A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No

Remember this, Peacegirl? Here's a link:

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please take a read through, and tell me what general lesson can be learned from this example about co-operative behavior. For bonus points see if you can work out how this might be relevant to the feasibility of Lessans' no-blame postulate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uh, no. I don't accept unsupported premises on trust or faith. If I have already established the person imparting information is worthy of trust and faith, I will give them very limited conditional acceptance to give them time to produce the argument or evidence to analyze.

Shit, my own mother, who I love and trust with the most important things in my life, has to send me links to anything she wants to talk about, because I won't accept her word about an article she read...not because I don't trust her, but because she interprets things very differently than I do and I have to see the source material to formulate enough opinion to discuss the issue.

That is a very good stance to take in general. I am a skeptical person until I see the facts. Do you think I just accept anything that comes along the pike. No? But this is the type of discovery that has to be investigated because this knowledge is not obvious. It was hidden and only a person who was perceptive enough to put it all together could have observed the law that was hidden behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding. You are making the criteria of starting out with a hypothesis and proving it in an empirical fashion as the only way proof can be determined. Yes, the ultimate proof is that something works empirically. But the problem here is that you won't even put your foot in the door to test the waters. You are not giving him the benefit of the doubt at all. His observations should not be thrown out just because he didn't show empirical data. He was showing his observations and clearly demonstrating why his reasoning based on these observations was sound. If you do throw this work out as if it's no more than an asssertion, you will be making the biggest mistake ever.

[peacegirl]

I find this interesting.

Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5

[LadyShea]

That's a very biased article. There are criticisms to be made in all fields, but this is ridiculous

Originally Posted by linked article

Psychiatry is no more "scientific" than astrology or palm reading, yet its practitioners call themselves "doctors" of psychiatry in order to try to make quackery sound credible.

Psychiatrists are actual MDs who have specialized in psychiatry just as some MDs specialize in surgery, or pediatrics, or gynecology. It is scientific because they study disorders of the brain, and the brain is an organ that can have things go wrong physically, just like the heart or liver.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the U.S. and Canada one must first complete their M.D., followed by practice as a psychiatric resident for another four years (five years in Canada). This extended period involves comprehensive training in diagnosis, psychopharmacology, medical care issues, and psychotherapies. All accredited psychiatry residencies in the United States require proficiency in cognitive-behavioral, brief, psychodynamic, and supportive psychotherapies. Psychiatry residents are often required to complete at least four post-graduate months of internal medicine or pediatrics and two months of neurology during their first year.[11] After completing their training, psychiatrists take written and then oral board examinations.[11] The total amount of time required to complete post-baccalaureate work in the field of psychiatry in the United States is typically 12 years of training. Subspecialists in child and adolescent psychiatry are required to complete a two-year residency program, the first year of which can run concurrently with the fourth year of the general psychiatry residency program. This adds one to two years of training.

[LadyShea]

But this is the type of discovery that has to be investigated because this knowledge is not obvious. It was hidden and only a person who was perceptive enough to put it all together could have observed the law that was hidden behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding.

And had he shared his actual observations (where did he see these patterns?), rather than just his conclusions about what he observed, we could view the source material for ourselves to try to see what he saw. He didn't do that though.

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I find this interesting.

Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5

Psychology: " I am in control; my braiin is in control of my brain." Then indeed you have no will power.
All you need is a wind up.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1102446][quote=LadyShea;1102444]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he is doing. I'm sorry if you can't accept the possibility that he could be right because you think this whole discovery is an assertion. This is not the sign of a careful investigator. You are cutting him off at the starting gate.

The problem with accepting Lessans words on faith, is that Lessans himself has stated, in the book, that there are certain fundamental pronciples necessary to his 'Golden age', and that he is going to prove them beyond doubt. This thread demonstrates that he did not prove them 'beyond doubt', in fact there is serious doubt, and a serious lack of proof. Lessans has also stated that what follows, depends on these concepts being true and the reader accepting them without question, this has also not been acomplished. So even according to Lessans, that these fundamental principles have not been proven and accepted, the reader should not go on and accept the rest of the book, because it will appear to be a fantasy. And, in fact, this is the case, the book reads like a rather silly childish fantasy. Fairy tales, Fables, and other similar stories are fiction that usually have some real lesson within the story, but even here Lessans has failed to present anything of value.

[Vivisectus]

That article is part of "truth publishing", which in turn is owned by a large marketing concern that specializes in selling alternative and complementary medicines. It is actually a pretty nifty set-up: "truth publishing" does a lot of inflammatory reporting about medicine, focussing heavily on health scares, big pharma conspiracy theories, and generally bolstering the growing fear of modern pharmaceutics.

