![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 39. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 0:55:04
In reply to I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 18, 2013, at 18:25:14
> I feel sad for Bob. Because I think he is trying.
Thanks. Support helps me persevere.
--
> I struggle a great deal with the temptation to lock myself safely away in a silo with people just like me... Or with how much it is better somehow to have greater exposure to the world... Even though it hurts.
>
> I'm still not sure.
>
> I know I do better in the former. I think... That people tend to. That is why the temptation is so great...
>
> I'm not sure that it is what is best...I guess it depends on the person. A hothouse flower needs a hothouse/silo/refuge. Which is why I was open to the idea of a Refuge board. But there was limited interest (1 vote for a new board and 1 for making Psychology a refuge board).
And sometimes what may be best is exposure to the world with the support of people like themselves. Then they might become, or realize they are already, stronger than they thought.
I just read an interesting book review:
> Hirschman had studied the enormous Karnaphuli Paper Mills, in what was then East Pakistan. The mill was built to exploit the vast bamboo forests of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But not long after the mill came online the bamboo unexpectedly flowered and then died, a phenomenon now known to recur every fifty years or so. Dead bamboo was useless for pulping; it fell apart as it was floated down the river. Because of ignorance and bad planning, a new, multimillion-dollar industrial plant was suddenly without the raw material it needed to function.
>
> But what impressed Hirschman was the response to the crisis. The mills operators quickly found ways to bring in bamboo from villages throughout East Pakistan, building a new supply chain using the country's many waterways. They started a research program to find faster-growing species of bamboo to replace the dead forests, and planted an experimental tract. They found other kinds of lumber that worked just as well. The result was that the plant was blessed with a far more diversified base of raw materials than had ever been imagined. If bad planning hadn't led to the crisis at the Karnaphuli plant, the mills operators would never have been forced to be creative. And the plant would not have been nearly as valuable as it became.
>
> We may be dealing here with a general principle of action, Hirschman wrote:
>
> Creativity always comes as a surprise to us; therefore we can never count on it and we dare not believe in it until it has happened. In other words, we would not consciously engage upon tasks whose success clearly requires that creativity be forthcoming. Hence, the only way in which we can bring our creative resources fully into play is by misjudging the nature of the task, by presenting it to ourselves as more routine, simple, undemanding of genuine creativity than it will turn out to be.> Developing countries required more than capital. They needed practice in making difficult economic decisions. Economic progress was the product of successful habits and there is no better teacher, Hirschman felt, than a little adversity. He would rather encourage settlers and entrepreneurs at the grass-roots level and make them learn how to cope with those impediments themselves than run the risk that aid might infantilize its recipient.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/06/24/130624crbo_books_gladwell
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 2:51:21
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 0:21:14
> I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
>
> I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.That's a good angle take.
> As a new poster.... I'd be looking for the amount of support I got.
Is identifying and challenging erroneous information considered support?
> Not at how much the community turned on the one post that (they thought) wasn't supportive enough. When I see people turned on each other / focusing on the negative in each other... I wonder when they might feel inclined to turn on me...
I understand what you are saying. I really don't see that this happen very often anymore; Lou Pilder being the exception. Flame wars were mitigated when Dr. Bob sanctioned uncivil posts. I think there is still some inertia for civil posting that has carried forward from the "teachable moments" that Dr. Bob provided in the past.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 0:16:23
Friends,
One of the aspects posted here about me concerns the number of deaths attributed to psychiatric drugs that are generally accepted by psychiatrists/doctors/people in the field that are concerned about people having their lives ruined by diabetes, tardive dyskinesia and a host of other life-ruining conditions and becommiing addicted to these drugs. And worse than that, children are prescribed these drugs trhan can cause them to be compelled to kill themselves and/or otthers and even commit mass-murder. The statistics are {generally accepted}. What does that mean?
Well, I accept that the Earth has a circumference of around 25,000 miles. I have not measured the earth myself. bUt I accept that number, because there is evidence that there are ways to measure the earth without using a tape measure. And I also have never seen the number refuted by anyone with their measurment that contridicts the 25,000 miles. If someone showed me a measurment that refuted the 25,000 miles, I could be swayed to discount that the earth is generally accepte to have a circumference of around 25,000 miles.
Now there is the generally accepted number of 42,000 deaths attributed to psychotropic drugs. These numbers come from reports to the FDA and other agencies.
Lou
For thos eeinterested further in this aspect oof what is going on here, I ask the you read the following.
To see this article:
A. Go to Google
B. Type in:
[Disturbing stats: 37485]
posted on Oct 8, 2011 by Monicca Cassani
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:52:19
In reply to Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
Why does your post belong on the Administration board?
> Now there is the generally accepted number of 42,000 deaths attributed to psychotropic drugs. These numbers come from reports to the FDA and other agencies.
This number is not generally accepted, and you cannot provide evidence that it is.
This is disinformation. We've been through this before many times. There is no proof of cause and effect. If I recall, the original text that you cite does not even attempt to infer cause and effect. The word "attributed" does not appear. Furthermore, there is no attempt to state the number reported by the FDA. There could be only one. The remainder of reports come from the website itself.
