Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Why can't I foresee the obvious?
85 views
Skip to first unread message
Friar Broccoli
May 15, 2013, 12:04:27 AM5/15/13
to
About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
needed for additional specialized services.
Some unrelated facts.
During the last 20 years:
- ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
- Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
- Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
Interview (mp3):
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/305/510071/183945384/WAMU_183945384.mp3
or
http://goo.gl/KBo5r
Transcript of interview:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-05-14/dr-allen-frances-saving-normal-insiders-revolt-against-out-control-psychiatric-di-0
or
http://goo.gl/Balgd
_____________________________________________________________
The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
more forests being cut down.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Glenn
May 15, 2013, 10:04:09 AM5/15/13
to
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com...
eridanus
May 15, 2013, 10:12:25 AM5/15/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 05:04:27 UTC+1, Friar Broccoli escribi�:
long ago I realized that someone had implemented some plan
to create consumers of pills among the school boys.
Eridanus
to create consumers of pills among the school boys.
Eridanus
Bob Casanova
May 15, 2013, 1:21:51 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:04:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:
Why is it that the only law which never gets repealed, or
even brought up for discussion, is the Law of Unintended
Consequences?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:
even brought up for discussion, is the Law of Unintended
Consequences?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
May 15, 2013, 1:27:36 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:04:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
<Cue Inigo Montoya...>
And I'm just curious... Why did you remove the "OT" from the
Subject: field?
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
And I'm just curious... Why did you remove the "OT" from the
Subject: field?
Kermit
May 15, 2013, 1:32:10 PM5/15/13
to
On 15 May, 10:21, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:04:27 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
> <elia...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:04:27 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
> >that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
> >properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
> >needed for additional specialized services.
>
> >Some unrelated facts.
> >During the last 20 years:
> >- ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
> >- Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
> >- Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
>
> >Interview (mp3):
> >http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/305/510071/1...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
> >that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
> >properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
> >needed for additional specialized services.
>
> >Some unrelated facts.
> >During the last 20 years:
> >- ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
> >- Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
> >- Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
>
> >Interview (mp3):
> >http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-05-14/dr-allen-frances-saving-...
> > or
> >http://goo.gl/Balgd
>
> >_____________________________________________________________
>
> >The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
> >I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
> >more forests being cut down.
>
> Why is it that the only law which never gets repealed, or
> even brought up for discussion, is the Law of Unintended
> Consequences?
I tried that once, but the results weren't pretty.
> >http://goo.gl/Balgd
>
> >_____________________________________________________________
>
> >The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
> >I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
> >more forests being cut down.
>
> Why is it that the only law which never gets repealed, or
> even brought up for discussion, is the Law of Unintended
> Consequences?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> �the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> �'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov
deadrat
May 15, 2013, 2:17:37 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/14/13 11:04 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
It was probably the principal. You probably have dyslexia or some other
>
> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
cognitive disability. They've got pills for that now. Check it out
with the nearest representative of Big Pharma. Who's standing right
behind you.
David Canzi
May 15, 2013, 5:32:24 PM5/15/13
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:04:09 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com...
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:04:09 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>
>>"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com...
>>> The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
>>> I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
>>> more forests being cut down.
>
>>Maybe you're "gullible"?
>
><Cue Inigo Montoya...>
>
>And I'm just curious... Why did you remove the "OT" from the
>Subject: field?
Some news software removes 'OT:' (and probably 'AnyWord:') from
>>> I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
>>> more forests being cut down.
>
>>Maybe you're "gullible"?
>
><Cue Inigo Montoya...>
>
>And I'm just curious... Why did you remove the "OT" from the
>Subject: field?
the start of the subject when replying. If you try to avoid this
by using '[OT]' instead, some *other* news software removes that.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
Bob Casanova
May 16, 2013, 1:42:01 PM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:32:24 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "David Canzi"
<dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>:
Sounds like the infamous cellphone "autocorrect" (or should
that be "automangle"?)...
Anyway, I didn't know that; thanks. AFAIK Agent doesn't do
any of that sort of horseshit, at least I haven't
encountered any in almost 20 years of using it. Of course,
Agent seems to be designed to be used by adults (sane or
otherwise) who don't need to be led by the hand (or other
appendage), or to have their actions automatically "fixed"
by "intelligent" software.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "David Canzi"
<dmc...@uwaterloo.ca>:
that be "automangle"?)...
Anyway, I didn't know that; thanks. AFAIK Agent doesn't do
any of that sort of horseshit, at least I haven't
encountered any in almost 20 years of using it. Of course,
Agent seems to be designed to be used by adults (sane or
otherwise) who don't need to be led by the hand (or other
appendage), or to have their actions automatically "fixed"
by "intelligent" software.
Friar Broccoli
May 16, 2013, 11:22:33 PM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:12:25 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El mi�rcoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 05:04:27 UTC+1, Friar Broccoli escribi�:
>> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
>>
>> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
>>
>> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
>>
>> needed for additional specialized services.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some unrelated facts.
>>
>> During the last 20 years:
>>
>> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
>>
>> - Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
>>
>> - Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
>>
>>
>>
>> Interview (mp3):
>>
>> http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/305/510071/183945384/WAMU_183945384.mp3
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://goo.gl/KBo5r
>>
>>
>>
>> Transcript of interview:
>>
>> http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-05-14/dr-allen-frances-saving-normal-insiders-revolt-against-out-control-psychiatric-di-0
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://goo.gl/Balgd
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>>
>> The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
>> I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
>> more forests being cut down.
.
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El mi�rcoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 05:04:27 UTC+1, Friar Broccoli escribi�:
>> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
>>
>> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
>>
>> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
>>
>> needed for additional specialized services.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some unrelated facts.
>>
>> During the last 20 years:
>>
>> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
>>
>> - Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
>>
>> - Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
>>
>>
>>
>> Interview (mp3):
>>
>> http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/305/510071/183945384/WAMU_183945384.mp3
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://goo.gl/KBo5r
>>
>>
>>
>> Transcript of interview:
>>
>> http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-05-14/dr-allen-frances-saving-normal-insiders-revolt-against-out-control-psychiatric-di-0
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://goo.gl/Balgd
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>>
>> The last time I noticed my ability to miss the bleeding obvious was when
>> I learned that subsidies for growing corn for methanol had resulted in
>> more forests being cut down.
>long ago I realized that someone had implemented some plan
> to create consumers of pills among the school boys.
doing their job.
*Hemidactylus*
May 17, 2013, 1:15:53 AM5/17/13
to
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2013/05/12/book-review-the-book-woe-gary-greenberg/sietbxkuScW7jhLCocjg7K/story.html
And as psychiatry sounds its death knell so does Darwinism:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/16/after-they-defeat-darwin-the-creationists-will-be-coming-after-psychiatry-next/
Regardless maybe the book of woe might merit a read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Woe-Unmaking-Psychiatry/dp/0399158537
--
*Hemidactylus*
James Beck
May 17, 2013, 5:41:44 AM5/17/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 00:04:27 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
When I read your post, I wondered what obvious thing you thought you
had missed. Most people fail to foresee the future either because they
misinterpret what they see in the present or because they misinterpret
the past. In saying that you failed for foresee the future you have
something in common with Dr. Frances. He missed it, too. The
difference between you is that while you say that you missed the
obvious, he says that what happened was an unintended consequence.
Maybe he is just another narcissist overtaken by events. That seems to
be the policy excuse du jour in the US.
That brings up (at least) two objections to Dr. Frances. First, he has
known for at least five years that adding behavior to the diagnostic
criteria had what he now refers to as 'unintended consequences.' On
the other hand, I don't believe for a second that they didn't know
that behavior is both the least expensive and the most accurate
diagnostic tool when they wrote it into the DSM.
What they didn't expect was not that behavior doesn't make a good
diagnostic tool, but that behavior was and is bad enough to to use it
a lot. That's a pretty easy mistake to make, particularly if you were
tracked with the other bright students who had an easy time in school,
especially if you came up back when the special ed and emotionally
disturbed kids got short-bused somewhere else.
Second, the finding that the most significant predictor of a diagnosis
is age at the time of cutoff for the next school year is not in itself
an indictment of clinicians. When he says that: "Most people seeing a
doctor on the worst day of their life will get better just through
natural resiliency, time, resources from family and the community and
what we're doing is jumping ahead, giving diagnoses carelessly to
people who don't really need them," the conclusion doesn't necessarily
follow from the premise.
For example, my best friends' two autistic sons did improve--
eventually. It took more than 10 years and it wasn't free. Likewise,
to the extent that the developmental gap narrows over time, why would
Dr. Frances *not* expect that it would be most pronounced in children
younger than their classmates? It might be the case that some of the
wrong people are being treated, but that doesn't show it.
The alternative Frances proposes, smaller class sizes, more individual
attention, and more PE, while not objectional, isn't free either, and
it runs headlong into a political wall.
In this case, the hypothesis that the children receive a diagnosis
because the principal needs money is easily rejected by inspection.
Visit with a group of 'normal' kids and then with a group of kids that
have been diagnosed as autistic. You will find the groups very
different from one another. So do their teachers.
I find the suggestion that you wouldn't notice a difference dubious,
at best. The same applies to the ED kids and those diagnosed with
ADD/ADHD. Notice that Dr. Frances carefully avoids accusing teachers,
counselors, and/or psych professionals of failing to follow the
definition(s) in the DSM. He usually describes them as some version of
pure of heart, but naive.
Consider alternate premises:
1) Like other psych professionals, Frances was interested in figuring
out his own problems. Pathological narcissists are controlling, and
tend to blame others for their own failures. They can be intolerant of
other people's views and they are self-absorbed. They ignore other
people's needs, but speak with conviction and insist that other people
accept their personal narrative.
2) Children's problems are as serious as the mental health
professionals and counselors treating them say that they are. That is,
the boots on the ground have a less colored view of reality.
3) Narcissists commonly tell you what they're about, often by
complaining that the behavior of others is 'bad' while they are doing
the same thing themselves.
Now study the present again. Do you find Dr. Frances regularly in
front of reporters? Can you find his CV? Is he an expert on autism,
ADD, or ADHD? Where are his papers in those areas? It's not hard to
figure out what his areas are: depression, PTSD, OCD, self-mulitation,
etc.
We have already seen him belittling other psych professionals as
well-meaning but naive. It isn't difficult to find him accusing other
psych professionals of pushing their 'pet' disorders, or to find him
doing exactly the same thing. It's also easy to find him saying that
you can't define psychological disorders, even as he tells you how you
should define them.
Over the past six years I had the unusual opportunity to meet perhaps
20 children diagnosed on the spectrum of developmental disabilities.
Teaching them requires a special sort of patience and they are very
expensive to both counsel and to teach. If it were easy to obtain
funding for that purpose, the principal would need to spend very
little time per student doing it. That is, if a diagnosis
automatically resulted in funding, the principal could put that
function on auto.
On the other hand, if there were no funding at all there would be no
reason either to seek a diagnosis or for the principal to seek
funding. When the principal told you that she spends a lot of her time
seeking funding to help kids with special needs, you know that while
there is some funding available, it isn't easy to get.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, so what you might predict
are: 1) that the number of problems diagnosed will rise to meet the
available funding conditional on limits imposed on the principal's
time; and, 2) that any linear probability model you use will produce a
biased result, i.e., the distribution will be censored.
