PDA

View Full Version : Psychiatry In The U.S.A.



Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 02:06 AM
:cry::(:sick::confused::sad::mad:Psychiatry in the USA uses the "Medical Model", which equates the brain and its' functionings as the source of all mental/behavioral dysfunction. It is totally materialistic, denying the existence of concepts such as "The Silent Observer", a "Spirit", a "soul", a "Collective Unconscious", and, most importantly, it denies the value of a human relationship between patient and therapist.

I believe that the "Medical Model" of Psychiatry is not only wrong, but represents a threat to the well-being of millions of people and, by extension, a pathological view of our species, and a threat to the existence of Homo sapiens on our planet Earth.

"After 12 years of therapy and psychotherapeutic drugs, my psychiatrist said something that brought tears to my eyes. He said, 'No hablo ingles.'"

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-17, 02:11 AM
You can't argue with success.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 02:23 AM
It is totally materialistic, denying the existence of concepts such as "The Silent Observer", a "Spirit", a "soul", a "Collective Unconscious", and, most importantly, it denies the value of a human relationship between patient and therapist.

All true, except that last one about relationships. The reason being that there is no evidence for the existence of The Silent Observer", a "Spirit", a "soul", or a "Collective Unconscious".

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 02:24 AM
You can't argue with success.

No hablo englais!

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-17, 02:36 AM
:cry::(:sick::confused::sad::mad:Psychiatry in the USA uses the "Medical Model", which equates the brain and its' functionings as the source of all mental/behavioral dysfunction. It is totally materialistic, denying the existence of concepts such as "The Silent Observer", a "Spirit", a "soul", a "Collective Unconscious" and, most importantly, it denies the value of a human relationship between patient and therapist.


Regarding concepts like "The Silent Observer", a "Spirit", a "soul", a "Collective Unconscious" I think those are more appropriate to discussions with priests or other religious figures. My experience on the subject of psychiatry comes second-hand from relatives. In my opinion, the biggest problem with the issue is that we just don't know enough about how the brain works, so anything aside from medical therapy is only a couple steps away from the witch doctor. I think medicine is starting to make a dent for some, but even that is at a very early level.



I believe that the "Medical Model" of Psychiatry is not only wrong, but represents a threat to the well-being of millions of people and, by extension, a pathological view of our species, and a threat to the existence of Homo sapiens on our planet Earth.


I certainly do not agree with that.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 02:41 AM
I think just the opposite, that the medical model is the first baby step toward a real understanding of the human mind and how it works.

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 02:47 AM
You can't argue with success.

Excuse me, but what do define as success? Chemical intervention may suppress symptoms of "mental disease", causing the afflicted to live a life of an emotionally flat-lined state, incapable of feeling pain or joy. This is a hellish existence.Sort of an army of walking wounded. Mental distress is a struggle between living the expection of extrinsic expectations and the intrinsic need to know, live and express the true self. This is an important distinction not to be taken flippantly. A view of humanity as genitically predetermined, physical and material, and by logical extension, a behaviorly deterministic existense, is just wrong and dumd-assed ignorant of the subjective reality of BEING.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 02:50 AM
Excuse me, but what do define as success? Chemical intervention may suppress symptoms of "mental disease", causing the afflicted to live a life of an emotionally flat-lined state, incapable of feeling pain or joy. This is a hellish existence.Sort of an army of walking wounded. Mental distress is a struggle between living the expection of extrinsic expectations and the intrinsic need to know, live and express the true self. This is an important distinction not to be taken flippantly. A view of humanity as genitically predetermined, physical and material, and by logical extension, a behaviorly deterministic existense, is just wrong and dumd-assed ignorant of the subjective reality of BEING.

Clearly, you have never experienced the benefits of psychiatry. I have. I'd still be a useless lump scared of the world today if I hadn't. Trust me, it's nothing like the stereotype you describe.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-17, 02:56 AM
Excuse me, but what do define as success? Chemical intervention may suppress symptoms of "mental disease", causing the afflicted to live a life of an emotionally flat-lined state, incapable of feeling pain or joy....This should be even more interesting once Gillianren stops by.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Nov-17, 02:58 AM
This should be even more interesting once Gillianren stops by.

Aw, you ruined it. I wanted it to be a surprise. :)

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 03:08 AM
Clearly, you have never experienced the benefits of psychiatry. I have. I'd still be a useless lump scared of the world today if I hadn't. Trust me, it's nothing like the stereotype you describe.

I have experienced the same as you. But chemicals are used confidently and temporarily to smooth out some rough times. This is symptomatic relief only, like taking pain killers for a gunshot wound. The true help you received came from an interpersonal relationship with a therapist, spouse, friend, etc. The therapist would use the "old fashioned" freudian approach to the source of your distress.

I do not condemn the use of psychotherapeutic drugs. I believe they are essential to successful outcomes. But never forget that the drugs only help supress symptoms which interfere with the true healing which happens between one human spirit in an "agape" loving relationship with another.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 03:13 AM
I have experienced the same as you. But chemicals are used confidently and temporarily to smooth out some rough times. This is symptomatic relief only, like taking pain killers for a gunshot wound. The true help you received came from an interpersonal relationship with a therapist, spouse, friend, etc. The therapist would use the "old fashioned" freudian approach to the source of your distress.

I do not condemn the use of psychotherapeutic drugs. I believe they are essential to successful outcomes. But never forget that the drugs only help supress symptoms which interfere with the true healing which happens between one human spirit in an "agape" loving relationship with another.

That's one possible outcome, sure. And of course I agree that a good relationship can always help. But it is hardly a cure-all, and since every individual is different and has different problems, they all need solutions taylored to their particular situation. No one can say, "this one thing alone works for everyone".

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 03:28 AM
That's one possible outcome, sure. And of course I agree that a good relationship can always help. But it is hardly a cure-all, and since every individual is different and has different problems, they all need solutions taylored to their particular situation. No one can say, "this one thing alone works for everyone".

I totally agree with your statement. But it still takes a caring, informed, and loving person to facilitate recovery. And informed is Objective, but caring and loving are Subjective. These last 2 can not be analyzed. They belong to a realm some people call "religious", "superstitious", or of lesser value because they can not be disected, deconstructed and tested the same as a kick in the nuts can be accepted as unpleasant.

There is a part of reality which can not be analyzed, but only felt by the soul with a certainty equal to 2+2 = 4.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 03:39 AM
I totally agree with your statement. But it still takes a caring, informed, and loving person to facilitate recovery. And informed is Objective, but caring and loving are Subjective. These last 2 can not be analyzed. They belong to a realm some people call "religious", "superstitious", or of lesser value because they can not be disected, deconstructed and tested the same as a kick in the nuts can be accepted as unpleasant.

There is a part of reality which can not be analyzed, but only felt by the soul with a certainty equal to 2+2 = 4.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I disagree. I think that those qualities, pleasant as they are, are functions of the brain and can be analyzed like anything else. It may be a century or two before we understand them, but they are part of us, not anything supernatural.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-17, 04:01 AM
Drug therapy is not the only form of modern psycho-therapy.

But I don't know how modern American psychiatry is.
(They do allow psycho-analysts to call themselves psychiatrists.) :whistle:

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 04:18 AM
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I disagree. I think that those qualities, pleasant as they are, are functions of the brain and can be analyzed like anything else. It may be a century or two before we understand them, but they are part of us, not anything supernatural.

With respect to to you, my world view is different than yours. I believe that the real universe as we percieve it, is merely an illusion, much like a hologram is an illusion of a "real" object. I believe that the physical reality we know in daily experiences is merely a human interpretation of reality as it really appears. The physical universe as we experience it on a superficial understanding, is an ILLUSION. The reality we experience is merely a collapse of the wave function of quantum reality. The physical reality we come to know as objective truth is secondary to a metaphysical reality which is foundational to a mystical reality which posits that physial realism is illusary ---- WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS EXPERIENCING A HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 05:24 AM
With respect to to you, my world view is different than yours. I believe that the real universe as we percieve it, is merely an illusion, much like a hologram is an illusion of a "real" object. I believe that the physical reality we know in daily experiences is merely a human interpretation of reality as it really appears. The physical universe as we experience it on a superficial understanding, is an ILLUSION. The reality we experience is merely a collapse of the wave function of quantum reality. The physical reality we come to know as objective truth is secondary to a metaphysical reality which is foundational to a mystical reality which posits that physial realism is illusary ---- WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS EXPERIENCING A HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

You can believe that if you want to. To me, that's like saying we're in "The Matrix"; a deceptive reality. I prefer to see reality as reality-- not the whole of it of course, our senses are limited, but what has been analyzed, tested and confirmed. That's what science is about, finding out more and more about the nature of the reality we live in.

novaderrik
2007-Nov-17, 05:37 AM
it's always Daddy's fault. or maybe Mommy.
but nothing is ever your fault.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 05:39 AM
it's always Daddy's fault. or maybe Mommy.
but nothing is ever your fault.

You're thinking of psychology.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-17, 06:07 AM
This should be even more interesting once Gillianren stops by.

