-->
@Theweakeredge
Psychology has always fascinated me too. I'm less keen on psychiatry. Especially since the DSM-5's publication.
Theweakeredge AMA - Reboot
Posts
Total:
177
-->
@coal
Mm - I'm not intimately familiar with it's findings, what specifically has you twisted?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Basically everything Gary Greenberg wrote about in "The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry."
Highly recommend it.
Although, my specific objections would focus on a lot of those outlined here: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112800
For example, the DSM-5's co-mingling the criteria for Aspergers and Autism is totally stupid, as Wakefield (link above) notes:
ASD is DSM-5’s most explicit dimensional category, encompassing DSM-IV’s pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) involving deficits in social relating: autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder,Rett’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorders, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). Construing Asperger’s and PDD-NOS as mild forms of autism,DSM-5 places all these conditions within one category diagnosed using two symptom dimensions derived from DSM-IV’s autistic and Asperger’s dimensions: deficits in social interaction andrepetitive behavior patterns.Severity levels for each dimension are illustrated in charts and linkedto need for support The backdrop is that these categories were used inconsistently by clinicians, and diagnoseshad remarkably risen (for all autism-related categories, but especially PDD-NOS) from roughly 1 in 2,000 children in the 1970s and 1980s to 1 in 68 or perhaps higher today (Lord & Bishop2015). This occurred as diagnostic criteria were broadened and as these conditions became linkedto provision of public support.These DSM-5 changes proved highly controversial. One reason was that parents of childrenwith milder Asperger’s—a relatively destigmatized category represented by sympathetic televisioncharacters and purportedly applying to many famous people, from Beethoven to Einstein—fearedthat classifying the disorder with more severe autism would increase stigma.A greater concernwas that the translation from DSM-IV criteria to DSM-5 criteria was not exact, and the lower endof ASD’s dimensions seemed to set a diagnostic threshold that eliminated many mild DSM-IVAsperger’s cases from ASD diagnosis (e.g., DSM-IV Asperger’s required two social interactionsymptoms and one repetitive behavior symptom, whereas DSM-5 ASD requires three social interaction symptoms and two repetitive behavior symptoms).Moreover, DSM-5’s dimensionalizationeliminated the PDD-NOS category, which had been heavily used for diagnosing milder conditions. Some studies supported fears that the ASD category would exclude substantial numbers ofchildren previously diagnosed with PDD-NOS (McPartland et al. 2012).Some observers welcomed what they saw as an overdue correction to overpathologizing normal range eccentricity and social ineptness. However, the overriding concern was that public supportfor special education might be withdrawn from those who would no longer qualify for diagnosis.DSM-5 tried to address the loss of PDD-NOS by adding a new diagnostic category for milderconditions, social (pragmatic) communication disorder, which allows diagnosis of interpersonalcommunication difficulties without repetitive behaviors.However, the status of this new categoryin terms of public support remains unclear, and parental concerns have not been assuaged.In a bizarre twist, DSM-5 addressed the threatened loss of special education services with aclause that simply grandfathered in those diagnosed using DSM-IV within ASD: “Note: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasivedevelopmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrumdisorder.”This clause has no legal force, but autism organizations are working to ensure thatschool systems abide by it.
Wakefield lists more than a dozen other such instances. Wakefield rightly concludes by asking:
Is DSM relevant anymore, with the National Institute of Mental Health’s brain-oriented Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative getting under way (Garvey et al. 2010)? Unfortunately,on the eve of RDoC, DSM-5 presented a conceptually sloppy and unjustifiably expansive revision,exacerbating the false positives problem and playing to RDoC’s appeal.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... because while entertainment is important, the entire point of jobs is to benefit society
A job is
a: a regular remunerative position
b: a specific duty, role, or function
c(1): something that has to be done
(2): an undertaking requiring unusual exertion
while pay is
a: to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered
I do not have to benefit society as part of my job description. A job is simply a position of which I fulfil a duty for a payment. I'm not bothering you with my job. You are not involved. My work is simply a matter of myself and my employee. They pay me, I provide service. Done. You don't take my money, I don't take yours.
and if the overpaying of an individual is actually hurting society
The act of me paying Lebron because I want to watch him play does not hurt society. What hurt's society, are the people who don't work when they are physically able to. Remember, Lebron didn't get lucky and win his money. Behind closed doors, he goes to the gym, lives under a strict diet and trains like mad. He is rich because he is talented because he worked. I refuse to accept the idea that, in the example I provided, there is a situation in which taking Lebrons money is just. Also, refer to my example and feel free to author an extended situation which would depict what you think is moral.
say by giving a basketball player so much money they can have dozens of cars, instead of giving people who work out in fields to produce goods that you actually need to survive are working on barely above minimum wage
Lebron has donated over 42 million dollars to charities. He's made a huge contribution to society. 43 million dollars is, I hazard a guess, more money than you have donated to charity.
