amiguity
KJH
tell me how can be?
1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
2.I can not recommend him too highly.
3.No smoking section available.
Alan Jones
"KJH" <dk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tf3olF...@uni-berlin.de...
>I know these following sentences can be interpreted in two ways. Can you
> tell me how can be?
>
> 1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
The writer may be shocked that the professor was undeservedly appointed to a
new job OR that the professor appointed someone unsuitable to a job in his
department. The 's ending is sometimes capable of being interpreted as
active or passive, with the sense determined by the context.
> 2.I can not recommend him too highly.
This can mean either "He does not deserve high praise" or "Even the highest
praise would be inadequate for him". The ambiguity depends on the use of
"too": "I cannot recommend him highly" is not ambiguous, nor is "I cannot
recommend him highly enough".
> 3.No smoking section available.
This can mean "No special section is available for smokers" or "There is a
special section available for non-smokers". Any ambiguity can be resolved by
a hyphen: "No-smoking section available" and (perhaps) "No smoking-section
available". The second is understandable but not idiomatic, and I'd prefer
"No section available for smokers". The ambiguity arises from the
attributive [adjectival] use of nouns instead of adjective phrases, common
on notices where space must be saved.
Alan Jones
Adrian Bailey
Yes and no.
> Can you
> tell me how can be?
>
> 1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
means either that the appointment OF the professor was shocking, or that the
appointment BY the professor was shocking. Which is meant can be worked out
from the context.
> 2.I can not recommend him too highly.
means that I recommend him utterly.
> 3.No smoking section available.
means that there is nowhere to smoke.
Adrian
Mark Barratt
> > 1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
>
> The writer may be shocked that the professor was undeservedly
> appointed to a new job OR that the professor appointed someone
> unsuitable to a job in his department. The 's ending is
> sometimes capable of being interpreted as active or passive,
> with the sense determined by the context.
"Appointment" also has another meaning - an arrangement to do
something (usually to meet someone) at a specified time.
Admittedly, this reading is unlikely here. It's also not clear
who exactly was shocked - it could be the professor, the author,
or some unspecified third person.
Out of context, almost anything can be amiguous [sic].
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest
John Dean
It's like that game where you create a word by adding or subtracting a
letter from an existing word -
'amiguity' - when one friend is indistinguishable from another.
NB - The professor's appointment *was* shocking, but we've all got used
to it now.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Michael DeBusk
> > 1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
>
> means either that the appointment OF the professor was shocking, or
> that the appointment BY the professor was shocking.
Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
John O'Flaherty
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:08:04 GMT, Adrian Bailey <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>1.The professor's appointment was shocking.
>>
>> means either that the appointment OF the professor was shocking, or
>> that the appointment BY the professor was shocking.
>
>
> Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
--
john
Maria Conlon
> "KJH" wrote, in part:
>> I know these following sentences can be interpreted in two ways. Can
>> you tell me how can be?
[...mc]
>
>> 3.No smoking section available.
>
> This can mean "No special section is available for smokers" or "There
> is a special section available for non-smokers". Any ambiguity can be
> resolved by a hyphen: "No-smoking section available" and (perhaps)
> "No smoking-section available". The second is understandable but not
> idiomatic,
I found your explanation a bit confusing because your alternative
wording suggestions are not in the same order as the two meanings you
provide. As I read it, then, your second suggested wording corresponds
with the first meaning you provided. (Do I have that right?)
>....... and I'd prefer "No section available for smokers". The
> ambiguity arises from the attributive [adjectival] use of nouns
> instead of adjective phrases, common on notices where space must be
> saved.
Most often, I see signs such as "Non-Smoking area available" or "No
Smoking" (or, possibly, "Thank you for not smoking"). Not much ambiguity
there[1], yet you can count on someone misunderstanding at times.
As you said, "smoking-section" is not idiomatic (at least in writing
<smile>), but I wonder how often it's written that way, and if it's
considered correct to hyphenate the phrase.
