Congresswoman Giffords Shot in Tucson

[granfire]

Mark, I said almost exactly the same thing. Great minds think alike, and all that. As I said later, I think that he'll have to hear it from someone he knows personally and considers credible.

Probably more like falling into the abyss of despair...

 

[Langenschwert]

Mark, I said almost exactly the same thing. Great minds think alike, and all that. As I said later, I think that he'll have to hear it from someone he knows personally and considers credible.

<Keanu> Whoa. </Keanu>

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Langenschwert]

Ya apparantly you missed the entire rest of the conversation before that. I have never seen any study that shows that medical treatment works any better then not using drugs. I also would state that the vast majority of people who are institutionalized have more then depression wrong with them. Like I said before I am perfectly willing to change my stance, show me the laboratory test that shows depression, or show me the documentation that it does in fact require medical intervention to correct. I have seen nothing that shows irrefutable evidence that it does, and until I do I will continue to believe what I believe.

Yeah, I didn't read the whole thread. Far too massive to read the whole damn thing. Mea Culpa. Anywho...

I can only speak from my personal experience with depressed people. The difference between medicated and non-medicated behaviour in my experience is rather extreme, from bat-feces crazy to normal and happy-go-lucky in a matter of days, which is about how long the medication usually takes to enter the system.

Now, medication is not the ONLY answer. Cognitive behavioural therapy can work wonders for some, and not at all for others.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Flea]

Probably more like falling into the abyss of despair...

"Cancer of the soul" is my analogy of choice.

In any case, I'm done with my little educational spiel here. Those who get it, get it. And those who don't, don't.

Thanks for reading, y'all.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

It is threads like these which caused me to take a two week voluntary commitment (pun intended) to stay away from here.

I know that I am coming late to the party, but I would like to beg your indulgence.

Bill Mattocks:

I understood what you were trying to do from the moment you first posted in this thread. The problem was not with your analogy, nor your intent. It was with your tactical timing. When you post, prior to any evidence that this person had any affiliation with the Tea Party, was a Tea Party sympathizer, was right wing in any way, you automatically fall into the category of being a right-wing hater. To be blunt, you shot your wad too early.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how you decide to look at these issues in relation to illegal immigrant criminals or Muslim terrorists, you decided to address it from your perspectives, and not there's. Even I, who understood what you were trying to do, am now forced by my nature to look at is as though you are making a connection without any evidence to support it.

You say: "I'm waiting to hear from the same guys who would not waste a minute proclaiming if the shooter had been middle-eastern in origin or from south of the border." The fact of the matter is that there is often evidence to show that the person was from "south of the border" or Muslim (not merely Middle-eastern in origin) that allows such commentary to be made, no matter how illogical.

You also said: "I have asked if it is OK to blame the Tea Party for the actions of a lone wacko. If not, then I wonder why it is OK to blame illegal aliens for the actions of lone wackos who are illegal aliens, or members of a certain religion when someone tries to light their shoes on fire on a plane."

Notice the difference in your own statement, a lone wacko, singular, versus lone wakos, plural, and members, plural. What we can deduce from your statement is that this event was singular in origin, however there have been a mulititude from the illegal immigrant community or from certain religions. (I would also argue that the lone wackos from the illegal immigrant or religous community aren't exactly "lone" as they are usually a part of "groups", but that's besides the point. Once is a chance, twice is a coincidence, and three times may show a pattern. But even still, you did not show that this person had any ties to the Tea Party. It could have been just as easy to say that he was a left-wing wacko who didn't like her because she didn't go far enough to the left.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I would now like to address the mental health equation of this debate. I'll start by giving my bona fides.

I am a police supervisor who has been trained for ten years regarding mental illness; how to see it, some of the symptoms, and how to deal with it (at least on a small basis). I also have a mother-in-law who is paranoid schizophrenic who has caused her 16 year old son want to hurt her and want to commit suicide because he's tired of dealing with her. I also have a six year old daughter who was just "diagnosed" with ADHD. So though I am not a psychologist / psychiatrist, I have both personal and professional experience in dealing with, as we call them in my business, Emotionally Disturbed People (EDP).

First, I would like to address Tez point about "one in three people in the Western world will have a mental illness sometime in their lives." Not to single you out, as others have reiterated this here as well, but I call BS.

I do believe that the statistic may hold true if we change the bolded word from have to be diagnosed with. We can't seem to go a day without some new "strain" of mental illness being developed to classify our differences. I am not an expert in autism by any means, but it seems a perfect example of my point. We keep coming up with subtler and subtler diagnosis of the illness to the point where a perfectly functioning and capable individual will still be diagnosed with it.

