Have I cocked up again with the use of the term phenotype

Much of my genetic and type ideas relating to mental health are based on a concept from a guy called Meehl and his idea of schizotaxia.

Basically it means a genetic pre state for existence on the schizophrenia spectrum. This is totally biopsychosocial model. The genetic type expresses through predominantly psychosocial stuff (in my interpretation) to become a pathologised or non pathologised phenotype.

Basically genotype to phenotype. A genetic prestate plus environmental factors - what happens to the organism once born - creates phenotypes. The latter I never bothered to fully understand. To me in means things and stuff. Schizophrenic is a phenotype but so is dancer if the genetic evidence and pseudoscience of the time say so.

Fuck it...got a better thought...going to have a spliff and write about it.

Oh yeah. And this is We.

How can I take credit for anything? Everything is moments.

Yesterday I was explaining to my girlfriend about how science is fascinating. I mean studying science. I was wxplaining the joy of reading a paper then reading something crazy. The example I gave was improvised. I said people who have been in wars experience reliving of their experiences and more symptoms of ptsd when watching war movies. But when you read this imaginary paper it says that the effect is significant for those who are french and left handed.

I was just thinking about this and it struck me.

Are people who are left handed disabled in a world of a right handed majority who hold power? Are there also biological differences which, using the original paradigm of mental illness but without the qualifier of being in an asylum for being left handed, would make being left handed a mental illness? Clinical outcomes as a prognosis might not exist except if treatment and retreatment were considered reasons for hospitalisation.

I'm talking about pure concepts applied to a real situation rather than the subjective judgements which are, in truth, why mental illness is a pseudoscience. Not because its a poor science which is what critical psychiatrists say.

So these moments of crystalisation are not imaginendless. They are We. The people. The moments. The stuff We read. All sorts of stuff. We are we.