Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty
Following years of supreme court decisions upholding gun control laws, it is plausible to say that the right to bear arms is not absolute. That is the position the ACLU takes on the issue. I personally oppose most gun control laws, though not from a rights stance, rather from a practicality and harm-reduction stance.
Contrast this with years of supreme court decisions upholding free speech. Again, the right isn't absolute (see the go-to example of yelling fire in a burning building), but it is far more established in legal precedent. Accordingly, the ACLU is a strong supporter of this established legal right.
Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.
Now that's just silly. Last I heard the job of ending racism fell to groups like the Anti-Defimation League. As a matter of fact, the ACLU frequently defends racists (mostly white, might I add) and their right to use racist speech. They also defend anti-discrimination laws which, while you may find them overreaching and of questionable legality, are designed to protect the rights of certain minorities.
Listen, I think the ACLU overreaches frequently, but their purpose and goals are nobel, even if their execution is less than perfect. In my experience, ACLU haters are generally NRA members and Christian zealots whose interpretation of rights offered by the constitution differs from the ACLU. This hardly makes them left wing.
Seriously, what do you have a against the people developing mono, anyway? Is this one of those "you aren't a real programmer unless you code in C++" attitudes? What's your beef, man?
As an example, I'm a.Net developer and I think the IDE sucks (well, 'sucks' may be a bit strong--how's deficient?). Add ReSharper to it and it becomes far more useful, but who really picks a language on the basis of the GUI's available for it, anyway? If we were doing that, I'd pick Java with IDEA any day.
No, what attracts me to.Net is the large, well documented framework API's available out of the box, the rich set of free third party libraries available (many (most?) of which have been ported from Java), the relatively clean and feature-rich primary language, and the subsequent rise in productivity it gives me and my programmers.
The IDE itself is a bit buggy and constricting for my tastes. Try, for instance, checking out changes to two project files at the same time. Visual Studio will inform you that a project has changed outside the IDE and asks if you want to reload it. How nice! Until you realize that it only reloads one of the two projects, that is. Recycle time. Or how about the shitty way it handles references to other assemblies. Rather than treating the assigned path to a referenced assembly as the gospel, it treats it as a "hint." This can cause wierd and hard to debug problems when compiling on another programmer's machine (granted the incidents of this happening are relatively rare, but I've seen it bite people 4-5 times in the last few years alone--zero would be far more acceptable).
Another annoying point is that all folder management (moves, renames, etc.) have to be done from within the IDE. This requires a lot of point and click gymnastics in certain scenarios. No fun at all. And don't even get me started about C++ support. They really punted there (in 2003, anyway--supposedly they tried making it far better in 2005, but reports from my C++ collegues indicates that they ended up breaking things like intellisense entirely).
Lots of people stand all day long at their job. Pit traders and security guards come to mind.
In terms of mods, I'd be more interested in how they got the thing to travel more than the advertised 6-10 miles on a single charge. From wikipedia: "The p-series is capable of covering 6-10 miles (10-16 km) on a fully charged standard battery, depending on terrain. It takes 4-6 hours to recharge."
Can you imagine covering the country 6 miles at a time?
Presumably, if the average 51 year old drives as poorly as a person with a BAL of 0.08-0.10, then the average 71 year old would drive comparably to a person with an even higher BAL. If an elderly person has the same driving capabilities as a person with a BAL of 0.15 should the be allowed on the road because they don't have a choice? In fact, they DO have a choice: they could choose not to drive.
Similarly, a person who has slept 1 hour in the last 48 hours is likely to be a terrible driver, comparable to a person with a high BAL. Doesn't this person have a choice to not get behind the wheel of a car? How about a terribly sick individual?
From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter. Because we treat it as such, we are more afraid of the consequences of taking away drivers licenses than of having dangerous drivers on the road. How many chances does the average DUI offender get before their license is permenantly revoked? How many accidents does an elderly driver have to have before their license is revoked? Too many, if you ask me.
What is the difference between a drunken driver and a driver who is impaired in other ways? Nothing. They are all shitty drivers and they all have a choice: the choice not to get behind the wheel of a car.
I love the new "arrogance is truth" culture we are building in this country. Just say something loud, arrogantly and with enough venom and OF COURSE it is true, dummy. You could teach Punditry 101.
