This theory is total bunk. It is widely considered to be discredited and a great example of fanciful psychological theory with no scientific backing.
I mean, if this theory was true, you would expect to find schizophrenic families--after all, they all had the same mother. It also doesn't line up with the timing of onset at all.
You provide absolutely no evidence of this theory being widely discredited. The reality is it seems to be very difficult to test empirically. The most comprehensive survey I have found to date is here: http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/Koopmans.html
"I mean, if this theory was true, you would expect to find schizophrenic families--after all, they all had the same mother."
First of all, maladaptive social behavior of the kind that is labeled as "schizophrenia" (or other so-called mental illnesses e.g. "bipolar", "depression") does tend to cluster in families. This is why doctors screen for things like "family history of depression."
Secondly, there are major differences in siblings' roles and how they are treated, despite having the same mother. The birth order concept is the most obvious version of this. There is another concept of the "identified patient" which explains how in some cases one family member plays the role of the "sick one" as a way to maintain stability of the family unit as a whole.
"It also doesn't line up with the timing of onset at all."
I don't see how this theory conflicts with whatever timing of onset you are referring to. Perhaps you can clarify or provide citations for what appears to be a very strongly held opinion.
Yes but not necessarily at the sibling level, which is what you'd expect if this was a problem caused by bad mothers.
Also, you would predict that siblings should be highly correlated regardless of their genes if it was "mothering" but instead what you find is this (from the study you cited):
Monozygotic Twins 44.3
Offspring two schizophrenic parents 36.6
Dizygotic Twins 12.1
Siblings 7.3
Offspring one schizophrenic parent 9.4
Half-siblings 2.9
So a half-sibling raised with the same parenting is barely correlated on schizophrenia, but a twin has a 44 percent correlation. That puts the schizophrenogenic mother theory 100% off the reservation in my book. Reasoning past that damning fact is just wishful thinking.
> I don't see how this theory conflicts with whatever
The average age of onset is 18 in men and 25 in women. If this disordered thinking style is created in say 6 year olds, it seems odd that it takes 12-20 years to cause a problem.
Anyhow theories are a dime a dozen, and the burden of proof is on those proposing the theory to prove it, and that has failed rather spectacularly in this case.
The important bit: It was concluded that genetic factors are important in the transmission of schizophrenia, whereas there was no evidence for environmental influences in the rearing family.
Do you have a citation for wide discreditation? Wikipedia is more circumspect
> Bateson's double bind theory was never followed up by research into whether family systems imposing systematic double binds might be a cause of schizophrenia. This complex theory has been only partly tested, and there are gaps in the current psychological and experimental evidence required to establish causation [citation?]. The current understanding of schizophrenia emphasizes the robust scientific evidence for a genetic predisposition to the disorder, with psychosocial stressors, including dysfunctional family interaction patterns, as secondary causative factors in some instances.
I think it's highly unlikely that there is any meaningful causal link between a particular parenting style and Schizophrenia.
We currently have a very robust physiological understanding of the disorder, and the symptomatology is linked to observable structural changes in the brains of Schizophrenic individuals.
As with many psychological disorders, there appears to be a stress component: i.e. individuals may be more or less predisposed to the disorder, and therefore some individuals will only ever experience symptoms if triggered by a high level of stress, while for others it's unavoidable.
So in some cases, yes it's possible that a problematic family life was the stressor that pushed them over the edge to develop full-blown Schizophrenia, but that person might have equally been effected by being mugged at gunpoint, or going through prolonged sleep deprivation during basic training in the military.
The causal mechanism is almost certainly an interaction with Cortisol or other stress hormones, or some other well understood biological pathway. It's outdated pseudoscience at this point to take seriously the idea that Schizophrenia is the result of mixed messages during childhood.
> We currently have a very robust physiological understanding of the disorder, and the symptomatology is linked to observable structural changes in the brains of Schizophrenic individuals.
While I agree overall with your point, I think your wording emphasizes a common but mistaken view that psychological experience can't induce physiological changes in the brain. This is obviously false.
Yeah I absolutely agree that there is a feedback loop by which neural activity actually shapes physiology. But there’s also a degree to which psychological disorders are contributed to by errant thought patters, verses being the result of a functional problem with the brain as an organ. For example, with some forms of depression cognitive behavioral therapy (changing your thought patterns about certain things) can be very effective, while in the case of serious bipolar disorder, medication may be the only way to mitigate manic episodes.
For lack of a better analogy, there’s a degree to which different disorders are the result of a software problem or a hardware problem, and all the evidence points to Schitzophrenia as being firmly toward that hardware end of the spectrum.
I again agree with everything you've said, but to tie this all back to the article and the microbiome, while the body does have discrete, specialised organs, we have to recognise that they are leaky abstractions.
Microbiota could influence psychology and thus physiology, or it could directly affect physiology and thus psychology. The fact fecal transplants triggered schizophrenic behaviours in mice shows there's some direct connection here that needs explanation.
> Microbiota could influence psychology and thus physiology, or it could directly affect physiology and thus psychology.
On maybe it's neither and also both. Personally I think Physiology vs Psychology is the wrong terminology to use: Psychology's domain is the mind which is a somewhat abstract concept, and usually refers to things in terms of thoughts and emotions. Our "psychology" is an emergent property of our physiology, but to me it seems like the wrong abstraction to use as a reference point when speaking about the pathology of something like Schizophrenia.
Rather, what I think we're more concretely talking about is the division between nervous system structure (physiology), and activity (which includes, but is broader than psychology).
To me, saying the physiology affects the physiology implies the wrong interpretation: i.e. it would be inaccurate to say that the gut bacteria made rat feel certain emotions or have certain thoughts, and those led to long term structural damage. However, it might very well be the case that the gut biome causes a neural activity pattern which leads to long-term pathological adaptations in nervous system structure.
If I had to guess, there's probably not a one-way causal relationship, but these systems likely feed back on each-other in a way which results in the symptomatology we describe as Schizophrenia.
I mean, if this theory was true, you would expect to find schizophrenic families--after all, they all had the same mother. It also doesn't line up with the timing of onset at all.