WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Gender Fluidity and Linguistic Grounding

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:26 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default


Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
So I noticed this distinction being made. We're probably working off of completely different distinctions. For me the terms are interchangeable. But from now I'll use gender to refer to a fluid identity if you like.
Well, it's not "what I like", but the standard accepted definition. Sex refers to who you are physically, sexuality refers to who you're attracted to, and gender refers to who you are mentally.

Gender comes from the same Latin root as "genre", and it used to mean the same thing: a category of some kind. Later it came to be synonymous with "sex", and later still it came to be synonymous with "brain sex" (for want of a better term). I kind of assumed you had been tracking the conversation before you first posted, where Blue and I had gone over this.

That sort of changes things. If you were to say biologically I'm a man but I like to think of myself as a woman that would be entirely accurate in my book and we can put this one to bed.
I absolutely understand your objection now. Sorry if I was a little harsh in a few things I said.

I suspect this isn't really the claim though, the claim is that SEX (gender) is not binary... right?
I think you'll find they mean what they say = gender. But even sex isn't technically binary. There is a scale of intersexuality to the point where some people are born with both sets of genitalia and doctors are at a loss to decide whether they aught to perform surgery to make the person male or female because they simply don't know at that point what the person will come to identify as in terms of gender. There was a famous case where an intersex baby was born and they made a decision to perform surgery to make it female (removed the male genitalia) only to have the person identify as the opposite gender (the person was never told about their surgery until well into adulthood, so this wasn't something driven by doubt over which they might have been). They did so despite being raised a biological female, and this was years before the term "transsexual" was even widely known. They had a terrible life trying to be the gender opposite of their sex and ended up killing themselves.

Most people wouldn't. But some might make the argument that pronouns which have no universal consensus, no limits in terms of their proliferation, which are changeable according to whim alone and hold legal implications should you not choose to subscribe to or keep up with the terminology is wrong. Or rather, you should be able to choose whether to conform or not, and be free to do so without fear of prosecution. I think that's fair.
Yep, that's fair.



But dude I literally just said I have NO idea whether gender dysPHORIA is a choice. So we don't need to debate that. The point I've made which is actually inarguable is that when someone makes the claim that they are non-binary they are not making a scientific claim but they are making a legal claim. For them to be making a scientific claim they need lab results. And like I said it's the same thing when it comes to mental illness, although there is a little more scientific involvement in this area we're still just talking conditions voted in by peer consensus, and diagnosis based on a checklist of behavioural traits rather than lab results. You're a scientifically minded person, you must see how each scenario is essentially arbitrary as it is.
And I accepted that you said you didn't know whether it was a choice, but you then immediately communicated paragraphs that implied otherwise. That was before we knew we were using the term gender in different ways, so I can see how that happened now.

Some people may be coming from a non-scientific place when they assert their gender identity. Others are coming from a more grounded (more - not perfectly) scientific place if they've followed the protocol of transsexual transition and seen at least two psychiatrists for extended timeframes for a diagnosis.

If the main thrust of your argument is that people shouldn't be able to alter the law on the basis of opinion I agree. The reason I've been so vocal in trying to establish neuro-biological causality for transsexuals is because I don't think, for most of them, it is an opinion. I think it's something they couldn't change even if they tried.

Again if we're saying sex is binary here (and gender is something different) then the debate is over in my eyes and we're just reduced to semantics.
Ok, thanks for the discussion.



This is a sidebar but for me aww man totally scientist's (psychologists) fault. Conditions are just made up man, voted into existence based on peer reviews and diagnosed based on behavioural checklists. And the standard for marketable substances I believe is two positive results, out however many tests you like. It's this unscientific bedrock that allows the whole shit heap to pile. No way you could exonerate science from that one, especially when you look at side effects, it's disgraceful.
Any and all conditions, whether they're psychological or physical, are "made up" to a certain degree. No two leg breaks are ever going to be exactly the same, yet we have a name for them because they're similar enough between persons to warrant a category. The same process occurs for psychological conditions: psychiatrists see the clusters of symptoms often enough to warrant creating a name to apply to further instances of it. It doesn't mean the conditions are new or made up - just the label is made up. It just means they've identified the traits as often occurring in concert and applied a term to them for the sake of convenience. Doctors are, for the most part, very smart people. If you don't trust consensus decisions made by them in peer-reviewed settings who can you trust?

