1.7.2 Falsification

I did not resort to the classical thesis, antithesis and synthesis model to express my theory. It now times to examine it as such. First, I need to stress that I’m not a recognized specialist in the ethologic or Darwinian fields. I expressed within its conceptual framework what is usually described as symptoms of bipolar madness. There’s a thin line between symptoms and behaviors, between psychiatry and ethology. But this line is not crossed as often as you would think. To me, it brings more sense to think my disease in terms of both ethology and psychiatry. Bipolar disorder has now a meaning and a conceptual dimension within the Darwinian model. Before coming up with these ideas, I was crazy. Now I know a little more why I’m crazy and what is exactly my inner enemy.

This knowledge is part of the illness containment strategy especially the ups because my downs are not really difficult to cope with. Fortunately, I’m just mildly depressed when the sun set. All in all, this theory is kind of a therapy. It is not a substitute for medication. But, at least I can understand what’ going on, it gives some sense to it. It is an in-house psychoeducation (Don’t read an education for psychos!). It does not contradict science and medicine, it is just a plus. He reinforces the treatments in the sense that it deepens the understanding that you can’t fight the disease alone. If you’re sane, you have no ideas of the sheer power of what hit us during the manic episodes. I would call it the dark energy of the natural selection which radiates from the profoundest core of the human being. It pulls our strings. Sane people are not aware of it because the strength of the strings slowly or never changes. We’ll discuss philosophical implications of these statements in next posts.

At the moment I just want to stick to science. So far, I have adopted a scientific approach. I’ve tried to assert and demonstrate even though the phenomena discussed here were subjective to a large extent. I’ve utilized publications and concept from science in order to illustrate the ideas that I’ve elaborated on. In doing so, I’ve given them a new sense in a new thinking framework. I don’t think that I’ve twisted them that much, I’ve just used them. I’ve got a backbone which is my bipolar experience and then I try to aggregate the scientific flesh around it so that it makes new radical sense. What’s new must be examined with caution though. A clever genius could lead us nowhere.

In order to fight the clever genius, let’s take a step back and consider the content of this blog not as a theory but as a simple hypothesis. There are not a lot of epistemological tools to make the distinction between what’s pure non sense and something that could be worth investigating. There is one though which is simple and efficient. The falsifiability model was proposed by Popper. Of course, it is not the panacea but it main advantage lies in its easiness of application and its adequate level of complexity for my ignorant brain.

Source : Falsifiability, Wikipedia
In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood. For example, the assertion that “all swans are white” is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found that is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, “It will be raining here in one million years” is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

First of all, I’ve surmised that mood and dominance were two concepts somehow connected. Thus bipolar disorder would become a dominance disorder. In order to falsify this hypothesis, you would need to experimentally break the link between mood and dominance. Is it possible to carry out such an experiment? The answer is yes. If you inject in rats a medication that impacts the mood on human, it affects their dominance. This experiment was done by Malatynska and Knapp in 2005. It demonstrates that dominant/submissiveness patterns are a good model for bipolar ups and downs. It is a model or reality? If you read the publication, the author seems always to imply that dominance and mood are clearly connected. To me, it is more than a connection. They are talking about the same thing. In essence, you could count the sexual interactions of a medicated bipolars compare to a hypomaniac. You would certainly see that the hypomanic will have more sexual intercourses (hypersexuality), thus more selective value, thus a more dominant status. This is a possible experiment albeit extremely difficult to set up due to ethical consideration. But here I only want to make it clear that it is possible to set up experiments that falsify the theory. As far as I’m concerned I could imagine a thousand amusing experiments that’d demonstrate the link between dominance and mood. Dominance science is a funny knowledge, a gaya scienza.