Now, understand that I am not trying to say that I don't believe in mental illness, because I do. It just seems that we keep trying to cram differences into different categories of illness.

Quite frankly, I would love to see the idyllic person from which standard we judge.

So for my personal experience, I will hold up my oldest daughter, who just prior to Christmas was "diagnosed" with ADHD. Now she lives primarily with her mother in another state, and I only get to see her a few times a year. when I talk with her mother, I hear some of the "horror" stories about her misbehavior. But when I talk with her mother, I explain to her that when she is with me, I do not have those issues. When I asked my daughter why she does those things with her mother and at school, but not with me, her exact words were "because I know what you'll do". Not only that, but due to educational testing, she is in kindergarten for the second half of the day, but first grade for the first half. When she is in first grade, she doesn't cause any disturbances, probably because she is kept engaged by the material. My daughter has even stated to me that she does the things that get her into trouble because she is bored.

Not only that, but her diagnosis was based on a doctor's interpretation of the subjective viewpoints of her teacher (who even my wife says has a bias against her), her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and I think one or two more people who have regular contact with her.

Where is the objective test that would determine such a diagnosis?

Now, without getting into my beliefs regarding our Prussian style of education leading to some of these problems, based on her disparate behavior based on her environment, does she have ADHD or are her problems related to not being given or having properly enforced behavioral boundries.

I know for a fact that schools are given more funding per student if that student has a "learning disability". That is an incentive for schools and doctors to have children diagnosed as having some type of mental illness. Not only that, but lets not begin to discuss the pharmacutical industries' incentive for having everyone on drugs.

But as a counterpoint, my mother-in-law is a paranoid schizophrenic (non-diagnosed). She hears voices in her head and has delusions. Now she is just smart enough to "fool" a psychologist into making her seem sane, and there is nothing we seem to be able to do to get her the help that she needs, but does not want. It is frustrating as hell, for me primarily because I see the stress that it causes my wife. So I am certainly sympathetic for those seeking a solution.

I think that, perhaps, if we would cut down on what I believe to be onerous diagnosises for what are really differences, then perhapse we would have the capability to afford to take care of those who are truly in need of mental health services.

 

[granfire]

Oye, my sympathies to you.

However, in your own little world you mention 5 people and one is not quiet right and - oh heck...I understand there are kids that really have it bad. but in the US they do tend to over diagnose ADHD (and over medicate). Don't get me wrong. I am all for helping folks out that really have it, but doping the kids up just so they are quiet in class...i do not like.


However, in your own post you do make the Tez's point. Statistics are a b.... though. If you don't have it in your family, you know somebody else will pick up the slack for you: Friends of my step mom had 2 kids. Their son was scitzophrenic, the daughter, bright young lady with lots of promise one day jumped off a building.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I'm a molecular neuroscientist.

Interested in reading some journal articles? I hope you're up on your striatal circuitry and the dorsal raphe serotonergic system.

I just have to throw this out there.

You are a molecular neuroscientist which is a person who studies, in a nutshell, how the human brain works on a chemical level, correct?

In what way does this make you an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression. Is your particular study related to such? You said that you keep your hand in such stuff, but does that classify you as an expert?

The reason that I ask, quite frankly, is that when people bring up astrophysists, astonomers, geologist, meteorologists, in regards to them being against global warming, you state that they are not experts and can pretty much be disregarded because they are not climatologists, even though they have interdisciplinary study in the climate.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Oye, my sympathies to you.

However, in your own little world you mention 5 people and one is not quiet right and - oh heck...I understand there are kids that really have it bad. but in the US they do tend to over diagnose ADHD (and over medicate). Don't get me wrong. I am all for helping folks out that really have it, but doping the kids up just so they are quiet in class...i do not like.

So if we are so willing to classify children who's behaviour that we don't like in order to medicate them to get them to behave as we want, why would we not do the same to adults.

However, in your own post you do make the Tez's point. Statistics are a b.... though. If you don't have it in your family, you know somebody else will pick up the slack for you: Friends of my step mom had 2 kids. Their son was scitzophrenic, the daughter, bright young lady with lots of promise one day jumped off a building.

Not quite sure what post of Tez' you think I'm making. I don't discount the fact that mental illness exists. What I am arguing is that the studies, from my perspective, seem to be subjective, not objective, and that everything is for some reason becoming aberrant behaviour needing therapy or medication.