If you really think about medication the issue is as I iterated it before: the real culprits for their proliferation are those involved in supply and demand. That would include people who are unwilling to deal with life as it stands and demand a pill to make it easier (demand, obviously), and pharmaceutical giants who manipulate scientific studies to emphasize the benefits and diminish the risks, who provide incentives for doctors if they prescribe more of their product and generally lie to doctors about the effectiveness and range of on and off-label applications, who engage in advertising campaigns to promote their product... (supply, obviously).

The actual scientists are just producing novel raw materials that these other forces then annex to their agendas. The scientist doesn't even know exactly, when he or she is creating a novel chemical, what the end use is likely to be. Yes, scientists are often pressured into, or rewarded for, fudging their results so as to make a medication seem more attractive and less dangerous, but again this is driven by profit-driven motives of big pharma that are in turn driven by forces of supply and demand.


Last edited by eripiomundus; 10-25-2017 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:53 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Oh gosh I didn't see this one...

*sigh*

So Antifa nutjob let's start there. Do you think that their motives are entirely genuine and there's is nothing of a popularity contest which exists against a backdrop of victimhood in this circle? If you doubt it it's worth listening to one, long talk but worthwhile to get a handle on the mindset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN2ZTpqr8sQ

In my experience most every prevalent social injustice has this type of dynamic within its oppositional groups. There is a type whose motives are more about self-aggrandizement and cultism, characterised by hypersensitivity, and an inability for self-analyses.

I'm mixed raced, so are my kids, my partner is African, for every discrimination we all may face at one point or another there is some race baiting hypersensitive double-standard ridden SJW who is unveiling their moral indignation like a peacocks feathers on our behalf. And that usually makes me want to puke (I thankfully have not watched two girls one cup... incidentally who does that?)

As for Nazis... the point is the word is bounded about as though we are SURROUNDED. I know a few people, no one comes close to being a Nazi... yet I hear the accusation ten times a day, something's wrong. For some little snowflakes out there everyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi... it is what it is.

I think you've just jumped to a bunch of conclusions and reacted emotionally.
I get what you are saying, I really do. I do not like how the far left tries to make women and minorities victims. I think when people on the far left have simpering pity parties it comes off as condescending and annoying. And then you have the other side, the far right who makes victims out of people but not with pity but with hate. Both sides are wrong. You don't empower people by feeling sorry for them and constantly reminding them that the world is stacked against them, but you also can't change social inequalities by not addressing them, there needs to be a balance.

Look at the issue with the Niqab, if I were to say people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with their faces covered because it isn't practical I would be branded as prejudice. That is a problem.

Honestly I think we should just give an island to members of far right hate groups, their far left butt buddies, pedophiles, murderers and rapists and let them fight it out to the death, they are dragging us all down in the muck with them.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:59 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
I get what you are saying, I really do. I do not like how the far left tries to make women and minorities victims. I think when people on the far left have simpering pity parties it comes off as condescending and annoying. And then you have the other side, the far right who makes victims out of people but not with pity but with hate. Both sides are wrong. You don't empower people by feeling sorry for them and constantly reminding them that the world is stacked against them, but you also can't change social inequalities by not addressing them, there needs to be a balance.

Look at the issue with the Niqab, if I were to say people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with their faces covered because it isn't practical I would be branded as prejudice. That is a problem.

