[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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.

Just because you watch a Marvel movie it does not make you a super hero. Just because you are in therapy does not give you competency to understand psychology or psychiatry. And just for clarity, I am a psychologist, have a PhD, and am a member of the APA, as is my wife who is a certified counselor. I am very confident in how the DSM-5 is used and how it is drafted.

"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.

The DSM-5 is there to be used to reference and confirm diagnosis. Certain treatments require a high degree of certainty prior to prescription, so the DSM-5 provides a consistent tool for that purpose. Practitioners are not taking to a patient and then going to the DSM-5 for a diagnosis and treatment. The practitioner can assign the treatment they see fit. This is like saying that a surgeon is going take their orders on how to conduct an operation directly from Gray's Anatomy. It's a ridiculous premise that holds no merit.

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.

Jesus, the peer review process is there to eliminate blind spots. It is there to provide comment and discussion to where there may be inaccuracies. You don't know what you're talking about. Also, the process for the working groups is to use the test-retest methodology prior to any submission for possible publication, so consistent and reliable results have been determined prior to peer review.

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.

The research does not support your claim. I posted a half dozen articles that point to poverty being linked through to depression.

These people may be on to something:

http://www.psychchange.org/uploads/9...eb_updated.pdf

They are on something alright. Talk about a flawed report. Their assumptions are that UBI would be provided while maintaining the status quo of support and social services. That has not been the assumptions of the discussions, nor the assumptions of those seriously considering UBI as an option. Those support services are being cut to pay for UBI, so for those in the population that rely on the social safety net to deal with their personal issues, they are going to be taking a haircut. As I mentioned ealier in this thread, "many of these programs affect everyone. Many of these programs help the weakest in our society. Many of these programs are specialized and provide very expensive services to specific populations at a massive reduction. What happens when those programs go away because the funds are now being used for UBI? My concern is that services go away and make the weakest in our society that much weaker. It's easy for the guy living in his parent's basement to be all excited over UBI, but for a single mother with a sick kid, who is making minimum wage in a part-time job and taking classes at community college to better her skillset, and relies on various programs? That is terrifying. Tell me what her future looks like when she loses the following:

Head Start ($7,000)
Medicaid ($768-$4,656)
Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or T.A.N.F.) ($26,600 median)
Pell Grants ($4,160)
Federal student loans ($3,500)
Family Planning ($13,000)
Consolidated Health Centers (No data)
Food Stamps/SNAP ($1,440)
Government Subsidized Housing (varies widely)

Those provide a heavy lift that keep this woman's head above water and gives her a shot at a future for her and her child that may not include living in poverty. UBI doesn't provide the same support. As you can see, just these select programs provide an incredible lift in value that someone who has to rely on UBI would just not be able to afford.

If UBI were a supplement to existing programs, then I would be in support of further exploration. But any system that requires the discontinuation of programs, especially those that people have had to pay into their whole working lives with the expectation of a payout, that is a non-starter.

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.

But we should be taking your view as having no ulterior motives and being fully informed? No, we should not. Again, UBI is not a way to provide assistance to those in need. It is a way to give the appearance of helping everyone equally, but in reality everyone does not require the same level of assistance, and all you are doing is hurting those who need the most assistance.