[1] Some folks claim that "Thank you for not smoking" is not an order,
but a request. ("'Thank you'? No, don't thank me. I plan to smoke.")
Maria Conlon, Southeast Michigan, USA.
Peter Morris
You will be very lucky if you get him to work for you.
He will be fired with enthusiasm.
Jordan Abel
>> 3.No smoking section available.
>
> This can mean "No special section is available for smokers" or "There is a
> special section available for non-smokers". Any ambiguity can be resolved
> by a hyphen: "No-smoking section available" and (perhaps) "No
> smoking-section available". The second is understandable but not
> idiomatic, and I'd prefer "No section available for smokers"
What is more often seen [at least, here] is "This is a non-smoking facility"
Michael DeBusk
<quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
>
> An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
> the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
True, though it's usually done by psychiatrists and slaughterhouse
workers. (ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
Peter Moylan
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:56:37 -0500, John O'Flaherty
><quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
>>
>> An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
>> the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
>
>True, though it's usually done by psychiatrists and slaughterhouse
>workers. (ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
That must have been when they started advertising meat "from contented
cows".
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Alan Jones
"Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tgev2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Alan Jones wrote, in part:
>> "KJH" wrote, in part:
>
>>> I know these following sentences can be interpreted in two ways. Can
>>> you tell me how can be?
> [...mc]
>>
>>> 3.No smoking section available.
>>
>> This can mean "No special section is available for smokers" or "There
>> is a special section available for non-smokers". Any ambiguity can be
>> resolved by a hyphen: "No-smoking section available" and (perhaps)
>> "No smoking-section available". The second is understandable but not
>> idiomatic,
>
> I found your explanation a bit confusing because your alternative
> wording suggestions are not in the same order as the two meanings you
> provide. As I read it, then, your second suggested wording corresponds
> with the first meaning you provided. (Do I have that right?)
Yes, you're right. Sorry about changing the order - sheer carelessness,
alas.
>>....... and I'd prefer "No section available for smokers". The
>> ambiguity arises from the attributive [adjectival] use of nouns
>> instead of adjective phrases, common on notices where space must be
>> saved.
> Most often, I see signs such as "Non-Smoking area available" or "No
> Smoking" (or, possibly, "Thank you for not smoking"). Not much ambiguity
> there[1], yet you can count on someone misunderstanding at times.
>
> As you said, "smoking-section" is not idiomatic (at least in writing
> <smile>), but I wonder how often it's written that way, and if it's
> considered correct to hyphenate the phrase.
>
> [1] Some folks claim that "Thank you for not smoking" is not an order,
> but a request. ("'Thank you'? No, don't thank me. I plan to smoke.")
I tried to make as few changes as possible in the original sentences, so
that the grammatical points would not be obscured by stylistic changes. The
emended versions don't all represent what I would have written without
seeing the original. As for hyphens, I think they may be used more in BrE
than in AmE. They do sometimes avoid ambiguity where brevity must take
precedence over the generally better solution of an explicit but expanded
construction. The hyphen used to be much more freely employed than is now
thought stylish, and I don't hesitate to use one if it may assist the
reader. Punctuation, including the hyphen, is primarily a means of steering
the reader securely through the sentence: its "correctness" is a matter of
convention, and must if necessary yield to the demands of sense.
---------
In the UK we, too, often see "Thank you for not smoking" as well as the more
direct "No smoking", and of course also the logo showing a crossed-out
cigarette. Where smoking is generally permitted but an area is set aside for
those who wish to avoid smoke, a sign would probably read simply "No smoking
in this area". At the door, perhaps there would be a notice "The restaurant
has separate areas for smokers and non-smokers".
Alan Jones
meirman
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>[1] Some folks claim that "Thank you for not smoking" is not an order,
>but a request. ("'Thank you'? No, don't thank me. I plan to smoke.")
I thought it was a reply.
This whole topic reminds me of Mexico and Central America. When
someone offered me a cigarette, I would reply, "Gracias, no fumar."
