You know you're having a bad day when, not just one, but three different people take JackO's side against you in a discussion.
Now if Bizzo chimes in on JackO's side then we know the end of the world is at hand. lmao
It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone refuses to accept well-established and universally agreed upon scientific facts. To insist that AD/HD is not rooted in the neurology of the brain or that depression is never the result of a chemical imbalance is analgous to arguing that the earth is flat.
with somebody who has another point of view.
You made the statement that psychology and psychiatry should not be based in science, but "imagination and artistry".
So, how rational is THAT idea? It sounds to me like you are arguing that the 'earth may not be flat, but it should be'.
I asked you about that, and I assume this is your response.
In fact, there is no known etiology for ADHD, ie, as many doctors have told me, "nobody knows what it is". That is not my idea that anything is 'universally accepted'.
So how do kids get dxd? Well, look at the DSM and think for yourself. Yes, I deal with this A LOT.
"Rooted in the neurology of the brain" is really a useless statement, because that could be said of EVERY function of the nervous system, ie all body movement of any kind.
The significant fact of DSM dx is amazingly simple: the 'symptoms' are all behavior patterns, and yet there is no methodical consideration of the social environment, for many compelling institutional - not diagnostic - reasons. So the necessary assumption is that the social environment has no effect on behavior, and of course that is ridiculous. For starters, it denies consciousness, without which there would be no DSM to begin with.
That is the reason that DSM dx are not 'cured' or 'curable' - the analysis is contaminated by the fact that obvious major variables are not isolated, so what you get can obviously be the result of any number of unaddressed independent variables, ie almost anything in the external environment, and for that matter, consciousness itself.
We will get much better at identifying mood-changing drugs, but none of them will affect the underlying facts of a person's life; and we will in fact move very close to Huxley's Brave New World, where drugs become a major part of social control.
If you were really interested and not simply ranting, I could ask any number of questions that would show you exactly why I believe as I do.
Flat earth your ass. Try rational discussion.
-- Modified on 10/21/2007 7:54:00 PM
-- Modified on 10/22/2007 2:18:14 AM
I think - don't you?
Why is it that you claim to have so much learning that you still can't explain?
Let's take another tack here. You have heard of informed consent, haven't you?
Are you telling me what you would tell a patient to meet those requirements?
BTW, if you hadn't noticed, on the internet, nobody knows if you're not a dog. Claiming credentials instead of demonstrating them is kind of a truth teller.
"Psychology and psychiatry should not be based solely on science. Instead...
Posted by scriptfixer , 10/20/2007 11:59:58 PM [scriptfixer has 18 reviews]
Instead of relying solely on science, psychiatrists and psychologists need to apply a certain amount of imagination and artistry if they are to be effective diagnosticians and therapists."
Do you recall me asking exactly where they were going to get this "imagination and artistry", and if this was going to be reproducible somehow, or if they needed to explain themselves?
Or is this the place you say, "you know what I mean"? Because no, I don't know what you mean, and from the looks of it, you're having a damned hard time explaining it yourself.
Whether you have that experience and knowledge or not, is not the point. The point is whether you can explain it to document yourself.
I'm not going to ask, nor allege experience that would ID anybody. We're supposed to be talking about ideas, not comparing dick size here. Nor am I going to run off and pout if you don't defer to my view - as you're threatening. You can assume, as BSD has learned, that I have enough direct experience, if that allegation impresses you.
What should impress you is the logic. Instead, you're pouting and banging your fist that somebody else expects you to explain yourself, instead of taking you at the face value of allegations of experience.
Not real impressive.
you're not quitting because you have no answers for these questions, are you?
Just asking.
Buddy, look. You're the one who started the thread. You start something, don't come crying to me if you can't finish it.
-- Modified on 10/22/2007 1:01:22 AM
Ditto, I could not agree with you more.
Totally agree. This "discussion" about the IRS was a classical example of exactly that. There are times I feel as if I couldn't get the other side to even agree what color the sky is on a bright sunny day!