Science Without a Soul

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

How is it off-topic?

The point is that psychiatry is not using invasive techniques like the old frontal lobotomy and there are real reasons to use pharmacological treatments. New more humane developments and more efficient technology is coming down the pipeline. It costs millions of dollars to build an MEG, the mental health field isn't all about taking your money.

Yet there is a huge industry, a fraudulant industry at work under the guise of Science. That is the topic.

I don't think anyone here is trying to discredit science.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

I don't think anyone here is trying to discredit science.

Thank-you, gue.

As usual, I don't have a problem with science, rather, apprently like Thomas Szasz, my issue is with scientism. Or the misuse of science in the name of science.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Yet there is a huge industry, a fraudulant industry at work under the guise of Science. That is the topic.

I don't think anyone here is trying to discredit science.

It's not fraudulent and no evidence has been provided to support that claim. All these statements are circumstantial.

Ahnimus

Nowhere in that video did they deny Skinner's claim that humans can be trained as animals. There are several cases of this, feral children, for example.

Spirituality is a very broad and general term, many more deaths have occurred under the guise of spirituality. So making claims about the dark history of psychiatry is completely hypocritical in this sense.

As I pointed out, some of the claims are false. Asylums are not on the rise, they are on the decline. The Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, ON closed down several years ago, and the patients are now either functioning partially in society, in prison or dead. The same goes for the United States, many prisons have had to readjust their facilities for the efflux of mentally ill, the prisons now attempt to provide treatment. Prison guards now provide the treatment, instead of psychiatrists specifically trained in the profession.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

No one has advocated being careless or reckless.

then this is just a glass is half full/empty issue. you two are arguing semantics. she is saying it requires a lifetime of consciousness of the propensity. you are saying it doesnt. but you admit not being careless or reckless is good. what is the practical difference? simply in how you phrase it? i feel like you are all splitting hairs.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not fraudulent and no evidence has been provided to support that claim. All these statements are circumstantial.

17, 000, 000 American kids on psychotropics. That's rather dubious, to me. How did the human race make it this far?

Ahnimus

PBS Frontline has the word on asylums in the U.S.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/view/


Fewer than 55,000 Americans currently receive treatment in psychiatric hospitals. Meanwhile, almost 10 times that number -- nearly 500,000 -- mentally ill men and women are serving time in U.S. jails and prisons. As sheriffs and prison wardens become the unexpected and often ill-equipped caretakers of this burgeoning population, they raise a troubling new concern: Have America's jails and prisons become its new asylums?

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

PBS Frontline has the word on asylums in the U.S.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/view/


Fewer than 55,000 Americans currently receive treatment in psychiatric hospitals. Meanwhile, almost 10 times that number -- nearly 500,000 -- mentally ill men and women are serving time in U.S. jails and prisons. As sheriffs and prison wardens become the unexpected and often ill-equipped caretakers of this burgeoning population, they raise a troubling new concern: Have America's jails and prisons become its new asylums?

Your original concern was that science was being discredited.
Maybe you should try elaborating on that.

Some people are offended by the word "fuck."
Apparently you're offended by the word, "soul."
Please explain.
Please give me a scientific explanation on the quantitative offensiveness of those words.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

then this is just a glass is half full/empty issue. you two are arguing semantics. she is saying it requires a lifetime of consciousness of the propensity. you are saying it doesnt. but you admit not being careless or reckless is good. what is the practical difference? simply in how you phrase it? i feel like you are all splitting hairs.

You are correct--it's a "glass half empty/half full argument. The view determines the outcome for each of us. For example, I don't accept her view when she puts me in a category of diseased, especially when there is no sign that I am. She has a vested interest to support her view and to pathologize mentally ill people. (granted, this is my subjective view of her view...and I'm sure to her, her reasons are valid, and seen with a positive slant) I have a vested interested in empowering myself, and empowering mentally ill people, even when others view my interests with a negative slant. Your "semantics" actually represent two diverse and yet well-known models of interpreting reality in terms of mental health issues. They are both purely subjective, although they can be traced in objective reality. Same goes for Ahnimus's subjective views that can be located in objective reality; or your own views. Or gue's...

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

You are correct--it's a "glass half empty/half full argument. The view determines the outcome for each of us. For example, I don't accept her view when she puts me in a category of diseased, especially when there is no sign that I am. She has a vested interest to support her view and to pathologize mentally ill people. (granted, this is my subjective view of her view...and I'm sure to her, her reasons are valid, and seen with a positive slant) I have a vested interested in empowering myself, and empowering mentally ill people, even when others view my interests with a negative slant. Your "semantics" actually represent two diverse and yet well-known models of interpreting reality in terms of mental health issues. They are both purely subjective, although they can be traced in objective reality. Same goes for Ahnimus's subjective views that can be located in objective reality; or your own views. Or gue's...

No. I pretty much say everything I say to get laid.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

17, 000, 000 American kids on psychotropics. That's rather dubious, to me. How did the human race make it this far?

Let's investigate that claim, shall we?

FDA

FDA wrote:

The prevalence of mental illnesses in children and adolescents is significant and is on the rise according to the latest research and information. An estimated 1 in 10 children and adolescents in the United States suffers from mental illness severe enough to cause some level of impairment. Fewer than 1 in 5 of these ill children receives treatment.

