Because by setting a criteria that must be met it actually removes power from the doctor and the book itself, ultimately the only thing that counts is the behaviour of the patient.
You are suggesting that the DSM has the power to diagnose people who are not ill due to bias in psychiatry, the manual is literally a safe guard against bias, it can be challenged in a way an individual diagnoses can't be.
I'm not describing it any differently from how you're describing it. It keeps biases of individual doctors in check (as it should), but it does not keep in check the biases of the people who actually write it (which is my point).
Quote:
When the manual comes out doctors and advocates pour over it, at times challenging indicators or their definition, causing revisions and reprints, it is why we are at the DSM 5 and not just the DSM. it quite literally allows the whole world to have a say.
Would like to believe this is true, but have reason to believe that it isn't.
I'm not describing it any differently from how you're describing it. It keeps biases from individual doctors in check (as it should), but it does not keep in check the biases of the people who actually write it (which is my point).
Would like to believe this is true, but have reason to believe that it isn't.
homosexuality, that used to be considered a paraphiliac disorder in the original DSM is no longer mentioned at all in edition 5, it wasnt because doctors suddenly decided being gay wasnt a sign of mental illness, it was because society decided being gay was ok
That was a problem, and it was corrected.
Maybe it's also a problem that those who don't obediently accept society's norms are labelled as passive-aggressive personality disorder sociopaths...
Maybe it's also a problem that those who people who don't obediently accept society's norms are labelled as passive-aggressive personality disorder sociopaths...
They arent unless they are shown to have hit three of these, and if you are guilty of three of these you arent just some romantic rebel, you are a total scum bag that does damage where ever you lay your hat. a danger to all you come into contact with
Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
Impulsivity or failure to plan.
Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
Having no regard for the safety of self or others.
Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
Lack of remorse, or inability to feel guilt, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."
The language there reveals some striking biases from the people who write this stuff. Admittedly, it's not in DSM5, but it's worrying that it was ever in the DSM.
This thread has kinda been derailed. Depression/DSM discussion should probably go in a separate thread.
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.
I'm kind of confused by what the intent of your response is. I'm not trying to silence you. If anything, I'm interested in UBI being given a fair shake through what I think would be a very interesting exploration of how the economy does and potentially could operate.
The UBI debate is analogous to the climate change debate though. The science done to understand what's happening, why and what may happen should be dispassionate. It's dumb not to be that way because making good decisions depends upon having good information. Dispassionate analysis has to come before making decisions about what actions to take. Letting emotions into that process makes it harder to have agreement on what's really possible.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
The language there reveals some striking biases from the people who write this stuff. Admittedly, it's not in DSM5, but it's worrying that it was ever in the DSM.
This thread has kinda been derailed. Depression/DSM discussion should probably go in a separate thread.
when the DSM started (1958) the language was pretty much whatever doctors thought, it was unclear biased, it represented a profession that locked people up because they were different, but the whole point of the DSM was to change that and it has, with every new edition the indicators have become clearer, less driven by opinion and massively driven by observable behaviour, I dont always like the DSM but it has made the field accountable to society in a way it wasnt before, it is no longer an individual doctors opinion but a definable set of behaviours that diagnoses a patient
I'm kind of confused by what the intent of your response is. I'm not trying to silence you. If anything, I'm interested in UBI being given a fair shake through what I think would be a very interesting exploration of how the economy does and potentially could operate.
The UBI debate is analogous to the climate change debate though. The science done to understand what's happening, why and what may happen should be dispassionate. It's dumb not to be that way because making good decisions depends upon having good information. Dispassionate analysis has to come before making decisions about what actions to take. Letting emotions into that process makes it harder to have agreement on what's really possible.
My response was to scoff at the notion that I'm being emotional and others aren't. We all use emotion to determine what we deem to be reprehensible. We all use emotion to guide our convictions. Anyone who suggests otherwise, is being dishonest.
Honestly, the deeper philosophical for UBI goes far beyond what I've said in this thread. I've avoided it because it would likely take this thread into all kinds of tangents and different topics. The gist of it is this: most of what we take for granted in life as being real, are actually fictional. Government, rights, property, etc...
Don't you know? Colleges and universities just brainwash people to be more liberal.
I know you are sort of joking but thats really the most important benefit. The experience of university makes people less authoritarian and less prejudiced regardless of starting point.
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.
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
$60 356 not including Consolidated Health Centers and Government Subsidized Housing.
Is that accurate?
Also, could you clarify if you are supporting or refuting his claim.