After two weeks or more, I realized that meant, "Thank you, no
smoking" I had seen No Fumar on signs at gas stations. It still makes
me laugh out loud.
So I changed to Gracias, no fumo', accent over the o (although I was
speaking and had no idea where there would be accent marks.)
Eventually, after a couple weeks, I realized that meant Thank you, he
didn't smoke.
I got it right on the third try, Gracias, no fumo. Stress on fu. It
just didn't sound Spanish enough. That's why it was my third choice.
Everyone was so polite, they didn't correct me, but I know I sounded
as silly as tourists do here.
>Maria Conlon, Southeast Michigan, USA.
>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years
meirman
<jma...@purdue.edu> posted:
That's good. The last smoking facility I saw burned down.
meirman
<m_de...@despammed.com> posted:
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:56:37 -0500, John O'Flaherty
><quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
>>
>> An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
>> the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
>
>True, though it's usually done by psychiatrists and slaughterhouse
>workers. (ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
No kidding? Did it relieve depression in cows?
As I may have said before here, my mother had a friend who took ECT.
She was over once and talking about it, and she said it really worked.
AIUI, no one knows why but it works for some where nothing else works.
It's not surprising it was noted in an abattoir, that is, somewhere
else than treating humans. Who would do this to another human, who
would think it would help him.
Spehro Pefhany
pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) wrote:
>Michael DeBusk biomed:
>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:56:37 -0500, John O'Flaherty
>><quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
>>>
>>> An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
>>> the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
>>
>>True, though it's usually done by psychiatrists and slaughterhouse
>>workers. (ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
>
>That must have been when they started advertising meat "from contented
>cows".
As opposed to mad cows?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Tony Cooper
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 2004 06:59:53 GMT, the renowned
>pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) wrote:
>
>>Michael DeBusk biomed:
>>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:56:37 -0500, John O'Flaherty
>>><quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Or that he had an appointment for electro-convulsive therapy.
>>>>
>>>> An interpretation that preserves the ambiguity:
>>>> the prof could still be the shocker or the shockee.
>>>
>>>True, though it's usually done by psychiatrists and slaughterhouse
>>>workers. (ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
>>
>>That must have been when they started advertising meat "from contented
>>cows".
>
>As opposed to mad cows?
I don't know if you know this, but there was an advertising campaign
with the slogan "from contented cows". It was for the milk, and not
the meat, of the cows that was being advertised.
I think it was Borden's milk, but I'm not sure.
Spehro Pefhany
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Carnation, apparently. I did recognize the slogan, but I don't think
it's been actively used for decades. See the bottom right corner of
this page:
http://www.nwamorningnews.com/pdfarchive/2000/January/05/C1.pdf
As the old UL verse went:
Carnation milk is the best in the land;
Here I sit with a can in my hand -
No tits to pull, no hay to pitch,
You just punch a hole in the son of a bitch.
I still think ECT is a plausible treatment for mad cows. Maybe they
could then sell the meat if they got it to market quickly.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I still think ECT is a plausible treatment for mad cows. Maybe they
> could then sell the meat if they got it to market quickly.
I'd love to know how they discovered the sometimes beneficial
effects. The only times I've ever seen them use the stunner (a sort
of great big tongs thing) was on smaller animals.
Mike.
Michael DeBusk
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd love to know how they discovered the sometimes beneficial
> effects. The only times I've ever seen them use the stunner (a sort
> of great big tongs thing) was on smaller animals.
The so-called "beneficial effects" were discovered when the
slaughterhouse workers realized that a jold of electricity through the
brain made the animals less resistant to being killed.
Using it on people who are unpleasant to be around isn't such a great
leap of logic, is it?
(If you missed it, I'm no fan of ECT.)
Michael DeBusk
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
> I still think ECT is a plausible treatment for mad cows. Maybe they
> could then sell the meat if they got it to market quickly.