Geez, go away for a few hours . . . .

You must be indeed fortunate, Fraunkensteen, not to have a real chemical imbalance, one that makes every day of your life a struggle with your own brain. You must be indeed fortunate if merely talking out your problems (and I have a great therapist, too) can solve them. It is, sadly, true that very few psychiatrists (and only medical doctors can legally call themselves psychiatrists in the US) actually do therapy anymore, that the majority of them are reduced to merely issuing prescriptions. However, that is due in no small part to the fact that there simply aren't enough of them now that people are actually starting to do something about their mental illnesses. Much of the slack is being taken up by psychologists, but many therapists in the US don't even have that level of training, simply because the demand so greatly outstrips the supply.

I do believe that quite a lot of people get medication they don't need or that is actually detrimental. However, this by no means takes away from those of us who do need medication in order to function. The bipolar, the schizophrenic, the deeply and seriously ill cannot just be talked out of their problems any more than the diabetics can be talked out of theirs. We are sick; our brains function differently. Yes, it's true that having regular therapy helps me with some of the negative behaviour patterns I've developed in part because of my bipolar disorder. My therapist was actually out sick today, and aside from basic concern for her wellbeing, I do quite wish I could have had my weekly appointment.

But I am sick to death of people who haven't got a clue what it's like to be this way telling me that it's such a horrible thing that people rely on medication to handle their problems, that they don't just work it out, or concentrate, or whatever ignorant solution they have to cure my illness. I'd be much happier if we understood the human brain better and could treat people more easily and more effectively. But telling me I don't need medication shows a fundamental lack of understanding of my problems.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-17, 06:09 AM
You're thinking of psychology.

Specifically Freudian psychology, which I loathe.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-17, 06:51 AM
...in an "agape" loving relationship...
Agapē (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=b3G&defl=en&q=define:Agape&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) (or) (Gk. αγάπη), is one of several Greek words translated into English as love. The word has been used in different ways by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources...And your definition?

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-17, 07:06 AM
I think just the opposite, that the medical model is the first baby step toward a real understanding of the human mind and how it works.

I strongly agree with that.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-17, 07:15 AM
I have experienced the same as you. But chemicals are used confidently and temporarily to smooth out some rough times. This is symptomatic relief only, like taking pain killers for a gunshot wound. The true help you received came from an interpersonal relationship with a therapist, spouse, friend, etc. The therapist would use the "old fashioned" freudian approach to the source of your distress.

I do not condemn the use of psychotherapeutic drugs. I believe they are essential to successful outcomes. But never forget that the drugs only help supress symptoms which interfere with the true healing which happens between one human spirit in an "agape" loving relationship with another.

I take maintenance blood pressure medicine. Now, it would be nice if I could do without it, and exercise is useful, but is not sufficient to control this physical condition in my case. Similarly, it's nice if someone with a neurological difficulty can do without medicine, or reach a point where medicine is no longer needed, but it's pretty clear that this is not always the case.

Kaptain K
2007-Nov-17, 07:20 AM
Fraunkensteen and others,

Do you actually know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist?

Two letters - M.D. A psychiatrist is a double doctor - Ph.D. and M.D.

Read Gillianren' first post. She does know what she's talking about!

PetersCreek
2007-Nov-17, 07:21 AM
Add the voice of another who benefited from modern American psychiatry. SSRIs didn't make me any happier. They simply allowed me to be more so.

Jens
2007-Nov-17, 12:32 PM
I think just the opposite, that the medical model is the first baby step toward a real understanding of the human mind and how it works.

I have sort of mixed feelings about this. I think there is always a conflict in psychiatry between nature and nurture. There are those who claim it's the mother's fault, and those who claim it's in the brain chemicals or genes. I personally think that the human brain is probably too complicated for it to be either one, purely. I don't think that either approach is entirely wrong. But I very much agree that the medical model is a baby step toward understanding the human mind. Actually, the Freudian model is also a baby step. I don't want to condemn it. I think we do the best we can under the limitations of our knowledge, and need to be modest about it. But I don't really think simply that giving everybody prozac is the solution to our problems.

dvb
2007-Nov-17, 02:55 PM
Fraunkensteen and others,

Do you actually know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist?

Two letters - M.D. A psychiatrist is a double doctor - Ph.D. and M.D.

Read Gillianren' first post. She does know what she's talking about!
More specifically, a psychologist treats people with behavioural disorders, while a psychiatrist deals more strictly with mental illness.

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-17, 03:07 PM
And your definition?

Just an unconditional acceptance and love of another as they are.

filrabat
2007-Nov-17, 03:25 PM
Speaking as one who was on Zoloft, I agree that psychotrophic drugs should not be some safety net. They remind me of a major scene in the first Karate Kid movie. Dainel's knee got injured in the tournament by the bad guys. Miyagi used some eastern talent to keep Daniel in the tourney, he said to Daniel be careful

The pain will go away, but the injury will still be there

In the case of depression and similar matters, the drugs can dull the pain, but the dulling will be useless if you don't use critical thinking skills to work through your problems (I never went through cognitive therapy, but I simply faced up to my problems and thought them through very thoroughly and analytically).

In the end, it depends on how you use these drugs.

On a broader note, I absolutely agree that we are just moving out from the beginning stages of psychology. It seems that, up till the invention of MRIs and CT scans, psychology was, for the most part, guesswork and statistical analyses of how X group with Y trait behaved. Today, we can look inside a live brain and be much more aware of what's going on. Brain Scanning is still in it's infancy, but it already opened up new understandings of how humans behave. The 21st century promises to be the Century of the Brain along with the Century of Genetics, or Nanotech, and probably many other things.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 04:27 PM
Actually, the Freudian model is also a baby step. I don't want to condemn it.

I tend to think of Freudian psychology as more the crawl before the walk-- a necessary transition to get to the baby steps, but also something that must be abandoned and left behind if we're ever going to walk upright.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 04:30 PM
Just an unconditional acceptance and love of another as they are.

I know you don't mean it this way, but everytime I hear the term "unconditional love" I picture the battered women on daytime talk shows defending their abusive boyfriends-- "But we love each other, Ricki!"

Maybe a few conditions aren't always a bad thing.

Kaptain K
2007-Nov-17, 04:34 PM
More specifically, a psychologist treats people with behavioural disorders, while a psychiatrist deals more strictly with mental illness.
I must disagree. A psychologist is limited to treating people with behavioral disorders, while a psychiatrist, with a wider range of treatments available, is not so limited.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 04:49 PM
I must disagree. A psychologist is limited to treating people with behavioral disorders, while a psychiatrist, with a wider range of treatments available, is not so limited.

In practice, the small number of psychiatrists available in most places mean they barely have time to treat their mental illness patients, let alone take patients that can be helped by therapists instead, at least that's been my experience in the system.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Nov-17, 04:51 PM
I'd still be a useless lump scared of the world today if I hadn't. Trust me, it's nothing like the stereotype you describe.

Describes me perfectly! Maybe I need some help . . . :)

Gillianren
2007-Nov-17, 05:30 PM
I must disagree. A psychologist is limited to treating people with behavioral disorders, while a psychiatrist, with a wider range of treatments available, is not so limited.

I see one of each.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 05:43 PM
I see one of each.

Me too. A half hour per week for the therapist (used to be an hour before my Medicaid bailed:sad:), twenty minutes every three months or so for the psychiatrist.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-17, 07:09 PM
...But never forget that the drugs only help supress symptoms which interfere with the true healing which happens between one human spirit in an "agape" loving relationship with another.
[on defining agape]...an unconditional acceptance and love of another as they are.How is this different from your assessment of chemicals?
...This [chemical treatment] is symptomatic relief only, like taking pain killers for a gunshot wound...
...The 21st century promises to be the Century of the Brain along with the Century of Genetics, or Nanotech, and probably many other things.including
The Human Epigenome Project (HEP)...constitutes the main and so far missing link between genetics, disease and the environment that is widely thought to play a decisive role in the aetiology of virtually all human pathologies...
The Human Epigenome Project (http://www.epigenome.org/index.php?page=project)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 07:21 PM
Describes me perfectly! Maybe I need some help . . . :)

...I'll refrain from making the obvious joke.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-17, 07:37 PM
Me too. A half hour per week for the therapist (used to be an hour before my Medicaid bailed:sad:), twenty minutes every three months or so for the psychiatrist.

An hour a week for the therapist and half an hour every three or four weeks for the psychiatrist; we're still adjusting meds.

Doodler
2007-Nov-18, 06:27 PM
Excuse me, but what do define as success? Chemical intervention may suppress symptoms of "mental disease", causing the afflicted to live a life of an emotionally flat-lined state, incapable of feeling pain or joy. This is a hellish existence.Sort of an army of walking wounded. Mental distress is a struggle between living the expection of extrinsic expectations and the intrinsic need to know, live and express the true self. This is an important distinction not to be taken flippantly. A view of humanity as genitically predetermined, physical and material, and by logical extension, a behaviorly deterministic existense, is just wrong and dumd-assed ignorant of the subjective reality of BEING.