You might also predict that teachers will be more likely to recommend
testing for students that disrupt the classroom than those that don't,
so that otherwise disruptive students will be the ones who got
diagnosed and medicated. Hence, using the number of diagnoses to
predict the prevailing level of mental illness will also be biased;
most of the non-disruptive mentally ill won't be diagnosed. In the bad
old days, that would have included most of the kids with developmental
disorders.
Kids have problems. If you can get funding to help them, you do.
Social workers will try to use broad interpretations of the
definitions, so that they can help as many people as they can. That,
by the way, leads to a consistently correct prediction of the future.
There will be budgetary politics no matter how you define the problems
and regardless of which tools you use to diagnose them.
I'm not a psych professional, so I have no idea whether 10%, 20%, or
more of the population is ADD, ADHD, autistic, or something else. By
his own admission, Dr. Frances can't tell you that either. On the
other hand, having been paid to ferret out people's psychological
weaknesses and manipulate them for the benefit of the US government,
I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
each student.
wrote:
had missed. Most people fail to foresee the future either because they
misinterpret what they see in the present or because they misinterpret
the past. In saying that you failed for foresee the future you have
something in common with Dr. Frances. He missed it, too. The
difference between you is that while you say that you missed the
obvious, he says that what happened was an unintended consequence.
Maybe he is just another narcissist overtaken by events. That seems to
be the policy excuse du jour in the US.
That brings up (at least) two objections to Dr. Frances. First, he has
known for at least five years that adding behavior to the diagnostic
criteria had what he now refers to as 'unintended consequences.' On
the other hand, I don't believe for a second that they didn't know
that behavior is both the least expensive and the most accurate
diagnostic tool when they wrote it into the DSM.
What they didn't expect was not that behavior doesn't make a good
diagnostic tool, but that behavior was and is bad enough to to use it
a lot. That's a pretty easy mistake to make, particularly if you were
tracked with the other bright students who had an easy time in school,
especially if you came up back when the special ed and emotionally
disturbed kids got short-bused somewhere else.
Second, the finding that the most significant predictor of a diagnosis
is age at the time of cutoff for the next school year is not in itself
an indictment of clinicians. When he says that: "Most people seeing a
doctor on the worst day of their life will get better just through
natural resiliency, time, resources from family and the community and
what we're doing is jumping ahead, giving diagnoses carelessly to
people who don't really need them," the conclusion doesn't necessarily
follow from the premise.
For example, my best friends' two autistic sons did improve--
eventually. It took more than 10 years and it wasn't free. Likewise,
to the extent that the developmental gap narrows over time, why would
Dr. Frances *not* expect that it would be most pronounced in children
younger than their classmates? It might be the case that some of the
wrong people are being treated, but that doesn't show it.
The alternative Frances proposes, smaller class sizes, more individual
attention, and more PE, while not objectional, isn't free either, and
it runs headlong into a political wall.
In this case, the hypothesis that the children receive a diagnosis
because the principal needs money is easily rejected by inspection.
Visit with a group of 'normal' kids and then with a group of kids that
have been diagnosed as autistic. You will find the groups very
different from one another. So do their teachers.
I find the suggestion that you wouldn't notice a difference dubious,
at best. The same applies to the ED kids and those diagnosed with
ADD/ADHD. Notice that Dr. Frances carefully avoids accusing teachers,
counselors, and/or psych professionals of failing to follow the
definition(s) in the DSM. He usually describes them as some version of
pure of heart, but naive.
Consider alternate premises:
1) Like other psych professionals, Frances was interested in figuring
out his own problems. Pathological narcissists are controlling, and
tend to blame others for their own failures. They can be intolerant of
other people's views and they are self-absorbed. They ignore other
people's needs, but speak with conviction and insist that other people
accept their personal narrative.
2) Children's problems are as serious as the mental health
professionals and counselors treating them say that they are. That is,
the boots on the ground have a less colored view of reality.
3) Narcissists commonly tell you what they're about, often by
complaining that the behavior of others is 'bad' while they are doing
the same thing themselves.
Now study the present again. Do you find Dr. Frances regularly in
front of reporters? Can you find his CV? Is he an expert on autism,
ADD, or ADHD? Where are his papers in those areas? It's not hard to
figure out what his areas are: depression, PTSD, OCD, self-mulitation,
etc.
We have already seen him belittling other psych professionals as
well-meaning but naive. It isn't difficult to find him accusing other
psych professionals of pushing their 'pet' disorders, or to find him
doing exactly the same thing. It's also easy to find him saying that
you can't define psychological disorders, even as he tells you how you
should define them.
Over the past six years I had the unusual opportunity to meet perhaps
20 children diagnosed on the spectrum of developmental disabilities.
Teaching them requires a special sort of patience and they are very
expensive to both counsel and to teach. If it were easy to obtain
funding for that purpose, the principal would need to spend very
little time per student doing it. That is, if a diagnosis
automatically resulted in funding, the principal could put that
function on auto.
On the other hand, if there were no funding at all there would be no
reason either to seek a diagnosis or for the principal to seek
funding. When the principal told you that she spends a lot of her time
seeking funding to help kids with special needs, you know that while
there is some funding available, it isn't easy to get.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, so what you might predict
are: 1) that the number of problems diagnosed will rise to meet the
available funding conditional on limits imposed on the principal's
time; and, 2) that any linear probability model you use will produce a
biased result, i.e., the distribution will be censored.
You might also predict that teachers will be more likely to recommend
testing for students that disrupt the classroom than those that don't,
so that otherwise disruptive students will be the ones who got
diagnosed and medicated. Hence, using the number of diagnoses to
predict the prevailing level of mental illness will also be biased;
most of the non-disruptive mentally ill won't be diagnosed. In the bad
old days, that would have included most of the kids with developmental
disorders.
Kids have problems. If you can get funding to help them, you do.
Social workers will try to use broad interpretations of the
definitions, so that they can help as many people as they can. That,
by the way, leads to a consistently correct prediction of the future.
There will be budgetary politics no matter how you define the problems
and regardless of which tools you use to diagnose them.
I'm not a psych professional, so I have no idea whether 10%, 20%, or
more of the population is ADD, ADHD, autistic, or something else. By
his own admission, Dr. Frances can't tell you that either. On the
other hand, having been paid to ferret out people's psychological
weaknesses and manipulate them for the benefit of the US government,
I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
each student.
Walter Bushell
May 17, 2013, 9:40:43 AM5/17/13
to
In article <b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com>,
disorder. The problem may be unrealistic demands on the boys.
> - Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
> - Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
> needed for additional specialized services.
Making sure everyone is diagnosed. What could *possibly* go wrong.
> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
> needed for additional specialized services.
>
> Some unrelated facts.
> During the last 20 years:
> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
If 1 in 5 is the number, perhaps it should be considered normal not a
> Some unrelated facts.
> During the last 20 years:
> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
disorder. The problem may be unrealistic demands on the boys.
> - Autism diagnosis has increased 40 times
> - Childhood bipolar disorder has increased 40 times
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Friar Broccoli
May 17, 2013, 10:16:47 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:41:44 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Limiting my response to the fact that children born in January are 60
per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than their older peers,
the problem as I understand it is that those extra kids are likely to be
medicated and that is likely to have developmental consequences.
On the other hand, based ONLY on my impression of him from his
statements on the show, I found his thinking to be rather tangled and
imprecise - I assumed that was due to the need to quickly summarize key
points for a lay audience.
>For example, my best friends' two autistic sons did improve--
>eventually. It took more than 10 years and it wasn't free. Likewise,
>to the extent that the developmental gap narrows over time, why would
>Dr. Frances *not* expect that it would be most pronounced in children
>younger than their classmates? It might be the case that some of the
>wrong people are being treated, but that doesn't show it.
>
>The alternative Frances proposes, smaller class sizes, more individual
>attention, and more PE, while not objectional, isn't free either, and
>it runs headlong into a political wall.
As a member of my son's school's parents committee I remember being
horrified by the pressure a few other parents were putting on the school
to waste time on PE. (Note: I and my wife exercise between one and four
hours a day)
>In this case, the hypothesis that the children receive a diagnosis
>because the principal needs money is easily rejected by inspection.
>Visit with a group of 'normal' kids and then with a group of kids that
>have been diagnosed as autistic. You will find the groups very
>different from one another. So do their teachers.
I have *NO* idea to what extent various diagnosis are justified. (I
know of cases that were clearly justified and others clearly not.) My
only point was that once a monetary incentive for diagnosis has been put
in place it should have been obvious to anyone (me in particular) that
the rate of such diagnosis is going to dramatically increase.
Hmm. That sounds interesting. I'd like to hear the details.
>I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
>10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
>psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
>track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
>met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
>rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
I have (to the best of my knowledge) never met anyone who didn't have
all sorts of psychological and or cognitive problems. Seems to be a
necessary part of being human.
>Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
>matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
>be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
>than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
>kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
>also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
>each student.
I have no idea if drugging kids leads to better or worse outcomes on
average. No doubt some of each, and it will be a long time before we
will know enough to predict with confidence who will benefit and who
will not.
wrote:
per cent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than their older peers,
the problem as I understand it is that those extra kids are likely to be
medicated and that is likely to have developmental consequences.
On the other hand, based ONLY on my impression of him from his
statements on the show, I found his thinking to be rather tangled and
imprecise - I assumed that was due to the need to quickly summarize key
points for a lay audience.
>For example, my best friends' two autistic sons did improve--
>eventually. It took more than 10 years and it wasn't free. Likewise,
>to the extent that the developmental gap narrows over time, why would
>Dr. Frances *not* expect that it would be most pronounced in children
>younger than their classmates? It might be the case that some of the
>wrong people are being treated, but that doesn't show it.
>
>The alternative Frances proposes, smaller class sizes, more individual
>attention, and more PE, while not objectional, isn't free either, and
>it runs headlong into a political wall.
horrified by the pressure a few other parents were putting on the school
to waste time on PE. (Note: I and my wife exercise between one and four
hours a day)
>In this case, the hypothesis that the children receive a diagnosis
>because the principal needs money is easily rejected by inspection.
>Visit with a group of 'normal' kids and then with a group of kids that
>have been diagnosed as autistic. You will find the groups very
>different from one another. So do their teachers.
know of cases that were clearly justified and others clearly not.) My
only point was that once a monetary incentive for diagnosis has been put
in place it should have been obvious to anyone (me in particular) that
the rate of such diagnosis is going to dramatically increase.
>I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
>10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
>psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
>track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
>met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
>rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
all sorts of psychological and or cognitive problems. Seems to be a
necessary part of being human.
>Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
>matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
>be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
>than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
>kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
>also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
>each student.
average. No doubt some of each, and it will be a long time before we
will know enough to predict with confidence who will benefit and who
will not.
*Hemidactylus*
May 17, 2013, 1:24:22 PM5/17/13
to
On 05/17/2013 09:40 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
>> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
>> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
>> needed for additional specialized services.