At the same time they make a bundle either selling or advertising all kinds of complements, alternative therapies, etc.

It is pretty scummy, but you have to admire the canny business sense behind it: a news-channel feeding people heavily biased information that matches what they think they already know, coupled with a powerful marketing arm that targets that market and sells them stuff they are known to buy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Remember this, Peacegirl? Here's a link:

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please take a read through, and tell me what general lesson can be learned from this example about co-operative behavior. For bonus points see if you can work out how this might be relevant to the feasibility of Lessans' no-blame postulate.

I am not sure where this defies anything that Lessans wrote. People are inclined to cooperate because it brings its own reward.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That article is part of "truth publishing", which in turn is owned by a large marketing concern that specializes in selling alternative and complementary medicines. It is actually a pretty nifty set-up: "truth publishing" does a lot of inflammatory reporting about medicine, focussing heavily on health scares, big pharma conspiracy theories, and generally bolstering the growing fear of modern pharmaceutics.

At the same time they make a bundle either selling or advertising all kinds of complements, alternative therapies, etc.

It is pretty scummy, but you have to admire the canny business sense behind it: a news-channel feeding people heavily biased information that matches what they think they already know, coupled with a powerful marketing arm that targets that market and sells them stuff they are known to buy.

Look, you can defend the pharmaceutical industry all you want, but there are definite problems with this industry. You can slant it any way you want, but the bottom line is people are suffering due to legalized meds. There is a problem here Vivisectus, and this could take another thousand posts to show you why this is true, but I'm not going to get off on this tangent. That being said, you cannot deny that people are given drugs for the purpose of making a profit. Did you read the article on the FDA that I linked people to? The bottom line in all of this is unless we can justify dispensing a drug that guarantees safety, the FDA should not approve that drug, but they are not looking out for the consumer. There is a definite conflict of interest.

[thedoc]

Living will kill you in the long run. Most medications are a balancing act between benifit and risk. So you are not taking your meds? that could explain a lot.

[thedoc]

In the book there is a story about Lessans mother calling a doctor, making up some symptons, and then dumping the medication down the drain. Peacegirl thinks she was teaching him a lesson about economics, but in reality Lessans mother taught him that it is OK to lie, which explains a lot of the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a very biased article. There are criticisms to be made in all fields, but this is ridiculous

Originally Posted by linked article

Psychiatry is no more "scientific" than astrology or palm reading, yet its practitioners call themselves "doctors" of psychiatry in order to try to make quackery sound credible.

Being called a "doctor" (whether it's a psychiatrist or any other kind of doctor) gives a person license to get away with many things that are not always savory and would never be acceptable in any other field. This does not mean that every single doctor is insincere and out to hurt his patients. In psychiatry in particular, many of the treatments given to patients are not based in real science, but in pseudoscience, like labeling all kinds of behaviors that can then be placed in a manual as a disorder in order justify giving medical treatment ($$$). That's why they compared psychiatry to palm reading, I believe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Psychiatrists are actual MDs who have specialized in psychiatry just as some MDs specialize in surgery, or pediatrics, or gynecology. It is scientific because they study disorders of the brain, and the brain is an organ that can have things go wrong physically, just like the heart or liver.

Like I said, I don't believe every psychiatrist is out to hurt his patients, but there have been aggregious crimes committed by psychiatrists in particular and their motives don't always seem to be in the patient's best interest.

The Dangers of The Psychiatrist's Couch

The issue at hand is bias. How can researchers and "experts" be completely honest in their recommendations when their pockets are being lined by Big Pharma -- the primary recipient of profits made from treating the very disorders they are called on to define? Moreover, how does this relationship between the psychiatric industry and Big Pharma affect the safety of the drugs that are being prescribed as treatment?

