[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

One thing I've learned from this thread is that UBI is an interesting topic for discussion of the market, macros and behavioral psychology as long as the discussion is dispassionate enough to work through numerous alternative hypotheses about how so many market forces interact with each other in an exploration of our beliefs and assumptions. There's no need for anyone to rush into passionately defending one hypothesis or one set of assumptions though. It's less interesting if we can't detach the intellectual exploration from the personal sentiments that resist challenges to the way we see things. It's really the type of discussion best held with open and curious minds on all sides.

It's rather easy to remain dispassionate when the status quo pretty much aligns with what you want society to be.

And it's rather interesting how quickly some become ultra-passionate when some components of society veer toward what they deem to be reprehensible. Is the devil really "nowhere near as evil as Donald Trump"? It's an interesting proposition. I would like to see it scientifically proven, using facts only. No emotions allowed.

Point is, I'm more than willing to be curious and open minded, provided that everyone here is willing to do the same. When people instantly resort to ad hominems as soon as they hear things they don't like, it makes it rather difficult to keep the conversation dispassionate.

Originally Posted by New Era

You're social media tracks are pretty easy to follow and they paint quite the picture. I know that you have no expertise nor competencies in what you are talking about. You like to use circular references and closed information loops, just like all the self-produced non-peer reviewed videos you've dropped on this site.

Wow, do you know who you sound like? "I've spoken to people in the know. They've been talking. They've been saying. They largely agree with me! The experts don't understand any of this like I do!" Let me guess, vaccinations cause autism too? People are talking. They're saying...

Oh lookie here. More ad hominems and false assumptions about me. Totally unexpected.

The people I've spoken with about this (in person, not online) have PhDs and are medical professionals. The idea that clinical depression is overdiagnosed is not some fringe idea held by a few random people on the internet, it's something that many people from various walks of life either accept or, at the very least, see as worthy of consideration.

I've also been through some things that have been rather eye-opening.

There was a time, long ago, when I believed that the experts are all-knowing and should never ever be questioned. It turns out, things aren't quite that simple.

Really? People in psychiatry and psychology get their marching order from the DSM? Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!!!

The DSM [sic] is a reference manual. More accurately known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and identified by the edition - we are using DSM-5. The manual is a reference to confirm or validate diagnosis assumptions. The American Psychiatric Association is the publisher and the content is developed by working groups of hundreds of experts in their fields of study, which is then vetted through the peer review process. Anything that ends up in the DSM has been fully vetted through multiple clinical trials and using an independent test-retest methodology. No marching orders. A very cooperative process for making updates where SMEs are the ones who determine the content, then have that content tested and retested to come to reliable and repeatable conclusions. Then that is vetted through the peer review process. So yeah, really driven by a small tight-nit cabal of "people."

I shared your little conspiracy theory with a circle of my psychologist cohorts and we all thank you for the laugh. We have all pulled out our copies of the DSM-5 and are awaiting our marching orders.

"Marching orders" might be a slight mischaracterization, but it's not that far off from the reality of the situation. The DSM is the guide that every psychiatrist uses to make diagnoses. In any situation where there is doubt or uncertainty, the contents of the DSM are used as the authority to determine what is to be done.

It's easy to scream "peer review!" any time someone suggests that the experts might not be immune to having blind spots. It's easy to scream "tin foil!" any time someone suggests that experts are not immune to having ulterior motives. It's not as easy to actually sit down and legitimately listen to what's being said by those who disagree with some of the established doctrines of our society. And by legitimately listen I mean actually listen without getting side tracked by ad hominems, stereotypes, or prejudices.

My belief is that UBI would lead to a precipitous drop in rates of depression. Can I scientifically prove it? No, but that in and of itself not a reason to dismiss the notion outright. I think more study should be done into looking into the relationship between depression rates (and the things that cause people to become depressed in the first place) and how UBI could potentially alleviate some of those causes. These people may be on to something: http://www.psychchange.org/uploads/9...eb_updated.pdf

FTR - it's absolutely true that most scientists and medical experts are amazing people who do incredibly important work, and don't allow ulterior motives to pollute what they do. However, the things I've seen, heard, and been through, have shown me that not all people in fields of expertise should be painted with the same angelic brush.