If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Sun)   We're all sick: Half of Americans are in some way mentally ill, and one-quarter of the population has taken anti-depressants, and that doesn't mean that one time at a rave   (nysun.com) divider line 380
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8259 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2008 at 1:33 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



380 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-26 05:50:50 PM
Flavivirus: kjwulff: itzhak: kjwulff: psychology =! science.

Please explain with respect to psychology, where is:

(1) the falsifiability
(2) the predictive hypothesis
(3) the repeatable, controlled experimentation

???

I'm not saying that psychology is not a worthy pursuit as a means of helping the mentally ill (very real problem). I'm just saying it's not science. We're sort of at the leaches and bodily humors stage of understanding the underpinnings of mental illness. Neuroscience is probably going to be the source of these answers eventually, not psychology.

Maybe once in your entire life, you could pick up a psychology journal, a psychiatry journal, a neurology journal (that looks at psychological factors) and take your head out of your ass.

Psychology is a science. "ology" = "the study of"

To actually do psychological research is a rigorous scientific process, and anyone with a background in ANY SCIENCE will tell you that.


Nice.

My head is not in my ass, but thanks. "The study of" something does not make what you are doing "science".

In science, a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis, in order to become an accepted theory, must by tested by experimental processes that are repeatable and yield predictable results, i.e. the hypothesis must have predictive power. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.

In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.
 
2008-03-26 05:52:16 PM
The problem is the borderline people that would benefit more from a good exercise, a healthy diet, and the great sex that comes along with those things.

Meds should be the last line of defense, not the crutch that keeps us living our dull lives.
 
2008-03-26 05:52:56 PM
I think my Tyler Durden is showing....
 
2008-03-26 05:57:37 PM
Why are people depressed? Maybe because we buy things we don't need with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like, who aren't impressed anyway. We do things right now looking for real happiness that isn't for sale.

We have taught people that paying a price for anything of value is weak.

nope nothing like taking the wrong turnpike and ending up in the wrong place and then taking drugs so you don't have to face the facts that you took the friggin exit. Backtrack, get over it and back on the road you wanted to really be on.
 
2008-03-26 06:02:15 PM
soze: You're not all sick. You'd just rather take pills than deal with your farking problems.

Thanks for that great advice jackoff. Seeing how I'm bi-polar with manic tendencies it just means I want to off myself every day. If something keeps me from doing it isn't that a good thing? People that don't suffer obviously don't understand shiat about what people go through. Crying every day for no reason and not being able to control it... is that normal to you? And I'm well educated with an advanced degree so I think I understand my mental condition. I think if anything this country needs more energy placed towards mental health. I guarantee you that 90% of the homeless in this country are people who have an extreme mental illness and have been pushed out into the street because they were never properly treated or couldn't afford any medication.

sorhed: The problem is the borderline people that would benefit more from a good exercise, a healthy diet, and the great sex that comes along with those things.

Hmmm... FYI I work my ass off, go to the gym 5 days a week (a lot more than most who sit on their asses and talk about what other people should do towards physical fitness). I lost 65lbs in 1 1/2 years, and live in NYC so I walk my ass off. I'm on the target low weight, eat extremely healthy every day and get enough sex to keep me happy. So what's your other solution armchair psychiatrists?
 
2008-03-26 06:04:23 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: MikeMc: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Pincy: I've never seen so many amateur Tom Cruise wannabes in a single Fark thread before.

Really? You must be even newer here than I am.

Or perhaps you're not paying attention, hmmm? What color is your brain?

Don't be glib, you're being glib.

Who died and put you in charge of glibness?

/oh wait, I forgot, Fark is for serious bidness.



Ooohhh, that's tough. Did Atypical Person Reading Fark see the Lauer/Cruise interview or not? I'm guessing...yes. So...the answer is: "L Ron Hubbard put me in charge of glibness also known as a state of Glibosity™".
 
2008-03-26 06:05:46 PM
Depressed?

Using only your own body fuel, move yourself for 5 miles a day. I don't care if you walk it, swim it, run it, scooter it, bike it, eliptical machine it, wheelchair it, or some combination of them all. Do it every day, 7 days a week for a month.

If you're still depressed after that month, then you should think about seeing a specialist.
 
2008-03-26 06:14:09 PM
kjwulff: In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.


Partially correct, as far as epidemiological research is concerned, and other cases where you'll have to settle for quasirandomized or worse. But the vast majority of research consists of rigidly randomized and controlled experiments, with everything you could ask for in an experiment. Of course merely correlative studies are not accepted as causative. The sort of research design you have in mind is only in cases where it is not possible for whatever reason (practical or ethical) to do it properly. Check out some journal articles if you can. Do you have any grasp what the average design even looks like?
 