In other words, there seems to be no baseline normal and we are all f****d up.

 

[granfire]

So if we are so willing to classify children who's behaviour that we don't like in order to medicate them to get them to behave as we want, why would we not do the same to adults.

Heaven knows some people need the meds....I don't have the answer though.

Not quite sure what post of Tez' you think I'm making. I don't discount the fact that mental illness exists. What I am arguing is that the studies, from my perspective, seem to be subjective, not objective, and that everything is for some reason becoming aberrant behaviour needing therapy or medication.

In other words, there seems to be no baseline normal and we are all f****d up.

I might have looked at another post, my computer loads slow sometimes and the screen jumps around. the 2 out of three statistic...

Well, and then of course there is that one little proverb: The only normal people are those we don't know well. We are pretty much all batpoop crazy. Some just take the cake and rock the boat for us.

But yes, the bottom line is that if you can fake it in polite society, you are good.

 

[Blade96]

Kenpo you write nice posts and I would have to agree, as I said Docs never called me anything when i was young in the late 70's and early 80's but fast forward to the first decade of the 21 century when i was in my mid twenties and i am now called 'autistic' I was, no joke. I do think labels are being given too freely and medications yes. My next door neighbor who has slight cerebral palsy used to be all doped up on drugs when she was in grade school. She is now 22 and doing a diploma at post secondary education. they said she had add or some such thing.

While I do think labels and diagnosis get over given out at times I dont agree with luckykboxer that depression is 'only a weakness and a person being pathetic' as I have said I have it, I know i wasnt wrongly diagnosed. My bro suffered from it too, as do the woman's daughter I wrote about. I absolutely know what its like to have it and struggle with it.

But I also know that while professionals have over used labels and meds, that doesnt believe autism, depression or what not does not exist or is merely a weakness instead of a real disease syndrome or disorder.

 

[granfire]

I always get the feeling once they come up with a cool abreviation they have to wear it out and use it. It does not help that Reader's Digest has pages of advertisement for medications, Ritalin etc are favorites: take a pill and life is all smiles.

Life used to be hell for the undiagnosed people, but we have swung the pendulum the other direction. Sometimes the whack on the bottom is a better treatment than a pill IMHO. Or a lot of fresh air and exercise, things too many people lack these days.

I do understand how teachers want the classroom to be quiet, so they can get their stuff done. But from what I gathered (and yes, ran the gambit a few years ago) the US is by far the leader in the numbers and the doses when it comes to kids and the AD disorders. I mean, BY FAR....

 

[Blade96]

yeah. Its what i believe too. Certain people need it, but, if someone is just having 'the blues' thats normal and not necessarily clinical depression. So you dont go Here, take a pill.

For example when i was almost 24 i spent 3 weeks in bed literally because my 15 year old cat had just died. I had the blues. But that wasnt my depression because I was ableto carry on after a few weeks. (I got permission from my russian prof at the time to have my due date for an essay moved to later because of my cats death.) That cat was the love of my life and I grieved but mourning is a normal period and not necessarily clinic depression. At least not in my case it wasnt. Now this woman who's daughter was hospitalized, she developed clinical depression after her dad died about a year and a half ago. It got so bad she wasnt sleeping at all and she was a total insomniac.

I havegone through the blues and I have depression. so I know the difference between the two.

I would love for Luckykboxer to know that clinical depression is a real disorder/disease and not just weakness. But I dont want him to find out by him getting something, or one of his loved ones getting something. As someone else said, I'd rather agree to disagree.

 

[Tez3]

The 1 in 3 firgures for mental illness/disorder come from the World Health Organisation accepted in the UK as correct and include things like OCD, PTSD, agoraphobia, post natal depression, bulimia, anorexia, personality, mood, stress and anxiety problems as well as the more well known mental disorders such as clinical depression etc.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The 1 in 3 firgures for mental illness/disorder come from the World Health Organisation accepted in the UK as correct and include things like OCD, PTSD, agoraphobia, post natal depression, bulimia, anorexia, personality, mood, stress and anxiety problems as well as the more well known mental disorders such as clinical depression etc.

Okay. I don't dispute that the statistic is derived from some place. It's just interesting that we all seem to have some disorder or another, or will get one at some time.