Please pull your pants up. This talking out of your backside is starting to stink.

The mind is an emergent property of a physical mechanism, the brain. Its clearly documented that chemical alteration of brain chemistry can alter the state of mind of a subject. We've seen this clearly in the abuse of drugs and alcohol and their physical effects on the mechanism of the brain itself.

What is flawed about the idea of using chemistry in a controlled manner to assist in regulating those processes towards more beneficial ends?

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2007-Nov-19, 09:31 AM
For a far more rational "from the trenches" critique of modern psychiatry, try this psychiatrist's blog: The Last Psychiatrist (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/)

Basically, he points out that psychiatry is not yet the science that many of it's practitioners claim it to be. While we know that medications can help, and we (sort of) know what they do, we still have no idea why they work, and we have no objective pathologies, just heuristic diagnoses. Unfortunately, this isn't likely to change without a major shakeup in how psychiatrists think about what they do.

This post (Are Antipsychotics Overprescribed in Kids? (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2006/05/are_antipsychotics_overprescri.html)) probably sums up his position the best:

It is psychiatry's ridiculously dangerous, and ultimately doomed, paradigm: if you are not doing well on a medication, you must be so sick that you require two medications. It seems to have occurred to no one in psychiatry that failure on a medication could mean that it was the wrong medication.

The reason this polypharmacy madness is even possible is psychiatry's obsession with diagnosis, labels-- with semiotics.

[...]

Saying an antipsychotic is worse than an antidepressant for depression is a valueless statement, especially in the absence of data on this question. You are actually better off asking, "which is better for depression, blocking the serotonin transporter or blocking 5HT2a receptors?" See? Put this way the distinction seems less obvious. And even that question is valueless, as there is nothing (that we know of at this time) that allows us to say what effect either pharmacologic maneuver actually has. 5HT2A blockade does what again? Really? Do you have any evidence for that at all? And no more post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense. David Hume laughs at you.

Other important posts:
The Ten Biggest Mistakes Psychiatrists Make (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2006/11/post_2.html)
Farewell, Depression (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/04/farewell_depression.html)
Massacre of the Unicorns (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2006/11/massacre_of_the_unicorns.html) (he may have been drunk when he wrote this one, and the formatting's hosed.)

Sometimes, he's also funny.
Aren't Two Antipsychotics Better Than One? (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/08/arent_two_antipsychotics_bette.html)

MY PSYCHIATRIST WANTS TO GIVE ME TWO ANTIPSYCHOTICS AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Undoubtedly, your first impulse will be to punch him in the testicles, but as you know, the Kellogg-Briand pact (1928) expressly forbids this. However, it is notably silent on the issue of voodoo/ shark attacks, which can be used with discretion.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 09:33 AM
All of my doctors have been of the "maybe a different medication will work" school. I've been trying various meds for years now, and I haven't been on a cocktail yet.

AndreH
2007-Nov-19, 10:21 AM
I do not have any experiences with psychatrists, therapists and so on. It is great if you have real problems and some one can help you.

What I think makes it dangerous is (as it is very often the case) there is a million dollar market. For this market it is a benefit if you give people that simplified picture of "there is a desease, we can cure it with drug X".

A simplified example of what I mean: Instead of telling parents they should take care their kids should not watch to much TV it is more profitable to attest a "defektive concentration syndrome" and tell them give your kid 3 times a day this drug X and it will be ok.

(The example is "made up" to show what I mean. I do not know if there is such a thing as "defektive concentration syndrome" or if too much TV has an influence on concentration.)

I am sure that development is not good for those who really need help. And it is doing for sure damage to those who are treated this way.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 07:27 PM
There is no evidence that too much TV itself destroys concentration; I should imagine it depends a great deal on what you watch.

I agree that not everyone who gets drugs should. I'm sure it surprises some people to know that, but I do. I've even known people who were prescribed drugs they simply didn't need. I will, however, say that just about everyone would benefit from a little talk therapy at least once in their lives. It's really helpful to have someone who isn't part of the situation who'll just sit and listen.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 07:36 PM
There is no evidence that too much TV itself destroys concentration; I should imagine it depends a great deal on what you watch.


Well, it was meant mostly as a joke. Although most shows (and all commercials) targeted at kids fit the bill. And I'm sure I read of at least one test done that showed TV viewers' brainwaves after 5 minutes matched those of a person in a hypnotic state. Who knows, maybe it's the rastering pattern or the flickering refresh rates of the screen. I'd be interested to know if HDTV screens show the same results. ;)

AndreH
2007-Nov-19, 08:48 PM
Well, it was meant mostly as a joke. Although most shows (and all commercials) targeted at kids fit the bill. And I'm sure I read of at least one test done that showed TV viewers' brainwaves after 5 minutes matched those of a person in a hypnotic state. Who knows, maybe it's the rastering pattern or the flickering refresh rates of the screen. I'd be interested to know if HDTV screens show the same results. ;)

Not really a joke. When it comes to psychiatry I do not know to much therefore I have made up that example to illustrate what I meant.

BTW: I heard a broadcast on my favorite radio station not to long ago, that to much TV influence the ability of the brain to transfer things from the short term memory into the long term memory.

So what I tried to say is: Sometimes it seems that certain illnesses come into fashion. In Germany 10 years ago no one did know the term hyperactive. If today a kid in school behaves different (a little louder maybe) someone is immediately at hand with the term hyperactive and they ask for treatment. I am not sure if it is maybe because it is the fashionable desease of the day. (And some people can make money with it).

But as I said: I do not know much in this field.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 09:12 PM
Not really a joke. When it comes to psychiatry I do not know to much therefore I have made up that example to illustrate what I meant.


Sorry, I thought you were quoting the old maxim about "TV destroys brain cells".

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-19, 09:28 PM
BTW: I heard a broadcast on my favorite radio station not to long ago, that to much TV influence the ability of the brain to transfer things from the short term memory into the long term memory.
Perhaps not a completely unbiased source. :whistle:

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 10:34 PM
So what I tried to say is: Sometimes it seems that certain illnesses come into fashion. In Germany 10 years ago no one did know the term hyperactive. If today a kid in school behaves different (a little louder maybe) someone is immediately at hand with the term hyperactive and they ask for treatment. I am not sure if it is maybe because it is the fashionable desease of the day. (And some people can make money with it).

But as I said: I do not know much in this field.

I have, as you can imagine, done a great deal of research into psychiatry; not as much as a few of my friends, but far more than the average person. I am still very much a layman on the subject, in that I doubt I'd be able to pass even a basic exam in a real class on psychiatry given in med school. However, I know more than a little about diagnosis.

There are two problems here, and you're absolutely right about one of them. ADD and ADHD are, indeed, "fashionable diseases." I knew a two-year-old (she's a teenager now, and doesn't that make me feel old!) who was diagnosed with ADD when the real problem was that she lived in an apartment with a mother who never took her to the park. Two-year-olds have a lot of energy, and she never really had a chance to burn hers off. Heck, once while we were babysitting her at my apartment, we set her to running laps of our coffee table to calm her down. I had an adult friend at the time whose mother put her on Prozac because her mother felt she should be on Prozac; I really worried about the qualifications of her doctor. (She'd been on Ritalin until about six months prior to the Prozac scrip.)

That being said, however, there is another reason for increased diagnosis. Simply put, our ability to diagnose is getting better. Obviously, there really are people with ADD and ADHD. (That is, incidentally, "Attention Deficit Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." Or is it "Hyperactive"? Anyway.) They do have a serious medical problem, and they really should receive treatment for it. My own condition, bipolar disorder, was fashionable in the '90s, when I was diagnosed, which makes my diagnosis suspect--but I really do have it. I really do need treatment for it.

With mental health care having less of a stigma these days, more parents are willing to take their kids to a therapist if something's wrong with them, and that's great, so long as they aren't using therapy to replace discipline, which is another problem. That means that kids who might not have been diagnosed until adulthood, if then, get a diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. However, this does screw up the figures we have for the prevalence of whatever condition it is.

filrabat
2007-Nov-19, 10:56 PM
MRIs (which I had done on my own brain) can go a long way to supplying objectivity to diagnoses, particularly because they have a more objective basis (I say more because our knowledge of the brain is still rather shallow, but rapidly increasing). The thing about fMRI's and other things is that we have sufficient technology to discern different parts of the brain, and measure the blood flow through those parts, but not the theoretical for interpreting what the brain scan reveals. In a generation or so, we'll surely have a substantially better handle on the theory needed to interpret the images.

Even so, neurology and the psychological sciences entered a new era with the invention of non-invasive scanning - already producing a huge deluge of information about what makes each and every one of us think and act the way we do, what the limits of "free will" are, and what it means to have "personal responsibility"(which the latter, I suppose, will finally have some degree of objectivity)

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-20, 03:36 AM
Why is it that when the ratio of doctors to people in a defined geographic loacation (in the US) increases to a certain point, the death rate initially decreases, then plateaus, and then starts to increase again? This is from an AMA study I remember reading 20 years ago.

