has been to see where it leads. Why would that not be what drives new discoveries?
Because if you look at any technological or scientific breakthrough...
The person who broke through, did so because they were got frustrated everyone else is wrong...
Look at string theory right now, one person finally got pissed off enough that they spoke up and said it was all nonsense...
Everyone stayed quite for a bit, then the entire physics community admitted it was wrong and we've wasted decades.
The bulk of the community knew it didn't add up, but because they werent driven by spite or frustration, they never spoke up. They were driven by curiosity, so the fuetherest they were ever going to get is "maybe it works if we do this".
It takes someone who doesn't give a fuck what others think, to go against the grain hard enough and say what they know will catch a lot of flak, be cause that's what right.
Them making all that noise attracts the attention of "the curious"
If you still don't understand this, or ever have questions about anyone else. Ask someone who was "curious" enough to check if I'm right. I won't see any more questions from you.
You know all that you're writing might be the most unscientific way to claim a supposed truth and honestly that's kinda hilarious in light of your "all-knowing wisdom"
This guy?
Oh nooooo
You’ve never done research before have you lol
I've worked with people 1 degree of separation from (an actually shitty) guy that every single American learned about in highschool...
You could have just asked questions and learned a lot, now I'll never see any of your comments and there's 0 chance I explain anything to you.
But ya got a joke in
I’m not sure how that’s relevant lol and that’s extremely vague. Nor was my comment a joke. I can 100% say all the research I did do was out of curiosity and now cynicism or spite as you say. Nor are any of the poorly paid many roommate having PhD students that I know doing it for cynicism as you claim. So I implied that only someone who’s never done research would make such a baseless and ludicrous claim. That’s like all the career researchers have is curiosity and drive for discovery. In sure there are some driven by greed to patent something, or cynicism, or other personal gain but that’s far from the norm.
Please go for walk and stand in some sunlight, it really does wonders.
Straight up no? A ton of discoveries were made by people just trying to prove they were right and discovering they were wrong by doing so. It's not curiosity, it's not frustration, it's a method (born of both curiosity and frustration)
Fair enough: there is no connection between blindness and schizophrenia, got it.