But you are a liar. Both Coldfire and Lynn Bodoni have instructed you to put up or shut up:
Coldfire:
Lynn Bodoni:
And Zoe has thoroughly documented your bobbing and dodging with respect to your pretense about being a psychologist.
Why don’t you just shut the hell up?
I notice that both of those Moderators have themselves fallen silent.
Take the hint, Lib.
It seems you’re right. I apologize.
: I believe it was when the people first failed to understand what was said (both in and out of context), charged me with being a lying, ignorant, mentally ill scumbag, and made utter and complete fools of themselves.
[/quote]
Although the syntax of that sentence is strange, I assume that you are saying that some people have failed to understand what you have said. Some have accused you of lying, ignorance, being mentally ill and a scumbag. Because of their failing to understand you and their mislabeling of you, then they have made “utter and complete fools of themselves.” Is this what you are trying to say?
Yes to some of those questions and no to others. Although I have more formal training than you, I have never made any claims of knowledge superior to those appropriately certrified.
And certainly no one person knows “the degree to which key concepts are debated in the field.” No one reads every article in every journal, in every text, on every website – or sits in on every lecture and every private conversation between professionals. Think about what you are saying.
Do I think that some methods of treatment in use today will be discredited in the future? Maybe so. Maybe that is even likely. But a scientist cannot predict the success of current methodology based on the success of past treatments. For example, just because insulin shock treatments are no longer in use, as far as I know, does not necessarily mean that the use of electrical shock treatments will disappear altogether – even though they have changed substantially over the past forty years.
My main concern about your posts both here and in Great Debates is that you may be discouraging people who read your comments from getting the help that they need. All too often mental illness can be a terminal illness. For many, many people, the medications which you disparage so much have saved our lives. You cannot expect us to remain silent when what you say may result in unnecessary suffering or worse.
Did I say you were mentally ill? My diagnosis wouldn’t matter anyway. I’m not certified to make that judgment. But as an educator, I can say that you show age inappropriate behaviors in the ways you relate to others. I consider that to be something to be ashamed of. Mental illness is not.
As for being ignorant, there is no great sin in that. All of us are ignorant about many things. The biggest problems arise when we either cannot admit to being ignorant or, even worse, when we claim expertise in an area in which we are marginally educated.
Has anyone called you a “scumbag”? As we grow up, these labels mean less and less. I do take exception to someone saying that I am “lying,” however, and being unwilling to say what it is I have lied about. At least I treated you with the fairness of reminding you of what you were not being honest about. Do you know what I think of people who call others liars without good cause? They are scumbags.
That sums it up very nicely. He may be right that the mods have fallen silent, but he cannot expect silence in general.
So you have concerns for those suffering from mental illness, but where, exactly has TVAA said that he has less? Oh that’s right he’s the sworn enemy of the mentally ill, because he has an opposing view. It is a classic strawman – support for TVAA’s position equals support for lack of treatment of the sick.
((I speak from a point of relative ignorance) Surely you must acknowledge that incorrect diagnosis is in itself potentially very harmful? And that incorrect, non-indicated medication is not in the best-interests of a patient?)
Don’t mistake silence for approval, TVAA. We’re closely watching the way you represent yourself here. You’ve admitted you’re an amateur earlier in this thread - but you’ve also been incredibly vague about your qualifications in this thread, and elsewhere. I can only refer to Zoe’s excellent summary of your various -and erratic- statements pertaining to your training and profession.
Be advised that we do not like people misrepresenting themselves as professionals, particularly not in potentially dangerous fields such as medical science, or psychology for that matter. You can choose to walk that line, as you’re doing now. Or you can choose to become a little more honest. It’s entirely possible to participate in a debate without a false claim to professional authority, you know.
Which is precisely why I haven’t represented myself as a professional. Hello?! Have you actually read the relevant threads? Not mentioning my professional qualifications is not the same as being vague about them.
Why do I get the feeling that a good portion of the responders to these threads are gleefully rebuting an opponent that exists only in their fevered imaginations?
** Let me simplify that a bit for you:
Almost as soon as these threads started, people began personally attacking me because of the things they thought I claimed. The vast majority of the criticisms bore no relation to what was actually being discussed. Thus, the critics generally made themselves look like fools to anyone with a clue about what’s actually going on.