>
> Making sure everyone is diagnosed. What could *possibly* go wrong.
>>
>> Some unrelated facts.
>> During the last 20 years:
>> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
>
> If 1 in 5 is the number, perhaps it should be considered normal not a
> disorder. The problem may be unrealistic demands on the boys.
Traits adapted to a former state of nature could have lost their utility
> In article <b116p8d88e111ia1a...@4ax.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> About 20 years ago, the principle of my son's elementary school told me
>> that her most important work was insuring that her problem children were
>> properly diagnosed, so that the school could receive the funding it
>> needed for additional specialized services.
>
> Making sure everyone is diagnosed. What could *possibly* go wrong.
>>
>> Some unrelated facts.
>> During the last 20 years:
>> - ADHD diagnosis has tripled (now 20% of US boys qualify)
>
> If 1 in 5 is the number, perhaps it should be considered normal not a
> disorder. The problem may be unrealistic demands on the boys.
in current circumstances. Fidgety kids didn't evolve in a classroom
during the Pleistocene and the recent emphasis on schooling for all has
perhaps made something less obvious in the past far more obvious now
when kids must sit in an uncomfortable wooden or plastic chair and
listen to uninteresting babbling from pointy headed teachers.
Thom Hartmann seems to take things a bit far along these speculative
lines and I'm not sure he's gained much traction in the real world where
evidence meets the pavement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis
Plus there's the recent shift from exorcising demons to medicating
daemons since the dawn of psychiatry as a profession took the winds out
of the priests' sails and witchdoctors before them. With diagnostic
tools as hammers everything is a nail especially given incentives to use
certain hammers that "hardware store" reps are good at marketing. But
that's just me being cynical about a major industry and the "carpenters"
who rely upon it. Without hammers they could not build cubbyholes to
shoehorn people into. That said we still need carpenters. Jesus was a
carpenter.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Kermit
May 17, 2013, 6:09:48 PM5/17/13
to
On 17 May, 10:24, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/17/2013 09:40 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <b116p8d88e111ia1adnn6nr6lb3jieh...@4ax.com>,
> On 05/17/2013 09:40 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
obesity, hypertension, and what used to be called adult onset
diabetes showing up in teenagers and even elementary school students.
Perhaps some of these behavioral problems are actually problems, and
are a product of our modern environment. I agree however that the well-
adapted hunter-gatherer in training is probably not the ideal school
student. We have probably adapted some (domesticated ourselves?) over
the last ten thousand years, but that adaptation is only partially
applicable to modern schools.
kermit
James Beck
May 17, 2013, 6:23:19 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:16:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
I only pointed out that that is when the developmental gaps are most
noticeable. Since developmental gaps are what is ultimately being
treated, that is what you should expect to find. It's not like they
dose the kindergartners. The average age at initial diagnosis is about
8, i.e., when the kids are starting 3rd grade. If the developmental
gap hasn't closed by then, they look for other causes.
>On the other hand, based ONLY on my impression of him from his
>statements on the show, I found his thinking to be rather tangled and
>imprecise - I assumed that was due to the need to quickly summarize key
>points for a lay audience.
Narcissists are seldom able to demonstrate the expertise they claim.
[snip]
>I have *NO* idea to what extent various diagnosis are justified. (I
>know of cases that were clearly justified and others clearly not.) My
>only point was that once a monetary incentive for diagnosis has been put
>in place it should have been obvious to anyone (me in particular) that
>the rate of such diagnosis is going to dramatically increase.
Even Dr. Frances wouldn't make such a claim. When I first met my
friends' autistic sons, they were with their parents. I thought they
were a little slow, but healthy. Absent their parents, the boys might
as well have been plants. They didn't even interact with each other.
By the way, what 'monetary incentive?' In the US, treatment for
special needs is an unfunded federal mandate. Public schools are
locally funded and their budgets are fixed in the short run. Treating
a spcial needs student means extracting marginal dollars from the
other stakeholders; the net monetary incentive is a goose egg.
In affluent school districts in the US, federal mandates have been
funded by cutting buses, art, music, PE, home ec, shop, driver's ed,
compressing teacher/principal salaries and benefits, raiding building
and maintenance funds, and shifting resources away from typically
developing students. That has particularly hurt the smarter kids by
eroding the scope of their advanced options, increasing class sizes,
and by cutting lab budgets and programs like computer science. The US
is now well-below the OECD average for percentage of school budget
spent on classroom education despite very high spending per pupil
overall.
Poor and rural school districts barely make ends meet. They
predominantly ignore federal and state law and/or fund mandates as
minimally as they can.
[snip]
>>On the
>>other hand, having been paid to ferret out people's psychological
>>weaknesses and manipulate them for the benefit of the US government,
>
>Hmm. That sounds interesting. I'd like to hear the details.
I was a Chinese and Russian language interrogator and strategic
debriefer. The US Army's introductory interrogation manual is
available online. Most of the classroom instruction in the debriefer
course is classified institutional detail that lays out the resources
and who kisses whose ass in the Intelligence hierarchy. It wouldn't be
current even if I had bothered to remember it. The bulk of instruction
is practical and hands on. Interrogation personnel are recruited
because they are already manipulative so they're not so much taught as
trained to be more organized and systematic.
If you are interested in a reasonably ethical take on neuro-linguistic
programming, you might read Richard Bandler's Guide to
Trance-formation.
>>I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
>>10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
>>psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
>>track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
>>met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
>>rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
>
>I have (to the best of my knowledge) never met anyone who didn't have
>all sorts of psychological and or cognitive problems. Seems to be a
>necessary part of being human.
A small fraction of the population is well-described by classical
psychology. You may find it useful to figure out who they are and to
protect yourself from the unwell.
is very high, we know the approximate short term efficacy of drugs.
The percentage of people whose symptoms improve on a particular drug
is one of the main criteria for approval, as is the incidence of any
harmful side effects. What we don't know is whether the long term
costs exceed the short term benefits.
For example, one of my friends is a very bright man with ADHD. He
dropped out of high school in his senior year, but later completed it
by correspondence over several years. After he started taking
Ritalin/Concerta, he was able to enroll in college, finish a 4-year
degree in 3 years, and graduate summa cum laude with a 4.0 GPA in
mathematics. He currently works as a very successful programmer.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects of long term Ritalin use is
diabetes, which he was diagnosed with at age 48. It's not at all clear
how he could have made a living or have reached his full potential
without Ritalin, but now it's a race to see whether he can reach a
successful, normal retirement age before the diabetes kills him. Since
he still has school-aged children, that's a very difficult choice.
noticeable. Since developmental gaps are what is ultimately being
treated, that is what you should expect to find. It's not like they
dose the kindergartners. The average age at initial diagnosis is about
8, i.e., when the kids are starting 3rd grade. If the developmental
gap hasn't closed by then, they look for other causes.
>On the other hand, based ONLY on my impression of him from his
>statements on the show, I found his thinking to be rather tangled and
>imprecise - I assumed that was due to the need to quickly summarize key
>points for a lay audience.
[snip]
>I have *NO* idea to what extent various diagnosis are justified. (I
>know of cases that were clearly justified and others clearly not.) My
>only point was that once a monetary incentive for diagnosis has been put
>in place it should have been obvious to anyone (me in particular) that
>the rate of such diagnosis is going to dramatically increase.
friends' autistic sons, they were with their parents. I thought they
were a little slow, but healthy. Absent their parents, the boys might
as well have been plants. They didn't even interact with each other.
By the way, what 'monetary incentive?' In the US, treatment for
special needs is an unfunded federal mandate. Public schools are
locally funded and their budgets are fixed in the short run. Treating
a spcial needs student means extracting marginal dollars from the
other stakeholders; the net monetary incentive is a goose egg.
In affluent school districts in the US, federal mandates have been
funded by cutting buses, art, music, PE, home ec, shop, driver's ed,
compressing teacher/principal salaries and benefits, raiding building
and maintenance funds, and shifting resources away from typically
developing students. That has particularly hurt the smarter kids by
eroding the scope of their advanced options, increasing class sizes,
and by cutting lab budgets and programs like computer science. The US
is now well-below the OECD average for percentage of school budget
spent on classroom education despite very high spending per pupil
overall.
Poor and rural school districts barely make ends meet. They
predominantly ignore federal and state law and/or fund mandates as
minimally as they can.
[snip]
>>On the
>>other hand, having been paid to ferret out people's psychological
>>weaknesses and manipulate them for the benefit of the US government,
>
>Hmm. That sounds interesting. I'd like to hear the details.
debriefer. The US Army's introductory interrogation manual is
available online. Most of the classroom instruction in the debriefer
course is classified institutional detail that lays out the resources
and who kisses whose ass in the Intelligence hierarchy. It wouldn't be
current even if I had bothered to remember it. The bulk of instruction
is practical and hands on. Interrogation personnel are recruited
because they are already manipulative so they're not so much taught as
trained to be more organized and systematic.
If you are interested in a reasonably ethical take on neuro-linguistic
programming, you might read Richard Bandler's Guide to
Trance-formation.
>>I'm not uncomfortable saying that conservatively 8 or 9 out of every
>>10 people I've ever met are somewhere in my undergraduate abnormal
>>psych book. Even if you can find a competent counselor with a good
>>track record of actually curing basic problems (most of the ones I've
>>met have so many problems of their own that they can't even establish
>>rapport), there will never be enough resources to help everyone.
>
>I have (to the best of my knowledge) never met anyone who didn't have
>all sorts of psychological and or cognitive problems. Seems to be a
>necessary part of being human.
psychology. You may find it useful to figure out who they are and to
protect yourself from the unwell.
>
>>Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
>>matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
>>be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
>>than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
>>kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
>>also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
>>each student.
>
>I have no idea if drugging kids leads to better or worse outcomes on
>average. No doubt some of each, and it will be a long time before we
>will know enough to predict with confidence who will benefit and who
>will not.
Unless you believe that the incidence of pharmaceutical testing fraud
>>Whether drugging the problem kids is the best solution is another
>>matter. I think you can also safely predict that it will continue to
>>be easier and cheaper to prescribe drugs based on observed behavior
>>than to improve the quality of the food supply, make sure that the
>>kids are eating a healthy diet, and/or geting enough exercise. It will
>>also always be easier than creating a customized learning plan for
>>each student.
>
>I have no idea if drugging kids leads to better or worse outcomes on
>average. No doubt some of each, and it will be a long time before we
>will know enough to predict with confidence who will benefit and who
>will not.
is very high, we know the approximate short term efficacy of drugs.
The percentage of people whose symptoms improve on a particular drug
is one of the main criteria for approval, as is the incidence of any
harmful side effects. What we don't know is whether the long term
costs exceed the short term benefits.
For example, one of my friends is a very bright man with ADHD. He
dropped out of high school in his senior year, but later completed it
by correspondence over several years. After he started taking
Ritalin/Concerta, he was able to enroll in college, finish a 4-year
degree in 3 years, and graduate summa cum laude with a 4.0 GPA in
mathematics. He currently works as a very successful programmer.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects of long term Ritalin use is
diabetes, which he was diagnosed with at age 48. It's not at all clear
how he could have made a living or have reached his full potential
without Ritalin, but now it's a race to see whether he can reach a
successful, normal retirement age before the diabetes kills him. Since
he still has school-aged children, that's a very difficult choice.