-->
@Bones
The purpose of a job and the description of one are different things bud. Lebron is an example, not the rule, on average, people don't donate that much, or any, money to charity. And... my example was of people working minimum wage jobs, HARDER than athletes, that's not "a problem" the fact that people who don't earn the money they make is the problem.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said basic utilities are free, basic necessarily implies "standard" and in this case, I quite clearly framed it as what you need to live comfortably, there was indeed a limit - you weren't paying attention.
This is not a debate. Lying will not score you points. Your original post says:
- Progressivism
- Free-Utilities
There is no "free, for some use" implication whatsoever. It's fine to just admit that you poorly represented your actual position in the original post. Either that or maybe you just figured it out along the way. I won't hold it against you.
The first time you mentioned "basic" related to it was in the second response and the first time any limit was mentioned in any capacity was in the first response and that was only after I poked holes in your "free utilities" position.
No, we don't, these people are not trained separately, not formally anyways, and the rates of killing innocents are only higher - because they receive no training in deesculation that they use, and they don't know how to handle mental health emergencies. Not to mention the killing and corruption, oh wait, that's the point.
We absolutely have different divisions. Those divisions many times do have specialized training, but that obviously differs based on the city. A small town has different resources and needs than NYC.
There is no proof that deescalation training would help cops.
What killing and corruption are you referring to? Should cops let themselves be shot instead or......?
I said basic utilities are free, basic necessarily implies "standard" and in this case, I quite clearly framed it as what you need to live comfortably, there was indeed a limit - you weren't paying attention.This is not a debate. Lying will not score you points. Your original post says:
- Progressivism
- Free-Utilities
Indeed, but if you'd been paying attention, you would know that I elaborated... because, ya know - you can elaborate on a position that is only expressed in two words bud, remember post #15?
I said basic utilities are free- and the amount of one utility, say, water - is free until you use more than what's provided. The basics are still free, extra, just isn't. The semantics here isn't convincing.
Like, you can try to misconstrue - but I know what I mean better than you do bud. What? I said basic in elaboration, you're "poking holes" was your poor attempt at a "gotcha", but it's pretty easy to implement a limit and then pay the extra - we have a similar but inverse concept with rent cost - rent caps and all - its neither not a valid response, nor something that's hard to implement. Stop with the gotcha and actually try to argue. And no - the only difference between formal police instruction is how in-depth they go with military strategy.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can be an arsehole if you like, but I'm not interacting with you if you wanna keep on making claims without backing them up and assuming that I know what you're talking about - because I don't. Go away, if you continue I'm blocking you, we've been over this Ebuc.
1} Why you acting out what your false narrative is espousing above?
This above is -1 so that detracts from your answers ---in message #3--- and leaves you at a +1 rating for the your anwsers to my seven questions.
2} Is you identity ---weakeredge--- a resultant of your fear of some truths presented to you, and,
...2a} your inability to accept your shortcomings regarding those truths?
3} Do you have a history of anger issues, and,
.......3a} if so, resulted in your seeing a professional in those regards?
-->
@Theweakeredge
bud
I'm glad you consider us buds ^_^
Indeed, but if you'd been paying attention, you would know that I elaborated... because, ya know - you can elaborate on a position that is only expressed in two words bud, remember post #15?
Ok, so you just grossly misrepresented your position in the OP. That's the answer I was looking for.
Like, you can try to misconstrue - but I know what I mean better than you do bud. What? I said basic in elaboration, you're "poking holes" was your poor attempt at a "gotcha", but it's pretty easy to implement a limit and then pay the extra - we have a similar but inverse concept with rent cost - rent caps and all - its neither not a valid response, nor something that's hard to implement. Stop with the gotcha and actually try to argue.
