[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just because you watch a Marvel movie it does not make you a super hero.

Uhhh... what? Please tell me you're kidding.

Just because you are in therapy does not give you competency to understand psychology or psychiatry.

My interactions with the system have, indeed, provided me with some insights about the profession, and potential conflicts of interest that may be present.

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.

Hence, you're going to predictably defend your profession and the people in it.

This is like saying that a surgeon is going take their orders on how to conduct an operation directly from Gray's Anatomy.

What kind of comparison is this? I never said anything of the sort.

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.

Generally speaking, yes, in most cases, this is true.

But if the peer review process isn't even attempting to challenge certain assumptions, those assumptions are never going to be challenged.

I posted a half dozen articles that point to poverty being linked through to depression.

That's right. They've identified a correlation between the two, but never challenge certain underlying assumptions. Should the poverty line be considered to be where it's currently considered to be? Is clinical depression too broadly defined and therefore overdiagnosed? What are the underlying reasons as to why people living below a particular standard of living tend to feel distraught?

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.

I suggested replacing all current programs with a UBI program. You think this is a bad idea; we clearly disagree. However, you still haven't discussed your objections to Andrew Yang's version of UBI (aside from lamenting that he came in 3rd among Asian voters). Andrew's UBI would not have removed any existing programs, but instead would have allowed people to either keep their current benefits or opt in to UBI.

Spoiler!

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.

That's not all they do. They also provide a financial incentive for people to become single parents.

Maybe she should have been more thoughtful about who she selected as a partner, to reduce the likelihood of her becoming a single parent? If you want to open up the discussion about perverse incentives, have you ever thought that maybe the argument goes both ways?

I can see the argument for increasing the amount that a separated parent has to pay in child support payments, to help the struggling single parent. But if you're telling me that the combination of UBI + child support payment + any income acquired from working, is not enough for the single parent to raise his or her child, I'm going to once again disagree.

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.

Of course, on some level, everyone is going to be looking out for their own interests; no one is above that.

However, it becomes a much bigger concern when we're talking about professionals who have been entrusted with the task of determining who is mentally healthy and who isn't.