<i>While I agree that neither exist in complete isolation, it still doesn&#x27;t preclude one from being the dominant cause.</i><p>Well the argument I was responding to was that the two are <i>completely unrelated</i>, so if you accept that they&#x27;re not, we&#x27;re mostly on the same page.<p>The question then is how common it is for one to be <i>overwhelmingly</i> dominant.<p>From my experiences and research, I&#x27;d suggest that like most other biological phenomena, it fits a Gaussian distribution, in which for the majority of people it would be within 75&#x2F;25 in either direction.<p><i>Moreover, not many people would advance the same argument in regards to conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder</i><p>This may be where I lose you completely, but I would make the same argument for those conditions.<p>It&#x27;s common for the manifestations of those illnesses to be triggered by an acute trauma or prolonged exposure to abuse. But of course the innate propensity to develop that condition had to be there too.<p>In my own experience, I exhibited bipolar tendencies years ago (as strongly as others I know who were formally diagnosed with it). Since changing both my environment and my emotional tendencies, I no longer do.<p>Others with schizophrenia report becoming symptom-free by following a similar approach.<p>I&#x27;d contend that the whole reason mainstream medicine continues to be so hit-and-miss when it comes to treating mental &quot;illness&quot; is that it continues to resist viewing it in this way.