Well the thing is, I'm not trying to argue. I said that what was listed in the original post was a bad idea for "x" and "y" reasons. You responded with an elaboration of that point, which was what I wanted(it is an AMA). So now that I know your position is a subsidized limit, that's fine. As long as excessive use (however you want that to be calculated) is in some way discouraged, that is fine. The calculation of "what is excessive" would be the biggest point of argument, but that is out of the scope of what we can really argue substantively.
And no - the only difference between formal police instruction is how in-depth they go with military strategy.
That sounds like a talking point that cannot be proven nor disproven. Some states do in-depth training on all of those fruity concepts like "bias training" even though they are not proven to work in any capacity, and the most likely conclusion is that they are a waste of taxpayer money. Some don't do those. There are differences in types and extent of training by state and locality. Some training techniques work, some don't. To pretend that there is not a huge difference between departments across the country is naive to put it lightly.
-->
@ebuc
I think we talked about this already Ebuc, in fact there was a whole other forum about my anger-stuff - and even while trying to be pedantic - you still insist on being dishonest. The entire point of being pedantic is to hide dishonesty... so my previous thing stands. Stop or block.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Um.. no? I put a general position, then I elaborated on that position - that's like if you took my anti-theist position and said I hated theist, but then I clarified that it's an ethical distaste for the existence of god - it's certainly not a "gross-misrepresentation" it's literally just elaboration. Um... yes - yes you can prove that - because the people who teach at police academies have reports regarding how many hours future-police take of militarization training - however - as most of this training is fairly... shallow, a lot of it is informal instruction. Becase we can go back and ask police officers about their instruction... it is absolutely something you can prove.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think we talked about this already Ebuc, in fact there was a whole other forum about my anger-stuff - and even while trying to be pedantic - you still insist on being dishonest. The entire point of being pedantic is to hide dishonesty... so my previous thing stands. Stop or block
I'm sorry that truth annoys you. "AMA" is in the subject line. I have asked you a number of any things. So you answered correctly { +2 }, incorrectly { -2 } and others you avoid or deny and then label me with well known common derogatories.
So I now revise my overall score of you narrative from a -1 to a-2.
1} Why does ego strive so hard to maintain its indentiy?
2} What is lost if the ego steps aside to allow in truth?
-->
@ebuc
Um... no - because this is about me - any answer is how "I see it - that's not something that can be wrong- nor can it be wrong without substantiation. You've insisted me to be misrepresenting you in the questions, ever considered that just don't know what you're referring to? Regardless - I was "wrong" according to you. So here you go - here's my chance to you - substantiate your claim or stop. There you go - much more charitable.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... no - because this is about me - any answer is how "I see it - that's not something that can be wrong-
Yes, "how you see it" can be wrong. 1} Are you on some prescribed medications?
nor can it be wrong without substantiation.
Your never clear on what specifically it is you want substantiated. Your "how i see it" does not mean it is substantial or certainly not more than how I see it.
2} What is speifically that you want substantiated"
You've insisted me to be misrepresenting you in the questions, ever considered that just don't know what you're referring to?
When you have some shred of rational, logical common sense that I dont know what I'm refering to please share.
3} Why would you think I dont know what I'm talking about, when you have no substatiation that I dont?
Regardless - I was "wrong" according to you. So here you go - here's my chance to you - substantiate your claim or stop. There you go - much more charitable.
4} Which claim are you refering too, specifically?
5} Why do you constantly run off half-cocked distractions, instead of addressing the specifics as presented to you, by me?
6} You are the one who put "AMA" in the subject line.
-->
@ebuc
If it were anyone else'ss responses, sure you would be right. But its yours - you asked me stuff like: what is the answer to everything?" I have literally no idea what you mean - so that kinda stuff is just opinions that aren't making a particular claim. So yeah - that's not something that can be "wrong" in the framework we're discussing. Furthermore, you've failed to actually substantiate what I was "wrong" about. If you can't do that then I'm going to block you - I've had enough of your dishonesty for one day.
-->
@ebuc
I've been very clear - the things you said I was "wrong" about- how about - also the things you said I was "right about - substantiate every active claim you made
-->
@Theweakeredge
Favorite films?