Look at this thread, for example. That’s precisely what I’m talking about! (Although once we got past Guin’s righteous anger and indignation, she was relatively intelligent and polite about the whole mess – which I wish I could say for some others.)
I do not suffer fools gladly. I can barely tolerate myself when I’ve done something stupid, and then only because I try very hard to fix the condition. I don’t tolerate in other either, especially when they don’t even try to grasp the nature of the problem.
And presumably those who are appropriately certified are experts. And presumably those who are experts know what they’re talking about. But we’re presuming quite a lot in those two little assumptions.
Point of fact: the majority of clinicians are accept the ambient standards, techniques, and assumptions in their environment. They really don’t have much of a choice – a doctor who seriously questioned what he was doing on a fundamental level would quickly be unable to function.
Point of fact: if you want to get an accurate critique of a field, it’s usually a bad idea to rely on judges within the field. It’s an extraordinarily bad idea to rely on the opinions of the people you’re evaluating.
** That’s not what I’m saying, and it’s not what any intelligent and reasonable person would conclude from reading my statement. Think about what you’re saying.
** Fool. If we want to determine how well a standard works, we look at its past record. If we want to make intelligent statements about any process, we look to the past – that’s what evidence is!
Point: psychiatric treatments were often used because they were perceived to be useful, not because there was any evidence that they corrected any problem.
Point: such treatments often caused significant harm to patients.
Point: the possibility of such harm was usually ignored, and the evidence suggesting that it was happening was downplayed. In quite a few cases, the harmful effects were actually viewed as benefits.
Point: theories and treatment methods were frequently based on little empirical evidence.
** Irrelevant. Do we have any more understanding of how the treatment works? Can we differentiate between harmful and damaging side effects that happen to produce “improvements”, and genuinely beneficial effects of the treatment? Can we honestly say that we understand the potential effects of the treatment on every level of analysis? Are accurate records kept of the treatment’s side effects across patient groups?
** IDIOT! That’s precisely the sort of thinking that led hospitals to cover up the mortality and morbitity rates for decades. “We can’t acknowledge flaws, because then some people will be unreasonably afraid of treatment. Thus we must refuse to acknowledge issues and keep people from being reasonably afraid, which prevents the issues from being dealt with.”
Mental illnesses are never terminal. Can’t you see that you’re doing nothing but using a metaphor inappropriately?
** I’M NOT DISPARAGING THEM, YOU MORON! I’M CRITICIZING THE IRRATIONAL AND UNEMPIRICAL POSITION THAT MEDICATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO TREAT THE CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY’RE PHYSIOLOGICAL!
** Why the field of Education attracts a disproportionate number of wetbrains who think their standards are universal laws, I’ll never know. You do not know my age. You couldn’t begin to grasp the types of responses that a rational being can consider appropriate. And you seem to be incapable of understanding that inappropriate behavior can indicate there is something wrong with the standards of appropriateness.
Are you saying suicide doesn’t count???
Thanks, mrsam. That is exactly what I meant when I said that it can be terminal.
[quote]
TGU: So you have concerns for those suffering from mental illness, but where, exactly has TVAA said that he has less?
If he is truly concerned for the mentally ill, then he should document his claims in a coherent and logical format with the cites that several of us have requested. He should stop attacking other Dopers without providing specifics of what he is referring to. He should stop providing misinformation – as in insisting that clinical psychology is not a science. (A peak at almost any graduate program would enlighten him.) A concerned poster is an informed poster – or one willing to be informed.
I haven’t said that he is a sworn enemy of the mentall ill or a strawman or that support for his position equals support for lack of treatment of the sick. (The fact that you have had to make up these attacks shows that your arguments are weak.) From what I have been able to tell, his position consists mostly of:
Generic TVAA Mental Health Post:
I’m trained as a cognitive psychologist and I don’t need to be certified.
I’ve read a lot of old textbooks and I can see where mistakes were made in treatment. That means that pharmacological treatments are a mistake today.
Those you criticize me make fools of themselves.
If you disagree with me, you are a wetbrain and a liar, even though I’m not sure what you’ve lied about.
If you would only read my posts, you would understand.
I didn’t say that.
Clinical psychology is not a science.
I know more than all of the clinicians on topics we are discussing.