Quote:
The research does not support your claim. I posted a half dozen articles that point to poverty being linked through to depression.
I've never heard that that money concerns relevant to basic needs didn't directly lead to stress related depression. To which post are you referring?
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Just because you watch a Marvel movie it does not make you a super hero.
Uhhh... what? Please tell me you're kidding.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
$60 356 not including Consolidated Health Centers and Government Subsidized Housing.
That is the value of services provided, not necessarily what is paid out. The difference can be substantial.
For example, when you use your health insurance down here you receive a bill of what the value of services were, then a statement of what you are paying, then what the insurance company is paying based on their negotiated discount. An example would be ending up being admitted in the cardiac/stroke ward and having a series of tests done over a two night stay. The bill comes to $75K, of which the individual is responsible for the max deductible ($1,000 on this plan), payable at discharge, and then the insurance company picks up the rest. Once the discounts are applied the insurance company only ends up paying ~$9K. So of the $75K in services, that an individual without insurance would be expected to pay, the actual cost is $1,000 plus your premiums (another $12K). The insurance company is still way ahead because of the discount they get and the premiums they receive. There's a lot of shenanigans in this game IMO, but this is the way services are calculated.
Quote:
Is that accurate?
To a large degree. As I said, the math can get fuzzier depending on the source, but the same calculations seem to play out.
So while the individual may not be receiving the actual "money" the value of services they receive greatly exceeds the money being exchanged.
Quote:
Also, could you clarify if you are supporting or refuting his claim. I've never heard that that money concerns relevant to basic needs didn't directly lead to stress related depression. To which post are you referring?
I have posted numerous studies that support the claim that poverty leads to instances of depression to a factor of 2.1. That is significant and the finding is consistent. So yes, I am stating that poverty leads to greater instances of depression and refuting MathGod's claim that it does not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
That is the value of services provided, not necessarily what is paid out. The difference can be substantial.
For example, when you use your health insurance down here you receive a bill of what the value of services were, then a statement of what you are paying, then what the insurance company is paying based on their negotiated discount. An example would be ending up being admitted in the cardiac/stroke ward and having a series of tests done over a two night stay. The bill comes to $75K, of which the individual is responsible for the max deductible ($1,000 on this plan), payable at discharge, and then the insurance company picks up the rest. Once the discounts are applied the insurance company only ends up paying ~$9K. So of the $75K in services, that an individual without insurance would be expected to pay, the actual cost is $1,000 plus your premiums (another $12K). The insurance company is still way ahead because of the discount they get and the premiums they receive. There's a lot of shenanigans in this game IMO, but this is the way services are calculated.
This makes sense from a US perspective, where they don't have a government universal health care system. In Canada, removing the assistance programs would not be the issue you claim it would be, as long as we don't remove our health care system.
Quote:
I have posted numerous studies that support the claim that poverty leads to instances of depression to a factor of 2.1. That is significant and the finding is consistent. So yes, I am stating that poverty leads to greater instances of depression and refuting MathGod's claim that it does not.
They've identified a correlation between the two, but there are some important questions they don't ask. 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?
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Again, you don't know the true extent of my interactions with the system. They go far beyond just "sitting on a psychiatrist's couch". I've seen, heard, and been through a lot more than you think I have. We're going to have to disagree here.
As for Andrew's UBI, he was very clear that it could be funded through a VAT, and taxes on corporations that benefit most from automation. Those taxes may be anti-stimulative, but the UBI itself would be stimulative and offset the negative impacts of the taxes.
If your argument is that the corporate oligarchy would not allow it to happen, that's a separate issue that needs to be resolved. We absolutely can't be content with living in a society where the top 1% control more than a quarter of all the wealth (the problem is way worse in the US where they control half of all the wealth).
In any primate peer group, monkeys or humans, those at the bottom of the peer group, which is basically 97% in any system, exhibit stress and depression, that is the nature of being a hierarchical animal but finding yourself at the bottom of the hierarchy
UBI wont alter that, the vast majority of us will still look up to the lucky or just more psychopathic few that will piss on us from a great height and we will feel depressed, that is innate in humanity in any and every system we have ever had since before we had the ability to reason and, judging by the monkeys, before that as well.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I know you are sort of joking but thats really the most important benefit. The experience of university makes people less authoritarian and less prejudiced regardless of starting point.
Do we know that? Or does university economically and socially select for liberal people?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Uhhh... what? Please tell me you're kidding.
What kind of comparison is this? I never said anything of the sort.
No. Words.