2008-03-26 06:17:54 PM
fatgail: As for my depression, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but ever since I was a child (read: before it was "fashionable") my mother and I have both had RLS, without having a name for it. And for everyone here who says it doesn't exist or is a result of being a lazy fatass, I wish you weeks of sleepless nights because you can't keep your legs still, not for ten minutes, not for an hour, but for EIGHT HOURS, sometimes more, until you're walking LAPS OF YOUR HOUSE to try and tire your body out so you can sleep. It's a nerve disorder, and it has nothing to farking do with being fat or lazy or less cool than you, or a shill of the pharmaceutical companies.

Nor is it the end of the world, debilitating, or particularly PAINFUL, so Im' not looking for sympathy, just here to tell you it is super farking real, incredibly irritating, and when I have it NOTHING, not a hot bath, not sleeping pills, not exercise, not massage, will help it. NOTHING. So you take your psychosomatic and shove it up your ass.

90% of the people in this thread are dicks.


I've never had cancer, and I've never known anyone with cancer, so therefore cancer does not exist.

I've never been raped, and I've never known anyone who has been raped, therefore rape does not happen.

I've never wanted to off myself, and I've never known anyone who has committed suicide, so therefore people who do commit suicide aren't really suffering from a debilitating mental illness -- they're just selfish jerks who don't deserve a funeral.

Etc, etc, etc. Such is the idiocy of the 14-year-olds who post on fark. Don't let it get to ya!
 
2008-03-26 06:19:30 PM
kjwulff: Nice.

My head is not in my ass, but thanks. "The study of" something does not make what you are doing "science".

In science, a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis, in order to become an accepted theory, must by tested by experimental processes that are repeatable and yield predictable results, i.e. the hypothesis must have predictive power. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.

In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.


You clearly have no idea what is done in psychological research. Why don't you go do a little learning yourself, ok? you are speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

Psychological theories are theories. They're attempts and construction of knowledge gathered through the science of psychology

Relying on subjective data is one tiny brand of psychological science, specifically "subjective phenomenology." So yes, subjective phenomenology isn't rigorous science, rather, it tends to be more epidemiological. Psychological science is science. Even way back in Pavlov days: meat = salivation. coupling meat + bell = salivation. bell = salivation. Hypothesis, testable, observable, rinse repeat. AND THAT'S FREAKING 1890!! Do I need to provide you with a link to Pavlov on wikipedia? Or can you look that up for yourself?

Anyone who says that psychology only uses subjective experience has no ideas of the concept of psychogenetics, psychopharmacology, psychoneurology, psychometrics, rater reliability studies, etc.

No concept. You. Specifically. None.
 
2008-03-26 07:03:48 PM
As someone who has gone through the hell that is depression, I think most Americans are farking stupid. They don't understand depression. Everyone gets sad. Everyone goes through a period of unhappiness. Not everyone gets truly depressed. Depression is not just being unhappy. Anxiety problems aren't just feeling a little jumpy.

It's like the people who claim they have migraines, but still manage to go to work and function. True migraines knock you on your ass for at least a few hours in the most horrible pain ever.

Doctors who freely prescribe medications to people for everything should be ashamed of themselves, and the people who take them and feel the need to tell everyone about them (because they're so sick) should be shot...and not given any pain meds.
 
2008-03-26 07:10:42 PM
Eat fish, live longer. Some think fish oil, such as gotten by eating salmon, acts to counter depression and anxiety. Nutritional imbalances, such as deficiencies in magnesium and/or calcium, might cause some instances of anxiety and/or depression.

Tom Cruise is a hero for standing up against the pharmaceutical industry.
 
2008-03-26 07:15:48 PM
methinks: sorhed: The problem is the borderline people that would benefit more from a good exercise, a healthy diet, and the great sex that comes along with those things.

Hmmm... FYI I work my ass off, go to the gym 5 days a week (a lot more than most who sit on their asses and talk about what other people should do towards physical fitness). I lost 65lbs in 1 1/2 years, and live in NYC so I walk my ass off. I'm on the target low weight, eat extremely healthy every day and get enough sex to keep me happy. So what's your other solution armchair psychiatrists?


I think what sorhed meant was that people who may have depression would benefit. As in, someone who has some symptoms of depression but perhaps not enough to be diagnosed with clinical depression. For these people exercise and diet can have a large effect on their mood, so why not try that and talk therapy before going for medication?