*Hemidactylus*
May 17, 2013, 9:13:03 PM5/17/13
to
so sedentary cannot be good. Upthread someone was talking about cutting
things like physical education in school. I largely avoided such
activity beyond the glory days of full contact pickup football games
(NOT condoned by our teachers or school admins) during recess in 4th and
5th grade. I fell in love with weights in high school and tolerated mile
long runs. PE is essential to a sedentary society eating fast food and
chicken wings. I'd say it's as important as fissicks at least.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 17, 2013, 10:11:44 PM5/17/13
to
On 05/17/2013 06:23 PM, James Beck wrote:
[snip]
> In affluent school districts in the US, federal mandates have been
> funded by cutting buses, art, music, PE, home ec, shop, driver's ed,
> compressing teacher/principal salaries and benefits, raiding building
> and maintenance funds, and shifting resources away from typically
> developing students. That has particularly hurt the smarter kids by
> eroding the scope of their advanced options, increasing class sizes,
> and by cutting lab budgets and programs like computer science. The US
> is now well-below the OECD average for percentage of school budget
> spent on classroom education despite very high spending per pupil
> overall.
>
> Poor and rural school districts barely make ends meet. They
> predominantly ignore federal and state law and/or fund mandates as
> minimally as they can.
I wonder what the long term return on investment would be in putting
more aggressive focus on physical education. Hypothetically I would
assume getting kids into a regimen of exercising "x" hours per day would
cut health care costs (except for repetition injuries, knee and back
problems as consequences of PE) down the road as adults. I would assume
being physically active is good for cognition too and might enhance
academic performance if it doesn't detract too much time budget wise.
Of course having someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger as fitness czar who
later starred at least one movie I recollect that had fast food tie ins
probably wasn't a good idea. Talk about mixed messages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIDxoGOsaY
OTOH it was an administration that was tough on drugs and Arnold did inhale.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/schwarzenegger-pot-joint-leno-video_n_780797.html
--
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> In affluent school districts in the US, federal mandates have been
> funded by cutting buses, art, music, PE, home ec, shop, driver's ed,
> compressing teacher/principal salaries and benefits, raiding building
> and maintenance funds, and shifting resources away from typically
> developing students. That has particularly hurt the smarter kids by
> eroding the scope of their advanced options, increasing class sizes,
> and by cutting lab budgets and programs like computer science. The US
> is now well-below the OECD average for percentage of school budget
> spent on classroom education despite very high spending per pupil
> overall.
>
> Poor and rural school districts barely make ends meet. They
> predominantly ignore federal and state law and/or fund mandates as
> minimally as they can.
more aggressive focus on physical education. Hypothetically I would
assume getting kids into a regimen of exercising "x" hours per day would
cut health care costs (except for repetition injuries, knee and back
problems as consequences of PE) down the road as adults. I would assume
being physically active is good for cognition too and might enhance
academic performance if it doesn't detract too much time budget wise.
Of course having someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger as fitness czar who
later starred at least one movie I recollect that had fast food tie ins
probably wasn't a good idea. Talk about mixed messages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIDxoGOsaY
OTOH it was an administration that was tough on drugs and Arnold did inhale.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/schwarzenegger-pot-joint-leno-video_n_780797.html
--
*Hemidactylus*
Paul J Gans
May 18, 2013, 4:43:07 PM5/18/13
to
I've become, to my horror and detriment, more sedentary as
time flies by.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
*Hemidactylus*
May 19, 2013, 10:29:48 AM5/19/13
to
--
*Hemidactylus*
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 12:41:09 PM5/19/13
to
this "science" has any, it must be for the work of burying so many stinky
theories of the past.
And I do not see any analogy between psychiatry and evolution from the
perspective of recent history. (recent as 200 hundred years)
Eridanus
*Hemidactylus*
May 19, 2013, 1:38:25 PM5/19/13
to
On 05/19/2013 12:41 PM, eridanus wrote:
[snip]
> I am rather ignorant about the present merits of "psychiatry". But if
> this "science" has any, it must be for the work of burying so many stinky
> theories of the past.
>
> And I do not see any analogy between psychiatry and evolution from the
> perspective of recent history. (recent as 200 hundred years)
There's evolutionary medicine and an offshoot called evolutionary
psychiatry. It could be that stone aged minds have difficulty meshing
with present conditions. I don't discount that, though have reservations
about how psychiatry/psychology are interfaced with an evolutionary
perspective.
Psychiatry is a step above the bedlam preceding it. Much improvement has
been made in how to address the human condition. But when should someone
medicate a problem versus talk through it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital
Meds are good I suppose in some situations. Some herbs too. I had tried
St. John's Wort in the past, but given I don't think I suffer organic
depression it had little noticeable effect. Valerian, griffonia, and
melatonin calm the nerves or alleviate insomnia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffonia_simplicifolia
I just have a cynical assumption that meds are overprescribed and
perhaps some psych patients have been forcefit into artificial
categories. And when I read that 20% of US kids have mental illness, I
must ask "cui bono":
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-health-children-idUSBRE94F11N20130516
Psychiatry can still be beneficial to exorcise demons. Meds are probably
better than ECT for the most part. At least trepanning seems to have
fallen into disfavor as I would need that like a hole in the head.
And I wonder how relevant this classic expose remains:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
As for ECT it shows promise (in a much milder form):
http://www.nature.com/news/shocks-to-the-brain-improve-mathematical-abilities-1.13012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57585052/mild-brain-shock-may-improve-math-skills/
--
*Hemidactylus*
[snip]
> I am rather ignorant about the present merits of "psychiatry". But if
> this "science" has any, it must be for the work of burying so many stinky
> theories of the past.
>
> And I do not see any analogy between psychiatry and evolution from the
> perspective of recent history. (recent as 200 hundred years)
psychiatry. It could be that stone aged minds have difficulty meshing
with present conditions. I don't discount that, though have reservations
about how psychiatry/psychology are interfaced with an evolutionary
perspective.
Psychiatry is a step above the bedlam preceding it. Much improvement has
been made in how to address the human condition. But when should someone
medicate a problem versus talk through it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital
Meds are good I suppose in some situations. Some herbs too. I had tried
St. John's Wort in the past, but given I don't think I suffer organic
depression it had little noticeable effect. Valerian, griffonia, and
melatonin calm the nerves or alleviate insomnia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffonia_simplicifolia
I just have a cynical assumption that meds are overprescribed and
perhaps some psych patients have been forcefit into artificial
categories. And when I read that 20% of US kids have mental illness, I
must ask "cui bono":
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-health-children-idUSBRE94F11N20130516
Psychiatry can still be beneficial to exorcise demons. Meds are probably
better than ECT for the most part. At least trepanning seems to have
fallen into disfavor as I would need that like a hole in the head.
And I wonder how relevant this classic expose remains:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
As for ECT it shows promise (in a much milder form):
http://www.nature.com/news/shocks-to-the-brain-improve-mathematical-abilities-1.13012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57585052/mild-brain-shock-may-improve-math-skills/
--
*Hemidactylus*
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 2:08:40 PM5/19/13
to
El viernes, 17 de mayo de 2013 23:09:48 UTC+1, Kermit escribi�:
the hunter gatherers school is the best school, considering that being
hungry since the morning, perhaps all night, keep them on the move
searching for food. So far as they feel hungry, to keep moving is
the right thing to do, for food does not come running to their mouths.
Then, if this attitude is conditioned genetically, it makes sense that
some children in our schools could feel badly being sat for so long.
But perhaps the reason is not genetic. It is not that easy to determine
this. Perhaps is the result of some bad conditioning at home. Some parents
are not the best example of how we should educate out kids. Then, we can
be imagining that some undesired behavior of a child, like restlessness,
it is the prove that he has something wrong in his brain, but it is the
result of some bad conditioning.
I watched a video long ago in TV about a British psychiatry doc that got
some money to search about the causes of children that caused problems
at school. He obtain a grant to search on this problems. He found that
the parents of those children were also problematic, and that a lot of
problems during childhood. I do not remember if he found that the grand-
parents had also the same problems. Then it all looks apparently to some
heritable trait of behavior. At first sight, it looks the most elemental
idea that come to our minds.
But what if instead of an inheritable genetic behavior was an inheritable
wrong way of educating the kids. I am not sure, what was the theory of
the Brit psychiatry, but he put a video in the main room of the house,
where the family passed most of the time. It has a timer to make run the
camera at some hours when most people as well as the kid was at home.
What I saw in the videos recorded by the camera was a wrong way of
interacting with the boy. I remember only about a particular case, as
an example of the work. The case as I remember was one in which, mother,
father and granddad were like watching for an occasion to recriminate
the boy for any thing he would be doing. If the boy moved rhythmically
a leg while sitting, someone scolded the boy for moving the leg. If the
boy moved and stood beside a piece of furniture that contained some
crystal jars, someone scolded him for being so near the crystal jars. Then
the boy started some compulsive movement and down was one jar full of
sweets, or something. This cause an uproar of scolding the boy, all
members of the family shouting at the boy. Then, unless the boy was like
dead or some, anything he would do would resulted and being shouted and
scolded at.
For all I had read about behaviorism all that those parents were doing was
to "reinforce" the behavior they were scolding. And this was more or less
the same behavior that was causing disruptions in class of this boy.
I can postulate, any behaviorist could agree, that the family members were
"replicating" a way of educating a child that was used with them. Then,
if that is correct, we are witnessing not a faulty brain, or a genetic
inheritance that caused this behavior, but a cultural problem of this
family. All the three members of the family, dad, mum and granddad, wanted
the boy to stay quite sitting in the sofa hearing them speaking, or simple
being sat on the sofa watching the tele. But instead of that, for being
quite sitting in a couch, the boy do not received any words or praise, and
it was like an "invisible boy". So he bored mostly. That was the reason
"he had to do something" to attract the attention of his parents. Even if it
were for breaking down a crystal jar and being punished by his mum with the slipper.
Then, if those parents knew something about how to educate a normal boy,
they would had to "reinforce" when the boy was "doing nothing". Not only
this, they should had tried to ignore all sorts of not desired behavior.
If the boy moved his leg like a pendulum, they should ignore this. And
wait to see when he stops and tell him something now that he does not
move nervously his leg. Summing up, they should ignore the wrong behavior
an reward with words the "normal behavior". A boy is always hungry for
praises. Then, if for behaving normally does not get any, he tries some
"creative" act that would attract the attention of his parents with words
and even with scolding words.
I remember the case of an English neighbor I had, that had a child. I went
to her house each month to pay some classes English conversation with my daughter. She was a busy woman, and a stay perhaps too long chatting with
her some ten minutes or more. Her child of four years felt like abandoned,
or something for she was always very busy with her work. Then at home her
had accumulated a mountain of dishes to wash and that thing.
My presence, made the boy to attract the attention of his mum with different creative methods for several of my visits.