(Then a post that is a jumble of mostly irrelevant information taken from research.)
Finally, I think that for some reason TVAA thinks this is a contest about who knows more. It isn’t. This thread is not a debate about opinions.. It is a pitting of TVAA for not having much knowledge of things he is talking about in Great Debates.
If either of you bothered to pay attention to the discussions I have had with others in Great Debates on the topics of mental illness, you would see that the debating arguments can be intense but not disrespectful.
TVAA might find Great Debates more useful if he did a little reading about debating. Just a suggestion.
Sorry, I did not intend to ignore this question which I find to be the most serious of your post.
The most intense pain that I have ever known was the result of an incorrect diagnosis and the wrong medication during my senior year in college. It was a combination of both physical and mental anguish. (And I don’t use that word lightly.) Despite knowing that human beings did not spontaneous explode, I thought that I was going to anyway. I could barely walk. I could not remain still and I was incoherent and could hear myself unable to make sensible sentences.
Judging from what I know now, that psychiatrist was one of the worst in the business. Unethical and poorly trained.
That experience serves to underscore for me how important top-notch training, a full understanding of professional literature and on-the-job supervised training are. There is no room for ego-based conjecture and generalizations under the guise of “opinions.”
I assumed that you were over the age of four.
Zoe, I am not happy with your suggestions that “(I) make up… …attacks” or that “(I can’t be) bothered to pay attention…”
In fact, I’m quite pissed off about it.
That’s self-induced death.
You might find it helpful to look up the meaning of the phrase “terminal illness”. Thank you.
Self-induced death or no, it’s death. I think you’re the one in need of a dictionary, or at least a modicum of common sense. Let’s have a look at Zoe’s comment in context, shall we?
Given the context, it’s fucking obvious what she’s saying. Don’t make a habit of being a pedant when you’re losing arguments. It’s a shithouse debating tactic.
Suicide is not necessarily self-induced anyway. Self inflicted, yes. But self-induced, no. Factors that may induce suicide include, but are not limited to, threats of torture or suffering, blackmail, depression, and mental illness.
Chuckle.
Giggle.
You are in no position to call anyone an idot or moron.
Point of fact? Certainly you can provide proof then? You have scientific evidence of what the majority of clinicians accept?
Only a fool would present a point of fact that couldn’t be proven. How do you measure “acceptance” by the way? Self report? Or is there an acceptance inventory I’m not aware of?
I think you should lower your tolerance for fools, as you are likely to see one in the mirror quite frequently.
So, these treatments were perceived to be useful, did that perception happen without evidence? None? A hunch? An inkling? These things come from evidence, otherwise how did the perception that they were useful come about? Granted, they may have been dead wrong about the efficacy of the treatments, but your statement is just ridiculous.
I believe it was I that called you mentally ill. Although all I did say was that you sound delusional, which is a symptom of mental illness, but not necessarily a mental illness in and of itself. I don’t know nearly enough about you to formulate an actual opinion, just calling it as I see it.
Again, that bullshit about your ethics not allowing you to pursue a career in cognitive psych, you knowing more than the “experts” and being an amateur researcher off and on (or however you put it) for years. That all sounds to me similar to stories I’ve heard from various people who actually did suffer from delusions.
Where did I say that my concerns indicate that TVAA is not concerned? (False accusation #1)
Those are neither my words nor my thinking. (False accusation #2)
No, support for TVAA’s position (?) does not equal support for lack of treatment of the sick. (False accusation #3)
Support for TVAA’s position equals support for insufficient and inaccurate information on which to base an opinion about treatment of the sick.
I didn’t say that you can’t be bothered. I suggested that you hadn’t bothered.* (false accusation #4)
Despite my not having said the things that you accused me of saying and thinking, you can be pissed if you want to, I guess. You can even make up more things and get yourself into an A1 First Class Sniveling Snit. Knock yourself out.
*SDMB is too deep and wide for me to seriously expect either of you to have read and remembered previous exchanges with others on the same subject. No great sin in that.
Insufficient and inaccurate information?!
Zoe, you don’t know jack about the theoretical basis for these treatments. You even suggest that depression is related to low levels of serotonin – go read my post to the GD thread.
You ignorant poseur, you’re a living demonstration of why a very little knowledge is a dangerous thing.