Seriously not arguing against psychoactive drugs. I'm on them too. I just agree that many people are prescribed meds unnecessarily.

Also, chill. You attacked someone who wasn't even being a jackarse. Save it for the people saying that its all in our heads.

/see what i did there?
 
2008-03-26 07:18:49 PM
sorhed: The problem is the borderline people that would benefit more from a good exercise, a healthy diet, and the great sex that comes along with those things.

Meds should be the last line of defense, not the crutch that keeps us living our dull lives.


Sometimes you need the meds short term just so you can get good exercise, a healthy diet, and have great sex. If you're so depressed that you can't even leave the house then there is almost no way you will be able to improve on those areas of your life.

But you're right, I think that exercise, diet, and sex (to a lesser degree) are important in treating depression. I just don't agree with the "last resort" statement. For some people that might be fine, but for others not prescribing meds immediately could be tragic. Like any medical condition, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
 
2008-03-26 07:22:54 PM
EmmaLou: As someone who has gone through the hell that is depression, I think most Americans are farking stupid. They don't understand depression.

Elizabeth Wurtzel typifies this. If someone is depressed and manages to graduate from Harvard, something else is probably wrong. If someone in functioning at that level, then they can't be truly depressed. Their moods may be awful, but they are functional. These people should be separated from those that simply can't function in daily life. There should be a new name for it. I've known depressed people and all of them would have sold their souls to be simply sad. Sadness is a feeling, an emotion. Depression is pure emptiness.

Depression is too chic and too much of a catchall term. Melancholy shouldn't be considered an illness, so some sort of new term should be created or popularized.
 
2008-03-26 07:23:24 PM
Get me sum Focusin dammit!

i42.photobucket.com
 
2008-03-26 07:32:43 PM
Suicidal Writer: Elizabeth Wurtzel typifies this. If someone is depressed and manages to graduate from Harvard, something else is probably wrong. If someone in functioning at that level, then they can't be truly depressed.

Heh, come to think of it I may have been someone like that at some point. People did call me a zombie, though, so I may be somewhere inbetween.
 
2008-03-26 07:58:12 PM
America's Next Top Model: Depressed?

Using only your own body fuel, move yourself for 5 miles a day. I don't care if you walk it, swim it, run it, scooter it, bike it, eliptical machine it, wheelchair it, or some combination of them all. Do it every day, 7 days a week for a month.

If you're still depressed after that month, then you should think about seeing a specialist.


Been there, done that. I was a fitness and nutrition freak and still ended up with severe depression. And yes, I saw a specialist.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if a large number of women who frequent the gym were not battling with depression. If they're going to the gym because they enjoy it and for the health benefits, fine. If they're going to the gym because the desperately have to lose those 10 lbs because otherwise no one will love them... well.. that's not a sign of a mentally healthy individual.

Being a gym rat, I knew several bulimics whose method of "purging" wasn't throwing up or taking laxatives, but over-exercising to the extreme in order to help burn off those extra binge calories (i.e. 3 hours at the gym going hard). And yes, that does still qualify as bulimia.
 
2008-03-26 09:05:59 PM
I had an episode of panic attacks/depression. Came from working in academia in a department filled with asshats who cheated me of authorships on publications and paid me a salary so that my family (two infants and my wife) were on WIC. I was using an invention which I eventually patented to screen patients for cancer for asshole MDs making literally 10 times what I was and actually thought they were scientists and I was getting free food from the state. True, I should have walked away but this was a bad situation where it was better to tough it out. Anyway, the workload and constant worrying about money and being jerked around sort of sent me over the edge. Were it not for meds I'm not sure what I would have done.

The bottom line is that sometimes you just lose momentum and that point things can get pretty bad pretty quick. I suppose its sort of like fighting in a war which you don't think you should be in and which you're pretty sure is impossible to win. Sure, lack of character on my part was a factor, but death by a thousand cuts will eventually get to anyone especially when you're in a battle with shadows.

Given the present state of society, I'm sure most people are in the same boat. No satisfaction or security from work, not enough friends, no time to just be a human being. Its not weakness to have that get to you after a long time.
 
2008-03-26 09:34:44 PM
Where is the guy with the big screen tv?
 
2008-03-26 09:40:19 PM
kjwulff
Flavivirus: kjwulff: itzhak: kjwulff: psychology =! science.

Please explain with respect to psychology, where is:

(1) the falsifiability
(2) the predictive hypothesis
(3) the repeatable, controlled experimentation

???