1) the boy came and as he watched his mum talking with me and he mounted
over an unbelievable dirty couch and pissed over it.
2) The boy came a shit on the carpet in the middle of the living room.
3) The boy grabbed a brick of milk and came pouring down the milk all the
way till the living room where his mum was chatting.
These three cases are the most memorable examples of undesired behavior
I remember from this boy. Other cases were not such spectacular.
Some time later, while writing a book about the education of children,
I asked myself what was the error in in this case. What a very busy mum
would had do avoid these problems. The solution was rather easy. When
a sudden visit like mine came, she should had integrated the boy in the conversation. She should take him in and presented to me, and make me
talk to the boy, and ask him some questions. I should had said nice
words to the boy and she would had held him in his arms for a while as
we paid her and had some polite conversation.
There is not more boring situation for a little boy that when a visit
comes and starts chatting for a time. This time can look eternal for
the boy and he feels like someone its robbing him of his mum. Then,
the best thing is to integrate the boy into the visit making him to
feel important now and then. Like he were also a grown up.
Summing up, a boy is alway hungry for praises and verbal attentions.
If for being normal and shy, does not win any praises or verbal
attentions, he would try a creative behavior that would attract the
attention of the adults around him.
Then, in the example I mentioned of the British psychiatric and video
camera in the living room of children with problems at school. The boy
was not reinforced for being quite watching the tele, or being chatting
with his parents but for moving or doing something. If the child went
to the kitchen to drink a glass of water he harvested some warnings about
"what are doing in the kitchen!!" If the boy stood up, "why are you
standing up? Sit on the couch". "Where are you going." I am going to the
toilet. "You should ask permission to go to the toilet", and that sort
of idiotic interactions with the boy.
Eridanus
hungry since the morning, perhaps all night, keep them on the move
searching for food. So far as they feel hungry, to keep moving is
the right thing to do, for food does not come running to their mouths.
Then, if this attitude is conditioned genetically, it makes sense that
some children in our schools could feel badly being sat for so long.
But perhaps the reason is not genetic. It is not that easy to determine
this. Perhaps is the result of some bad conditioning at home. Some parents
are not the best example of how we should educate out kids. Then, we can
be imagining that some undesired behavior of a child, like restlessness,
it is the prove that he has something wrong in his brain, but it is the
result of some bad conditioning.
I watched a video long ago in TV about a British psychiatry doc that got
some money to search about the causes of children that caused problems
at school. He obtain a grant to search on this problems. He found that
the parents of those children were also problematic, and that a lot of
problems during childhood. I do not remember if he found that the grand-
parents had also the same problems. Then it all looks apparently to some
heritable trait of behavior. At first sight, it looks the most elemental
idea that come to our minds.
But what if instead of an inheritable genetic behavior was an inheritable
wrong way of educating the kids. I am not sure, what was the theory of
the Brit psychiatry, but he put a video in the main room of the house,
where the family passed most of the time. It has a timer to make run the
camera at some hours when most people as well as the kid was at home.
What I saw in the videos recorded by the camera was a wrong way of
interacting with the boy. I remember only about a particular case, as
an example of the work. The case as I remember was one in which, mother,
father and granddad were like watching for an occasion to recriminate
the boy for any thing he would be doing. If the boy moved rhythmically
a leg while sitting, someone scolded the boy for moving the leg. If the
boy moved and stood beside a piece of furniture that contained some
crystal jars, someone scolded him for being so near the crystal jars. Then
the boy started some compulsive movement and down was one jar full of
sweets, or something. This cause an uproar of scolding the boy, all
members of the family shouting at the boy. Then, unless the boy was like
dead or some, anything he would do would resulted and being shouted and
scolded at.
For all I had read about behaviorism all that those parents were doing was
to "reinforce" the behavior they were scolding. And this was more or less
the same behavior that was causing disruptions in class of this boy.
I can postulate, any behaviorist could agree, that the family members were
"replicating" a way of educating a child that was used with them. Then,
if that is correct, we are witnessing not a faulty brain, or a genetic
inheritance that caused this behavior, but a cultural problem of this
family. All the three members of the family, dad, mum and granddad, wanted
the boy to stay quite sitting in the sofa hearing them speaking, or simple
being sat on the sofa watching the tele. But instead of that, for being
quite sitting in a couch, the boy do not received any words or praise, and
it was like an "invisible boy". So he bored mostly. That was the reason
"he had to do something" to attract the attention of his parents. Even if it
were for breaking down a crystal jar and being punished by his mum with the slipper.
Then, if those parents knew something about how to educate a normal boy,
they would had to "reinforce" when the boy was "doing nothing". Not only
this, they should had tried to ignore all sorts of not desired behavior.
If the boy moved his leg like a pendulum, they should ignore this. And
wait to see when he stops and tell him something now that he does not
move nervously his leg. Summing up, they should ignore the wrong behavior
an reward with words the "normal behavior". A boy is always hungry for
praises. Then, if for behaving normally does not get any, he tries some
"creative" act that would attract the attention of his parents with words
and even with scolding words.
I remember the case of an English neighbor I had, that had a child. I went
to her house each month to pay some classes English conversation with my daughter. She was a busy woman, and a stay perhaps too long chatting with
her some ten minutes or more. Her child of four years felt like abandoned,
or something for she was always very busy with her work. Then at home her
had accumulated a mountain of dishes to wash and that thing.
My presence, made the boy to attract the attention of his mum with different creative methods for several of my visits.
1) the boy came and as he watched his mum talking with me and he mounted
over an unbelievable dirty couch and pissed over it.
2) The boy came a shit on the carpet in the middle of the living room.
3) The boy grabbed a brick of milk and came pouring down the milk all the
way till the living room where his mum was chatting.
These three cases are the most memorable examples of undesired behavior
I remember from this boy. Other cases were not such spectacular.
Some time later, while writing a book about the education of children,
I asked myself what was the error in in this case. What a very busy mum
would had do avoid these problems. The solution was rather easy. When
a sudden visit like mine came, she should had integrated the boy in the conversation. She should take him in and presented to me, and make me
talk to the boy, and ask him some questions. I should had said nice
words to the boy and she would had held him in his arms for a while as
we paid her and had some polite conversation.
There is not more boring situation for a little boy that when a visit
comes and starts chatting for a time. This time can look eternal for
the boy and he feels like someone its robbing him of his mum. Then,
the best thing is to integrate the boy into the visit making him to
feel important now and then. Like he were also a grown up.
Summing up, a boy is alway hungry for praises and verbal attentions.
If for being normal and shy, does not win any praises or verbal
attentions, he would try a creative behavior that would attract the
attention of the adults around him.
Then, in the example I mentioned of the British psychiatric and video
camera in the living room of children with problems at school. The boy
was not reinforced for being quite watching the tele, or being chatting
with his parents but for moving or doing something. If the child went
to the kitchen to drink a glass of water he harvested some warnings about
"what are doing in the kitchen!!" If the boy stood up, "why are you
standing up? Sit on the couch". "Where are you going." I am going to the
toilet. "You should ask permission to go to the toilet", and that sort
of idiotic interactions with the boy.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 2:18:50 PM5/19/13
to
El viernes, 17 de mayo de 2013 23:23:19 UTC+1, James Beck escribi�:
I am not sure if it is a fraud or not. I have not the correct information
to have an opinion on that.
But I remember that case of the widespread lobotomies. For a few decades,
it was very fashionable and considered an example of the advances of the
science. So, I have some doubts on this pharmaceutical propaganda.
I remember that the teacher told me alarmed that my daughter of 5 or 6
years was showing some signs of dyslexia and that she needed treatment.
I dismissed this outright. I was not sure it was right this estimation
about any dyslexia on the child. I had not observed anything and I was
teaching her to write. I have never heard talk anymore about the
dyslexia of my daughter.
Eridanus
to have an opinion on that.
But I remember that case of the widespread lobotomies. For a few decades,
it was very fashionable and considered an example of the advances of the
science. So, I have some doubts on this pharmaceutical propaganda.
I remember that the teacher told me alarmed that my daughter of 5 or 6
years was showing some signs of dyslexia and that she needed treatment.
I dismissed this outright. I was not sure it was right this estimation
about any dyslexia on the child. I had not observed anything and I was
teaching her to write. I have never heard talk anymore about the
dyslexia of my daughter.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 2:20:44 PM5/19/13
to
El s�bado, 18 de mayo de 2013 02:13:03 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
I agree. Even if I have never loved sports or physical exercises.
Eridanus
Eridanus
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 2:32:57 PM5/19/13
to
El domingo, 19 de mayo de 2013 18:38:25 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
I can agree that we can be a mixed bag of people While some kids are
more predisposed to exercise, I can imagine that several thousand years
of agriculture had changed things a little. Perhaps, a small fraction
of people can live with little doses of exercise due to some cultural
constraints. I mean, culture have probably had some influence, to make
some people more sedentary on a genetic bases.
But this is a simple speculation very difficult to prove. Other question
is what influence has home conditioning on the behavior of children.
This is a lot more easier to prove. Take as an example a child that can
learn at an early age to play the piano.
What is easier to prove, that is genetic or that is conditioned?
You translate this example to a child be quite or to be restless. Is it
genetic? Is it conditioned? Is it a brain damaged in some spot? It
is as psychiatrics say "the result of a chemical unbalance"?
Eridanus
more predisposed to exercise, I can imagine that several thousand years
of agriculture had changed things a little. Perhaps, a small fraction
of people can live with little doses of exercise due to some cultural
constraints. I mean, culture have probably had some influence, to make
some people more sedentary on a genetic bases.
But this is a simple speculation very difficult to prove. Other question
is what influence has home conditioning on the behavior of children.
This is a lot more easier to prove. Take as an example a child that can
learn at an early age to play the piano.
What is easier to prove, that is genetic or that is conditioned?
You translate this example to a child be quite or to be restless. Is it
genetic? Is it conditioned? Is it a brain damaged in some spot? It
is as psychiatrics say "the result of a chemical unbalance"?
Eridanus
*Hemidactylus*
May 19, 2013, 2:36:59 PM5/19/13
to
in outlook I have tended toward a negative focus in the past, picking
away at things and trying to find fault.
In my experience I recall getting good grades being an expectation and
the only feedback I got was when I diverged from that norm and the
feedback was definitely negative and disheartening. If scolded enough a
student will not improve, but just throw their hands up and admit total
defeat, since the crowd is always booing and never cheering. I don't
know if this insight is valid, but after reading Blanchard's book _Whale
Done_ I'm glad at least one person in the entire world "gets it".
http://www.amazon.com/Whale-Done-Power-Positive-Relationships/dp/074323538X
http://www.slideshare.net/ramadd1951/whale-done-approach
I think some of the recent negative chatter here about Desertphile's
thread on junk DNA exemplifies a "Gotcha" response. Not good. People
excel at finding fault. A group of fault finders winds up hating each
other.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 19, 2013, 2:47:01 PM5/19/13
to
On 05/19/2013 02:18 PM, eridanus wrote:
> El viernes, 17 de mayo de 2013 23:23:19 UTC+1, James Beck escribió:
>>
[snip]
pick through the eye socket approach in my estimation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbitoclast
And one can stop taking meds. Lobotomies seem so irreversible.
