Sure, a positive attitude and a calm state of mind makes an excellent adjunct to a primary treatment. Also familiar comforts of home.
I would recommend that as an adjunct to treatment of any condition or for maintaining wellness. But if I break my foot, I'll be expecting that the bones need to be set, a cast applied and that I will need to stay off of it for a while.
The problem is in "success". In the sense that she held the position and had a chair pulled out and waiting when she left, Carly Fiorina is a success. In the sense that she managed to leave HP and Lucent as bombed out shells of their former selves (and took Compaq down with them), not so much.
It was that seriously brain damaged measure of merit that allowed Chainsaw Al to be handsomely rewarded for his efforts for so long before he got carted off to jail.
Do you know what physical therapy is NOT? It's not a psychological treatment, it is a physical treatment.
Note that it is possible to walk on a broken foot given sufficient determination and possibly hypnosis. So is hypnosis an appropriate treatment for broken bones? Should we just quit all that nonsense with plaster and tell the patients they could walk if they really tried
The claim was actually that the biological illness gives way to a psychological problem allowing a cure through psychology. As others her pointed out, the study had some serious flaws. But you knew that because you read the fine article carefully, right?
There is also a long history of suffering caused by dismissing illness with real physiological roots as psychosomatic. Considering that it has already taken DECADES to have CFS sort of recognized as even possibly anything but psychosomatic in spite of a total failure to treat it successfully through psychology, it does kinda make sense that sufferers might want to call "no backsliding", doesn't it?
RTFA closer. There are now few people looking for a psychological treatment. That may be for the best.
Consider that once the 'learn to relax" answer became standard, practically nobody looked in to curing ulcers either.
CFS already has a history of terrible psychological treatments including verbally abusing patients to practically force them to walk with a walker until they collapsed. Mysteriously, this made things worse.
A big red flag here, a psychologist researches CGS, claims that psychological issues cause it to not get better, then claims that he's not suggesting a psychological treatment. Excuse me? How's that again?
Then read carefully, only researchers making similar suggestions are being pestered. On;y they are leaving the field. What remains is people looking for the biological/physiological cause and how to treat it.
When you read it carefully, it really does sound a lot like ulcer patients who rejected "try to relax" as the answer to their very much physical problem.
It may not be ideal, but it's certainly understandable given the history and it's better than discouraging research into physical causes and cures.
Many physical disorders can be at least partially overcome through psychology if there is no other known treatment.
That doesn't mean the problem is actually psychological, and it certainly doesn't mean we should stop looking. Given sufficient determination, one may walk on a broken foot. That doesn't suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy is the best treatment approach to a broken foot.
Since people aren't BORN with Fibromyalgia, that implies that something changed later. It's not unreasonable to think that something else could change it back.
If the research, like the 1950's research on peptic ulcers, claims that it is a psychological condition, it's not at all moronic if you're hoping for an actual treatment that addresses the problem.
Beyond that, they understand that if the problem is written off as being psychological, there is little chance that a physical remedy will be sought or even tried at random that might actually help them.
Based on the history of medical treatment of the peptic ulcer, they're probably right. For decades it was written off as the patient stressing too much and the advice was "learn to relax". Then finally, the problem was demonstrated to be an infection of H. Pylori. Even then, it took another 15 years before "learn to relax" gave way to treatment of the infection.
I can see why chronic fatigue sufferers might not want to wait half a century for an effective treatment.
One way to do that is to make changes that allow genuine merit to find its way for example, by providing opportunities for people with lower apparent merit so that they can demonstrate otherwise. It absolutely means not assuming that current success=merit.
That's favor..assuming of course that the CEO didn't earn his position.
Correct, but in today's society we mis-call it merit and use that mis-metric to perpetuate the error.
We don't have a "metometer" that gives an objective readout. The criteria we use instead have a lot more to do with favor and self-fulfilling prophesy than they do with what that mythical meritometer might indicate.