AndreH
2007-Nov-20, 08:42 AM
Perhaps not a completely unbiased source. :whistle:

:lol:

AndreH
2007-Nov-20, 09:12 AM
I have, as you can imagine, done a great deal of research into psychiatry; not as much as a few of my friends, but far more than the average person. I am still very much a layman on the subject, in that I doubt I'd be able to pass even a basic exam in a real class on psychiatry given in med school. However, I know more than a little about diagnosis.

There are two problems here, and you're absolutely right about one of them. ADD and ADHD are, indeed, "fashionable diseases." I knew a two-year-old (she's a teenager now, and doesn't that make me feel old!) who was diagnosed with ADD when the real problem was that she lived in an apartment with a mother who never took her to the park. Two-year-olds have a lot of energy, and she never really had a chance to burn hers off. Heck, once while we were babysitting her at my apartment, we set her to running laps of our coffee table to calm her down. I had an adult friend at the time whose mother put her on Prozac because her mother felt she should be on Prozac; I really worried about the qualifications of her doctor. (She'd been on Ritalin until about six months prior to the Prozac scrip.)

That being said, however, there is another reason for increased diagnosis. Simply put, our ability to diagnose is getting better. Obviously, there really are people with ADD and ADHD. (That is, incidentally, "Attention Deficit Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." Or is it "Hyperactive"? Anyway.) They do have a serious medical problem, and they really should receive treatment for it. My own condition, bipolar disorder, was fashionable in the '90s, when I was diagnosed, which makes my diagnosis suspect--but I really do have it. I really do need treatment for it.

With mental health care having less of a stigma these days, more parents are willing to take their kids to a therapist if something's wrong with them, and that's great, so long as they aren't using therapy to replace discipline, which is another problem. That means that kids who might not have been diagnosed until adulthood, if then, get a diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. However, this does screw up the figures we have for the prevalence of whatever condition it is.

bold mine. That was exactly what I was aiming at.

Thanks for your detailed explanations. Indeed I was referring to 2 cases in my daughters (9 years old) school. I just did not bother to write down the details.
In one case the outcome was that the boy was (is) simply high intelligent and after jumping one grade he was completely fine.

The other case was more complicated. The boy (7 at that time and a friend of my daughter) had really problems, because his father died right before his eyes on a hot summer day from a heart attack.
What happened after that was not very nice. The teacher of the class tried to ban him from the class and send him to a special school taking care of kids with "learning problems" (dunno how to translate Lernschwierigkeiten). These schools normally take care of children who are mentally disabled or not developped mentally as they should be according to their age (wow this is really not my field, and I have some problems with English here).
Anyway not the right place for a normally developed, open minded boy. The mother was very desperate. The boy was treated with Ritalin (I think) to calm him down because of is "hyperactive" behaviour by advice of a doctor.
Luckily some friends of the mother (my wife among them) convinced her to stop that and consult another doctor. After that boy and mother have been send to a 6 week "vacation with therapy". There they learned to handle the problem in a different way. The boy is now (2 years later) back to normal and still class mate (and friend) of my daughter.

So that is were my doubts are coming from.

AndreH
2007-Nov-20, 09:18 AM
Sorry, I thought you were quoting the old maxim about "TV destroys brain cells".

No I do not believe it destroys brain cells. I only believe it has a bad influence on our kids when they sit several hours in front of the TV.
What I mean is, they are not doing other things in that time, especially nothing creative and nothing physical.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 11:55 AM
No I do not believe it destroys brain cells. I only believe it has a bad influence on our kids when they sit several hours in front of the TV.
What I mean is, they are not doing other things in that time, especially nothing creative and nothing physical.

All too true.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-20, 07:08 PM
So that is were my doubts are coming from.

You're certainly right that it does happen. And it does, to a certain extent, devalue other diagnoses, simply because there are bad ones out there. (I think, incidentally, the term you're looking for is "learning disability," like dyslexia.) It makes those of us with valid ones really upset. Actually, it makes me upset for those kids, too; some of them have other problems that get ignored because "clearly" have ADD or something. Some of them have nothing wrong at all, like your bright kid who just needed to skip a grade. Or like the kid I used to babysit, who just needed to play outside.

Do, of course, remember that there are also kids with real problems. You can't assume that every kid diagnosed with ADD or whatever has been misdiagnosed. Not every adult on Prozac is on it because their doctors just don't know what else to do with them. Some people are genuinely helped by these medications. Some people genuinely have quite serious medical problems that medication helps alleviate. There is no cure for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and I assure you, they can be completely debilitating.

I'm sorry if I'm sending you to a dictionary a lot with my posts; I know that some of the words I use are pretty obscure, but no other word says quite what I mean sometimes. I will say that your English is pretty good--better, in fact, than that of some native speakers I've encountered. The only other language I speak with any degree of fluency is Spanish, and I'm nowhere near as good at it as you are at English.

tofu
2007-Nov-20, 08:07 PM
diagnosed with ADD when the real problem was that she lived in an apartment with a mother who never took her to the park. Two-year-olds have a lot of energy, and she never really had a chance to burn hers off.

Reminds me of the story of the first Hamadryas Baboons to be kept in the London zoo. In the wild, they live in small groups consisting of one or two males and lots of females, with lone males roaming about trying to steal away females to build their own harem. In the London zoo, a group of mostly males were put into a small enclosure with a few females.

The males fought, of course, and murdered each other savagely. A strong male might try to cordon off an area and protect two or three females, but every time he'd turn his back another male would rush in and (for lack of a better word) rape one of the females. When the males fought over the few females, they would often tear them limb from limb. The males would then drag the dead females around - continue to fight over the bodies - and even repeatedly mate with the corpses. Only a few of the males survived the carnage, and I don't think any of the females survived. Poor things. The term "sexual object" was supposedly coined to describe this incident.

And yet, this is so different from the way they behave in the wild. No species that acted this way could even survive in the wild! So what do we say about the baboons? Should we say that they're criminals? Do they need therapy or drugs? Certainly, they could have been drugged into passiveness, but is that what's best for them or what's morally right?

What I'm getting at is that it's possible to take a living thing and put it into an environment where its natural, normal behavior becomes detrimental to its happiness. The baboons were miserable - and it wasn't their fault! They were normal baboons. It was their environment that was broken.

Your friend the little girl was normal, but couldn't possibly be happy in that environment. It seems wrong to drug her into submission.

But then on the other hand, we humans are probably best adapted for hunter/gatherer tribes of less than 50 families, where we can have the occasional bloody clash with our neighbors. We don't want to go back to that, but we don't want to drug everyone who can't live outside that environment either.

Also, ADD is the perfect disorder to support my theory that environment is the real problem. I'm not sure how this extends to things like bipolar or borderline disorders (though maybe the borderline disorder is natures way of ending an alliance with an alpha male)

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-20, 08:52 PM
This is not because ADD is environment induced, but because hyperactive kids are misdiagnosed with ADD.

ADD is actually the perfect disorder to support the theory that chemical imbalances exist.
Take two kids, one with ADD, one highly energetic but with no outlet.
Their initial behavior is very similar.
Put both on Ritalin for a week.
At the end the parents of the ADD kid will come to you saying it's the best thing that ever happened, while the non-ADD kid will be even more hyper.
At this point some doctors will try to raise the dosage on kid two instead of accepting that it wasn't a case of ADD.

tofu
2007-Nov-20, 09:25 PM
Note that your comment is logically equivalent to the following:

Take ye two women from among the townspeople, one of whom is a witch, and the other who is merely strong-headed.
Their initial behavior is very similar.
Tie them both to a board and dunk them repeatedly in water.
At the end, the woman who was the witch shall be cured. Her husband will tell you it was the best thing ever. The other woman will be even more unruly.

My point is, this doesn't prove that witches exist.

I wonder what would happen if you changed the environment for both children. I don't know what to suggest changing it to, but I'm just curious.

Doodler
2007-Nov-20, 09:32 PM
Note that your comment is logically equivalent to the following:

Take ye two women from among the townspeople, one of whom is a witch, and the other who is merely strong-headed.
Their initial behavior is very similar.
Tie them both to a board and dunk them repeatedly in water.
At the end, the woman who was the witch shall be cured. Her husband will tell you it was the best thing ever. The other woman will be even more unruly.

My point is, this doesn't prove that witches exist.

I wonder what would happen if you changed the environment for both children. I don't know what to suggest changing it to, but I'm just curious.

I haven't laughed out loud at a post in a LONG time. :D

Gillianren
2007-Nov-20, 10:58 PM
Also, ADD is the perfect disorder to support my theory that environment is the real problem. I'm not sure how this extends to things like bipolar or borderline disorders (though maybe the borderline disorder is natures way of ending an alliance with an alpha male)

Give a kid with the problem the one I used to babysit had a different environment, and her behaviour changes. Give a kid with real ADD a different environment, and it does not.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 12:24 AM
IMO, it is probable that watching TV and movies, especially the more recent ones, would affect the ability to concentrate. Many years ago, directors prided themselves on their ability to long shots, the record being 12 minutes IIRC. The fashion now is to never focus on any one scene for more than a few seconds. The scenes switch so fast it is virtually impossible to actually look at the scene, it just flashes by. And the camera angles are all radical. Instead of showing the scene from an observer’s POV, the shots alternate between super close-ups, high speed pans, and slow motion exaggerations which often pan around and around. You’d think the observer was a fly circling a tempting but moving treat.