One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
better than:
1. Exorcism
2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
3. ECT
4. Trepanning
5. Lobotomies
--
*Hemidactylus*
> El viernes, 17 de mayo de 2013 23:23:19 UTC+1, James Beck escribió:
>>
[snip]
>>
>> Unless you believe that the incidence of pharmaceutical testing fraud
>> is very high, we know the approximate short term efficacy of drugs.
>> The percentage of people whose symptoms improve on a particular drug
>> is one of the main criteria for approval, as is the incidence of any
>> harmful side effects. What we don't know is whether the long term
>> costs exceed the short term benefits.
>
> I am not sure if it is a fraud or not. I have not the correct information
> to have an opinion on that.
> But I remember that case of the widespread lobotomies. For a few decades,
> it was very fashionable and considered an example of the advances of the
> science. So, I have some doubts on this pharmaceutical propaganda.
>
> I remember that the teacher told me alarmed that my daughter of 5 or 6
> years was showing some signs of dyslexia and that she needed treatment.
> I dismissed this outright. I was not sure it was right this estimation
> about any dyslexia on the child. I had not observed anything and I was
> teaching her to write. I have never heard talk anymore about the
> dyslexia of my daughter.
Oh yeah, lobotomies. I forgot about that. Pills are better than the ice
>> Unless you believe that the incidence of pharmaceutical testing fraud
>> is very high, we know the approximate short term efficacy of drugs.
>> The percentage of people whose symptoms improve on a particular drug
>> is one of the main criteria for approval, as is the incidence of any
>> harmful side effects. What we don't know is whether the long term
>> costs exceed the short term benefits.
>
> I am not sure if it is a fraud or not. I have not the correct information
> to have an opinion on that.
> But I remember that case of the widespread lobotomies. For a few decades,
> it was very fashionable and considered an example of the advances of the
> science. So, I have some doubts on this pharmaceutical propaganda.
>
> I remember that the teacher told me alarmed that my daughter of 5 or 6
> years was showing some signs of dyslexia and that she needed treatment.
> I dismissed this outright. I was not sure it was right this estimation
> about any dyslexia on the child. I had not observed anything and I was
> teaching her to write. I have never heard talk anymore about the
> dyslexia of my daughter.
pick through the eye socket approach in my estimation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbitoclast
And one can stop taking meds. Lobotomies seem so irreversible.
One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
better than:
1. Exorcism
2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
3. ECT
4. Trepanning
5. Lobotomies
--
*Hemidactylus*
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 3:21:09 PM5/19/13
to
El domingo, 19 de mayo de 2013 19:36:59 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
I was considering one day about a child of 3 or 4 years that was being
taught to play the piano. I was considering what is seen in those videos.
A young boy that is happy playing the piano. And he does pretty well.
The next question is, "how are they teaching the boy to play?" They means
either a mum or a dad. Nobody else would have the required patience for
that.
Will the concentrate in "on the errors the boy is committing?" Or "they
would put their attention on the good notes the boy plays?"
For even if a boy commit some errors while playing, some parts must be
played right. Then, what is more important, "the errors or the parts done
well?" If you remind a boy of his errors, he would soon tire and tell you
playing the piano sucks. But if you ignore all his errors, and only praise
him because some notes were correctly played, he would think he is doing
a good work and want to continue winning more praises.
Then, the only sure way to learn to play the piano is to be tireless playing. Nobody is going to learn something that only deserves scoldings.
Then, most people here had been teachers, and probably bad teachers. By bad
I mean, mostly aversive teachers that only put their attention on faults.
I remember I wrote a small book of mythological stories and talked about this
to some one to whom I sold a house. He do not looked interested and told
me as a justification someone at his office that retired and wrote a little
book of poetry. I asked him, how was the book, and he said, bad, it lacked
of some tildes. It seems that to him, the only merit of a poetry was that
it should have all their tildes in the right place.
The bad attitude if the school goes as far as the times of the Roman Empire.
The teachers were using the stick or a ferule to punish the children of
humble social class. I presume that the children of aristocracy and rich
people were not touched by the ferule.
Today are not using the ferule anymore, but the attitude of indifference
for what the children are doing well, surpasses their tendency to point
at the errors.
I was one day commenting this with a coworker, and he asked me. If you do
not make it notice when a child in in error, how he would learn what he
is right? Because when a child says something right you praise him.
Then, he learns he is intelligent and now something good. Then, as he is
praised he wants to learn more. If you reverse the controls and only
tells him of when he is wrong, you are telling him he is more or less an
idiot. Then, as he have the idea of being dull, he does not want to learn
anything.
Eridanus
taught to play the piano. I was considering what is seen in those videos.
A young boy that is happy playing the piano. And he does pretty well.
The next question is, "how are they teaching the boy to play?" They means
either a mum or a dad. Nobody else would have the required patience for
that.
Will the concentrate in "on the errors the boy is committing?" Or "they
would put their attention on the good notes the boy plays?"
For even if a boy commit some errors while playing, some parts must be
played right. Then, what is more important, "the errors or the parts done
well?" If you remind a boy of his errors, he would soon tire and tell you
playing the piano sucks. But if you ignore all his errors, and only praise
him because some notes were correctly played, he would think he is doing
a good work and want to continue winning more praises.
Then, the only sure way to learn to play the piano is to be tireless playing. Nobody is going to learn something that only deserves scoldings.
Then, most people here had been teachers, and probably bad teachers. By bad
I mean, mostly aversive teachers that only put their attention on faults.
I remember I wrote a small book of mythological stories and talked about this
to some one to whom I sold a house. He do not looked interested and told
me as a justification someone at his office that retired and wrote a little
book of poetry. I asked him, how was the book, and he said, bad, it lacked
of some tildes. It seems that to him, the only merit of a poetry was that
it should have all their tildes in the right place.
The bad attitude if the school goes as far as the times of the Roman Empire.
The teachers were using the stick or a ferule to punish the children of
humble social class. I presume that the children of aristocracy and rich
people were not touched by the ferule.
Today are not using the ferule anymore, but the attitude of indifference
for what the children are doing well, surpasses their tendency to point
at the errors.
I was one day commenting this with a coworker, and he asked me. If you do
not make it notice when a child in in error, how he would learn what he
is right? Because when a child says something right you praise him.
Then, he learns he is intelligent and now something good. Then, as he is
praised he wants to learn more. If you reverse the controls and only
tells him of when he is wrong, you are telling him he is more or less an
idiot. Then, as he have the idea of being dull, he does not want to learn
anything.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 19, 2013, 3:37:17 PM5/19/13
to
El domingo, 19 de mayo de 2013 19:36:59 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribió:
>
> Lot's of people suffer from lack of positive feedback. Being a Popperian
> in outlook I have tended toward a negative focus in the past, picking
> away at things and trying to find fault.
>
> In my experience I recall getting good grades being an expectation and
> the only feedback I got was when I diverged from that norm and the
> feedback was definitely negative and disheartening. If scolded enough a
> student will not improve, but just throw their hands up and admit total
> defeat, since the crowd is always booing and never cheering. I don't
> know if this insight is valid, but after reading Blanchard's book _Whale
>
> Done_ I'm glad at least one person in the entire world "gets it".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Whale-Done-Power-Positive-Relationships/dp/074323538X
> http://www.slideshare.net/ramadd1951/whale-done-approach
>
> I think some of the recent negative chatter here about Desertphile's
> thread on junk DNA exemplifies a "Gotcha" response. Not good. People
> excel at finding fault. A group of fault finders winds up hating each
> other.
I see a problem with this attitude. if someone postes a link, either
>
> Lot's of people suffer from lack of positive feedback. Being a Popperian
> in outlook I have tended toward a negative focus in the past, picking
> away at things and trying to find fault.
>
> In my experience I recall getting good grades being an expectation and
> the only feedback I got was when I diverged from that norm and the
> feedback was definitely negative and disheartening. If scolded enough a
> student will not improve, but just throw their hands up and admit total
> defeat, since the crowd is always booing and never cheering. I don't
> know if this insight is valid, but after reading Blanchard's book _Whale
>
> Done_ I'm glad at least one person in the entire world "gets it".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Whale-Done-Power-Positive-Relationships/dp/074323538X
> http://www.slideshare.net/ramadd1951/whale-done-approach
>
> I think some of the recent negative chatter here about Desertphile's
> thread on junk DNA exemplifies a "Gotcha" response. Not good. People
> excel at finding fault. A group of fault finders winds up hating each
> other.
you have some interest or not. If you have not interest you have nothing
to comment. Or sometimes, when a post surpasses my intelligence. If
I do not understand the matter I had nothing to comment.
If the link posted is interesting I read it, or watched if it is a video.
Perhaps I have something to comment, perhaps I was disappointed. Then, I
would not the poster about my disappointment, for he posted the link in
good faith. Silence some what is like a light punishment. That is why
we do not tell a child anything when he says something wrong. Only when
he says something good.
All people have to say something good at any moment. If you praise him
he would believe you are intelligent. But if you only scorn him for any
reason he would think you are a stupid petulant. I think there is a sort
of reflectivity in attitudes.
If someone behaves aversive, he becomes aversive conditioned. Being an
aversive teacher is not the best way to teach a boy of five years to play
the piano, to learn maths, or play chess.
Eridanus
>
> --
>
> *Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 19, 2013, 4:02:44 PM5/19/13
to
On 05/19/2013 03:37 PM, eridanus wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de mayo de 2013 19:36:59 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
People tend to act reciprocally so negative behavior towards them might
result in a vengeful payback in kind. Or people might "pay it forward"
and go on to mistreat someone else. If someone cuts a person off in
traffic the latter goes home and yells at the kids. They go to school
fuming the next day and disrupt the class with bad antics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward
Or if someone gets frustrated by a troll they go on to attack another
poster for trivial reasons and that poster gets upset and goes on a
tirade in another newsgroup which upsets numerous others. Thus spreads
by tiny ripples a vendetta culture, based upon displaced vengeful tit
for tat responses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28psychology%29#Aggression
--
*Hemidactylus*
> El domingo, 19 de mayo de 2013 19:36:59 UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* escribi�:
result in a vengeful payback in kind. Or people might "pay it forward"
and go on to mistreat someone else. If someone cuts a person off in
traffic the latter goes home and yells at the kids. They go to school
fuming the next day and disrupt the class with bad antics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward
Or if someone gets frustrated by a troll they go on to attack another
poster for trivial reasons and that poster gets upset and goes on a
tirade in another newsgroup which upsets numerous others. Thus spreads
by tiny ripples a vendetta culture, based upon displaced vengeful tit
for tat responses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28psychology%29#Aggression
--
*Hemidactylus*
Mark Isaak
May 19, 2013, 10:59:09 PM5/19/13
to
field of psychiatry and set it back fifty years." Fortunately, his
influence has waned a great deal, and there is much psychiatry which is
based on sound science. Most of the common conditions (depression, OCD,
schizophrenia, e.g.) have drugs which help at least some people to some
extent, and at least one condition (simple phobia) is 100% curable in a
weekend without drugs.