FWIW, it's the eating of infected meat that spreads the disease.
Farmers sell dead animals to processing companies, and those companies
turn the dead animals into feed for live animals.
They aren't allowed to do this anymore, last I checked, but since when
did that stop them?
Michael DeBusk
> >(ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
>
> No kidding? Did it relieve depression in cows?
It made the animals easier to kill. They didn't fight the slaughter.
> As I may have said before here, my mother had a friend who took ECT.
> She was over once and talking about it, and she said it really
> worked. AIUI, no one knows why but it works for some where nothing
> else works.
Some claim that it works the same way a good beating does; by releasing
endorphins into the body. We don't beat the shit out of psych patients
anymore (at least not officially; I'm sure there is still a lot of it
going around). It used to be an accepted treatment. Lots of other types
of vivisection were accepted as treatment of mental illness as well.
> Who would do this to another human, who would think it would help
> him.
You might be surprised at how much "treatment" is "administered" to a
psych patient for no medically justifiable reason. One acquaintence of
mine, a psychiatric nurse, likes to say that on a couple of units where
he has worked, the patients were given anti-anxiety medication so the
staff wouldn't feel anxiety.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not done at my hospital. I am
aware of one instance where a nurse was mean to a patient, and that
nurse was fired the next day. We're pretty good here.
Sometimes I think we might be too nice to them, though; "too nice" is
not in accord with the Real World, and we should be helping them live
in the Real World. For example, if a patient gropes a nurse's breast, i
think she should slap his face. She'd slap me if I groped her; she'd
slap him if he groped her in a bar or nightclub; why shouldn't he
learn, in the controlled environment of a locked psychiatric unit, that
if you grope a woman, she slaps you?
Peter Moylan
>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:42 +0100, Mike Lyle
><mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'd love to know how they discovered the sometimes beneficial
>> effects. The only times I've ever seen them use the stunner (a sort
>> of great big tongs thing) was on smaller animals.
>
>The so-called "beneficial effects" were discovered when the
>slaughterhouse workers realized that a jold of electricity through the
>brain made the animals less resistant to being killed.
>
>Using it on people who are unpleasant to be around isn't such a great
>leap of logic, is it?
Aha! So the killfile in my newsreader ... sorry, I shouldn't complete
that thought.
Robin Bignall
Moylan) wrote:
>Michael DeBusk biomed:
>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:48:42 +0100, Mike Lyle
>><mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd love to know how they discovered the sometimes beneficial
>>> effects. The only times I've ever seen them use the stunner (a sort
>>> of great big tongs thing) was on smaller animals.
>>
>>The so-called "beneficial effects" were discovered when the
>>slaughterhouse workers realized that a jold of electricity through the
>>brain made the animals less resistant to being killed.
>>
>>Using it on people who are unpleasant to be around isn't such a great
>>leap of logic, is it?
>
>Aha! So the killfile in my newsreader ... sorry, I shouldn't complete
>that thought.
Intel has not yet implemented the full ECT (Explode Computer Terminal)
instruction. The M$ SADWBS (Sigh and Die with Blue Screen) is not
usually fatal.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Mark Barratt
>
> You might be surprised at how much "treatment" is
> "administered" to a psych patient for no medically justifiable
> reason. One acquaintence of mine, a psychiatric nurse, likes to
> say that on a couple of units where he has worked, the patients
> were given anti-anxiety medication so the staff wouldn't feel
> anxiety.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not done at my hospital. I
> am aware of one instance where a nurse was mean to a patient,
> and that nurse was fired the next day. We're pretty good here.
>
> Sometimes I think we might be too nice to them, though; "too
> nice" is not in accord with the Real World, and we should be
> helping them live in the Real World. For example, if a patient
> gropes a nurse's breast, i think she should slap his face.
> She'd slap me if I groped her; she'd slap him if he groped her
> in a bar or nightclub; why shouldn't he learn, in the
> controlled environment of a locked psychiatric unit, that if
> you grope a woman, she slaps you?