The same treatment is now given to virtually all reporting, including news, sports, and even weather. It all translates into a reinforcement of instant gratification. The ability to observe, concentrate, analyze, and anticipate is being replaced by force-fed high-speed instant action and constant motion. Instant gratification.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 12:57 AM
The brain is an interesting interaction between the active thought processes and the chemical interactions that make those processes possible. Thought processes can change chemical releases in the brain, and chemical releases can change thought processes. It is a complex, interactive system that includes feedback loops, and can be interrupted by stimuli, both external to the brain, and external to the body.

All emotions are chemical responses. Chemicals in the brain control initial emotions. However, the thought processes can override most of those chemically initiated emotions. But in ordinary circumstance, the thought processes cannot override, or even effectively modify them all.

There are conditions in the brain where the chemical imbalance can be corrected with drugs which restore the nominal balance. The imbalances can be the result of improper fetal development, injury, disease, or even traumatic experiences. While some of the causes in each category can be overcome with therapy (in which the thought processes successfully modify, over time, the physical structures which control the chemical production) the resultant structural changes created by some of these causes become effectively irreversible.

The mind is a powerful tool, and can do a lot more than most people realize. Myself, I have developed many abilities that would normally be attributed to training in some of the Eastern disciplines. At will, I can dramatically increase or decease my heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature. I can stop bleeding in any area of my body, and I can nullify virtually any pain in any part of my body by mental concentration. Some of these things I can almost explain, some I just do. IMO, any person should be able to do all those things. The fact that so many “Eastern” devotees can do it, and the fact that I can do it, indicates to me that it is not only something everyone could do (with the proper training and/or incentive) but that it is a natural product of our (relatively) highly developed mentality as a species.

The old cliché that we only use 10% of our brains is probably true. We all have huge untapped resources that often go unused until called upon in extreme circumstances. Stories of amazing survival under terrible conditions are probably just a reflection of the dormant abilities inherent in all of us.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-21, 03:05 AM
The old cliché that we only use 10% of our brains is probably true.

No, it isn't. For one thing, it makes absolutely no evolutionary sense. For another, we do have the ability to scan brains now, and it's shown that, no, we use all our brains, though obviously not all at once.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 04:26 AM
No, it isn't. [The old cliché that we only use 10% of our brains is probably true. ]In your opinion :) Most people would understand that the intent of the comment was to convey the impression that humans usually use only 10% of their mental capabilities at any one time. It is common for people to avoid making a decision rather than exerting the mental effort to solve the dilemma that stymies their decision. Rather than figure out simple math mentally, they grab a calculator, etc., etc., etc. Now perhaps you understand that also.


For one thing, it makes absolutely no evolutionary sense. Of course it does. Many people are capable of lifting an automobile off a trapped friend, but almost never expend that amount of exertion. Capability does not mean immediate necessity nor constant use.


For another, we do have the ability to scan brains now, and it's shown that, no, we use all our brains, though obviously not all at once Again, scan the brain when it is challenged to its limit (if that can be arranged), then scan it again when it is processing everyday information. You may discover a significant difference in activity.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-21, 04:45 AM
Without any referenced studies, both viewpoints are opinions.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 05:16 AM
I have studied my own responses to challenges, and understand that often I choose not to apply my full mental capabilities to a specific problem. It is not so different than choosing not to expend physical exertion when alternatives present themselves. The absence of referenced studies, or peer reviewed papers, does not automatically make a hypothesis invalid.

If, later on, an opinion is verified by some credible study, does that opinion suddenly and magically change into a fact? No, it does not. It was always a fact, just not recognized as such.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-21, 06:26 AM
In your opinion :) Most people would understand that the intent of the comment was to convey the impression that humans usually use only 10% of their mental capabilities at any one time. It is common for people to avoid making a decision rather than exerting the mental effort to solve the dilemma that stymies their decision. Rather than figure out simple math mentally, they grab a calculator, etc., etc., etc. Now perhaps you understand that also.

My opinion, sure--and that of, you know, neurologists. They're pretty much universal in the statement that there are no vast, untapped resources to the human brain. You may not use all of your brain all the time, but most of your brain is taken up doing things that have nothing to do with conscious thought.


Of course it does. Many people are capable of lifting an automobile off a trapped friend, but almost never expend that amount of exertion. Capability does not mean immediate necessity nor constant use.

Your brain takes up an astonishing amount of your body's resources. It's so large that it presents an active danger in childbirth. For 90% of that to be used only in time of great stress makes no sense from a biological perspective. It would be wasted resources.


Again, scan the brain when it is challenged to its limit (if that can be arranged), then scan it again when it is processing everyday information. You may discover a significant difference in activity.

They do actually scan brains of people undergoing mental exertion. Their brains don't work substantially harder than the brains of people just sort of lying there. What they are testing for is neuron firing, I believe, and a neuron is either firing or not. It's not like a muscle; neurons don't exert greater force under strain.

Jens
2007-Nov-21, 08:05 AM
Without any referenced studies, both viewpoints are opinions.

I don't agree. There is a proposition put forward that we only use 10% of our brains. From what I understand, it is a myth that has become widely accepted, but there is no good original source. So the burden of proof should be on those making that proposition, I think. In any case, it's a bit tricky because you have to start from a question: what does it mean to "use your brain"? Does it mean that neurons are firing? If memories are stored, you may be "using" your brain even if it doesn't show up on a scan. Suppose a hard disk was nearly full of information, but you were only working on one file in a few sectors. Would you still say the disk was unused? I know it's a tricky analogy, but it's just to make the point that there isn't necessarily a clear definition.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-21, 08:14 AM
IMO, it is probable that watching TV and movies, especially the more recent ones, would affect the ability to concentrate. Many years ago, directors prided themselves on their ability to long shots, the record being 12 minutes IIRC. The fashion now is to never focus on any one scene for more than a few seconds. The scenes switch so fast it is virtually impossible to actually look at the scene, it just flashes by. And the camera angles are all radical. Instead of showing the scene from an observer’s POV, the shots alternate between super close-ups, high speed pans, and slow motion exaggerations which often pan around and around. You’d think the observer was a fly circling a tempting but moving treat....Given the quality of today's movies, what the fly is circling isn't a treat, but is, instead, what most flies tend to circle.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-21, 09:18 AM
I can remember when 7-seconds was the maximum time allotted per camera angle shot...
April 25, 1993
The New TV: Stop Making Sense It's Fast, Hip and Illogical. Welcome to the Future. [Washington Post]
...The old television, static and talky...is television for people whose minds were formed primarily by another medium: print.
...How fast can TV become? "The shortest unit you can get on videotape is one-thirtieth of a second, and the eye can see that."...
nyu.edu (http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/The%20New%20TV%20page.htm)

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-21, 09:51 AM
There is a proposition put forward that we only use 10% of our brains. From what I understand, it is a myth that has become widely accepted, but there is no good original source.
In part it was the wrong conclusion drawn from cases of hydrocephalus where a very large part of the brain volume was filled with spinal fluid instead of brain tissue without severely affecting the intelligence of the person.

The conclusion is wrong because of two things, the brain tissue hadn't been replaced by the spinal fluid, but had instead been compacted, so fewer braincells where missing than initially apparent, plus most of the brains processing happens on the surface, which hadn't been affected.

tofu
2007-Nov-21, 02:25 PM
The fashion now is to never focus on any one scene for more than a few seconds. The scenes switch so fast it is virtually impossible to actually look at the scene, it just flashes by.

I've noticed that too and I find it very irritating. Scene lengths in shows aimed at young people seem to average about two seconds. And what's worse, I can see the practice slowly creeping into mainstream programming. I used to Tivo a show called Cities of the Underworld but I can't watch it anymore because they were doing the fast scene flipping thing.

On the other hand, I love raves. Weird, huh?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-21, 03:10 PM
I have studied my own responses to challenges, and understand that often I choose not to apply my full mental capabilities to a specific problem. It is not so different than choosing not to expend physical exertion when alternatives present themselves. The absence of referenced studies, or peer reviewed papers, does not automatically make a hypothesis invalid.

If, later on, an opinion is verified by some credible study, does that opinion suddenly and magically change into a fact? No, it does not. It was always a fact, just not recognized as such.

And if it is not, it doesn't matter how many people believe it is.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 09:14 PM
My opinion, sure--and that of, you know, neurologists. They're pretty much universal in the statement that there are no vast, untapped resources to the human brain. You may not use all of your brain all the time, but most of your brain is taken up doing things that have nothing to do with conscious thought.And yet there are people who can do some amazing things that everyone else does not do. For example, a savant who can memorize and entire encyclopedia, word for word, is doing so with the same basic structure, and the same number of brain cells as everyone else. Why can’t anyone do that? That is processing a LOT of information. That is a great deal of brain power unused by most people.