I'm not saying that psychology is not a worthy pursuit as a means of helping the mentally ill (very real problem). I'm just saying it's not science. We're sort of at the leaches and bodily humors stage of understanding the underpinnings of mental illness. Neuroscience is probably going to be the source of these answers eventually, not psychology.

Maybe once in your entire life, you could pick up a psychology journal, a psychiatry journal, a neurology journal (that looks at psychological factors) and take your head out of your ass.

Psychology is a science. "ology" = "the study of"

To actually do psychological research is a rigorous scientific process, and anyone with a background in ANY SCIENCE will tell you that.

Nice.

My head is not in my ass, but thanks. "The study of" something does not make what you are doing "science".

In science, a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis, in order to become an accepted theory, must by tested by experimental processes that are repeatable and yield predictable results, i.e. the hypothesis must have predictive power. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.

In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.


Well, yes, correlations are one kind of research that psychologists will do, but its repeatedly drilled into psychologists (as it is with all scientists) that correlation is not causation, and any psychologist that only has correlation evidence for his hypothesis is not likely to receive an enormous amount of respect. Correlation is a great place to begin testing a hypothesis, but if you want to get the mad props you need, as you say, a predictive hypothesis, falsifiability, and replication. Lets work through an example.

A psychologist has a theory about anxiety. He believes that anxiety, and specifically, panic attacks, are caused by activity in the limbic system of the brain, which increases heart rate, respiration, sweating, and all that good stuff. This is a normal reaction that people have, and its an adaptive part of the "fight or flight" response. He postulates that the difference between "normal" people and people with panic disorders is that while normal people accept this as a relatively benign internal body state, people with anxiety disorders, when they become aware that their body is stimulated up, will perceive this as a very negative state, and that it *means* that they are dieing. In order to test this hypothesis, he gets a sample of people that report panic attacks in social situations, and a sample of people that claim to have never had a panic attack. He gets all of them to run up and down stairs for 10 minutes alone with nobody watching them. afterwards, he counts the number of panic attacks. Hypothesis: limbic activation leads to panic attacks in some people. Prediction: stimulating the limbic system should lead to panic attacks in people that have panic attacks, even in situations where they do not normally have panic attacks - the specific panic cues that cause a specific individuals panic should be irrelevant. Alternate hypothesis: Panic attacks are caused by something else entirely...lets say...Pavlovian conditioning. One traumatic experience in public leads to conditioned fear response in the same situation. Prediction: stimulating the limbic system should lead to no increase in panic attacks when a person is not in the environment that they are conditioned to have panic attacks in. He runs the experiment and looks at the numbers. His research shows that limbic activation does increase panic attacks at a better-than-chance level, so he types it up and submits it to a peer-reviewed journal. Intrigued by this work, one of his colleagues watches people have panic attacks in an FMRI scanner, and locates increased activity in the limbic system. Another one of his colleagues builds a helmet with carefully positioned solenoids which use powerful magnets to stimulate the limbic system directly (for a fascinating example of such a device, Google "god helmet"), and watches people have panic attacks on-demand whenever he turns it on. Another colleague, practicing in the field, and therefore only interested in positive therapeutic outcomes, attacks the hypothesis from a different angle - he counsels all his panic disordered clients in a way that helps them realize that limbic activation is normal and not a sign of a disease-state, rather than the traditional counseling that is intended to help them decrease limbic activation, essentially teaching them to "ride the panic wave out". He collects statistical data on his patients frequency of panic attacks, and compares it to the data he gathered under the old counseling approach. When combined, all of this research builds up a picture of panic attacks that strongly support the limbic-activation model of panic. The daily grind of replication is left to PHD students, and after several replications, Honors students, and eventually, the experiment becomes a fun classroom activity for undergrads.
 
2008-03-26 09:48:41 PM
The people at work don't appreciate you
like you think they should
You experience lethargy during your day
life has treated you unfairly at times
You feel that there is so much more out there for you

well try new and improved fill in the blank
 
2008-03-26 10:05:31 PM
PhonyMcRingRing: kjwulff
Flavivirus: kjwulff: itzhak: kjwulff: psychology =! science.

Please explain with respect to psychology, where is:

(1) the falsifiability
(2) the predictive hypothesis
(3) the repeatable, controlled experimentation

???

I'm not saying that psychology is not a worthy pursuit as a means of helping the mentally ill (very real problem). I'm just saying it's not science. We're sort of at the leaches and bodily humors stage of understanding the underpinnings of mental illness. Neuroscience is probably going to be the source of these answers eventually, not psychology.