Please stop posting this same deceptive statement over and over again.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:53:39
In reply to Re: Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 10:52:19
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
In reply to Lou's enlightening-mehhzurdahaerth, posted by Lou Pilder on July 20, 2013, at 9:40:45
I hunted around and found this statement attributed to Mercola by an attorney:
"Psychiatric drugs kill 42,000 people every year..."
What do you and Mercola use as the source of this purported statistic?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 18:21:13
In reply to I'm sad. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reputable source that cited that. I think the saying goes 'there is lies, there is damned lies, and then there is statistics'. The trouble isn't so much in the statistics, but in the interpretation of the statistics...
I found this just yesterday:
'Suicide is a major cause of premature mortality in many countries, but is the situation becoming better or worse? Data from the UK show that
- between 1981 and 1998, suicide rates in men and women aged 15 and over *fell by 18%*
- between 1981 and 1998, the years of potential life lost due to suicide *increased by 5%*How do we interpret these apparently conflicting data? The answer is that the major drop in suicide rates has occurred among the older age groups (45 years and over) and suicide rates in younger men have actually increased over the same time period. Suicide in a younger person leads to greater loss of potential life, so although the overall suicide rates are falling, this average effect hides an increasing loss of life among young men.
These data underline how different measures of health capture different things and can give very different pictures of the health of a population. A politician hoping to demonstrate improvements in mental health could legitimately claim that suicide rates were falling, while an advocate for more funding for mental health could equally legitimately cite the increase in years of life lost.
(Gunnell and Middleton, 2003) in Webb, Penny and Bain, Chris (2011) 'Essential epidemiology: An introduction for students and health professionals', 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, p66.
My point in posting that: The pharmaceutical companies focus on certain statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the efficacy and safety of their product. Those who have been harmed focus on certain other statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the inefficacy and danger of pharmaceutical products.
There is certainly a good case to be made either way...
It is kind of like different people having access to different parts of the elephant and then arguing over whether it is made of ivory and bone or whether it is made of skin and flesh.
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 19:01:17
In reply to Re: I'm sad., posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 18:21:13
> I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reputable source that cited that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't.
I would like for others to be able to scrutinize the source for themselves. It is an important issue.
I think it is incumbent upon the person claiming a fact to give evidence that it exists rather than to leave it to others to prove that it does not. Wouldn't you agree?
Lou Pilder owes nothing to anybody. If he is unwilling to substantiate his claims when challenged, that is his business.
Did you know that several million people die each year in the US who eat chocolate ice cream?
Let's just focus on the 42,000.
On second thought, let's not.
This is the wrong forum for this sort of thing.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:07:10
In reply to I'm sad. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39
Did you really write Dr Mercola the guy is a quack. He offers advise on animals also. One of his rememdies can cause death in dogs. The wholistic health store for pets we use the owner is a Mercola fan. And she applied this blood root to growths which in turn causes the growth to fall off. But then the cancer goes deeper inside. Google bloodroot. Scarey stuff. Boy that Mercola is getting all over!!! Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:13:19
In reply to Re: I'm sad. » SLS, posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:07:10
Posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:16:41
In reply to Re: I'm sad., posted by Phillipa on July 20, 2013, at 19:13:19
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 19:26:34
In reply to Re: I'm sad. » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 19:01:17
Drug x helps...
Drug x harms...
Should I take it?
Should someone I care about take it?
Who has the burden of proof?
Why?
Posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 23:15:54
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 0:21:14
>
> > maybe since you dont read Lou's posts, you might want to think twice before insulting the intelligence of those of us who do and feel some responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to them.
>
> I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
>
> I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.
>The nub of our disagreement then is that I do in fact think there is a responsibility to new posters who have been accused of terrible things upon their entry into our site, to attempt to limit the damage that some responses can have. And its imtention is to be supportive--supportive to new posters and old posters both, in attempting to protect the site iself and the potential for collective discussion. It hopes to reduce the risk that highly critical and harsh comments will push away those who could benefit from their presence here.
> Why focus so much on Lou if he upsets you? Or... If he doesn't upset you, then why focus so much on Lou?
See above.
>
> As a new poster.... I'd be looking for the amount of support I got. Not at how much the community turned on the one post that (they thought) wasn't supportive enough. When I see people turned on each other / focusing on the negative in each other... I wonder when they might feel inclined to turn on me...
>You've said that you haven't been looking at these exchanges. Perhaps if you had, you and I would be on the same page.
>
Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 23:33:34
In reply to Re: the temptation of a silo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 0:55:04
that was interesting... thank you... i think i can use that...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2013, at 0:28:20
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by willful on July 20, 2013, at 23:15:54
> The nub of our disagreement then is that I do in fact think there is a responsibility to new posters who have been accused of terrible things upon their entry into our site, to attempt to limit the damage that some responses can have.
Or maybe the nub of our disagreement is that you think the best way to limit the damage is to focus on the damage. Whereas I think the best way to limit the damage is to shift the focus.
Like how you see a little kid fall over quite hard.