I'm assuming they want it to really be 8+2+3 = 10+3 = 13 - seeking to find the larger digits. This doesn't really matter for the single digit arithmetic, but when you add say 892 and 253, how do you do it? You can do the classical digit by digit carrying approach, but that is hard to do in your head. Instead, you can look and see that you need 108 to raise 892 to 1000 and then reduce your problem to 253-108, which you'd similarly reduce to 200-100 + 40 + 13 -8 = 145. The goal is not the problem, but the process of understanding what one is doing. This approach is also less prone to silly errors.
So 892+253=145? And that method is easier and less prone to errors you say? (I know, you just forgot the 1000 you had from earlier). I would just pattern recognize that 2+3 is 5, leaving (89+25)*10, or (90+24)*10, so there's the 40 leaving (9+2)*100. 9+x=10+x-1. Or the pattern that 9+x = 10 + (x-1) might fire first once I have the 1s digit out of the way, also 8+2 = 10, so (89+25)*10, 8+2 = 10 so that's 1000, 5+9 = 10+4 (times 10)
As for 253-108, why not either add 2 to both yielding 255-110, or take 3 from both yielding 250-105 = 250-100-5 = 150-5 = 145?
The point is that your way and both of mine are not WRONG, they yield the correct answer and demonstrate an understanding of the problem. As in 8+5 = (3+5)+5 = 3+(5+5) = 3+10 = 13 (the pattern that 5+5=10 having fired). None of those are wrong unless you're an unfortunate 2nd grader getting a common core math education. Your way will never be as fast and easy FOR ME. My way may well not be as fast and easy FOR YOU. If the pattern 8+5=13 fires first for the kid, he's not wrong, the problem was just too simple to demonstrate his skills. Demanding that he NOT do that, but go through the whole rigmarole with one lobe tied behind his back is like making someone scrub the floor with a toothbrush as punishment.
As for the student that came up with $-1,064,507.94, I have no idea what that is since the only way to be more wrong wouldn't be a numerical answer, but I wouldn't mind buying a car from him as long as he computes the payments:-)
I do think there is value in teaching estimation and basic sanity checking based on an expected magnitude at least, but that needs to wait until the student has mastered the 4 basic functions so that they can HAVE some expectation of magnitude.
It was over a year late, then at a hobbiest convention, someone who had pre-paid and despaired of ever getting anything for his money nicked a pre-release copy and fixed the bugs. He then shared the fixed copy with the many more people who had pre-paid and gotten nothing for their money.
That is what inspired Gates to write his open letter to the community.
The problem comes when we mis-measure merit. The CEO makes a pile of money and is a CEO, therefor we bump up his measure of "merit", the bright kid cleaning toilets and cleaning toilets, so we bump down his measure of "merit".
Then, having thumbed all the scales to fit the outcome, we proudly proclaim that merit is a useful measure and that we are obviously a meritocracy. Then, based on the pre-fudged values of "merit" we perpetuate the situation. The CEO gets more chairs pulled out and more golden parachutes, the bright kid gets more toilets to clean followed by more pink slips.
Occasionally (VERY occasionally), luck on the same level as winning the big lotto jackpot twice strikes and the toilet cleaner gets a real shot at the brass ring. Very occasionally, the CEO and his massive "merit" screw up so bad and so often that no amount of blinders, ear plugs and looking the other way can allow the board to ignore the lack of merit.
Actual merit is a useful thing, but our means of measuring it produce a largely useless and often harmful metric.
The thing is, there's a thousand more people who learned that trick fixing the old TV, but they couldn't afford the certification that gets them hired for $1000.
The problem is even worse. No amount of diplomacy and social skills can put enough lipstick on bad news to make it attractive to management. People who honestly and diplomatically present bad news that NEEDS to be heard tend to be perceived as lacking in social skills. People of modest personability that blow sunshine up the boss's ass are perceived as likable.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, a positive attitude and a calm state of mind makes an excellent adjunct to a primary treatment. Also familiar comforts of home.
I would recommend that as an adjunct to treatment of any condition or for maintaining wellness. But if I break my foot, I'll be expecting that the bones need to be set, a cast applied and that I will need to stay off of it for a while.
The problem is in "success". In the sense that she held the position and had a chair pulled out and waiting when she left, Carly Fiorina is a success. In the sense that she managed to leave HP and Lucent as bombed out shells of their former selves (and took Compaq down with them), not so much.