-->
@Username
Spiderman into the Spiderverse, Get out, It was pretty good (though the first part was better - and overall I think I enjoyed the books a tad more), and i really liked Spider-Man Homecoming
-->
@Theweakeredge
1} What are you afraid of most, personally?
2} What are your worst fears beyond yourself?
-->
@Theweakeredge
- Increasing Age-of-Majority
Please talk more about this one. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm in my mid-20s now, and while I feel like I was a complete baby at 18, I also feel I was a complete baby at age 21 lol. I think there's really no good answer and it's all arbitrary, but clearly you have more coherent thoughts than I do. I definitely think the "Age of majority" should encompass all rights. The weird time between 18 and 21 when you have some but not all rights has to go away. I remember at age 18 I bought a rifle and thought it was ridiculous that I could buy this weapon, and that I could buy tobacco (at the time) but couldn't buy alcohol. At the time this friend of mine was serving in the armed forces but couldn't buy a drink lol. He said that if you showed your military ID nobody checked, but still, they could've shipped him to Afghanistan before he could go to a bar lmao, America is a weird country
- Gender-Affirming Healthcare
what does this mean?
- Free-Utilities
I'm a homeowner and have always found utility prices really reasonable. I get power for a month for the cost of a nice restaurant meal, or so. It seems like a "if it aint broke dont fix it" type situation to me, but maybe I am just spoiled. why do you think this?
-->
@thett3
Its mostly because you frontal cortex isn't finished developing - a lot of traumatic events can still permanently affect your brain, as well as alcohol and all of that - that's the main argument. Its the same reason why you shouldn't be able to drink till' your 21.
-->
@thett3
Gender-affirming careSo you know how transgender people get hormone therapy or even treatment in general? Yeah that
free-utilities
Because fundamentally speaking, you shouldn't have to pay for stuff you need to live - I believe that to be a right, to live, not a privilege.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Its mostly because you frontal cortex isn't finished developing - a lot of traumatic events can still permanently affect your brain, as well as alcohol and all of that - that's the main argument. Its the same reason why you shouldn't be able to drink till' your 21.
The prefrontal cortex doesn’t stop growing until 25 or so, though. In that sense 21 seems as arbitrary as 18. What do you think the age should be? And how should society be restructured if we accept this? For example, should high school be extended until age 21
So you know how transgender people get hormone therapy or even treatment in general? Yeah that
What do you think causes gender dysphoria?
Because fundamentally speaking, you shouldn't have to pay for stuff you need to live - I believe that to be a right, to live, not a privilege.
Are you at all sympathetic to the argument that the profit motive is what allows these things to exist in the first place, and/or makes them better?
Personally I’m wary of outsourcing very much industry at all to the government. The private sector + regulation seems to be the best model for a lot of stuff imo. What’s your ideal economic system?
-->
@thett3
eh - 25 is over-generalized, but regardless, my point was that its core functions are done - technically speaking, the epigenetics of your brain are always developing, I'm talking about the stability of your frontal cortex, and that happens at 21.
Also, dude, having a transgender identity and having gender dysphoria are not necessarily the same thing - furthermore - yes - I am extremely aware: its the intrinsic discomfort and experiential pain of having your sex not match your gender.
Profit motive perpeautates poverty, and it has for hundreds of other economics systems - I want an integrated economics system, where you have a foundation of capitalism, but you have equity of opportunity to the extreme, you don't pay for utilities, and the profit made by companies is given back to the poor in occurrence with the increase in profit.
-->
@Theweakeredge
eh - 25 is over-generalized, but regardless, my point was that its core functions are done - technically speaking, the epigenetics of your brain are always developing, I'm talking about the stability of your frontal cortex, and that happens at 21
How do you think society should change due to this?
I am extremely aware: its the intrinsic discomfort and experiential pain of having your sex not match your gender.
But what causes that? In particular what causes the rapid proliferation of this identity, almost exclusively among young females? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens%3famp
I have to be honest with you: as someone who grew up before all of this, its just incredibly obvious to me that this is mental illness, and “gender affirming care” that prevents a boy from becoming a man or a girl from becoming a woman is horrible. But this is your ama so I’m trying not to preach!