Your brain takes up an astonishing amount of your body's resources. It's so large that it presents an active danger in childbirth. For 90% of that to be used only in time of great stress makes no sense from a biological perspective. It would be wasted resources. That’s supposed to be a logical reason? That is makes no sense biologically? So tell me, what biological or evolutionary advantage does an appendix have? It has no function in the human body, but can kill a person in a few days.


They do actually scan brains of people undergoing mental exertion. Their brains don't work substantially harder than the brains of people just sort of lying there. I’ve seen tests where certain parts of the brain apparently work a lot harder with certain stimuli, while other parts work a lot harder with different stimuli.


What they are testing for is neuron firing, I believe, and a neuron is either firing or not. It's not like a muscle; neurons don't exert greater force under strain.You have it exactly backwards. A nerve is able to transmit a signal of varying intensity. That is evidenced by the fact that your brain can tell you to move an arm in almost any variable amount. Muscle fibers, on the other hand, either fire or do not fire. They either contract or do not contract. The variable force is achieved by the number of muscle fibers firing at any one time. A constant force is achieve by muscle fibers trading off with one another to rest. Under constant strain, the shaking that occurs is when there are no longer enough rested muscle fibers available to trade off smoothly.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-21, 09:16 PM
And if it is not, it doesn't matter how many people believe it is. "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Anatole France :)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-21, 09:27 PM
That is a great deal of brain power unused by most people. But still far below 90 percent.


So tell me, what biological or evolutionary advantage does an appendix have? It has no function in the human body, but can kill a person in a few days.
It's vestigial. Evolution is a crapshoot.



You have it exactly backwards. A nerve is able to transmit a signal of varying intensity. That is evidenced by the fact that your brain can tell you to move an arm in almost any variable amount.

Actually, no. The brain signals differing groups of muscle cells to produce differing amounts of force. But a neuron is either on enough to pass a signal to the next one, or off.

Delvo
2007-Nov-21, 09:32 PM
And yet there are people who can do some amazing things that everyone else does not do. For example, a savant who can memorize and entire encyclopedia, word for word, is doing so with the same basic structure, and the same number of brain cells as everyone else. Why can’t anyone do that? That is processing a LOT of information. That is a great deal of brain power unused by most people.The last sentence does not follow from the ones before it. A "savant" is, by definition, someone who is lacking in other mental functions. That's not an increase or decrease in how much of the brain is used compared to other people; it's a shift in what it's used for from one function to another.


That’s supposed to be a logical reason? That is makes no sense biologically? So tell me, what biological or evolutionary advantage does an appendix have? It has no function in the human body, but can kill a person in a few days.1. The cost of a brain is many, many times higher than the cost of an appendix.

2. The appendix was once used for digestion and has shrunk since then. What use do you think all animals in the world once had for their brains and don't anymore? And why do none of their fossil histories show that their brains have been getting reduced since then as our appendix has?

3. Some uses for the appendix persist, such as a "substitute" immune function in youngsters whose immune systems aren't up to full effect yet.


I’ve seen tests where certain parts of the brain apparently work a lot harder with certain stimuli, while other parts work a lot harder with different stimuli.Then you've also seen one of the proofs that what you're defending is a myth: there's no part going unused.

I can understand how poeple could hear the claims that "we only use 10% of the brain", just not think about it at all, and fall for it, but I really don't get why they so staunchly defend it when they see it debunked. We've all seen more than one way to disprove it with even the most basic rudimentary knowledge of neurology since middle school. We can all easily figure out the logical inconsistencies in the claim even without having to counter it with anything else beyond itself. There isn't a single reputable source that asserts this nonsense, while there are plenty of places to find it debunked because EVERY source that can be taken seriously shoots it down. There just aren't two sides to this at all. And yet people continue to strain to find ways to cling to it...

filrabat
2007-Nov-21, 11:34 PM
Fast video images: "Blip Vids" anyone (re the Max Headroom TV series of the 80s on ABC)

Also, we never use all our brain at once, for if and when we do, we'd probably have a seizure.

The brain is a highly energy intensive organism. I don't know for sure, but I recall it uses something like 15% of all calories the body normally consumes (I assume that means the standard 2000 calorie/day diet), but that amount is fixed.

Interesting trivia: the brain uses about 500 ml of water every day, drains through the bottom of the brain (the ventricles) into the spinal column.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 12:05 AM
But still far below 90 percent. Perhaps. There is still a lot we don’t know, and processing an entire encyclopedia has to take a LOT of normally untapped resources.


It's vestigial. Evolution is a crapshoot.Maybe that’s why it doesn’t always have to make biological sense.


Actually, no. The brain signals differing groups of muscle cells to produce differing amounts of force. But a neuron is either on enough to pass a signal to the next one, or off. I stand corrected. A single neuron can fire from 2 individual muscle fibers to over 2000, depending upon the function of the muscle. However, as noted, each muscle fiber fires all or nothing.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-22, 12:21 AM
Perhaps. There is still a lot we don’t know, and processing an entire encyclopedia has to take a LOT of normally untapped resources.
We know how to measure brain activity just fine.


Maybe that’s why it doesn’t always have to make biological sense.
Just the opposite, actually. If it costs energy for the body to produce, it either pulls its weight or slowly fades away. The appendix is in the middle of that process right now.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 12:31 AM
The last sentence does not follow from the ones before it. A "savant" is, by definition, someone who is lacking in other mental functions. That's not an increase or decrease in how much of the brain is used compared to other people; it's a shift in what it's used for from one function to another. That sounds like an assumption. Is there verifiable backup for that? IIRC, the “other mental functions” are merely suppressed, not taken over to be used by other sections. Do to the specific natures of different areas of the brain, it does not appear physically possible that those suppressed areas are actually doing something totally different than they were originally designed for.


1. The cost of a brain is many, many times higher than the cost of an appendix.???????


2. The appendix was once used for digestion and has shrunk since then. What use do you think all animals in the world once had for their brains and don't anymore? And why do none of their fossil histories show that their brains have been getting reduced since then as our appendix has?Non-Sequitur.


3. Some uses for the appendix persist, such as a "substitute" immune function in youngsters whose immune systems aren't up to full effect yet.AFAIK, that is an unverified hypothesis. Remember, gut associated lymphoid tissues are also present in other areas of the gut.


Then you've also seen one of the proofs that what you're defending is a myth: there's no part going unused.I have seen the theories. But it is clear that some areas of the brain are underused, and have far more capability than they are normally called upon to provide. That is evident in some of the examples I provided. And again, it is semantics interfering with understanding. It isn’t that 90% of totally unused, but that, at any one time, only a small portion of the potential capabilities of the brain are being used. Aside from the maintenance functions, most of the brain is used to perform specific tasks on demand.

Another example is what happens in a real crisis, say an accident. A UPS truck ran a red left arrow and turned in front of me. As soon as it registered that the truck was turning into my path, I remember thinking that my daughter had just told me I should put on my seat belt, and I hadn’t. But I remembered she had. I looked at the approaching UPS truck and tried to decide if I should brake hard, or try to swerve to miss it. Then I remembered I didn’t have auto insurance, and that worried me. I decided to go ahead and put on the brakes and hope I could stop in time. As I skidded towards the truck, I could tell I was slowing down, but couldn’t tell if I was going to stop in time. I decided to swerve to the left. Then I thought about my seat belt, and braced my arms on the steering wheel. My van continued to skid, and finally hit the passenger door of the UPS truck.

When I went back to the scene and took measurements, I found that all that had taken place in two-thirds of one second. Obviously, the brain is capable of incredible feats of data processing. And just as obviously, it rarely uses most of that capacity.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-22, 12:39 AM
Here's a page on the 10% myth:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

Here are a couple of bits from the article:

Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading Skeptical Inquirer, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the "used" or "necessary" parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the "unused" part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, ". . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-22, 12:42 AM
...So tell me, what biological or evolutionary advantage does an appendix have? It has no function in the human body...Okay:
October 5, 2007
Our body actually uses bacteria to help digest our food. And if we lose too much of it, the researchers surmise, the appendix produces and kicks in a new batch of bacteria to help us keep breaking down our food...
Duke University Medical School (http://dev.smm.org/buzz/buzz_tags/duke_university_medical_school)

Jens
2007-Nov-22, 01:51 AM
And yet there are people who can do some amazing things that everyone else does not do. For example, a savant who can memorize and entire encyclopedia, word for word, is doing so with the same basic structure, and the same number of brain cells as everyone else. Why can’t anyone do that? That is processing a LOT of information. That is a great deal of brain power unused by most people.