In the USA? Wouldn't the hospital find itself employing more
lawyers than nurses? You're probably safer with the anti-anxiety
drugs.
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest
Michael DeBusk
<pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
> Aha! So the killfile in my newsreader ... sorry, I shouldn't
> complete that thought.
A quote from SLRN guru Sven Guckes:
"We need killfiles that really kill!"
Michael DeBusk
> In the USA? Wouldn't the hospital find itself employing more
> lawyers than nurses? You're probably safer with the anti-anxiety
> drugs.
The hospital is definitely safer... but I don't believe the patient is
better off.
Raymond S. Wise
news:NW%cd.2051$ta5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:57:48 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > >(ECT was invented in an Italian abattoir.)
> >
> > No kidding? Did it relieve depression in cows?
>
> It made the animals easier to kill. They didn't fight the slaughter.
The actual origin of ECT lies elsewhere. Deliberately putting patients into
insulin shock came first (it had been observed that diabetic patients with a
mental illness had symptom relief after accidental insulin shock). It was
natural for electric shock to replace insulin shock, since electricity was
much more controllable and patients could die from insulin shock.
>
> > As I may have said before here, my mother had a friend who took ECT.
> > She was over once and talking about it, and she said it really
> > worked. AIUI, no one knows why but it works for some where nothing
> > else works.
>
> Some claim that it works the same way a good beating does; by releasing
> endorphins into the body. We don't beat the shit out of psych patients
> anymore (at least not officially; I'm sure there is still a lot of it
> going around). It used to be an accepted treatment. Lots of other types
> of vivisection were accepted as treatment of mental illness as well.
>
> > Who would do this to another human, who would think it would help
> > him.
>
> You might be surprised at how much "treatment" is "administered" to a
> psych patient for no medically justifiable reason. One acquaintence of
> mine, a psychiatric nurse, likes to say that on a couple of units where
> he has worked, the patients were given anti-anxiety medication so the
> staff wouldn't feel anxiety.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not done at my hospital. I am
> aware of one instance where a nurse was mean to a patient, and that
> nurse was fired the next day. We're pretty good here.
>
> Sometimes I think we might be too nice to them, though; "too nice" is
> not in accord with the Real World, and we should be helping them live
> in the Real World. For example, if a patient gropes a nurse's breast, i
> think she should slap his face. She'd slap me if I groped her; she'd
> slap him if he groped her in a bar or nightclub; why shouldn't he
> learn, in the controlled environment of a locked psychiatric unit, that
> if you grope a woman, she slaps you?
>
> --
> Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
> Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
ECT works, and it is the preferred treatment for certain patients: those for
whom medication does not work and elderly patients for whom the side effects
of medication are too dangerous. There is no reason to believe that the way
it is usually administered now it is any more dangerous than treatment with
medication, and there are reasons to believe that in some cases it is in
fact less dangerous, namely, when patients are suicidal. Patients can kill
themselves with an overdose of some antidepressant medications (although
those medications are much rarer now than they once were), but a patient
obviously cannot kill himself with ECT.
The main objection to ECT, it seems to me, should be that it can sometimes
result in some loss of long-term memory--but what has been measured as being
lost appears to be very minor things (the names of old TV shows, for
example), and it seems to me it is well worth losing such memories if the
alternative is to continue to be deeply depressed, with the associated
danger of suicide.
Some might object that we don't know for sure *why* ECT works. But that is
no reason to avoid it: Cretinism and scurvy were prevented with iodine and
citrus juice before anyone knew *why* those measures should work. The same
can be said for the treatment of diseases with antibiotics. The fact is, ECT
works and it appears to be generally quite safe as medical treatments go.
Eventually, of course, scientists will be confident that they know why ECT
works. It may well be that the future treatment of depression will be
largely a form of ECT coming from a computer-controlled implanted electrical
device, because it would give a level of control of the symptoms of
depression which is lacking with medication. I'm led to this belief by the
existence of electrical devices for treating pain (such as that which Jerry
Lewis uses) and for treating other neurological symptoms (trembling, for
example).