Then they look for their Mummy.Option 1:
Mummy is all cheerful 'oh you did a whoopsie! look at the birdie! see the birdie!'
And the kid shifts focus to the birdie and doesn't cry about the boo-boo.
Option 2:
Mummy is all 'oh my god! that must have hurt! how awful! oh that bad and nasty swing you must never play on swings again! oh poor poor poor poor you!'
And the kid bawls its little eyes out. and develops a phobia. of swings. or little white fluffy things. i forget.
I kind of think of it like that...
Posted by Phillipa on July 21, 2013, at 19:10:14
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2013, at 0:28:20
Alex I know what you are saying. But Lou posts that one will or could kill their child by drugging them to someone new to meds how devastating to the Mom. Personally I'd leave and never return. Laura the last one he posted to is one strong Mom. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2013, at 23:56:06
In reply to Re: I feel sad » alexandra_k, posted by Phillipa on July 21, 2013, at 19:10:14
> Alex I know what you are saying. But Lou posts that one will or could kill their child by drugging them to someone new to meds how devastating to the Mom. Personally I'd leave and never return. Laura the last one he posted to is one strong Mom. Phillipa
I had a friend whose cat died because it had some kind of reaction to the cat flu inoculation.
These things can, and do happen.
Knowing about these things is part of INFORMED consent.
Lou isn't the only one worrying about the safety of psychiatric meds, especially for children.
I am glad that someone is posting about the risks. He might not be presenting the best case for the view, and he might not be presenting the view in the most diplomatic way, but I'm glad that someone is posting about the risks.
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2013, at 6:12:44
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2013, at 23:56:06
> I am glad that someone is posting about the risks.
There are, and always have been, quite a few people posting about the risks. I don't know that any one poster has a monopoly on the truth. We are not dullard lemmings.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on July 22, 2013, at 9:12:38
In reply to Re: the temptation of a silo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2013, at 0:55:04
> I just read an interesting book review:
>
> >
> > But what impressed Hirschman was the response to the crisis. The mills operators quickly found ways to bring in bamboo from villages throughout East Pakistan, building a new supply chain using the countrys many waterways...
>
> BobAre you suggesting Bob that we go and try to recruit members from Psych Central because PB has dead bamboo?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 22:09:38
In reply to Re: I feel sad, posted by alexandra_k on July 21, 2013, at 0:28:20
> > I don't understand why you think that you have the responsibility to new posters to respond substantively to Lou's posts.
> >
> > I thought insofar as there was a responsibility... It was to respond positively to the new posters.
>
> The nub of our disagreement then is that I do in fact think there is a responsibility to new posters who have been accused of terrible things upon their entry into our site, to attempt to limit the damage that some responses can have. And its imtention is to be supportive--supportive to new posters and old posters both, in attempting to protect the site iself and the potential for collective discussion. It hopes to reduce the risk that highly critical and harsh comments will push away those who could benefit from their presence here.
>
> willful> Or maybe the nub of our disagreement is that you think the best way to limit the damage is to focus on the damage. Whereas I think the best way to limit the damage is to shift the focus.
>
> alexandra_kI did suggest countering negative information with positive information. But if the poster isn't worried about the terrible things, it might not be necessary. So maybe a more flexible way to respond would be to ask if they would like the negative information to be countered.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 22:17:52
In reply to Re: the temptation of a silo » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on July 22, 2013, at 9:12:38
> > > But what impressed Hirschman was the response to the crisis. The mills operators quickly found ways to bring in bamboo from villages throughout East Pakistan, building a new supply chain using the countrys many waterways...
>
> Are you suggesting Bob that we go and try to recruit members from Psych Central because PB has dead bamboo?Maybe our dead bamboo could supply their mills, and their dead bamboo could supply ours.
Or maybe we don't even need more bamboo than we're already getting. Babble isn't a multimillion-dollar industrial plant. It's a small oasis/silo/refuge.
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on July 24, 2013, at 1:16:16
In reply to Re: the temptation of a silo, posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2013, at 22:17:52
I'm sorry but this type of communication makes me want to _____.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2013, at 23:12:36
In reply to Re: the temptation of a silo » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 24, 2013, at 1:16:16
> _____.
i see a leg curl machine
Posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2013, at 18:29:37
In reply to Re: pic, posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2013, at 23:12:36
hmm...
i see a horse. wearing gumboots. tugging a cart. with the mans cat. and his penis. i tries really hard to see a person or something anything, but no. tis a penis.
perhaps someone is whispering into the mans ear... an old lady / witch. but he has dissociated from the message...
it is an ambiguous figure... maybe it is an additional part to his hat and he is the joker...
or it is a prostitute wearing bunny ears. hands on hips. not saying anything at all.
it is bizarre, that. what is it? is there a little speel that tells you what the artist was thinking? i always like to hear their version of events.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 15, 2013, at 2:53:52
In reply to Re: pic, posted by alexandra_k on August 9, 2013, at 18:29:37
hmm. well, then, thats the last time i share my thoughts on that. tell me what you see... somebody. 'cmon.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.