It may be that people in general do not remember that large amount of information not because we are unable to do it, but because we (unconsciously) choose not to. It is important for intelligent beings not only to collect information, but to discard that which is useless. In order to categorize things, we have to remember that a dog with a spot on the left side is still the same kind of animal as one with a spot on the right side. So we have to rid ourselves of information that is too detailed. And don't forget that all people -- not just savants -- remember a tremendous amount of information. Most people can recognize thousands of individual faces, not to mention shapes and objects.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 02:29 AM
But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary.

It is interesting that you continue to focus on the details of the myth, rather than acknowledge my clarification regarding what I meant when I brought that up. The image of 90% of the brain being totally unused never occurred to me, since it doesn’t make sense. However, it is obvious to me that the enormous capacities of the brain are largely used in a minimal capacity most of the time, leaving, of course, large portions (at any given time) available to be used in special circumstances, or by special people, or even possibly with special training.


But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not Actually, they have had cases on medical programs recently, where bullets, arrows, nails, knives, and tree branches have entered the skull and gone right through the brain without any apparent lasting effects.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 02:31 AM
Okay:
October 5, 2007
Our body actually uses bacteria to help digest our food. And if we lose too much of it, the researchers surmise, the appendix produces and kicks in a new batch of bacteria to help us keep breaking down our food...
Duke University Medical School From what I have seen, there is a great deal of surmising, speculation, hypotheses, and theories, but little if any definitive evidence regarding this.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 02:42 AM
It may be that people in general do not remember that large amount of information not because we are unable to do it, but because we (unconsciously) choose not to. One theory is that each and every person remembers everything they have seen, heard, smelled, felt, or thought. (Denis Waitley, the Psychology of Winning). But it is the robot unconscious that remembers ALL the details, not the conscious mind. This brings up the problems with memory and how it is accessed or processed. It becomes a matter of a readily accessible filing system.


It is important for intelligent beings not only to collect information, but to discard that which is useless. It is possible that none of the information is either useless or forgotten.


And don't forget that all people -- not just savants -- remember a tremendous amount of information. Most people can recognize thousands of individual faces, not to mention shapes and objects. The difference between that and memorizing an entire encyclopedia word for word is obvious. No comparison at all, since it entails many many orders of magnitude greater detail and sheer volume of data.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-22, 02:44 AM
The difference between that and memorizing an entire encyclopedia word for word is obvious. No comparison at all, since it entails many many orders of magnitude greater detail and sheer volume of data.

If it's obvious, can you provide evidence that this is so?

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 02:47 AM
Compare the amount of data bits required to recognize 1000 faces, with the amount of data bits required to reconstruct an entire encyclopedia. This isn’t rocket science.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-22, 03:21 AM
Compare the amount of data bits required to recognize 1000 faces, with the amount of data bits required to reconstruct an entire encyclopedia. This isn’t rocket science.

How do you compare them? How much detail do you consider "recognizing 1000 faces" to entail? You can't just break it down into computer memory, for example, because the brain works in a completely different way. There is simply no evidence that what you're saying is correct.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-22, 03:32 AM
Compare the amount of data bits required to recognize 1000 faces, with the amount of data bits required to reconstruct an entire encyclopedia. This isn’t rocket science.

So for comparison, exactly how many bits is that each?

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 04:28 AM
I don’t currently have the resources to tally the total number of data bits required. However, I am certain that I could learn to recognize 1000 faces within a week if I really had to. I am also equally certain that there is no way I could learn even 1/1000th of an ordinary encyclopedia word for word, even if given many months. With the lack of data (probably no one has made a bit for bit comparison on this exact data set), common sense should be able to illuminate reasonable approximations, especially when the disparity is this broad.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-22, 04:39 AM
I don’t currently have the resources to tally the total number of data bits required. However, I am certain that I could learn to recognize 1000 faces within a week if I really had to. I am also equally certain that there is no way I could learn even 1/1000th of an ordinary encyclopedia word for word, even if given many months. With the lack of data (probably no one has made a bit for bit comparison on this exact data set), common sense should be able to illuminate reasonable approximations, especially when the disparity is this broad.

Memorizing faces is what the brain is built for. Memorizing written words and numbers requires using the brain in a different way. Easier/harder does not depend only on the amount of data, but the type as well.

And "common sense", being subjective opinion, is not data.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-22, 04:51 AM
It is interesting that you continue to focus on the details of the myth, rather than acknowledge my clarification regarding what I meant when I brought that up. The image of 90% of the brain being totally unused never occurred to me, since it doesn’t make sense.


Eh? That's why you stated the classic ten percent myth? Here's your statement:



The old cliché that we only use 10% of our brains is probably true. We all have huge untapped resources that often go unused until called upon in extreme circumstances. Stories of amazing survival under terrible conditions are probably just a reflection of the dormant abilities inherent in all of us.

That is quite simply incorrect. Many studies have shown that people use a lot more than ten percent of their brain in everyday tasks. If you want to retract your claim, though, go right ahead.



Actually, they have had cases on medical programs recently, where bullets, arrows, nails, knives, and tree branches have entered the skull and gone right through the brain without any apparent lasting effects.

Being young or lucky helps, but there is a long list of cases where the effects are blatantly obvious.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-22, 05:04 AM
I don’t currently have the resources to tally the total number of data bits required. However, I am certain that I could learn to recognize 1000 faces within a week if I really had to. I am also equally certain that there is no way I could learn even 1/1000th of an ordinary encyclopedia word for word, even if given many months.


Sure, you could recognize a face, but could you draw the face, down to the number and shape of the eyelashes and the positions of the freckles? Facial recognition relies on the memory of certain facial features and their relationship with each other. The brain is built for that, and it isn't the same as actually memorizing the fine details of the face, let alone memorizing all the words in an encyclopedia.

Kaptain K
2007-Nov-22, 07:14 AM
MentalAvenger,

So far we have your (oft repeated) assertion that savants can memorize an entire encyclopedia, without a single citation.

And your assertion of your own vast mental powers, which without verification, are mere hearsay.

My father was a psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation (the Mayo's of Psychiatry and Psychology). They invited a Hindu guru who claimed "powers' similar to the ones you claim. Yes he did have some pretty amazing control of his autonomous nervous system, such as being able to raise or lower his skin temperature by a few degrees locally and even reverse peristalsis of the gut, but when he claimed to be able to boil water in his hands or to levitate, they asked him to show them. His response was "I don't feel like it right now. You'll just have to take my word for it."

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-22, 07:42 PM
The last sentence does not follow from the ones before it. A "savant" is, by definition, someone who is lacking in other mental functions.
Actually it's the "Idiot Savant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant)" who is lacking in other mental functions.
A "Savant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath)", from the French "knowing", is by definition quite capable and/or knowledgeable:)

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 11:31 PM
Memorizing faces is what the brain is built for. Memorizing written words and numbers requires using the brain in a different way. If you say so.


And "common sense", being subjective opinion, is not data. No, it is contributory evidence.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 11:40 PM
Eh? That's why you stated the classic ten percent myth? Here's your statement: Isn’t bringing up the original quote verbatim, while ignoring subsequent clarifications, a bit disingenuous? We don’t all always phrase every comment in the best possible format each and every time. Sometimes we offer clarification and additional comments in an attempt to convey our opinions.


That is quite simply incorrect. …. yadda, yadda, yadda….
Again, ignoring my clarifications…………..


Being young or lucky helps, but there is a long list of cases where the effects are blatantly obvious. The point was that large areas of the brain have been damaged by impalement, without noticeable long term effects. Of course, in other cases, small areas of the brain are damaged with fatal effects. It appears that it depends upon which areas are destroyed.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-22, 11:55 PM
So far we have your (oft repeated) assertion that savants can memorize an entire encyclopedia, without a single citation. BUSTED!! I was wondering how long it would take. :)

Maybe it depends upon the encyclopedia. Perhaps the Complete Encyclopedia of Al Gore’s Internet inventions.


And your assertion of your own vast mental powers, which without verification, are mere hearsay.True, you only have my word on it at this point. However, that IS something I can demonstrate any time. For anyone who is really curious enough, it can be arranged. In person. I wouldn’t attempt to make a video of it, or have it on TV, since that would be way to easy to fake. I’d go see James Randi about it, but I don’t think any of those things are unusual enough to qualify.

Mostly, I use my “powers” to play games with nurses, and amuse my friends. The looks on their faces are priceless.

Now, if you are mildly interested, I can start another thread where I can attempt to explain how I do it, and how I believe anyone else can do it. Some of them are really easy, some are much harder. All, apparently, are within the capability of ordinary humans.


My father was a psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation (the Mayo's of Psychiatry and Psychology). They invited a Hindu guru who claimed "powers' similar to the ones you claim. Yes he did have some pretty amazing control of his autonomous nervous system, such as being able to raise or lower his skin temperature by a few degrees locally and even reverse peristalsis of the gut, Again, not all that difficult, once you know how. Some of those things we do without even realizing it.


but when he claimed to be able to boil water in his hands or to levitate, they asked him to show them. His response was "I don't feel like it right now. You'll just have to take my word for it."I wouldn’t believe either of those things either. (Unless I saw them)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-23, 01:00 AM
If you say so.:lol: Neurologists who spent their adult lives studying brain function say so.