http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.aspx...Page=2&Search=

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the U.S. and Canada one must first complete their M.D., followed by practice as a psychiatric resident for another four years (five years in Canada). This extended period involves comprehensive training in diagnosis, psychopharmacology, medical care issues, and psychotherapies. All accredited psychiatry residencies in the United States require proficiency in cognitive-behavioral, brief, psychodynamic, and supportive psychotherapies. Psychiatry residents are often required to complete at least four post-graduate months of internal medicine or pediatrics and two months of neurology during their first year.[11] After completing their training, psychiatrists take written and then oral board examinations.[11] The total amount of time required to complete post-baccalaureate work in the field of psychiatry in the United States is typically 12 years of training. Subspecialists in child and adolescent psychiatry are required to complete a two-year residency program, the first year of which can run concurrently with the fourth year of the general psychiatry residency program. This adds one to two years of training.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, you can defend the pharmaceutical industry all you want, but there are definite problems with this industry. You can slant it any way you want, but the bottom line is people are suffering due to legalized meds. There is a problem here Vivisectus, and this could take another thousand posts to show you why this is true, but I'm not going to get off on this tangent. That being said, you cannot deny that people die directly because of labels that justify the use of certain medications that kill in the long run. You cannot deny this. It's all over the news Vivisectus. I know you want to make me the odd man out, but I'm not the odd man out, so don't go there or you will look like a dam fool. The bottom line in all of this is unless we can justify doing certain procedures without doing more harm than what the patient came for, we should not do those procedures because they make matters worse. We must abide by the Hippocratic oath which asks of all physicians to first DO NO HARM!

*sigh*

Well there you go then. It is like watching sheep shear themselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In the book there is a story about Lessans mother calling a doctor, making up some symptons, and then dumping the medication down the drain. Peacegirl thinks she was teaching him a lesson about economics, but in reality Lessans mother taught him that it is OK to lie, which explains a lot of the book.

This is exactly what I'm talking about thedoc. You are going right back to your old groove of making false accusations instead of asking me why he added certain things. I know it's hard for you to stop old patterns on a dime, but I'm asking you to please try or we're back at square one, and you know what that means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Living will kill you in the long run. Most medications are a balancing act between benifit and risk. So you are not taking your meds? that could explain a lot.

I think you like being in the background, don't you? Ignore might be where you want to be so you can be the devil's advocate. That's fine with me as long as I don't have to hear your ridiculous remarks.

[peacegirl]

Added to previous post:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That article is part of "truth publishing", which in turn is owned by a large marketing concern that specializes in selling alternative and complementary medicines. It is actually a pretty nifty set-up: "truth publishing" does a lot of inflammatory reporting about medicine, focussing heavily on health scares, big pharma conspiracy theories, and generally bolstering the growing fear of modern pharmaceutics.

At the same time they make a bundle either selling or advertising all kinds of complements, alternative therapies, etc.

It is pretty scummy, but you have to admire the canny business sense behind it: a news-channel feeding people heavily biased information that matches what they think they already know, coupled with a powerful marketing arm that targets that market and sells them stuff they are known to buy.

Look, you can defend the pharmaceutical industry all you want, but there are definite problems with this industry. You can slant it any way you want, but the bottom line is people are suffering due to legalized meds that have been approved too soon. There is a problem here Vivisectus, and this could be another whole thread to show you why this is true, but I'm not going to get off on this tangent. You cannot deny that people are sold drugs for the purpose of making a profit. This has caused a conflict of interest. The bottom line is that unless they can justify dispensing a drug that has a long safety record, the FDA should not approve that drug, but they are not looking out for the consumer. Did you read the article on the FDA that I linked people to? This came from an insider and he was letting people get a bird's eye view of what is really going on behind closed doors.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/...in%20the%20fda

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure where this defies anything that Lessans wrote. People are inclined to cooperate because it brings its own reward.

No, Peacegirl. READ the link, and THEN comment on what you think is the general lesson that can be learned from this example.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This came from an insider and he was letting people get a bird's eye view of what is really going on behind closed doors.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This came from an insider and he was letting people get a bird's eye view of what is really going on behind closed doors.

If anyone really understood that sentence, - you have my deepest sympathy.

[Angakuk]

Allow me to translate it for you.

This information came from an insider and he used it in such a way that no one was any wiser after he was done.

[thedoc]

As they say, "Clear as mud."

BTW, I understood it, and that really worries me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And had he shared his actual observations (where did he see these patterns?), rather than just his conclusions about what he observed, we could view the source material for ourselves to try to see what he saw. He didn't do that though.

It did not lend itself to this type of data collection. These were astute observations, not hypotheses that he could test and compare data. When I began talking online, I no idea that people would disregard his spot on observations and reject his discovery the way they have. You, as well as others, have not given him the benefit of the doubt. And that is why we can't move foreword LadyShea. I'm not going to try anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. READ the link, and THEN comment on what you think is the general lesson that can be learned from this example.

I read up on it a little bit, and there seems to be times that we benefit by being cooperative. In the case of wolves, they will all pitch in in a cooperative fashion because it's better for the group as a whole, of which each individual wolf benefits. A whole is better than the sum of its parts. As far as the prisoner's dilemma, I'm not sure what you were trying to get at as it relates to the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Allow me to translate it for you.

This information came from an insider and he used it in such a way that no one was any wiser after he was done.

What is that supposed to mean? Did you read the article?