[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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

Again, just because you're in therapy does not mean you know a damn thing about the profession or how the professionals work. What's next? You went to a dentist so now you're an expert on the certification and operational practices for dentists?

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

Hence I know about the profession and the inner workings of the profession. You don't know anything just because you spent some time on a psychiatrist's couch. You don't know a damn thing and it shows in your third rate understanding of the DSM-5, the process for publication, and how practitioners use the manual.

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

It's the exact same thing. Gray's Anatomy and the DSM-5 are both reference manuals. Neither tell a physician how to behave or conduct their services. The manuals are there for reference and support in their field.

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.

If there is something sketchy, it comes up in peer review. People can make their chops and meet professional requirements if they are peer review hounds. If you're publishing, you're going to get peer reviewed. It is part of the process. It is exactly how bad research gets discovered and amended or removed from publication (see Andre Wakefield and his study on vaccinations leading to autism).

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?

Sigh. Read the damn studies. All you're doing is trying to move the goalposts.

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.

Yang's UBI would add $3 TRILLION to the budget. That's never going to fly.

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.

No. Words.

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.

You are aware these people have an oath to uphold, and they have a licensing board they have to satisfy? I don't know where you get your ideas or information from, but they are sketchy as hell.