Have you ever read the description of some of these disorders. Hell, I fall into multiple categories on some of these. For instance, Schizotypal Personality disorder is characterized as having some, though not necessarily all, of the following traits:

A disorder characterized by eccentric behaviour and anomalies of thinking and affect which resemble those seen in schizophrenia, though no definite and characteristic schizophrenic anomalies have occurred at any stage. There is no dominant or typical disturbance, but any of the following may be present:

Inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof);
Behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar;
Poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal;

Those pretty much describe me several times throughout the day. I guess I'm crazy.

Quite frankly, a lot of these diagnosises are so vague and general that they can describe just about anyone. Yes, I do understand that these descriptions are for consistent behavior, but so what. I am consistently aloof, exhibit odd behavior (when compared to my peers), and have a tendency to be socially withdrawn (in school, I used to walk around campus reading books rather then playing with my peers and even now I like to go to a quiet place to read at work rather then socialize with my contemporaries).

If asked to explain why I am often that way I could, and I'm sure that some brilliant psychologist would simply fit me neatly into some other category of disorder.

God forbid it is just us making our way through life as best we know how, and not a disorder. I have my reasons for why this seems to be the prevailing attitude, but I'll bring that up later maybe.

 

[Tez3]

Okay. I don't dispute that the statistic is derived from some place. It's just interesting that we all seem to have some disorder or another, or will get one at some time.

Have you ever read the description of some of these disorders. Hell, I fall into multiple categories on some of these. For instance, Schizotypal Personality disorder is characterized as having some, though not necessarily all, of the following traits:

A disorder characterized by eccentric behaviour and anomalies of thinking and affect which resemble those seen in schizophrenia, though no definite and characteristic schizophrenic anomalies have occurred at any stage. There is no dominant or typical disturbance, but any of the following may be present:

Inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof);
Behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar;
Poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal;

Those pretty much describe me several times throughout the day. I guess I'm crazy.

Quite frankly, a lot of these diagnosises are so vague and general that they can describe just about anyone. Yes, I do understand that these descriptions are for consistent behavior, but so what. I am consistently aloof, exhibit odd behavior (when compared to my peers), and have a tendency to be socially withdrawn (in school, I used to walk around campus reading books rather then playing with my peers and even now I like to go to a quiet place to read at work rather then socialize with my contemporaries).

If asked to explain why I am often that way I could, and I'm sure that some brilliant psychologist would simply fit me neatly into some other category of disorder.

God forbid it is just us making our way through life as best we know how, and not a disorder. I have my reasons for why this seems to be the prevailing attitude, but I'll bring that up later maybe.

I think that 'disorders' are catergorised differently from 'illnesses'. As I've said before your 'condition/disorder' wouldn't exist if you were English lol, we like our eccentricities.
There is a difference between post natal depression which is an illness and OCD which is a condition/disorder. As a very rough guide look at who's treating the patient, (it is a rough guide though) a pyschiatrist treats the illnesses and the psychologist treats the conditions.
A friend of mine, a military psychiatric nurse recently returned from Afghan, he'd spent part of his time working with the Americans as he had done in Iraq. He said that mental health was looked at in a very different way by the American professionals, it was along the lines of your post....that everyone nearly always has something wrong with them and if you say you haven't you are just in denial. It isn't the way it's looked at here, not just in the military but outside too. If anything we are the other way. As I said we tolerate 'out of synch' behaviour far more than probably other people do.

My point though was that mental illnesses are more common than people who don't believe in mental illnesses think. One thing people might like to consider is the horror of Alzheimers, is that just a weakness? Do we shout, pull yourself together man at someone with it? It's a very real illness and while you can say it's not a 'mental' illness as such it's something that affects the brain as other condtions can such as clinical depression, bi polar etc do.

 

[Empty Hands]

You are a molecular neuroscientist which is a person who studies, in a nutshell, how the human brain works on a chemical level, correct?

Yep.

In what way does this make you an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression. Is your particular study related to such?

I never claimed to be an expert in diagnosis and treatment. It was not necessary to address the claim that clinical depression does not exist. I study in part the molecular and physiological mechanism by which depression occurs, which makes me well qualified to comment on the existence of said disease.

Of course, I would like to note that I did not bring up my qualifications at all until Lucky essentially said "I bet you don't know anything either!". I don't like to make my arguments from Authority, and the focus of my argument was the evidence and reasoning, not "I'm Right Because I Have A PhD."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I never claimed to be an expert in diagnosis and treatment. It was not necessary to address the claim that clinical depression does not exist. I study in part the molecular and physiological mechanism by which depression occurs, which makes me well qualified to comment on the existence of said disease.