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Michael DeBusk
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
> The actual origin of ECT lies elsewhere.
No, it doesn't. Insulin shock and electric shock are two different
things COMPLETELY. I would think that most people understand the
electric form; the other form of "shock" is a potentially lethal drop
in blood pressure. To be perfectly technical, shock has caused every
death that has ever happened to any creature with a circulatory system.
> ECT works, and it is the preferred treatment for certain patients:
> those for whom medication does not work and elderly patients for
> whom the side effects of medication are too dangerous.
Your attention to the marketing materials of those who sell ECT
machines is duly noted. My opinion is not drawn from that, though, but
from the actual experience of people.
> There is no reason to believe that the way it is usually
> administered now it is any more dangerous than treatment with
> medication
That is still not a reason to do it.
Yes, there are cases where it has worked. That does not mean it is
indicated as a viable treatment.
I wouldn't object to same-hemisphere ECT, wherein the electrodes are
placed on one side of the head only. This has, indeed, been shown to be
just as effective as the other form of ECT, and *without* the terrible
side-effects. But psychiatrists aren't using it. Why? One admitted to a
fellow psychiatrist that he happened to like the way both-hemisphere
ECT left his patients in a state of almost-humanness. Bloody bastard.
> there are reasons to believe that in some cases it is in
> fact less dangerous, namely, when patients are suicidal.
Neither ECT nor medication is effective against suicidality.
The most effective method I've ever discovered (It's worked every
single time I've done it) is to ask one simple question.
> a patient obviously cannot kill himself with ECT.
No. ECT, and other forms of lobotomy, tend to remove all sorts of
motivation, positive and negative.
> The main objection to ECT, it seems to me, should be that it can
> sometimes result in some loss of long-term memory
Not sometimes. Often.
> but what has been measured as being lost appears to be very minor
> things
Such as two years of a person's life. Every single memory gone. A real
person, Raymond, not a statistic or a bit of marketing hype from an ECT
machine manufacturer. A good friend of mine who can't remember her
child's infancy or anything around it. And it didn't relieve her
symptoms. Nothing they did worked. She faced depression for years, and
was considered a lost cause, until a one-hour conversation over the
telephone with me. But I still haven't found a way to help her remember
her child's infancy and toddlerhood.
> Eventually, of course, scientists will be confident that they know
> why ECT works.
They can be confident about it and still be completely incorrect.
They're already confident that mental illness is a "brain disease"
dispite the absence of a single shred of credible evidence in that
direction. Quite confident.
> It may well be that the future treatment of depression will be
> largely a form of ECT coming from a computer-controlled implanted
> electrical device
What the hell, Raymond; let's bring back asylums.
> I'm led to this belief by the existence of electrical devices for
> treating pain (such as that which Jerry Lewis uses) and for treating
> other neurological symptoms (trembling, for example).
And which work in a completely different way than ECT.
Raymond S. Wise
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:59:20 -0500, Raymond S. Wise
> <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> > The actual origin of ECT lies elsewhere.
>
> No, it doesn't. Insulin shock and electric shock are two different
> things COMPLETELY. I would think that most people understand the
> electric form; the other form of "shock" is a potentially lethal drop
> in blood pressure. To be perfectly technical, shock has caused every
> death that has ever happened to any creature with a circulatory system.
I was talking about the history of ECT. It was created as a substitute for
insulin-shock therapy. Patients were deliberately put into insulin shock in
order to treat symptoms of mental illness. It worked, but was dangerous. ECT
was invented as a safer substitute.
>
> > ECT works, and it is the preferred treatment for certain patients:
> > those for whom medication does not work and elderly patients for
> > whom the side effects of medication are too dangerous.
>
> Your attention to the marketing materials of those who sell ECT
> machines is duly noted. My opinion is not drawn from that, though, but
> from the actual experience of people.