It was that seriously brain damaged measure of merit that allowed Chainsaw Al to be handsomely rewarded for his efforts for so long before he got carted off to jail.
Do you know what physical therapy is NOT? It's not a psychological treatment, it is a physical treatment.
Note that it is possible to walk on a broken foot given sufficient determination and possibly hypnosis. So is hypnosis an appropriate treatment for broken bones? Should we just quit all that nonsense with plaster and tell the patients they could walk if they really tried
The claim was actually that the biological illness gives way to a psychological problem allowing a cure through psychology. As others her pointed out, the study had some serious flaws. But you knew that because you read the fine article carefully, right?
If you truly believe that, scrape together a few bucks and provide funding for development of a perpetual motion machine.
Exactly what the people pestering the psychologists are hoping to do for CFS
There is also a long history of suffering caused by dismissing illness with real physiological roots as psychosomatic. Considering that it has already taken DECADES to have CFS sort of recognized as even possibly anything but psychosomatic in spite of a total failure to treat it successfully through psychology, it does kinda make sense that sufferers might want to call "no backsliding", doesn't it?
Not only am I quite logical, I also have the ability to read between the lines. Evidently you do not.
RTFA closer. There are now few people looking for a psychological treatment. That may be for the best.
Consider that once the 'learn to relax" answer became standard, practically nobody looked in to curing ulcers either.
CFS already has a history of terrible psychological treatments including verbally abusing patients to practically force them to walk with a walker until they collapsed. Mysteriously, this made things worse.
A big red flag here, a psychologist researches CGS, claims that psychological issues cause it to not get better, then claims that he's not suggesting a psychological treatment. Excuse me? How's that again?
Then read carefully, only researchers making similar suggestions are being pestered. On;y they are leaving the field. What remains is people looking for the biological/physiological cause and how to treat it.
When you read it carefully, it really does sound a lot like ulcer patients who rejected "try to relax" as the answer to their very much physical problem.
It may not be ideal, but it's certainly understandable given the history and it's better than discouraging research into physical causes and cures.
If we keep laughing at the perpetual motion cranks, who's going to invent a fusion reactor?
Presumably, someone who will study the condition properly rather than just pronouncing it's just a bad case of the lazies.
Your question is kind of like who will solve our energy problems if we drive all the perpetual motion cranks away?
On one hand, you try to dismiss it as fraud, yet by believing there is something to be understood, you acknowledge that it is real.
Big surprise, dome people will claim anything for fraudulant purposes. Others really have the condition.
Some seem to get better for reasons unknown, some never do.
Yeah, and I'm sure those lazy asses in wheelchairs could all stand up and walk if they had an ounce of initiative. AMIRIGHT?
Many physical disorders can be at least partially overcome through psychology if there is no other known treatment.
That doesn't mean the problem is actually psychological, and it certainly doesn't mean we should stop looking. Given sufficient determination, one may walk on a broken foot. That doesn't suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy is the best treatment approach to a broken foot.
Since people aren't BORN with Fibromyalgia, that implies that something changed later. It's not unreasonable to think that something else could change it back.
If the research, like the 1950's research on peptic ulcers, claims that it is a psychological condition, it's not at all moronic if you're hoping for an actual treatment that addresses the problem.
Beyond that, they understand that if the problem is written off as being psychological, there is little chance that a physical remedy will be sought or even tried at random that might actually help them.
Based on the history of medical treatment of the peptic ulcer, they're probably right. For decades it was written off as the patient stressing too much and the advice was "learn to relax". Then finally, the problem was demonstrated to be an infection of H. Pylori. Even then, it took another 15 years before "learn to relax" gave way to treatment of the infection.
I can see why chronic fatigue sufferers might not want to wait half a century for an effective treatment.
Damn those Scotsmen, you turn your back for 10 seconds and next thing you know they're drinking German Beer...
One way to do that is to make changes that allow genuine merit to find its way for example, by providing opportunities for people with lower apparent merit so that they can demonstrate otherwise. It absolutely means not assuming that current success=merit.
That's favor..assuming of course that the CEO didn't earn his position.
Correct, but in today's society we mis-call it merit and use that mis-metric to perpetuate the error.