No, it is contributory evidence.

Evidence is quantifiable. By definition. Otherwise it's just opinion.

You still have yet to provide any real data to back up your assertions. Any scientific papers, medical reports, studies on comparative brain function, even the actual amounts of information involved.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-23, 02:45 AM
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, I attempted to get the members of a science forum to agree on definitions of such terms as “evidence”, “data”, “proof”, “opinion”, etc. etc, etc. It didn’t work. No one wanted to agree on how to use those terms, for the purposes of discussion. As it turned out, it seems that people were so used to using whatever definition best suited their present case, that they felt too restricted for everyone in the discussion to use exactly the same, agreed upon, definition. As you know, dictionary definitions can vary greatly, and often do not address a situation to which they are attempted to be applied.

In this case for instance, depending upon the definition you choose to use, evidence can be verifiable data, or it can be an accumulation of large volumes of unverifiable reports.

Let me interject here that one of my favorite quotes is: “The plural of anecdote is not data”. However, anecdotal evidence is still “evidence”. IMO, anything that can be used to consider the veracity of a particular situation, can be considered “evidence”. That should be clearly distinguished from “proof”.

Of course, I will abide by the majority definition of “evidence”. Still, it would be nice to have these definitions, for the purposes of discussion here, to be spelled out definitively.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-23, 02:52 AM
Memorizing faces is what the brain is built for I’d like to see some credible backup for that statement. Over the course of evolution, it would seem that the main function of the brain, and its development, would be far more practical than “face recognition”. Living in small groups, I’d think that face recognition would be rather low on the priority of vital survival skills. BTW, IIRC, smell is used a LOT more by primitive species for recognition of group members than facial recognition. So it hardly seems likely that the brain was “built for” facial recognition.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-23, 04:28 AM
*Sigh* I see this is turning into another one of those threads. I withdraw. This just isn't worth getting into yet another shoving contest.

So enjoy your victory, Mental! You win by default. Don't you feel good knowing that endless rewording of the same claim over and over to wear down anyone works?

Anticipating your next line: "Nyah, Nyah! You quit cause I'm right! This PROVES it!"

...I'm tired.


:wall::wall::wall:

Kaptain K
2007-Nov-23, 04:33 AM
No one wanted to agree on how to use those terms, for the purposes of discussion.
For some reason, I read that as:
"no one would agree with my definition of those terms."

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-23, 05:32 AM
In this case for instance, depending upon the definition you choose to use, evidence can be verifiable data, or it can be an accumulation of large volumes of unverifiable reports.

Let me interject here that one of my favorite quotes is: “The plural of anecdote is not data”. However, anecdotal evidence is still “evidence”. IMO, anything that can be used to consider the veracity of a particular situation, can be considered “evidence”. That should be clearly distinguished from “proof”.

Of course, I will abide by the majority definition of “evidence”. Still, it would be nice to have these definitions, for the purposes of discussion here, to be spelled out definitively.
Ok. "[A]n accumulation of large volumes of unverifiable reports" will not be accepted as evidence in this thread.

Now get back on topic.

Delvo
2007-Nov-23, 06:12 AM
In this case for instance, depending upon the definition you choose to use, evidence can be verifiable data, or it can be an accumulation of large volumes of unverifiable reports... it would be nice to have these definitions, for the purposes of discussion here, to be spelled out definitively.It might be nice for you, as a distraction from the fact that you've tried to pass off your own "common sense" as evidence, which it most certainly is not by any definition at all, no matter how strained. That's like a criminal trying to get people to talk about what the law should be and proposing changes in it, to divert attention from the fact that he's already broken it in its current state.


Let me interject here that one of my favorite quotes is: “The plural of anecdote is not data”. However, anecdotal evidence is still “evidence”.No, it isn't. Anendotes are only evidence of what anecdotes can be evidence of. On subjects that require data as evidence, stuff that isn't data isn't evidence.


...evidence can be verifiable data, or it can be an accumulation of large volumes of unverifiable reports... IMO, anything that can be used to consider the veracity of a particular situation, can be considered “evidence”.That still doesn't include your "common sense". (It's entirely legitimate to build a case on logic alone, as long as you call it a logical argument instead of pretending that it's something else. What's not legitimate is trying to fall back to calling your logic "evidence" when someone's pointed out a flaw in the logic or some evidence against it.)

Delvo
2007-Nov-23, 06:18 AM
Isn’t bringing up the original quote verbatim, while ignoring subsequent clarifications, a bit disingenuous?No, it's just revealing how disingenuous someone else has been by trying to change his story after the fact.


Again, ignoring my clarifications…………..You haven't given clarifications. You've completely changed from one claim to another, as if looking for one that could stand in the hope that it might be mistaken for a validation of the original completely different claim. (And it's particularly bad to do this when even the second and third claims are also as unsupportable as the first.)


The point was that large areas of the brain have been damaged by impalement, without noticeable long term effects.When and who, and what part of the brain was this? I've seen many reports of brain damage cases, and EVERY one of them that I've seen before has involved loss of some brain functionality.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-23, 06:19 AM
Isn’t bringing up the original quote verbatim, while ignoring subsequent clarifications, a bit disingenuous? We don’t all always phrase every comment in the best possible format each and every time. Sometimes we offer clarification and additional comments in an attempt to convey our opinions.


The clarifications, as you call them, did not appear to be a retraction of the claim. Please clarify a bit more: Do you, or do you not, withdraw the claim?

AndreH
2007-Nov-23, 12:28 PM
You're certainly right that it does happen. And it does, to a certain extent, devalue other diagnoses, simply because there are bad ones out there. (I think, incidentally, the term you're looking for is "learning disability," like dyslexia.) It makes those of us with valid ones really upset. Actually, it makes me upset for those kids, too; some of them have other problems that get ignored because "clearly" have ADD or something. Some of them have nothing wrong at all, like your bright kid who just needed to skip a grade. Or like the kid I used to babysit, who just needed to play outside.

Do, of course, remember that there are also kids with real problems. You can't assume that every kid diagnosed with ADD or whatever has been misdiagnosed. Not every adult on Prozac is on it because their doctors just don't know what else to do with them. Some people are genuinely helped by these medications. Some people genuinely have quite serious medical problems that medication helps alleviate. There is no cure for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and I assure you, they can be completely debilitating.

I'm sorry if I'm sending you to a dictionary a lot with my posts; I know that some of the words I use are pretty obscure, but no other word says quite what I mean sometimes. I will say that your English is pretty good--better, in fact, than that of some native speakers I've encountered. The only other language I speak with any degree of fluency is Spanish, and I'm nowhere near as good at it as you are at English.

Wow being away 2 or 3 days....

I agree with you those who need treatment must be treated. That is one of my concerns.
So Psychiatry must try to advance to a real sience, to distinguish between all this different and complex behaviours and possible dissorders. Currently I do have some doubts if it will be able to.
(Also I have no real idea, how to use the scientific method when the subject are humans. Very hard to find proper experiments).

So a long way to go I guess.

BTW: Thanks for the compliment (no I was not fishing for it). I did not need to look into a dictonary. As you for sure you know from your foreign language it is a hundred times easier to recognise and understand an unknown term if you hear or read it in the context.

Now I will read through the post amd see how it developed.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-23, 06:51 PM
For some reason, I read that as:
"no one would agree with my definition of those terms."Not at all. In fact, I am happy to use any definitions agreed upon by the majority, as long as everyone in the discussion uses the same definitions. Its called staying on the same page. The problems come in when people are all using different definitions.

sarongsong
2007-Nov-23, 07:08 PM
...and/or ignore questions. :)

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-23, 07:12 PM
Well, it appears that my best attempts at clarification have not been enough. I worded my original comment badly, and that comment has been taken literally. I explained what I intended to convey with that poorly word comment, and that explanation has been taken to be “changing my story”. Whatever. Y’all win. I know what I meant originally, and I guess that is going to have to be enough.

If it makes you all feel better for me to retract the original comment, I hereby do so. It did not make sense the way it was written, even to me. Especially to me. If my subsequent opinions are also “wrong” (in your collective venerable opinions), so be it, though that is a separate issue.

IMO, we often do not actively use large amounts of the mental capabilities we have active or conscious control over.

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-23, 07:16 PM
...and/or ignore questions. :)Sorry. Am I supposed to separately respond to each and every question and comment directed at me? Does that include sarcasm? How about comments I happen to agree with, or just don’t have an opinion about?

sarongsong
2007-Nov-23, 10:58 PM
...Am I supposed to separately respond to each and every question and comment directed at me? ...Comments, no; questions, yes. :)
...How is this different from your assessment of chemicals?...

MentalAvenger
2007-Nov-24, 02:28 AM
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to answer questions posed to Fraunkensteen as well. :)

sarongsong
2007-Nov-24, 02:56 AM
:doh: http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-24, 03:05 AM
If it makes you all feel better for me to retract the original comment, I hereby do so. It did not make sense the way it was written, even to me. Especially to me.

Thank you, that clears it up.