My information comes from college psychology courses--I have a BA in
psychology--from independent reading since I graduated, and from the actual
experience of people I know.
>
> > There is no reason to believe that the way it is usually
> > administered now it is any more dangerous than treatment with
> > medication
>
> That is still not a reason to do it.
I don't see why not.
>
> Yes, there are cases where it has worked. That does not mean it is
> indicated as a viable treatment.
It not only works, it is a highly successful treatment.
>
> I wouldn't object to same-hemisphere ECT, wherein the electrodes are
> placed on one side of the head only. This has, indeed, been shown to be
> just as effective as the other form of ECT, and *without* the terrible
> side-effects. But psychiatrists aren't using it. Why? One admitted to a
> fellow psychiatrist that he happened to like the way both-hemisphere
> ECT left his patients in a state of almost-humanness. Bloody bastard.
I have no respect for a psychiatrist who uses ECT as anything other than a
way of treating the symptoms of mental illness. I am indeed aware of a sort
of ECT in which the patient was brought to a very low state, which was
likely the sort of thing you are referring to when you speak of "a state of
almost-humanness." I expect that psychiatrists who favored that practice
operated from some crackpot theory such as psychoanalysis. If that type of
ECT is still being used, it should be banned.
>
> > there are reasons to believe that in some cases it is in
> > fact less dangerous, namely, when patients are suicidal.
>
> Neither ECT nor medication is effective against suicidality.
Of course they are. People who are clinically depressed commit suicide.
Relieve the symptoms of clinical depression and you greatly reduce the
possibility the patient will kill himself. In addition, I was making the
point that ECT is safer than treatment with medications *because one can
kill oneself with some medications.*
>
> The most effective method I've ever discovered (It's worked every
> single time I've done it) is to ask one simple question.
What the heck does *that* mean?
>
> > a patient obviously cannot kill himself with ECT.
>
> No. ECT, and other forms of lobotomy, tend to remove all sorts of
> motivation, positive and negative.
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying that ECT *reduces* the
possibility of a patient committing suicide, because it "tend[s] to remove
all sorts of motivation, positive and negative."
Prefrontal lobotomy was an example of very bad science and very bad
medicine, but there are neurosurgeries which are much more limited than that
which *are* effective in treating certain patients, for example patients
with extremely severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Given how awful that
illness is, it may well be worth taking the chance knowing that something
may go wrong (as one takes a chance with all neurosurgery).
>
> > The main objection to ECT, it seems to me, should be that it can
> > sometimes result in some loss of long-term memory
>
> Not sometimes. Often.
>
> > but what has been measured as being lost appears to be very minor
> > things
>
> Such as two years of a person's life. Every single memory gone. A real
> person, Raymond, not a statistic or a bit of marketing hype from an ECT
> machine manufacturer. A good friend of mine who can't remember her
> child's infancy or anything around it. And it didn't relieve her
> symptoms. Nothing they did worked. She faced depression for years, and
> was considered a lost cause, until a one-hour conversation over the
> telephone with me. But I still haven't found a way to help her remember
> her child's infancy and toddlerhood.
I'm not saying that didn't happen, but people are *always* suffering awful
side-effects from effective medical treatments. That does not, in itself,
invalidate those treatments.
>
> > Eventually, of course, scientists will be confident that they know
> > why ECT works.
>
> They can be confident about it and still be completely incorrect.
> They're already confident that mental illness is a "brain disease"
> dispite the absence of a single shred of credible evidence in that
> direction. Quite confident.
>
> > It may well be that the future treatment of depression will be
> > largely a form of ECT coming from a computer-controlled implanted
> > electrical device
>
> What the hell, Raymond; let's bring back asylums.
That's a non sequitur. Such a treatment would *free* the patient, compared
to the situation which exists today, just as medication for treating mental
illness had a freeing effect when compared to the situation which existed
before such medication was developed.