We don't have a "metometer" that gives an objective readout. The criteria we use instead have a lot more to do with favor and self-fulfilling prophesy than they do with what that mythical meritometer might indicate.
I'm assuming they want it to really be 8+2+3 = 10+3 = 13 - seeking to find the larger digits. This doesn't really matter for the single digit arithmetic, but when you add say 892 and 253, how do you do it? You can do the classical digit by digit carrying approach, but that is hard to do in your head. Instead, you can look and see that you need 108 to raise 892 to 1000 and then reduce your problem to 253-108, which you'd similarly reduce to 200-100 + 40 + 13 -8 = 145. The goal is not the problem, but the process of understanding what one is doing. This approach is also less prone to silly errors.
So 892+253=145? And that method is easier and less prone to errors you say? (I know, you just forgot the 1000 you had from earlier). I would just pattern recognize that 2+3 is 5, leaving (89+25)*10, or (90+24)*10, so there's the 40 leaving (9+2)*100. 9+x=10+x-1. Or the pattern that 9+x = 10 + (x-1) might fire first once I have the 1s digit out of the way, also 8+2 = 10, so (89+25)*10, 8+2 = 10 so that's 1000, 5+9 = 10+4 (times 10)
As for 253-108, why not either add 2 to both yielding 255-110, or take 3 from both yielding 250-105 = 250-100-5 = 150-5 = 145?
The point is that your way and both of mine are not WRONG, they yield the correct answer and demonstrate an understanding of the problem. As in 8+5 = (3+5)+5 = 3+(5+5) = 3+10 = 13 (the pattern that 5+5=10 having fired). None of those are wrong unless you're an unfortunate 2nd grader getting a common core math education. Your way will never be as fast and easy FOR ME. My way may well not be as fast and easy FOR YOU. If the pattern 8+5=13 fires first for the kid, he's not wrong, the problem was just too simple to demonstrate his skills. Demanding that he NOT do that, but go through the whole rigmarole with one lobe tied behind his back is like making someone scrub the floor with a toothbrush as punishment.
As for the student that came up with $-1,064,507.94, I have no idea what that is since the only way to be more wrong wouldn't be a numerical answer, but I wouldn't mind buying a car from him as long as he computes the payments :-)
I do think there is value in teaching estimation and basic sanity checking based on an expected magnitude at least, but that needs to wait until the student has mastered the 4 basic functions so that they can HAVE some expectation of magnitude.
It was over a year late, then at a hobbiest convention, someone who had pre-paid and despaired of ever getting anything for his money nicked a pre-release copy and fixed the bugs. He then shared the fixed copy with the many more people who had pre-paid and gotten nothing for their money.
That is what inspired Gates to write his open letter to the community.
THAT is why you have a copy of it on paper tape.
The problem comes when we mis-measure merit. The CEO makes a pile of money and is a CEO, therefor we bump up his measure of "merit", the bright kid cleaning toilets and cleaning toilets, so we bump down his measure of "merit".
Then, having thumbed all the scales to fit the outcome, we proudly proclaim that merit is a useful measure and that we are obviously a meritocracy. Then, based on the pre-fudged values of "merit" we perpetuate the situation. The CEO gets more chairs pulled out and more golden parachutes, the bright kid gets more toilets to clean followed by more pink slips.
Occasionally (VERY occasionally), luck on the same level as winning the big lotto jackpot twice strikes and the toilet cleaner gets a real shot at the brass ring. Very occasionally, the CEO and his massive "merit" screw up so bad and so often that no amount of blinders, ear plugs and looking the other way can allow the board to ignore the lack of merit.
Actual merit is a useful thing, but our means of measuring it produce a largely useless and often harmful metric.
The thing is, there's a thousand more people who learned that trick fixing the old TV, but they couldn't afford the certification that gets them hired for $1000.
More correctly, she had the CEO's ear. Nepotism by proxy.
The problem is even worse. No amount of diplomacy and social skills can put enough lipstick on bad news to make it attractive to management. People who honestly and diplomatically present bad news that NEEDS to be heard tend to be perceived as lacking in social skills. People of modest personability that blow sunshine up the boss's ass are perceived as likable.