That said, there are still serious problems -- two in particular. The
first is that diagnosis (in my impression) is far more art than science.
The second is that, for many people, known drugs still don't work.
These two problems together can make psychiatry appear superficially
like quackery, but the real quackery is all the non-scientific
alternatives that people sell for the same ills, with even more dismal
results.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
May 20, 2013, 12:11:12 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
> better than:
>
> 1. Exorcism
> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
> 3. ECT
> 4. Trepanning
> 5. Lobotomies
ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>
> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
> better than:
>
> 1. Exorcism
> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
> 3. ECT
> 4. Trepanning
> 5. Lobotomies
depression. Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
that cause swelling inside the skull. Exorcism can have a powerful
placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
convinced they need one. I don't have anything good to say about
torture or lobotomies.
eridanus
May 20, 2013, 6:11:48 AM5/20/13
to
El lunes, 20 de mayo de 2013 05:11:12 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribi�:
that's right
eridanus
eridanus
Paul J Gans
May 20, 2013, 11:51:55 AM5/20/13
to
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
[major snippage]
>A friend of mine once said, "Sigmund Freud simultaneously invented the
>field of psychiatry and set it back fifty years." Fortunately, his
>influence has waned a great deal, and there is much psychiatry which is
>based on sound science. Most of the common conditions (depression, OCD,
>schizophrenia, e.g.) have drugs which help at least some people to some
>extent, and at least one condition (simple phobia) is 100% curable in a
>weekend without drugs.
When I was young, Freud's authority was major. I always wondered
about that. Other fields, while honoring their "founders" rarely
if ever give them godlike status. Lavoisier might have invented
modern chemistry with his "Elements of Chemistry", but one hardly
takes him as the last word, or even the first word, on chemistry
today.
>That said, there are still serious problems -- two in particular. The
>first is that diagnosis (in my impression) is far more art than science.
> The second is that, for many people, known drugs still don't work.
>These two problems together can make psychiatry appear superficially
>like quackery, but the real quackery is all the non-scientific
>alternatives that people sell for the same ills, with even more dismal
>results.
Well said!
[major snippage]
>A friend of mine once said, "Sigmund Freud simultaneously invented the
>field of psychiatry and set it back fifty years." Fortunately, his
>influence has waned a great deal, and there is much psychiatry which is
>based on sound science. Most of the common conditions (depression, OCD,
>schizophrenia, e.g.) have drugs which help at least some people to some
>extent, and at least one condition (simple phobia) is 100% curable in a
>weekend without drugs.
about that. Other fields, while honoring their "founders" rarely
if ever give them godlike status. Lavoisier might have invented
modern chemistry with his "Elements of Chemistry", but one hardly
takes him as the last word, or even the first word, on chemistry
today.
>That said, there are still serious problems -- two in particular. The
>first is that diagnosis (in my impression) is far more art than science.
> The second is that, for many people, known drugs still don't work.
>These two problems together can make psychiatry appear superficially
>like quackery, but the real quackery is all the non-scientific
>alternatives that people sell for the same ills, with even more dismal
>results.
Paul J Gans
May 20, 2013, 11:53:34 AM5/20/13
to
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>> better than:
>>
>> 1. Exorcism
>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>> 3. ECT
>> 4. Trepanning
>> 5. Lobotomies
>ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>depression. Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
>that cause swelling inside the skull. Exorcism can have a powerful
>placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
>convinced they need one. I don't have anything good to say about
>torture or lobotomies.
I'd combine them and lobotomize the torturers.
>On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>> better than:
>>
>> 1. Exorcism
>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>> 3. ECT
>> 4. Trepanning
>> 5. Lobotomies
>ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>depression. Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
>that cause swelling inside the skull. Exorcism can have a powerful
>placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
>convinced they need one. I don't have anything good to say about
>torture or lobotomies.
eridanus
May 20, 2013, 2:34:08 PM5/20/13
to
El lunes, 20 de mayo de 2013 16:51:55 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
i had an experience with people citing clich�s from Freud. I was a
little puzzled for I had not heard a word about this mater. Then I
asked one, what is this of the subconscient? It is about a theory of
Freud. Then, it seemed everybody was mentioning Freud. But Freud was
not in my little book of school. Then, I asked someone, who is this
Freud? You have to study the psychoanalysis. I was going in evenings
to the library to read some books, then one day I look for Freud. I
find a card about the some books of Freud about psychoanalysis. I
chose book 1 of a collection of 7 volumes. I was a little like smelling
rat, as this man do not explained from where he extracted these concepts.
I was expecting something more objective. But the book had an easy
reading. He would have been a great novelist. Then, I read the second
book, and I was hoping he would explain from where he took these ideas.
For he was not putting his cards over the table for all too see. It
was more like a poker player that wins the game, but do not show up his
cards. I think I arrived till book four or five. Then, I abandoned any
hope of finding out from where he took all those theories.
Then, after reading that much, I was not anymore impressed by anyone
talking about the inconscient or the super-ego. Those guys were trying
to impress hillbillies like me with this psychoanalytic jargon.
I was having other experiences of similar nature, with people speaking
about things they did not understand. This was only possible when I had
studied this particular matter, of course.
I had been passing by all sort of junk books, since the Population Bomb of
Paul Ehrlich passing by other doom predictors. I had read a lot of shit.
Then, sometimes in science we can see also some examples of "cargo science".
It is rather common. But some of the bogus science is rather veteran, not
new crackpot theories. Mostly on sciences that are based poorly in
mathematics. This is the case in most sciences, like psychology,
psychiatry and social sciences. I do not say that there is not any
plausible element in these sciences, but rather that they had grown to
much verbosity and gratuitous developments over a poor objective base.
They remind me of this guy here selling the theory of complexity that
explains everything.
Eridanus
little puzzled for I had not heard a word about this mater. Then I
asked one, what is this of the subconscient? It is about a theory of
Freud. Then, it seemed everybody was mentioning Freud. But Freud was
not in my little book of school. Then, I asked someone, who is this
Freud? You have to study the psychoanalysis. I was going in evenings
to the library to read some books, then one day I look for Freud. I
find a card about the some books of Freud about psychoanalysis. I
chose book 1 of a collection of 7 volumes. I was a little like smelling
rat, as this man do not explained from where he extracted these concepts.
I was expecting something more objective. But the book had an easy
reading. He would have been a great novelist. Then, I read the second
book, and I was hoping he would explain from where he took these ideas.
For he was not putting his cards over the table for all too see. It
was more like a poker player that wins the game, but do not show up his
cards. I think I arrived till book four or five. Then, I abandoned any
hope of finding out from where he took all those theories.
Then, after reading that much, I was not anymore impressed by anyone
talking about the inconscient or the super-ego. Those guys were trying
to impress hillbillies like me with this psychoanalytic jargon.
I was having other experiences of similar nature, with people speaking
about things they did not understand. This was only possible when I had
studied this particular matter, of course.
I had been passing by all sort of junk books, since the Population Bomb of
Paul Ehrlich passing by other doom predictors. I had read a lot of shit.
Then, sometimes in science we can see also some examples of "cargo science".
It is rather common. But some of the bogus science is rather veteran, not
new crackpot theories. Mostly on sciences that are based poorly in
mathematics. This is the case in most sciences, like psychology,
psychiatry and social sciences. I do not say that there is not any
plausible element in these sciences, but rather that they had grown to
much verbosity and gratuitous developments over a poor objective base.
They remind me of this guy here selling the theory of complexity that
explains everything.
Eridanus
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:15:31 AM5/21/13
to
On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>> better than:
>>
>> 1. Exorcism
>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>> 3. ECT
>> 4. Trepanning
>> 5. Lobotomies
>
> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
> depression.
Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>> better than:
>>
>> 1. Exorcism
>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>> 3. ECT
>> 4. Trepanning
>> 5. Lobotomies
>
> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
> depression.
> Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
> that cause swelling inside the skull.
to deal with situations which may have included letting demons out, thus
for psychologically relevant purposes if so. If for epilepsy, there
might be better ways of dealing with that, including pills.
> Exorcism can have a powerful
> placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
> convinced they need one.
> I don't have anything good to say about
> torture or lobotomies.
the accepted norm, thus perceived as heretics. "Witches" also deviated
from the norm, much like the Goth culture of today. Even today behavior
that departs somewhat from the norm, like atheism, is considered
heretical or perhaps crazy.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Roger Shrubber
May 21, 2013, 9:58:12 AM5/21/13
to
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>> better than:
>>>
>>> 1. Exorcism
>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>> 3. ECT
>>> 4. Trepanning
>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>
>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>> depression.
>
> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
Not empirically true. It's an odd thing to witness but
> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>> better than:
>>>
>>> 1. Exorcism
>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>> 3. ECT
>>> 4. Trepanning
>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>
>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>> depression.
>
> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
ECT works very well in situations where nothing else
does.
>> Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
>> that cause swelling inside the skull.
>
> Not a psychological issue though. Trepanning had been used in the past
> to deal with situations which may have included letting demons out, thus
> for psychologically relevant purposes if so. If for epilepsy, there
> might be better ways of dealing with that, including pills.
>
>> Exorcism can have a powerful
>> placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
>> convinced they need one.
>
> Kinda dubious at best. But I guess if they think so.
Burkhard
May 21, 2013, 11:13:12 AM5/21/13
to
On 20 May, 05:11, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>
>
> > One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
> > better than:
>
> > 1. Exorcism
> > 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
> > 3. ECT
> > 4. Trepanning
> > 5. Lobotomies
>
> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
> depression. �Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
> that cause swelling inside the skull. �Exorcism can have a powerful
> placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
> convinced they need one. �I don't have anything good to say about
> torture or lobotomies.
>
The first is very tasty in soups, and gopher torture stew as well,
> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>
>
> > One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
> > better than:
>
> > 1. Exorcism
> > 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
> > 3. ECT
> > 4. Trepanning
> > 5. Lobotomies
>
> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
> depression. �Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
> that cause swelling inside the skull. �Exorcism can have a powerful
> placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
> convinced they need one. �I don't have anything good to say about
> torture or lobotomies.
>
though they are mostly under protection these days of course.
The second is a delicacy if you do them a la Newberg or Thermidor ,
and are also used soup, bisque, and cappon magro.
alextangent
May 21, 2013, 12:22:11 PM5/21/13
to
>
> Psychiatry can still be beneficial to exorcise demons. Meds are probably
> better than ECT for the most part. At least trepanning seems to have
> fallen into disfavor as I would need that like a hole in the head.
>
> And I wonder how relevant this classic expose remains:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.abstract
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
>
> As for ECT it shows promise (in a much milder form):
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/shocks-to-the-brain-improve-mathematical-a...
> Psychiatry can still be beneficial to exorcise demons. Meds are probably
> better than ECT for the most part. At least trepanning seems to have
> fallen into disfavor as I would need that like a hole in the head.
>
> And I wonder how relevant this classic expose remains:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.abstract
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
>
> As for ECT it shows promise (in a much milder form):
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57585052/mild-brain-shock-may-imp...