Maybe once in your entire life, you could pick up a psychology journal, a psychiatry journal, a neurology journal (that looks at psychological factors) and take your head out of your ass.

Psychology is a science. "ology" = "the study of"

To actually do psychological research is a rigorous scientific process, and anyone with a background in ANY SCIENCE will tell you that.

Nice.

My head is not in my ass, but thanks. "The study of" something does not make what you are doing "science".

In science, a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis, in order to become an accepted theory, must by tested by experimental processes that are repeatable and yield predictable results, i.e. the hypothesis must have predictive power. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.

In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.

Well, yes, correlations are one kind of research that psychologists will do, but its repeatedly drilled into psychologists (as it is with all scientists) that correlation is not causation, and any psychologist that only has correlation evidence for his hypothesis is not likely to receive an enormous amount of respect. Correlation is a great place to begin testing a hypothesis, but if you want to get the mad props you need, as you say, a predictive hypothesis, falsifiability, and replication. Lets work through an example.

A psychologist has a theory about anxiety. He believes that anxiety, and specifically, panic attacks, are caused by activity in the limbic system of the brain, which increases heart rate, respiration, sweating, and all that good stuff. This is a normal reaction that people have, and its an adaptive part of the "fight or flight" response. He postulates that the difference between "normal" people and people with panic disorders is that while normal people accept this as a relatively benign internal body state, people with anxiety disorders, when they become aware that their body is stimulated up, will perceive this as a very negative state, and that it *means* that they are dieing. In order to test this hypothesis, he gets a sample of people that report panic attacks in social situations, and a sample of people that claim to have never had a panic attack. He gets all of them to run up and down stairs for 10 minutes alone with nobody watching them. afterwards, he counts the number of panic attacks. Hypothesis: limbic activation leads to panic attacks in some people. Prediction: stimulating the limbic system should lead to panic attacks in people that have panic attacks, even in situations where they do not normally have panic attacks - the specific panic cues that cause a specific individuals panic should be irrelevant. Alternate hypothesis: Panic attacks are caused by something else entirely...lets say...Pavlovian conditioning. One traumatic experience in public leads to conditioned fear response in the same situation. Pr ...


Flavivirus: kjwulff: Nice.

My head is not in my ass, but thanks. "The study of" something does not make what you are doing "science".

In science, a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis, in order to become an accepted theory, must by tested by experimental processes that are repeatable and yield predictable results, i.e. the hypothesis must have predictive power. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.

In psychology, what is generally done is there are groups of test subjects who exhibit similar symptoms. There histories and reactions are compared with others in the group and checked for statistical collelations. Therefore, any links to phenomenon not directly observed in the subjects themselves are merely correlative, not causitive. The process may be relatively rigorous, but the results are not repeatable (only the statistical correlations), the hypothesis are largely unfalsifiable and the results are unreapeatable because the test subjects are discrete and there are to many uncontrolled variables.

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.

You clearly have no idea what is done in psychological research. Why don't you go do a little learning yourself, ok? you are speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

Psychological theories are theories. They're attempts and construction of knowledge gathered through the science of psychology

Relying on subjective data is one tiny brand of psychological science, specifically "subjective phenomenology." So yes, subjective phenomenology isn't rigorous science, rather, it tends to be more epidemiological. Psychological science is science. Even way back in Pavlov days: meat = salivation. coupling meat + bell = salivation. bell = salivation. Hypothesis, testable, observable, rinse repeat. AND THAT'S FREAKING 1890!! Do I need to provide you with a link to Pavlov on wikipedia? Or can you look that up for yourself?

Anyone who says that psychology only uses subjective experience has no ideas of the concept of psychogenetics, psychopharmacology, psychoneurology, psychometrics, rater reliability studies, etc.

No concept. You. Specifically. None.


O.K. guys. You're right. I was speaking out of (mostly) ignorance of your particular field. So, I've been doing some looking around online. Looks like psychology is not as narrow a field as I thought. Lots of overlap with other sciences, such as neuroscience. So, if you're still out there I'm about to do the stand up sciency thing right here and say IN LIGHT OF THIS NEW EVIDENCE, I WAS WRONG. I CEDE THE POINT TO YOU GLADLY. Psychology has advanced well beyond the leaches and bodily humors stage.

Now, let's talk about those farking chiropractors...
 
2008-03-26 10:14:58 PM
wow a first for everything! much respect...

yeah, those chiropractors...
 