Of course, I would like to note that I did not bring up my qualifications at all until Lucky essentially said "I bet you don't know anything either!". I don't like to make my arguments from Authority, and the focus of my argument was the evidence and reasoning, not "I'm Right Because I Have A PhD."

Yes, just an astrophysist, or a meteorologist, or a environmental scientist can understand the mechanisms which cause, or don't cause, golbal warming, but in the past you have readily dismissed their findings in regards to the subject because they were not specifically climatologists.

You stated that you keep you hand in the studies on depression, so I am assuming meaning that it is not your primary area of study. Just as many of these scientist do. So the question becomes, why shouldn't we disregard your expertise as entirely unrelated to the existence of depression. I would think at most we could say that you could say that this chemical reaction in the brain acts as a catalyst for this one, and so on and so forth.


Maybe I have a misunderstanding of what you feild entails, who knows, I just find it ironic, is all. I'll let it go as I don't want to derail the thread any further.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yes, just an astrophysist, or a meteorologist, or a environmental scientist can understand the mechanisms which cause, or don't cause, golbal warming, but in the past you have readily dismissed their findings in regards to the subject because they were not specifically climatologists.

First of all, they weren't "findings", which was the problem. I assume you mean the Turner thread, and in that case, that eminent physicist offered not the slightest bit of data. If he had, the argument would be different.

Second, I study depression. None of the scientists you refer to that I have seen study climate.

Third, what I said was that unless you spend the time and effort to master the literature of the field, then you cannot possibly know enough to challenge the findings of those who do. If you do put in the time, years of time, then obviously you become so qualified - titles aren't magic, it's the knowledge and expertise that matters. TANSTAAFL - you have to put in the effort.

Fourth, depression and climate change are fundamentally different types of problems to study. In the case of depression, individual experiences and the experiences of lay people are of importance, since it is a disease of the mind. In the case of climate change, individual experiences are meaningless, since it is a global phenomenon. Thus, between the two, when debating existence vs. nonexistence, inexpert but experiential opinions matter more for depression.

Lastly, I never said anyone should take my word for it. Anyone is free to challenge my arguments or data with anything of their own at any time. I never even brought up my qualifications until Lucky gambled that I had no expertise and thus would shut my argument down. That gamble failed.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

First of all, they weren't "findings", which was the problem. I assume you mean the Turner thread, and in that case, that eminent physicist offered not the slightest bit of data. If he had, the argument would be different.

Second, I study depression. None of the scientists you refer to that I have seen study climate.

Third, what I said was that unless you spend the time and effort to master the literature of the field, then you cannot possibly know enough to challenge the findings of those who do. If you do put in the time, years of time, then obviously you become so qualified - titles aren't magic, it's the knowledge and expertise that matters. TANSTAAFL - you have to put in the effort.

Fourth, depression and climate change are fundamentally different types of problems to study. In the case of depression, individual experiences and the experiences of lay people are of importance, since it is a disease of the mind. In the case of climate change, individual experiences are meaningless, since it is a global phenomenon. Thus, between the two, when debating existence vs. nonexistence, inexpert but experiential opinions matter more for depression.

Lastly, I never said anyone should take my word for it. Anyone is free to challenge my arguments or data with anything of their own at any time. I never even brought up my qualifications until Lucky gambled that I had no expertise and thus would shut my argument down. That gamble failed.

it wasn't a gamble, don't pat yourself on the back for asking a simple question. The fact is you absolutely are not dealing with depression directly. You are dealing with finding how the mind handles the chemicals, and if there is a reason the mechanism breaks or stops functioning, etc.etc.. big difference.

Also just because so many people want to declare Depression a mental illness the fact remains there is absolutely no irrefutable proof that depression is anything more then a person remaining in a really bad mood. People have gotten into and out of depression with nothing more then the support of family and friends. Medication has not been proven to do anything better for people arbitrarily diagnosed with depression... there is after all no laboratory test for it. It wouldnt be to hard for someone to read up on the "disease", or "illness" and walk into a doctors and get diagnosed with it. So go ahead and have your opinion, but realize it is in fact an opinion, not a fact. Until you can prove it, or someone else can prove it its not a fact. Its a hypothesis, that people with a vested interest are pushing that depression is a serious illness that should be treated with medication... even though no study exists that shows that the medication they perscribe itself isnt as bad or even worse then no medication at all.
Get off your high horse, and actually get back to reality. Just because you want something to be a certain way does not mean it is.