Profit motive perpeautates poverty, and it has for hundreds of other economics systems
Does it? Why do you think this? Just looking around at recent economic history it sure doesn’t look like capitalism perpetuates poverty
-->
@thett3
The age of majority should be 21.... that's all. Pretty easy it is.
Furthermore... no you see- trans women tend to be able to pass better, so they tend to come out more - because ya know - a decade ago gay people coldn't even get married - you would be ostracized from all of your friends, family, work, etc- if you came out as trans - nowadays, that happens much less- hince more trans people in the public eye. Like dude, you can make assertions about gender identity, but you'd be wrong - like no - its not a "mental illness" - having a different gender identity than what you were assigned at birth is a neurological, psychological, and concrete scientific possibility. You can see my debate with Athias on it if you'd like to see my full proofs (though I would add more if I had more room on that debate) - the basics are that gender identity is a neurological connection between how you perceives things and your experience (how data is input, and how you interpret that data as a human) - gender affirming care is certainly no "horrible" - to call a trans identity a "mental illness" is transphobic btw - like - almost definitionally so.
Um.... yes - like - almost systematically: let's talk about capitalism as a system - it's where you have workers sell their labour to a higher board, a company, corporation, etc, and that company uses that labour, service, etc, to create profit - to advertise - all of the above- but even as their product increases their profit annually - the workers get metaphorically shafted with the exact same wages - and in some instances - this happens with people who don't make nearly enough money to live.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The age of majority should be 21.... that's all. Pretty easy it is.
That doesn’t seem very simple to me, though. Buying tobacco, alcohol, and handguns are pretty much the only things I can think of in our society that 18 year olds can’t do. So at the very least a lot of those laws need to change, and If 18-20 year olds are still children should high school be extended?
you would be ostracized from all of your friends, family, work, etc- if you came out as trans - nowadays, that happens much less- hince more trans people in the public eye.
Then why is there not a corresponding increase in adults identifying as trans? Where are all the trans 40 and 50 year olds who now feel safe to come out? If there’s no social contagion and this is indeed something that is inborn why is the rapid increase only seen in impressionable teenagers?
having a different gender identity than what you were assigned at birth is a neurological, psychological, and concrete scientific possibility.
What defines gender identity, though. What makes a “man” and a “woman” if not biology? I guess you’d rely on traditional gender roles but in the past people who fell outside of those weren’t viewed as the opposite sex, they were just viewed as different. This seems a lot healthier than giving people untested drugs that delay puberty
To call a trans identity a "mental illness" is transphobic btw - like - almost definitionally so.
I don’t care.
but even as their product increases their profit annually - the workers get metaphorically shafted with the exact same wages - and in some instances - this happens with people who don't make nearly enough money to live.
This is where you lose me. I hardly see how getting paid the wage you agreed upon for the work you
Agreed to do is being “shafted.” Certainly corporations don’t really care about their employees but at some point they, and their competitors, grow profitable enough that if they don’t increase wages employees will leave. Our living standards are much higher than they were in the past. They simply are. Where’s the exploitation?
-->
@thett3
Um.. yeah it is? It happened with driving a lot - but furthermore - the purpose of school, at least it shouldn't be, to babysit kids - if that was the case half the people who graduate wouldn't be graduating, it's about providing foundational (and for some people specific) education for the adult world in general, though more specifically to increase the density of educated people in the US. So, I would just say it's a case-by-case basis, same as it is now.
Um... because older people tend to hang out with older people... who also tend to be more judgemental, so of course it makes sense that that demographic would lag behind - though - it actually isn't by much - where 0.7% of adults identify as transgender between the ages of 18-24, 05% of people over the age of 65% identity as trans - like - you do realize that this is the exact argument had against gay people right? The comparison is blinding with how obvious it is.
And this is a big question that a lot of cis people have, and the answer is simple, what defines or distinguishes gender is your experience, unless you have a specific way of measuring neurologic connections with regard to interpreting data, it is literally the only way you can distinguish, so you know how you do that? You just ask the individual, its the same thing as being straight or gay. Though the confusion is understandable you being an admitted bigot isn't - that's just being a dick.
Um... you do realize that you need a job to pay for.... anything? Right? Like, do you think that if these workers COULD get a better job they wouldn't? Like what the hell? People HAVE to pay for rent, for food, for water, for electricity, all of the above - of course they agree - a lot of times its the only work they can find!