2008-03-26 10:19:27 PM
Fluid:

I'm not bashing psychology. I'm just saying that it is not science.

Partially correct, as far as epidemiological research is concerned, and other cases where you'll have to settle for quasirandomized or worse. But the vast majority of research consists of rigidly randomized and controlled experiments, with everything you could ask for in an experiment. Of course merely correlative studies are not accepted as causative. The sort of research design you have in mind is only in cases where it is not possible for whatever reason (practical or ethical) to do it properly. Check out some journal articles if you can. Do you have any grasp what the average design even looks like?


No, I don't. See my last post. You are right. I spoke out of turn. Thanks for the gentle redirection, sans the "head up my ass" reference of one of the other respondents. I did, in fact, have my head up my ass. Thanks.

/civil discourse is possible on Fark
//pretty rare, though
 
2008-03-26 10:48:28 PM
*shrug* People don't have the time or willpower to fully investigate every possible domain of knowledge out there. I, for example, know nothing about tax law...to the point where i could throw a rock at any random person on the street, and after they've finished beating me up for hitting them with a rock, they could almost certainly tell me a thing or two about my finances that i didn't already know.

/needs to diversify his bonds.
 
2008-03-26 11:29:43 PM
In my experience, health insurance companies have poor track records when it comes to providing _real_ care (and enough of it) for mental illness. Also, they would much rather medicate you and send you on your way than subsidize weekly or twice-monthly therapy sessions - to work on one's underlying "issues."

Myself, I have "issues," and have been in and out of therapy for twenty years - some good, some not so good, some outright shiate (therapists are often as "crazy" as their patients, they're just people) - and I still find that without antidepressants, I have real psychological/emotional problems. I take the minimum dosage possible, and as few drugs as possible, and several times now I've decided "I'm better now" and stopped taking them. Sometimes I did this while in therapy, sometimes not. Either way, I've always ever lasted a few months at most before I see myself spiraling with massive depression and anxiety, and I hate for that to affect my family, and make them suffer. So I've gone back on medication, and have resigned myself that I may always need something to help my brain chemistry.

I've known people with every possible experience, at every level of "mental illness." I do not approach the idea of taking these pills lightly at all. I certainly do think that pills are not enough - everyone can benefit from a good therapist (if you can find one, and good luck). At the moment, I'm extremely lucky and have a fantastic therapist. I can't imagine how I'd be if I didn't have health insurance to help me pay for all this - I could never afford it otherwise. I expect a lot of people can't - often the ones who need it most.

Just my 2 cents.
 
2008-03-27 02:17:12 AM
i242.photobucket.com

Suck on this. I'm a doctor.

/insurance
 
2008-03-27 03:31:45 AM
Can we say media scare tactics and overprescribed medications?
 
2008-03-27 10:24:57 AM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: dc-kid: Atypical Person Reading Fark: People want to be sick so they can be special and get special treatment. The pharmaceutical companies are more than happy to oblige.

We've created an entire nation of disabled people, especially amongst the younger crowd. Don't worry, though, all you have to do is walk in any psychiatrist's office and you, too, can have a diagnosis.

And some meds.

/they'll have to catch me first
//with nets

though a lot of mental disabilities are over diagnosed, if I was to meet you, I think I would have to hit you.

/not trying to be internet tough guy
//you're just ignorant enough to make me want to hit you

A tad irritable, are you?

Exactly what I'm talking about. You have barely controlled violent impulses (which is definitely a disorder) and you like exhibiting in public.

That's just the way it is these days. I'm so happy for you. What is it, anyway? Major depression? Bipolar? Or merely Antisocial? Narcissistic? (since you know so much more than me...that's definitely got to be in the pipe). Narcissists are more likely to be depressed, for obvious reasons - the world just can't measure up.

Oh - I know, I know what you've got! "intermittent explosive disorder."

Wait - it's one of those new ones, isn't it? Dissocial? Maybe a tad Anankastic?

More likely, it's Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. Oddly, I don't think you have Sadistic Personality Disorder, because wanting to smack me isn't all that unusual. However, expressing that desire or acting on it is, in fact, clearly proof that you have an Axis II diagnosis - ask any shrink.

/Half of all Americans have got something, and I guess they're a tad sensitive about their specialness.
//You'd think that half would start feeling normal, right about now and lose some of the antisocial impulses - but nope.
///can and will list more if you can't find yourself on the list


(*sigh*) jesus what an asshat.

go diaf

/not worth it
 
Displayed 30 of 380 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report