My second assumption consists in linking separated manic symptoms to an increase in the selective value. Physical strength, hypersexuality, hypersyntonia contributes significantly to the fitness. The first two are obvious. Hypersyntonia or heightened emotional resonance provides a capacity to manipulate other individuals giving you a competitive advantage in the struggle for life. In order to refute me, you would need to demonstrate that the symptoms do not contribute to fitness. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not speaking of the whole individual here. I’m speaking of traits taken separately. This demonstration is not possible and we don’t need an experiment for this. Symptoms contribute to fitness by definition. If you argue that strength and sexuality are not part of the fitness, you are crazy and I can’t do anything to help you.

Once again, manic hypersexuality is the proof that something has transmuted the euthymic subject. Once again, psychiatrists are not surprised that sex becomes suddenly easy. Access to sex is not easy for everyone and that should not be a surprise from an ethological point of view. It is easy for some people because they are more dominant than the others. Sexual and woman liberation are not a revolution. They are a great return to business as usual for Nature. We’ll need to discuss what exactly sexual liberation means in more details in a next post. But in essence, the fact that females can copulate with whomever they choose is not an intellectual victory for feminists. It is Nature victory against a perverted social order. Women are the queens of evolution.

Let’s go back to madness. I have attempted to show that dominance drives critical endogenous parameter. It fluctuates and drives them to a point where the community can only note the insane behaviors. I have to admit that these internal observations are purely experimental even existential. I did not cling to the classical and etymological definition of dominance. I’ve gone further than the mere fact of being dominant, I have defined it as a body and mind regulative function which acts as an amplifier or a catalyst of the self. It is an existential assumption, I cannot prove that it exists or not but I can experiment its effects. I’ve used such concept as happiness and self-esteem. They are, in essence, very difficult to delimit and to compare due to their subjectivity. No one can link them to their neurologic basis.

Thus I can only acknowledge that dominance, happiness and self-esteem belong to distinct semantic lineage and I can only rely on the experience that has been cumulated in these words. I don’t know if those words correspond to a specific homeostatic regulation, to a set of physiological variable (neurotransmitter, hormones) or to neural maps. However I do know that dominance forces my mind to change in various functioning fields such as thought speed, self-esteem and happiness. One can find it arbitrary to distinguish between happiness and dominance but I feel that an upset “something” take command of my happiness as well as others functions.

That is it for endogenous parameter. For me, the exogenous cause was the main cause that made me losing it. The change in behavior of others was the most difficult part to manage for my brain. I have shown that this change of behavior was a consequence of my theory. Mood is an internal psychiatric variable which has no impact on the environment. However dominance does. That explain logically why people change their behaviors vis-à-vis me during my manic episode. I’ve also shown that dominance reflects itself in both an internal (happiness) and external (honest signal) fitness indicator. On this basis, people subconsciously evaluate themselves and dominance structures are shaped as a result of this assessment. That assumption is refutable because you could prove that dominance structures are not based on happiness. This experiment is possible and has been already carried out. Results are in favor of my theory. People do build relationships according to happiness. There’s a theoretical argument that dominance does not change people’s behavior. Again a simple experiment could be set up using the old muscular form of dominance. I would be surprise if this experiment hasn’t been carried out in the field of social psychology. I think the result would not be surprising too. Indeed dominance change people’s behavior. That’d be foolish to argue on this point. The other point that the blog covers is what is dominance exactly? Is it always Mister T based?

All in all, I believe that I did not violate my reason for having built this conceptual edifice. I think it is very easy to grasp (See Ockham razor), very linear and explain a lot of things as we shall see in the second part of the blog essay. That’s funny to observe that it all started with women. They drive us really crazy. In the second part of the blog, I will address all consequences of the theory. Maybe it will sound less structured, less linear, but we’ll see. In any case, the first part is a prerequisite to understand what I write. If you skip one post, there’s a risk that you won’t understand what I’m talking about. Don’t hesitate to ask question, I shall amend the theory if needed.

Soul Asylum / Runaway Train
I can go where no one else can go
I know what no one else knows
Here I am just drownin’ in the rain
With a ticket for a runaway train
Everything is cut and dry
Day and night, earth and sky
Somehow I just don’t believe it


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s