Talk:Brain damage

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is another one of those stubs that was made back in teh day, to fill our pages - but really isn't useful here as written. While I understand that there is much brain woo, and I'm sure various types of brain damage get their share of that woo, as we've written it here, it's a very unmedical, unscientific, un rational, unuseful stub. I think it's worth deleting.--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Brain damage is too wide of a category to be useful in scientific descriptions. It's really just a term thrown around for laymen who don't understand anatomy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
That's kinda my point, which is why i'm skeptical of this stub. It doesn't say anything, and really doesn't state the point you just made in 2 sentences.--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a stub. Instead of deleting it, expand it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to expand, really. Even TOW's article is just a linkfarm to specific kinds of brain damage. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Brx, i don't know your particular issue, except that I find it funny when you try to write in french. That aside, I have no idea why you care that I think we should look at articles that are stubs, and say "what is our point of having them". As Neb said, "brain damage" doesn't mean anything. It's not that we should expand this article, but we should ask ourselves why its here. what are we trying to say or do with this article? Secondly, I think your cut about "expanding stubs" is pretty amusing coming from you to me. Take a look at my edits and see how many stubs I've expanded, and into what kinds of new articles. Then look at how many you've expanded. and into what kids of articles. Fair enough?--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (edit con, sorry neb)
One could argue that a Terri Schiavo-esque approach to the topic of brain damage and the issue of how religion gets harnessed in debates about what to do with those cases might be on mission. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)]
That would be more relevant on a PVS (persistent vegetative state) page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Brain death might really be a good article in that context, yeah. "brain damage" is pretty non-starter. Course, we could talk about MRIs and teh lack of helium. Cause I'm sure that will be the next "no sir, there is plenty of fuel and we have no Global Warming", when we start having to cut back on our MRI and LHCs.Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (EC, so "what he said", cause it's better... )

If you're saying that there's no such thing as brain damage, you're an idiot. Brain damage is damage to the cells of the brain. Herp derp. Granted, a diagnosis will be more specific, but this article should be a fine base to discuss traumatic brain injuries, their effects, the prognosis, and perceptions of them.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that mission? Should we have articles about injuries to other organs? Maybe one on broken legs or sprained wrists? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually yeah, we are saying there's no such thing as "Brain Damage". It's kinda like the term "partial birth abortion" but without the political appeal to emotion. it's not a medical term, it's not a useful term, it's not a scientific term, it's not used anywhere but people who listen to Pink Floyd. Though on the other hand, THAT would be a good article! Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 19:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse, P. This is as relevant to RW's mission as Terri Schiavo.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
and that's why we have an article on Terri Schiavo. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
But there are other cases besides Schiavo's. Rom Houben, for example. That would make for an excellent RationalWiki article--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"...but this article should be a fine base to discuss traumatic brain injuries, their effects, the prognosis, and perceptions of them." IOW, copy-paste from a medical dictionary. Are we going to list the common causes and effects of damage to every single Brodmann area? This is why WfG and I said it's a medically meaningless term, and you call us idiots. Dunning-Kruger in action. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
General effects of brain damage overall should be fine. I'm not a neurologist, but a lay term like brain damage is a good title for a good topic for this wiki--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"I'm not a neurologist..." Clearly. There are no "general effects." Capisce? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there are. Impaired cognitive function, mood disorder, impaired motor function, impaired senses, loss of memory, and the one that is most relevant: persistent vegetative state.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
See above. All of those are related to specific types of damage to certain parts of the brain.
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Brx, I get you are not a neurologist. But do you know anything about what Neb studies? Several of us are lay students in the area as well. No doctor says "son, you have brain damage". They do say "the brain is damaged in these areas due to traumatic brain injury" but that's different. "brain damage" is like saying "He's retarded" but without the name calling aspect. It means nothing to anyone. And as B-flat said, do we want an article on broken legs. I'm sure some christian had one once, and said the lord healed it. is that good for an article? Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 20:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)



  1. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Da, kanyetchna. Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 01:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. There is literally no single thing as "brain damage" and if there were I cannot think of how having a shitty hodgepodge page on such a vague concept that's filled with whatever dopes like Brx feel like sticking in it could justify its existence on its own or as a complement to any other article here. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  6. IIRC it was just made for linking to Andrew Schlafly originally. Scarlet A.pngsshole 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. It's the article-deletion slippery slope objection again. I'm like the bridge crew member who's always having their objections noted in the log. Blue (is useful) 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    Noted. ;-) --Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC) seriously, though - what do you mean by slippery slope.
  2. I can see this article becoming quite relevant, though in the state I last saw it it seemed to be nothing but a vehicle to promote nihilism. If someone, not me, could take the time to add sections on misconceptions of brain damage, and outright lies about brain damage, this would be a fine article for this wiki.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. Тytalk 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Could it be tied into something like Terri Schiavo and controversies like that? If not, then I'd say delete. Sam Tally-ho! 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    The biggest challenge is that, as it stands, the concept "brain damage" doesn't really exist. So how do you write an article about it? Yes, we could have a quick on liner that says "brain damage is a lay person's term for some very complex descriptions", but why not just wrap that into our other articles, and link BD to them. --Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)