Honestly I think we should just give an island to members of far right hate groups, their far left butt buddies, pedophiles, murderers and rapists and let them fight it out to the death, they are dragging us all down in the muck with them.
You're right. Militants of any persuasion are massively problematic. They usually comprise a small percentage of any given demographic, and yet they cause an outrageously disproportionate amount of trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:04 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

And yet people give them so much attention — enough attention in fact that good people end up becoming annoyed with them and disregard the well-being and needs of individuals who entire groups think they have the right to speak for.
__________________
My words are edible

Last edited by Loser&Loner; 10-25-2017 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-26-2017, 03:01 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
I get what you are saying, I really do. I do not like how the far left tries to make women and minorities victims. I think when people on the far left have simpering pity parties it comes off as condescending and annoying. And then you have the other side, the far right who makes victims out of people but not with pity but with hate. Both sides are wrong. You don't empower people by feeling sorry for them and constantly reminding them that the world is stacked against them, but you also can't change social inequalities by not addressing them, there needs to be a balance.
For minorities my litmus test for whether anyone is serious about addressing inequalities is whether they mention single parenthood (ideally first).

The vast majority don't, because it implies self responsibility which people usually don't want to hear. The evacuation of fathers from families in general is so degenerative no group can hope to prosper when this phenomena is prevalent. And it's something that's within people's power to change rather than some abstract notion for how the state is going to fix everything.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-26-2017, 03:18 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Any and all conditions, whether they're psychological or physical, are "made up" to a certain degree. No two leg breaks are ever going to be exactly the same, yet we have a name for them because they're similar enough between persons to warrant a category.
We're back to the same argument here, ie: the difference between peer review and diagnosis based on observance, completely open to interpretation, and actual biological tests.

The way mental illness is diagnosed is like me looking up all the symptoms of cancer on the internet, ticking enough of the symptoms and going straight to chemo prior to any scans to actually identify a tumour.

I can't just say I have a broken leg, you have to scan me. I can just say I have depression, you might as well take my word for it. Therein lies the distinction.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-26-2017, 05:28 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,837
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
For minorities my litmus test for whether anyone is serious about addressing inequalities is whether they mention single parenthood (ideally first).

The vast majority don't, because it implies self responsibility which people usually don't want to hear. The evacuation of fathers from families in general is so degenerative no group can hope to prosper when this phenomena is prevalent. And it's something that's within people's power to change rather than some abstract notion for how the state is going to fix everything.
In other words, culture does really matter. Encouraging a system where mother/father stay together helps with short and long term success. Single parent families, especially multiple generations of single parent families lowers the chance for education, success, etc.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-26-2017, 06:16 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
We're back to the same argument here, ie: the difference between peer review and diagnosis based on observance, completely open to interpretation, and actual biological tests.

The way mental illness is diagnosed is like me looking up all the symptoms of cancer on the internet, ticking enough of the symptoms and going straight to chemo prior to any scans to actually identify a tumour.

I can't just say I have a broken leg, you have to scan me. I can just say I have depression, you might as well take my word for it. Therein lies the distinction.
When I mention that chronic depression causes physical differences in the brain you ignore me, so what I am supposed to say? It doesn't seem to matter to you when I put forth concrete scientific evidence. You continually claim there's no evidence, then when I give it you say the evidence doesn't matter, that it's only a legal affair, and then you go right back to saying there's no evidence.

I respectfully bow out of the discussion. There's no point.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-27-2017, 01:36 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
When I mention that chronic depression causes physical differences in the brain you ignore me, so what I am supposed to say? It doesn't seem to matter to you when I put forth concrete scientific evidence. You continually claim there's no evidence, then when I give it you say the evidence doesn't matter, that it's only a legal affair, and then you go right back to saying there's no evidence.

I respectfully bow out of the discussion. There's no point.
Dude you're really not getting it. It doesn't matter whether there is a biological basis for depression... this DOES NOT factor into the diagnosis process.

I can go to a psychologist which will be free (contributed towards by my company and subsidised by the government) right now and complain of depression, I could be there for ten minutes, no scan, no tests, no therapy really, and walk out with a prescription for an SSRI. This is the basis for how so many people are being medicated for mental health. And imagine if the prescription was only granted if they could 'find' the depression in my body can you see that working?

