Thread: Western Propaganda aka клюква lol

ЗЫ: The Russian wikipedia article about lobotomies and their ban in the USSR is interesting reading. What caught my eye is that the procedure was officially banned in early December 1950, yet as late as June 1950, the Всесоюзное Научное Общество невропатологов и психиатров was still endorsing the practice on a limited basis for schizophrenics ("когда все другие методы лечения не оказали терапевтического воздействия"), although they also warned about overuse of lobotomies. So in the space of several months, lobotomies completely lost favor in the USSR.

Apparently one psychiatrist, Prof. В. А. Гиляровский, played an important role in getting the procedure banned. But his objections were interesting. Writing in a journal about the hypothetical basis for why lobotomies worked (or didn't), he complained:

Это объяснение механистично и уходит своими корнями к узкому локализационизму, свойственному психиатрам Америки, откуда и перенесена к нам лейкотомия.

In other words, he DOESN'T say "There's a 1 in 4 chance that the surgery will leave the patient with the IQ of a potato"; rather, he objects that the procedure is rooted in some sort of American heresy called "Narrow Localizationism", whatever that is. And after Gilyarovsky's journal article was published, Pravda stated the case with much less subtlety: "Одним из примеров бессилия буржуазной медицины является ... лоботомия"

So while Gilyarovsky deserves to be called a hero for his successful effort to ban lobotomies, I wonder: is it possible that он поступил правильно, а на неправильном основе? (I mean, "Did he do the right thing for the wrong reasons?") Was his objection more ideological than scientific, yet history proved that he was scientifically correct?

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

So while Gilyarovsky deserves to be called a hero for his successful effort to ban lobotomies, I wonder: is it possible that он поступил правильно, а на неправильном основе? (I mean, "Did he do the right thing for the wrong reasons?") Was his objection more ideological than scientific, yet history proved that he was scientifically correct?

I believe that "Narrow Localizationism" is a scientific objection rather than political. Although it looks like some sort of political ideology, in fact it means the theory of narrow localization of the brain functions inside brain.

I believe that "Narrow Localizationism" is a scientific objection rather than political. Although it looks like some sort of political ideology, in fact it means the theory of narrow localization of the brain functions inside brain.

This seems plausible, since at the time it was known about localization of certain functions (Wernike's area, Broca's area Wernicke's area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) while it was also known that higher cognitive function/thinking/ideation/conceptualization etc required broader capabiliities of whole telencephalon.