According to a recent study - the largest ever undertaken -- an alarming 65% of boys and 75% of girls in juvenile detention have at least one psychiatric diagnosis. (Teplin, L. Archives of General Psychiam, Vol. 59, December 2002) Also, NAMI’s 1999 report Families on the Brink showed that in over 36% of the cases, youth were placed in the juvenile justice system to access mental health services.

The long-term consequences of untreated mental illnesses in youth are staggering. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in adolescents aged 15 to 24. (Centers for Disease Con&ol, 1999) Evidence strongly suggests that as many as 90% of those who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder. (Institute of Medicine Report, 2002 and Surgeon General, 1999)

In contrast, some claim that there is a widespread practice of inappropriately labeling children as mentally ill and drugging them with “heavy, mind-altering drugs.“’ These assertions are not supported by either existing research or science. In fact, the available evidence shows that even while increased prescription of medications for children has occurred, the much more pressing issue is the number of children with mental illnesses that are not being diagnosed and treated.2 Public policy addressing the treatment of mental illnesses in children and adolescents must be founded on science and shaped by research and scientific evidence, not political or religious ideology or stigma and discrimination that persists against mental illnesses. In fact, scare tactics can only harm the public health.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:saJTle241voJ:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04n0330/04n-0330-ts00001-02-vol1.pdf+kids+on+psychotropics+site:fda.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

Interesting, it's not explicitly stated how many kids are on psychotropics. However we can infer it from the 10% of kids who are diagnosed mentally ill and the 20% of those that actually receive treatment. The population of the United States as of 2007 estimate is 302,552,000.

6,051,040 kids on pyschotropics according to the NAM report to the FDA. So someone is inflating that number. The number I get is 2% of the U.S. population. Not such a large number any more.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

17, 000, 000 American kids on psychotropics. That's rather dubious, to me. How did the human race make it this far?

I put my one-time teenager on psychiatric medication. I thought she had a chemical imbalance and would need to take meds for life. I did exactly what I thought was proper in order to take care of my poor diseased daughter, given my own model for interpreting life. She rebelled and began running away with regularity (oh, and not taking her meds). And she began reading Nietsche and Camus. Eventually, I learned a lot from her.

I ultimately came to develop a newer more empowering subjective model of reality, which served our purposes and changed the outcome for my kids. The model I once used wherein I saw them as diseased perpetuated disease. The one where I acknowledged our strengths and our ability to overcome whatever we face perpetuated our empowerment.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

No. I pretty much say everything I say to get laid.

How's that working for you............

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Your original concern was that science was being discredited.
Maybe you should try elaborating on that.

Some people are offended by the word "fuck."
Apparently you're offended by the word, "soul."
Please explain.
Please give me a scientific explanation on the quantitative offensiveness of those words.

Science being discredited is a general theme on here. I've always stuck to the topic, perhaps you just don't understand the connection. Either way, you are only being an antagonist on here. That's all you ever do.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Let's investigate that claim, shall we?

FDA



Interesting, it's not explicitly stated how many kids are on psychotropics. However we can infer it from the 10% of kids who are diagnosed mentally ill and the 20% of those that actually receive treatment. The population of the United States as of 2007 estimate is 302,552,000.

6,051,040 kids on pyschotropics according to the NAM report to the FDA. So someone is inflating that number. The number I get is 2% of the U.S. population. Not such a large number any more.

I'm not following your numbers. The point is, is that there is billion dollar industry in the mix, and people are getting warehoused through "treatment" under false pretenses, and a prescription drug.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Science being discredited is a general theme on here. I've always stuck to the topic, perhaps you just don't understand the connection. Either way, you are only being an antagonist on here. That's all you ever do.

Dude, you don't have half the intelligence you think you do. And it's pathetic.

Now, stick to the fucking topic.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

I'm not following your numbers. The point is, is that there is billion dollar industry in the mix, and people are getting warehoused through "treatment" under false pretenses, and a prescription drug.

You can't argue me with wild and speculative claims. Try doing some research.

angelica

It's good to keep in mind that for example, the science people who reseach "dis-ease" and who develop chemical treatments have one agenda. That agenda is very different than the pharmaceutical marketing teams who have a business approach in marketing medications for the making of billions of dollars. Mental health professionals do not have a vested interest in healing and curing measures (especially ones the patient can do independently), but rather in measures that will keep a clientele coming back for "treatment". Somewhere along the lines, words like "Possible genetic predisposition" become "These disorders are genetic and require chemical treatment for life".

Unfortunately, the mental health professionals may slant information also in order to "encourage" ( /coerce) patients to take such meds, as they have a limited arsenal of tools.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't argue me with wild and speculative claims. Try doing some research.

There is nothing wild or speculative about it. It's concern. You know, concern. It's a word. Look it up.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Dude, you don't have half the intelligence you think you do. And it's pathetic.

Now, stick to the fucking topic.

I'm guessing you don't know what intelligence is, since you are claiming it is a measurable quality. That has always been in dispute.

New research in cognitive neuroscience is revealing the fact that intelligence is not a broadly measurable quality. Intelligence is typically subject matter dependant and more synonymous with aquired knowledge than an innate ability to manufacture facts.