People would be out in the streets, they want their drugs. But anyway I can't just walk into the doctors surgery and complain of a broken leg and walk out with a cast having not been scanned for anything.

I can't make it any plainer.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-27-2017, 02:20 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
In other words, culture does really matter. Encouraging a system where mother/father stay together helps with short and long term success. Single parent families, especially multiple generations of single parent families lowers the chance for education, success, etc.
Anyone who thinks culture doesn't really matter is batshit crazy in my book.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-27-2017, 10:24 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Dude you're really not getting it. It doesn't matter whether there is a biological basis for depression... this DOES NOT factor into the diagnosis process.
No, you're not getting it. You are starting from the presumption that people with depression are faking it. Why would anyone fake a debilitating psychic illness? To get antidepressants? They're only good for treating depression. They don't give you a high. They don't have any recreational value. There's no benefit in faking depression, so why do it?

You've got some kind of axe to grind against anyone with what you consider to be an unproven or unprovable condition, and I'm fine with you having that opinion, but you keep implying, time and again, that people are faking conditions when faking those conditions just doesn't make sense. Why would anyone pretend to be depressed? Why would anyone pretend to be transsexual? Neither position is in any way an enviable one, and neither confers any special benefit, so why?

I absolutely understand that you can get diagnosed with depression without any scans or physical tests. I've never said the opposite anywhere in this thread. You're reading that into it because you're so deep in an agenda you can't see past it. The reason I'm citing studies that link physical evidence to psychological phenomena isn't to say that these tests are used in everyday practice but to prove that, whether you like it or not, physical evidence for these conditions does exist, and the conditions themselves are therefore not just chosen by people on a whim. I fully acknowledge that some people might pretend for whatever reasons, but they would be in a minority, and I don't think it's reasonable to take a knee-jerk stance that all people are faking these conditions based on a minority and thereby deprive genuine sufferers the right to treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-28-2017, 12:43 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
No, you're not getting it. You are starting from the presumption that people with depression are faking it. Why would anyone fake a debilitating psychic illness? To get antidepressants? They're only good for treating depression. They don't give you a high. They don't have any recreational value. There's no benefit in faking depression, so why do it?

You've got some kind of axe to grind against anyone with what you consider to be an unproven or unprovable condition, and I'm fine with you having that opinion, but you keep implying, time and again, that people are faking conditions when faking those conditions just doesn't make sense. Why would anyone pretend to be depressed? Why would anyone pretend to be transsexual? Neither position is in any way an enviable one, and neither confers any special benefit, so why?

I absolutely understand that you can get diagnosed with depression without any scans or physical tests.
OK cool so now we're getting somewhere.

So now that we agree that no physical test is involved we can also agree that the diagnostic process is subjective, open to interpretation, and human error.

Why do it? That's obvious -- because people don't want to go through pain. But everyone goes through pain, it doesn't mean necessarily that you have a condition. And I'm sure you've come across a hypochondriac before right?

There's little reason to believe that the HUGE increase in mental health diagnosis over the last thirty years in only because we're better at identifying conditions. I think the difference we have here is the degree to which you have faith in this type of system.

If you do agree that people are being over medicated, then there isn't an argument to be had. Because what that implies is that people are being systematically wrongfully diagnosed and medicated accordingly (we don't really need to call it faking).

For more on this position it's worth listening to Will Self here, you'll get both sides of the argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlFbuqunb1I
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 10-28-2017 at 01:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-28-2017, 07:26 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
OK cool so now we're getting somewhere.

So now that we agree that no physical test is involved we can also agree that the diagnostic process is subjective, open to interpretation, and human error.
Psychiatrists aren't fools. They have to have completed a medical degree prior to becoming psychiatrists. Medicine is heavy on science - you have to get high scores in physics, chemistry and biology just to be accepted to study it - and every doctor I've ever met was a grounded rational person who relied more on facts and science than anything else.