>
> --
> *Hemidactylus*
Compared with mid 20th century, psychiatry is better now; drugs are
targeted, and schizoid behaviours (which are incredibly distressing
for the sufferer) can be alleviated without overly dramatic side
effects. ECT as practiced was never the answer, and neither was
insulin therapy. Both are barbaric treatments analogous to fixing a
watch by hitting it with a hammer.
And psychology is not psychiatry; the former is IMHO pseudo scientific
mumbo jumbo, and has been since Freud. He was a charlatan.
Mark Isaak
May 21, 2013, 12:33:42 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>> better than:
>>>
>>> 1. Exorcism
>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>> 3. ECT
>>> 4. Trepanning
>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>
>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>> depression.
>
> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>> better than:
>>>
>>> 1. Exorcism
>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>> 3. ECT
>>> 4. Trepanning
>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>
>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>> depression.
>
> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
depression. Am I mistaken?
eridanus
May 21, 2013, 3:05:59 PM5/21/13
to
El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 17:22:11 UTC+1, alextangent escribi�:
As you think that psychology is false, I challenge you to study behavior
modification, and come to argue with me. That I know a few words about
this matter.
On the part about Freud I agree with you, but people that is earning his
life with psychoanalysis would not agree, and will feel insulted. Because
if you are priest of god Krishna you are not going to confess you do not
believe in Krishna. And so on for many professions and religions.
If they are earning their life with this, they would fight with you to defend their way of living . And that is an argument of primary school.
Eridanus
modification, and come to argue with me. That I know a few words about
this matter.
On the part about Freud I agree with you, but people that is earning his
life with psychoanalysis would not agree, and will feel insulted. Because
if you are priest of god Krishna you are not going to confess you do not
believe in Krishna. And so on for many professions and religions.
If they are earning their life with this, they would fight with you to defend their way of living . And that is an argument of primary school.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 21, 2013, 3:15:21 PM5/21/13
to
El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 17:33:42 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribi�:
to me some fraud, like many others. But perhaps, exist a way to take out
someone out of depression, but it is not any cheap. Behavior modification
can be a solution if money is not a limitation. But the solution of pills
look sort of cheap, for a pill can cost 50 cents, while an hour of
persona treatment of behavior therapy costs a lot more. How much can cost
50 minutes of work of an specialist? Then a treatment that can last like
90 days? 9,000 or 18,000 dollars? Who can pay this?
This is the reason why behavior therapy is not popular. It is not affordable
by most people, but a handful of rich.
Eridanus
> On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> > On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>
> >>> better than:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 1. Exorcism
>
> >>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>
> >>> 3. ECT
>
> >>> 4. Trepanning
>
> >>> 5. Lobotomies
>
> >>
>
> >> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>
> >> depression.
>
> >
>
> > Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
>
>
> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
>
> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
>
> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
>
>
>
> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
>
> depression. Am I mistaken?
well, neither of us is psychiatrist or psychologist. Verbal therapy seems
>
> > On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> >> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>
> >>> better than:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 1. Exorcism
>
> >>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>
> >>> 3. ECT
>
> >>> 4. Trepanning
>
> >>> 5. Lobotomies
>
> >>
>
> >> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>
> >> depression.
>
> >
>
> > Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
>
>
> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
>
> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
>
> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
>
>
>
> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
>
> depression. Am I mistaken?
to me some fraud, like many others. But perhaps, exist a way to take out
someone out of depression, but it is not any cheap. Behavior modification
can be a solution if money is not a limitation. But the solution of pills
look sort of cheap, for a pill can cost 50 cents, while an hour of
persona treatment of behavior therapy costs a lot more. How much can cost
50 minutes of work of an specialist? Then a treatment that can last like
90 days? 9,000 or 18,000 dollars? Who can pay this?
This is the reason why behavior therapy is not popular. It is not affordable
by most people, but a handful of rich.
Eridanus
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 8:44:50 PM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 09:58 AM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>> better than:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>> 3. ECT
>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>
>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>> depression.
>>
>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
> Not empirically true. It's an odd thing to witness but
> ECT works very well in situations where nothing else
> does.
ECT is preferable in most cases of depression? You are forcefitting a
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>> better than:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>> 3. ECT
>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>
>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>> depression.
>>
>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
> Not empirically true. It's an odd thing to witness but
> ECT works very well in situations where nothing else
> does.
special rare case as an argument against my generalization. Maybe it's
one of those "Gotcha" moments. If it makes you feel better I'll say you
are right and I am wrong to nip any protracted nitpicking in the bud.
>>> Trepanning is an effective treatment for acute injuries
>>> that cause swelling inside the skull.
>>
>> Not a psychological issue though. Trepanning had been used in the past
>> to deal with situations which may have included letting demons out, thus
>> for psychologically relevant purposes if so. If for epilepsy, there
>> might be better ways of dealing with that, including pills.
>>
>>> Exorcism can have a powerful
>>> placebo effect and might be an appropriate treatment if the patient is
>>> convinced they need one.
>>
>> Kinda dubious at best. But I guess if they think so.
>
> What is the pharmaceutical alternative?
diachronic generalization that pills are better than methods used on
people with psychological problems or mental disorders in the past, you
and Mark are focused too narrowly on specific synchronic cases that
don't chip away at my generalization much at all. For instance all I
would say is that in the past exorcisms may have been carried out on
people with schizophrenia or another psychotic condition and these
people would have benefited instead from some modern antipsychotic meds.
Anyone in the present who thinks they are demon possessed just might
benefit from anitpsychotic meds if they are psychotic, but at least from
talking about things if not.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:01:25 PM5/21/13
to
On 05/21/2013 12:33 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>> better than:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>> 3. ECT
>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>
>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>> depression.
>>
>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
OK so you are taking my generalization and arguing against it with an
> On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>> better than:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>> 3. ECT
>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>
>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>> depression.
>>
>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>
> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
extreme case? Because next time I am distraught or depressed over some
situational thing like a broken relationship, I certainly ain't gonna go
asking for ECT. I don't even think pills would be necessary. Things like
that eventually pass on their own.
> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
> depression. Am I mistaken?
generalization above I was talking about mental health *in toto* and
across a wider span of history than you or Roger seem to be acknowledging.
Yet, talking to someone (a friend, family member, or neighbor) can go a
long way toward curing transient cases of situational depression at
least. A therapist isn't always needed, but could help. Maybe pills
might help, but may not take effect until after the temporary reaction
to life's woes has subsided. Or maybe you and Roger are zap happy or
both missing the forest for the trees here.
My diachronic generalization above still stands, your synchronic
nitpicking beside the point.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
May 21, 2013, 9:22:01 PM5/21/13
to
> And psychology is not psychiatry; the former is IMHO pseudo scientific
> mumbo jumbo, and has been since Freud. He was a charlatan.
If you are equating psychology with the works of a *psychoanalyst* you
obviously don't know the roots of psychology or where it went from
there. Freud was an idiosyncratic offshoot or tangent from the main
branch, easily pruned and forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_O._Hebb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Ebbinghaus
--
*Hemidactylus*
Mark Isaak
May 22, 2013, 10:36:51 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/13 12:15 PM, eridanus wrote:
> El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 17:33:42 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribi�:
>>[...]
> El martes, 21 de mayo de 2013 17:33:42 UTC+1, Mark Isaak escribi�:
>>
>> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
>> depression. Am I mistaken?
>
> well, neither of us is psychiatrist or psychologist. Verbal therapy seems
> to me some fraud, like many others. But perhaps, exist a way to take out
> someone out of depression, but it is not any cheap.
Cognitive behavioral therapy has scientifically proven applications, and
>> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
>> depression. Am I mistaken?
>
> well, neither of us is psychiatrist or psychologist. Verbal therapy seems
> to me some fraud, like many others. But perhaps, exist a way to take out
> someone out of depression, but it is not any cheap.
it is, in a sense, a verbal therapy. Verbal therapy also provides a
kind of social support, which is therapeutic (albeit almost always
available for free elsewhere). And sometimes the patient just needs
professional advice on questions such as, "What treatment options are
available?" or "Are these feelings normal?"
> Behavior modification
> can be a solution if money is not a limitation. But the solution of pills
> look sort of cheap, for a pill can cost 50 cents, while an hour of
> persona treatment of behavior therapy costs a lot more. How much can cost
> 50 minutes of work of an specialist? Then a treatment that can last like
> 90 days? 9,000 or 18,000 dollars? Who can pay this?
> This is the reason why behavior therapy is not popular. It is not affordable
> by most people, but a handful of rich.
expensive. The cost meant only the high-class people went there.
Getting psychoanalyzed was a mark of wealth and distinction.
That sort of "treatment" was never more effective than placebo, but that
is not the only kind of verbal therapy.
Mark Isaak
May 22, 2013, 11:06:31 AM5/22/13
to
On 5/21/13 6:01 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 12:33 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>>> better than:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>>> 3. ECT
>>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>>
>>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>>> depression.
>>>
>>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>>
>> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
>> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
>> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
>
> OK so you are taking my generalization and arguing against it with an
> extreme case?
Yes, because your generalization is too general. You as much as said
> On 05/21/2013 12:33 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/21/13 6:15 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2013 12:11 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/13 11:47 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't need to be in bed with Big Pharma to acknowledge pills are
>>>>> better than:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Exorcism
>>>>> 2. Inquisitional tortures of "heretics" or trials used on "witches"
>>>>> 3. ECT
>>>>> 4. Trepanning
>>>>> 5. Lobotomies
>>>>
>>>> ECT still has a place as a last-hope attempt to cure debilitating
>>>> depression.
>>>
>>> Pills or talking it out would be preferable in most cases.
>>
>> And ECT is preferable when the pills don't work. Severe depression is
>> deadly, and ECT can work to treat it. For otherwise intractable cases,
>> no matter how ugly ECT is, it is not as ugly as the alternative.
>
> OK so you are taking my generalization and arguing against it with an
> extreme case?
that ECT is *always* bad. It ain't always bad, and it is important for
people to know that.
> Because next time I am distraught or depressed over some
> situational thing like a broken relationship, I certainly ain't gonna go
> asking for ECT. I don't even think pills would be necessary. Things like
> that eventually pass on their own.
>> I'm not aware that talk therapy is effective against clinical
>> depression. Am I mistaken?
>
> Was I talking about clinical depression?
that I was wrong, and I apologize. However, I am still curious about
whether talk therapy helps clinical depression. (I know, as you say
below, that it can help in situational depression.)
> Yet, talking to someone (a friend, family member, or neighbor) can go a
> long way toward curing transient cases of situational depression at
> least. A therapist isn't always needed, but could help. Maybe pills
> might help, but may not take effect until after the temporary reaction
> to life's woes has subsided. Or maybe you and Roger are zap happy or
> both missing the forest for the trees here.
situational depression. Of course, I recognize that there are many
psychiatrists who would prescribe the pills anyway because they did not
take the time to diagnose that the depression is situational, or because
the patient asked for them, or because they have stock in the drug
company. And drugs would probably come into play if there were other
problems such as insomnia or thoughts of suicide.
> My diachronic generalization above still stands, your synchronic
> nitpicking beside the point.
(Everything else I wrote after my first paragraph is beside even that
point.)
0 new messages