awesome, thanks.

> I don't think there is any solid basis to say this.

The history of eugenic programs as well the blocking of male/female sex hormones to inhibit sexual development or for transitional purposes should reveal a solid basis. Brain/body are capable of recovering close to a genetic baseline, at least up to some age.

> developmental signals have widespread cascades of impact throughout the body.

I read too little about that in edge cases, but in brains and bodies that developed normally, these changes are ever so slight that, as is commonly known, radically changing diets and lifestyle can recover the genetic baseline. Physical and psychological manifestations and changes are bio-chemistry and neuro-chemistry, and I do mean the one-to-one match as much as the correlates.

Bad posture ruins the kinetic chain as much as it impedes systemic metabolic logistics (blood circulation, lymphatic transport, ...). And if it happens too early and goes on for too long, the developmental differences to the genetic baseline become pervasive.

But bad posture isn't ADHD or anxiety or temporal lobe epilepsy, for example, for which people with ADHD have a higher susceptibility for, all due to Neuroplasticity aka neural adaptation.

But the intensity of any phenomenon depends to at least some more than "just barely" (3-5%) relevant degree on lifestyle and the psycho-social environment. Psychological traits are more nurture-dependent than physical traits but physical traits (can) have a massive influence on psychology, a lot of which can be attributed to how the environment perceives qualities and behaviors. For people with different sub-types of ADHD, this can either mean worlds-apart to their genetic baseline or just slightly off enough to be a tad bit bitter.

This was a lot but here's what I'm getting at:

> Seems unlikely that any decrease anywhere, even with increases elsewhere, post-development, would be uniformly helpful.

Any increase towards baseline is beneficial throughout the entire affected graph of neural structures, as well as proximate ones.

I assume there are fMRI studies on specific cognitive performance during ischemia and post-ischemia. Their findings should confirm that recovery from damage due to long-term hypodensity and decreased perfusion but that is also quite normal as any recovery from injury comes with a restoration of functionality.

The reason I am mentioning ischemia specifically is that brains don't stop working just because some part suffers from a reduction in blood flow. But ischemia can last for a very long time, especially if undiagnosed.

Developmental signals and ischemia are, of course, two entirely different things but the connection I see is the part where the brain reroutes neural signals simply because it's an innate mechanism, not an adaptive response. [citation needed, but I believe I read something about earlier this year. I am not uncertain.]

While ADHD is "a genetic thing", it can also be the consequence of lifestyle and "psycho-social" environment aka nurture, without any part of the essential genetic component. But the intensity or severity of positive and or negative ADHD symptoms is mostly the result of lifestyle and nurture, for which the impact(s) of drugs, diet and environment are proof.

So while it's absolutely true, that

> developmental signals have widespread cascades of impact throughout the body,

there is definitely

> functional-physical causation,

that is significant.

▲

fwipsy 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> > I don't think there is any solid basis to say this.

> The history of eugenic programs as well the blocking of male/female sex hormones to inhibit sexual development or for transitional purposes should reveal a solid basis. Brain/body are capable of recovering close to a genetic baseline, at least up to some age.

Showing that some effect can result from some cause is not sufficient to show that it does result from that cause. To be honest I don't even follow exactly what claim you're making here. But even if you show that e.g. certain mental problems can result from reduced or increased blood flow to certain areas of the brain, it does not follow that that is always the cause.

You're resting big confident assertions on "I read this somewhere, go look it up." In fact biology and mentation are complex and we don't have the whole picture. It's easy to put together whatever "just so story" you want by rearranging fragments of evidence, but it doesn't make it true.

	▲	wtbdbrrr 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Showing that some effect can result from some cause is not sufficient to show that it does result from that cause. Definitely something I should have cleared up: it's utterly useless to claim or proof that some mental problem is caused by some reduction in bloodflow in some part of the brain, but I believe it is beneficial to know, if you are afflicted, that it's an area worth investigating, rather than assuming that your personality, your brain or your mind lack innate, exogenous mechanisms to deal with anxiety, depression and or other stuff. > You're resting big confident assertions on "I read this somewhere, go look it up." In fact biology and mentation are complex and we don't have the whole picture. It's easy to put together whatever "just so story" you want by rearranging fragments of evidence, but it doesn't make it true. Science philosophy starts somewhere. I'm sure at least some of it started in garages =]

▲

Nevermark 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Any increase towards baseline is beneficial throughout the entire affected graph of neural structures, as well as proximate ones.

This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical.

And specifically, assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place, post-development, will predictably be a benefit is ... I have no words.

Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning.

▲

wtbdbrrr 4 days ago | parent [-]

> assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place

should have made it clear that I did not mean decreasing in one place while increasing in another but increasing throughout all proximate areas.

> Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning.

Agreed, should have tagged it #sciencephilosophy or something ... I was thinking out loud. But there is merit. I am not uncertain any studies can prove me entirely wrong. But I understand why such a discussion might be a waste of time.

> This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical.

I don't understand. If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause for atypical physiology, then the opposite is certainly also known.