Do you have medical training? If not, I don't think you have justifiable grounds for second-guessing the established and peer-reviewed standards set out for depression by medical professionals who specialize in the field. I mean, you're basically claiming to know better than the people who do this for a living. Do you really think a respectable medical professional is going to diagnose someone with depression if they're faking it? Not only are these people easily intelligent enough to spot a malingerer, they're specifically trained to do so.

Why do it? That's obvious -- because people don't want to go through pain. But everyone goes through pain, it doesn't mean necessarily that you have a condition. And I'm sure you've come across a hypochondriac before right?
I've come across a few people with your attitude in the course of my life. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but the other people I'm referring to were all incapable of empathizing with anything they'd not experienced themselves, or with anyone who had a different reaction to themselves with respect to a common experience. A "That happened to me and I never cried like a bitch" kind of attitude. Those people were all, every one of them, people who had never tasted real hardship, and therefore had no capacity to imagine crumbling as a human being. They had never been pushed beyond their thresholds, and never knew what it was to be broken. Not because they were hard or tough or better than others, but because they'd been lucky. No human ever lived who couldn't be broken by life. Plenty have lived and not been broken, but they were only lucky enough not to experience true hardship.

The other common thread with the other people I've known with this attitude was a chip on their shoulder about the people who do get broken. They have a sneering animosity toward "weakness" and a prominent sense of superiority over "weak" people. They seem to feel genuinely hurt that other people are getting "special" treatment when they don't ask for any themselves. You can almost hear them saying "why are you paying all this attention to that fucking weakling? They don't deserve your time more than I do just for being weak. I went through the same thing and I never carried on like that. You never gave me any special attention. It's pathetic".

There's little reason to believe that the HUGE increase in mental health diagnosis over the last thirty years in only because we're better at identifying conditions. I think the difference we have here is the degree to which you have faith in this type of system.
There are, I'm sure you realize, myriad contributing factors to the continuing rise in mental health diagnoses. I very much doubt malingering factors as a significant one, but if I'm wrong point me to an actual statistic, to actual evidence, to something other than unfounded opinions and youtube debates between other people with unfounded opinions.

If you do agree that people are being over medicated, then there isn't an argument to be had. Because what that implies is that people are being systematically wrongfully diagnosed and medicated accordingly (we don't really need to call it faking).
I'm decidedly anti-medication (though I know there are times when it is absolutely necessary), but really it's an issue for a separate thread. This isn't about medication.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to eripiomundus For This Useful Post:
chippedmonk (10-29-2017)
  #104  
Old 10-30-2017, 03:53 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Do you have medical training? If not, I don't think you have justifiable grounds for second-guessing the established and peer-reviewed standards set out for depression by medical professionals who specialize in the field.
This is an argument from authority, which is fine but it's not like this is just mine or Will Self's opinion. Plenty of experts say the same thing, a lot of them more stridently than I have.

So what would you say to Dr T Dorman when he says something like:

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”— Dr. Thomas Dorman

Before you try and discredit him in any way just know I could quote a dozen more medical professionals who are of the same opinion and it only gets more critical in some cases.

And speaking of psychiatrists not being fools. Would you say that 100 years ago, or 50 years ago? The history of psychiatry is straight out of a horror movie -- little reason to trust the white coats so wholeheartedly.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 10-30-2017 at 04:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-30-2017, 05:55 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
This is an argument from authority, which is fine but it's not like this is just mine or Will Self's opinion. Plenty of experts say the same thing, a lot of them more stridently than I have.

So what would you say to Dr T Dorman when he says something like:

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”— Dr. Thomas Dorman
What would I say? I'd say that you've only provided more opinion and not evidence, as per your established standard throughout this discussion.

Before you try and discredit him in any way just know I could quote a dozen more medical professionals who are of the same opinion and it only gets more critical in some cases.
As you say yourself - a dozen more "opinions". Give me facts and I'll pay attention.

