The kinds of genetic claims people usually make about schizophrenia are of the hereditary kind (including the post article), not random mutations.
I attribute this to how the illness is researched: finding a genetic factor would be a major breakthrough, so lots of people do studies on that, and eventually force their way into a discovery that represents a narrow subset of the illness but ultimately fails to explain it. It's all over the place.
This makes me extra skeptic regarding the validity of some of these studies.
Yeah, I was referring to a mix of genes not mutation.
Some things happen only with the right set of genes, which don’t come together through any obvious combination of parents or ancestors and may also be unlikely to pass on as a set to children too.
Even more complicated, there may be alternative genes, making identifying which genes are a factor and which are not very difficult.
But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.
But it appears making any progress there has been difficult.
> But I am just pointing out that most things have a genetic pattern behind them, since all our features do.
I guess I'm genetically predisposed to not give much credit to genetics then. Nothing you can do about it, I will always be skeptical regarding these sorts of claims.
I attribute this to how the illness is researched: finding a genetic factor would be a major breakthrough, so lots of people do studies on that, and eventually force their way into a discovery that represents a narrow subset of the illness but ultimately fails to explain it. It's all over the place.
This makes me extra skeptic regarding the validity of some of these studies.