I understand that -q doesn't necessarily mean p, but in the case of reduced bloodflow we have proof, don't we?

There's a little lump in my lag that causes reduced bloodflow if I don't do certain exercises or movements, which causes a bit of lag. If I do the movements for a bit or several times per hour, no lag. That is true for a considerable percentage of the population.

▲

Nevermark 3 days ago | parent [-]

> If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause

But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this.

The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere.

That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination.

There is a reason why we value science, despite it being an unnatural and difficult way to think for many. And often frustratingly slow. (Given science is a new idea, we have no specific evolutionary support for it.)

In contrast, "Plausible" reasoning is trivially easy, but is a disaster in terms of reliability. (Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". We all have done it. For some people it's habitual, even motivated.)

▲

wtbdbrrr 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation.

I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking (or in one of the rare cases when it is confirmed to be the cause), then it's not correlated; even though in--let's say, all--other cases, it is just a correlation.

> Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere.

More blood flow and oxygen in my leg does add to my overall performance, if my leg had reduced blood flow and oxygen supply before the increase but if my biceps is suffering from low blood flow and low oxygen, increasing both right in biceps increases it's functionality and performance to a much larger degree.

> could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else

That is rerouting and reinforcement played out over time. You probably heard how some left-handed kids, to this day, are forced to--or at least rewarded for doing it--learn to write with their right hands. What happens in the brain, given that their genetic baseline dexterity is much better in their right hand and their brain thus prefers using it for writing and other fine work? [I should absolutely cite research here asap. I'm still treating these conversations like a noob, even though I could support arguments using good old Baconic ways. Forgive me.]

> That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination.

Most certainly. I always loved it when Dr. House had to test one theory after the other. He and his team didn't fall back on imagination of course but often enough, the connections between symptoms, information and established causes and correlation required logical abduction.

> Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit".

I'm not sensitive and I like being wrong more than I like being right.

"We" need more fMRIs, though.

On a side note: Your comments did stimulate a desire to properly formulate a hypothesis based on tangential evidence from relevant (fMRI) studies. But there is no one to hold me accountable and once I'm done with PreCalc, I will move on to Biology and Chemistry basics, because I hope that the increased blood flow I achieved in the area around my parietal and temporal lobe will finally let me haul my broke ass back to university ... after, well ... too many years. (I could do the whole "fake it till you make it" being a grown up thing and JUST GET A JOB - but I don't like fake shit and once you get something to do what you want it to do, all the effort was worth it and there is ZERO reason to "adapt")

	▲	Nevermark 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking […] That is circular reasoning, the way you are using it. Logically “if” makes sense. But when you go from “if” to effectively treating something as if "it IS" true or likely to be true, that’s jumping into an almost certain deep deadend pit with both feet, and then not looking up. If you have a way to test a possibility, then do it. Otherwise, don’t get trapped in it. Moving forward requires we all put currently untestable ideas on a shelf and continue undelayed. Preserve the potential usefulness of the idea, without turning it into a trap. Let it accumulate with many others. Where it is available to be reactivated, edited, or contribute to better ideas down the road. The less stuck we get on one idea, the more complementary ideas and triangulating perspectives we accumulate. So don’t let yourself get entangled in single possibilities. Hone your thinking for long term effectiveness. Let shiney things go quickly. (As the wise but brutal poets say when they have written a wonderful passage they treasure, if doesn’t quite fit the current work: “kill your darlings!!”) The strength to do this avoids self-created brakes, and will compound your progress in life. —- I have ADHD. It’s not ever going to be corrected. ADHD permeates the brain. It could not be removed or negated, without destroying my strengths and who I am. I will always be vulnerable to inward and downward spirals. But learning to cope, creating fallback habits and strategies, and developing support, all help tremendously. I relate to wanting to solve things, and solving myself is always an attractive problem. The number of systems I have optimistically created to “fix” my own unhelpful patterns is endless. Most don’t work, but I don’t stop (or stop enjoying) trying. But the best way I have found to improve is to work on things that are not about me, and let my efforts to make more progress on something else lead my progress on myself. The signal is much clearer. Internal progress and external productivity are much more likely to be real. That provides the best and most reliable feedback. Reality outside myself. That doesn’t mean going into an area related to oneself is wrong. But when the focus is on fixing yourself, instead of making progress for others, "feedback" becomes a source of subjective spirals, inviting mazes of wishful thinking. Quicksand for the ADHD. Don't focus on fixing yourself, harness your strengths to do something productive, and you will naturally accumulate the personal tools that help you do that and more, along the way. Your naturally unrelenting curiosity, care, interest and motivation are advantages many normies don't have. You are an idea factory and hopelessly creative. You have more wood behind your arrow. But to learn to shoot far and straight, to achieve something in the real world, you must seek and aim for targets well beyond yourself and your bow and arrow. That will guide you to unique areas of self-improvement that fit you and your quests alone. And not waste any of your time on the many ways we genuinely appreciate others for being better than us. Those are just my thoughts in the moment. You know yourself better than anyone else.