And speaking of psychiatrists not being fools. Would you say that 100 years ago, or 50 years ago? The history of psychiatry is straight out of a horror movie -- little reason to trust the white coats so wholeheartedly.
As with any natal process, there are few medical breakthroughs whose birth isn't accompanied by blood. Would you rather live without the benefit of modern medicine though? Would you rather be in the dark ages? I've personally been subjected to the brutality of psychiatry - make an internet search for ECT - but I don't doubt the people who electrocuted my brain thought they were helping. There might be a minuscule minority who are outright sociopaths, but the majority are just normal well-intended human beings.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-30-2017, 06:46 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

As with any natal process, there are few medical breakthroughs whose birth isn't accompanied by blood. Would you rather live without the benefit of modern medicine though? Would you rather be in the dark ages? I've personally been subjected to the brutality of psychiatry - make an internet search for ECT - but I don't doubt the people who electrocuted my brain thought they were helping. There might be a minuscule minority who are outright sociopaths, but the majority are just normal well-intended human beings.
Fine, OK so psychiatrists aren't fools or whatever, but they are fallible, capable of massive delusion, and insane, intensely harmful practices I guess we can agree that this is borne out through history.

What is there to say that this is no longer the case? Yesterday they were electrocuting people for their own good, now they're prescribing brain damaging drugs to kids because they have 'ADHD'.

“Psychiatry has never been driven by science. They have no biological or genetic basis for these illnesses and the National Institutes of Mental Health are totally committed to the pharmacological line. … There is a great deal of scientific evidence that stimulants cause brain damage with long-term use, yet there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist.” — Peter Breggin, Psychiatrist

The scope, say up to 20 million kids worldwide. So... you're anti-medication, yet, psychiatrists aren't fools and what... you think they must just know what they're doing to these kids? And anyone who might feel uneasy about this info is what, incapable of empathising with anything they haven't experienced right?

I mean fair enough I think we've agreed on the main points. The proliferation of many hundreds of DSM disorders has nothing to do with biology, the diagnostic process doesn't involve a biologic test, and the usual method of treatment (psychotropic drugs) we're both against. The only difference is that you seem to think this is only a minor problem and psychiatrists by and large know enough to accurately diagnose and effectively treat the majority of patients. There's no way to prove or disprove this belief I'm sure you understand that, but the burden of proof (in terms of correct diagnosis, and efficacy of treatment) lies with those doling out the meds. In terms of correct diagnosis in the current system no such proof can ever exist, in terms of treatment, you're against it anyway.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-02-2017, 03:09 AM
anna (Offline)
Copyist
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
Thanks: 19
Thanks 30
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
What would I say? I'd say that you've only provided more opinion and not evidence, as per your established standard throughout this discussion.


As you say yourself - a dozen more "opinions". Give me facts and I'll pay attention.

Dr Griffin said: "We found that alcohol is causing degradation of histone deacetylases which acts as a molecular brake pad inside the reward circuitry of the brain."

The researchers found the breakdown of the proteins increased compulsive use of the drug.

Dr Griffin added: "Our study helps us to understand how an early exposure to something like alcohol can actually tip the balance and increase a person's ability to develop addiction."

https://apple.news/AiMxAARp6SAW5gh1xIulwcA


Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-02-2017, 05:44 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 690
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
Dr Griffin said: "We found that alcohol is causing degradation of histone deacetylases which acts as a molecular brake pad inside the reward circuitry of the brain."

The researchers found the breakdown of the proteins increased compulsive use of the drug.

Dr Griffin added: "Our study helps us to understand how an early exposure to something like alcohol can actually tip the balance and increase a person's ability to develop addiction."

https://apple.news/AiMxAARp6SAW5gh1xIulwcA


Well this would be an interesting question for sure. Alcohol is addictive... early exposure to alcohol contributes to your physical susceptibility to addiction. But... is addiction an illness? A lot of people like to say so... Russell Brands recent crusade was certainly in that direction.

And maybe it's semantic right, I mean if you agree that addicts should be treated AS THOUGH they're diseased, then what difference does it make if it doesn't technically meet the criteria?

The problem I think is in believing that 'I have an illness' implying little or no responsibility as opposed to believing 'I have a bad habit' implying at least some responsibility.