>
> > I'm led to this belief by the existence of electrical devices for
> > treating pain (such as that which Jerry Lewis uses) and for treating
> > other neurological symptoms (trembling, for example).
>
> And which work in a completely different way than ECT.
What is common between such treatments for pain (for example) and ECT is
that electricity offers more control than medication. Even in the history of
ECT itself, this has been demonstrated, because ECT offered more control and
was safer than insulin-shock therapy.
Odysseus
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:59:20 -0500, Raymond S. Wise
> <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
>
> Neither ECT nor medication is effective against suicidality.
>
> The most effective method I've ever discovered (It's worked every
> single time I've done it) is to ask one simple question.
>
--
Odysseus
Michael DeBusk
<odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> > The most effective method I've ever discovered (It's worked every
> > single time I've done it) is to ask one simple question.
> >
> Like Perceval?
Yes. Well, not that particular question. :) A question more closely
akin to Joseph Campbell's observation that the spirit is not what is
breathed into a life, but what is breathed out of it. When someone
tells me they want to die, I ask,
"Do you really want to die, or do you just want to stop living the way
you've been living?"
The most common response is a serious and thoughtful nod and "I never
thought about it that way... there's a difference, isn't there." Then
they shake their heads as if thinking, "I almost did something stupid."
Eventually they start talking about their job or their family in such a
way that it is apparent they see themselves continuing to live. Nobody
who's genuinely suicidal will bitch about the hospital taking so long.
"I gotta get home and get to bed, damn it, I gotta go to work
tomorrow!" is a nice thing to hear from someone who had, a couple of
hours earlier, tried to die.
My favorite response so far was from a guy who shouted, "Holy SHIT! I
tried to KILL myself! God DAMN, I'm a fuckin' idiot!" He'd had a bit to
drink. "Liquid Courage", I guess.
The only person who's ever said to me, "No, I want to die", was so
wasted on the alcohol and drugs she'd used to attempt an overdose that
she could barely get the words out. However, she's the one who came
back, months later, boyfriend in tow, and introduced the guy to me.
"This is my best friend," she said to her boyfriend. "He saved my
life." The guy shook my hand and thanked me for giving her back to him.
I was just surprised that she remembered me.
It's a simple question, and just reading it makes it look weak. I
imagine that the way I say it -- timing, rhythm, inflection, facial
expression, tonality, and so on -- adds a great deal. I'm a hypnotist,
after all, so there's a great deal of power behind what isn't said.
Before I say it I enter a state of genuine curiosity and let my own
other-than-conscious mind take care of the details. It seems to work. I
find a state of genuine curiosity to be one of the most incredibly
useful things on the planet, especially when talking with someone who's
in a crisis of mental illness. (Except, of course, for paranoids. For
those folks, a state of businesslike "do you want fries with that?"
neutrality works far better. It's almost funny how the paranoid
schizophrenics are afraid of everyone at the hospital but me. I'm the
only person in their life who's not trying very, very hard to convince
them of something, so I suppose they convince themselves.)
Anyway... "life" is an ambiguous word. It can mean the breathing in and
out of air and the pumping of blood, or it can encompass everything you
habitually do. When someone says their life is terrible, they're
probably not talking about respiration and circulation, but about the
daily grind of their job and the fights with their wife and the
disrespect of their teen children and the phone calls from their credit
card companies and on and on and on. And somehow, they get the idea
that wanting to stop their life means they want to stop living. All I
do is point out that there's a difference, and then they can make a
better decision. They always have.
Thanks for bringing up the Grail legend. I'd never considered asking
someone a variant on "Who is served by the Grail?" before. That may
come in handy sometime.
asdf
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Do you really want to die, or do you just want to stop living the way
> you've been living?"
Do you have any medical training?
Michael DeBusk
> > "Do you really want to die, or do you just want to stop living the
> > way you've been living?"
>
> Do you have any medical training?
Yes. Why does it matter? The intent to commit suicide is not a medical
condition, but an emotional one.