I know I'm just gonna get shot for not empathising...

Say you have a mother, who chooses some awful suitor to have a child with, and that suitor disappears into the ether before the birth. And that child's formative years are spent in chaos, with mother bouncing from one awful boyfriend to the next, partying incessantly, abusing substances, struggling to make ends meet, and in a constant state of stress which is taken out on the child in a variety of ways. The child is neglected, never paid attention to, never read to, is threatened and corporally punished fairly regularly. It's a pretty common story. And now he/she is ten, and can't sit still in class for the usual 6 hours a day... and some psychiatrist comes along and diagnosis ADHD -- prescribing whichever psychotropic is en vogue.

What might the mother say? -- perhaps the child's difficulties are nothing to do with her? That she tried her best, but the child has a condition which can't be helped? Or would she admit her actions and choices traumatised the child? I guess it all depends, but the diagnosis certainly helps to abdicate responsibility -- I've witnessed that several times for sure. People will go to incredible lengths to avoid responsibility including chasing any kind of diagnosis which might excuse their behaviour. How many criminals claim insanity?

OK I'm done... you can crucify me now... lol
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-03-2017, 02:49 AM
anna (Offline)
Copyist
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
Thanks: 19
Thanks 30
Default

anna sat quietly looking out of the window as she pondered John Constantine. He was fortunate to be in a position to be able to form an opinion and anna had no desire to inflict corporal punishment on him for the holding of it, neither by the ‘shoot’ of him nor by the ‘crucify’ of him either. Indeed she felt it her personal responsibility to recognise his difference of opinion and unique life experience and do her best to understand it through the formation of her own thinking. But was that desire to understand and tolerate his point of view brought about by her nature or by her nurture then, she wondered. ‘What actually did the mother say, not what might she say!’ Flea busied himself regardless but he always listened. ‘I mean, isn’t that how you garner self responsibility in others by the giving of that - heard not herded!’ She fought on to better understand, ‘we’re only human after all!’ anna called as she sprinted off through the autumn leaves humming.

Last edited by anna; 11-03-2017 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-04-2017, 06:51 AM
anna (Offline)
Copyist
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
Thanks: 19
Thanks 30
Default

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-04-2017, 03:02 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,837
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
anna sat quietly looking out of the window as she pondered John Constantine. He was fortunate to be in a position to be able to form an opinion and anna had no desire to inflict corporal punishment on him for the holding of it, neither by the ‘shoot’ of him nor by the ‘crucify’ of him either. Indeed she felt it her personal responsibility to recognise his difference of opinion and unique life experience and do her best to understand it through the formation of her own thinking. But was that desire to understand and tolerate his point of view brought about by her nature or by her nurture then, she wondered. ‘What actually did the mother say, not what might she say!’ Flea busied himself regardless but he always listened. ‘I mean, isn’t that how you garner self responsibility in others by the giving of that - heard not herded!’ She fought on to better understand, ‘we’re only human after all!’ anna called as she sprinted off through the autumn leaves humming.
Were you channeling Flea when you wrote this?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-05-2017, 02:40 AM
anna (Offline)
Copyist
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
Thanks: 19
Thanks 30
Default

anna thought about this imaginary space that channeled her words to be heard, a wonderful pocket full of nourishment where she didn’t have to worry about tomorrow’s shelter or warmth or food on the table or other peoples casual assumptions then. Yes, this was a place that existed in her middle and she chose to share it with flea. It was kind. It had no tomorrow, no yesterday only the moment and infinite words for the crafting. ‘Words give expression to the conscious being if somebody somewhere is prepared to observe it, flea’ anna exclaimed before continuing ‘be it the woman trapped in a man’s body, the child questioning its categorization on a gender scale, the homeless mother on a chaotic life slope or the wader through addiction recovery.’ And with that anna sped off and disappeared back into daily life leaving this little white box and a flashing cursor as her means to be visible, to live out loud and exist for real then.

Last edited by anna; 11-05-2017 at 08:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:26 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.