To be fair, the distinction is arbitrary for many uses of "web applications." For instance, an image gallery based on a dynamic content management system would almost certainly be considered a web application by developers. But to the end user of the gallery, they would be browsing the gallery just like they browse static content on the web. And most users of that gallery would expect bookmarks to individual pictures in the gallery to work. If the gallery made heavy use of AJAX and broke bookmarking capabilities, this would clash with the user's (reasonable, IMO) expectations.
Just like any other application, a good web application should be designed to be intuitive to the end user. Breaking commonly used browser features in your web app is probably a really bad idea in terms of usability (or the perception of usability by the end user).
You obviously didn't read the article. One of the chief complaints against this disciplinary action was that the rules are horribly vague, to the point of being meaningless.
From the JS Online article: "The critics, including the student's attorney, recognize that private universities have a greater ability to limit student speech than their public counterparts, Taylor said. When students enroll in a private university, they agree to follow restrictions of the administration.
What bothers Taylor and others is what they call vagueness of Marquette's codes of conduct and the decision to apply them in this case. The dental school's code requires students "to conduct interactions with each other, with patients and with others in a manner that promotes understanding and trust" and condemns "actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature."
As a private institution, Marquette can do whatever the fuck they want. What the critics are saying--and I agree--is that this is an exceedingly stupid thing for the university to do. Their code is impossible to enforce consistantly and that results in inappropriate actions against a student who has done nothing unethical. Stupid and childish? Sure. But not unethical.
And therein lies the problem of which he was speaking, I believe. That search for someone or something to blame. That crutch on which you can dump your personal responsibility.
I don't know how you got that from my post. The original poster was clearly blaming the "psychology industry" (whatever the fuck that is) for the problem of calling expert witnesses to deflect blame in the courtroom. I suggested that it isn't the psychologists who are to blame, but rather the lawyers who are deflecting the blame in the first place.
I personally am not looking for anyone to blame. I am fine accepting personal responsibility and I expect others to own up to their responsibility for the the situations they create.
That said, my post was mainly directed at the (very popular) fallacy that psychologists main motivation is to absolve people of their bad actions and decisions. That is simply not true. I wholeheartedly agree that this nation is very caught up in blaming others or external issues for problems they create. This lack of personal responsibility is a big problem. However, psychologists do not enable this notion of non-responsibility in their patients.
As I see it, people assume that because psychologists acknowledge certain conditions' existance, that they must also use those conditions as an excuse their actions. This simply isn't true. As a friend of mine (a psychologist) once said, "you can't always control your thoughts, but you can control your actions." Psychologists might use a diagnosis of a mental disorder to explain the actions of a subject, but that isn't the same as exusing those actions, is it?
As I commented in another post, many of these misconceptions of psychology come from very uninformed sources. When the media reports on psychological studies, some of the conclusions they draw are almost funny. Ditto for special interest groups; they will reinterpret any psychological study to forward their own agendas. The next time you read about one of these studies, look carefully at who is making the biggest and boldest conclusions based on the study's results. I bet you it won't be the study's author.
How the hell does a shitty comment like this get modded insightful!?!?
Every failing that a person has is now some addiction or other problem that is beyond their control.
First, not every failing a person has is considered an addiction. An addiction is specificly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive behavior despite harm." Second, no ethical psychologist or psychiatrist would ever say that an addiction is something beyond a person's control. The whole point of psychology is to treat mental health problems which cause harm so that the person no longer exhibits the negative behavior. To do this, the person being treated has to have active involvement with his/her treatment.
Psychologists (at least the good ones) do not use addiction as an excuse to absolve people of their wrongdoings. Rather, they diagnose patients with addiction in an attempt to find the best treatment options for making that person healthier mentally.
Every big trial now has competing "experts" that will take whatever position they are paid to take.
You think this is limited to psych experts? Trials routinely feature experts from nearly every profession. Doctors, medical examiners, civil engineers, auto experts, forensic pathologists, etc. How exactly did psychology cause this? If you were looking for someone to blame for this phenominon, I'd blame the lawyers.
If you're "addicted" but are getting along well with your family, getting your work done at the office, etc, then does it really matter?
Well, it actually means that you aren't truly addicted, at least according to the accepted psychological definition of addiction. From wikipedia: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
In other words, even if you display compulsive behavior (for instance, if you compulsively eat; which is different than eating three square meals a day, I might add), you are not considered addicted by the psychological community unless you are causing harm to yourself or others. What is actually considered harm is a grey area, but there are usually guidelines for identifying harm associated with compulsive behavior.
Taft
Re:Psychology is just so much crap
on
Hooked On The Web
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Good lord! There are so many misconceptions about psychology in your post, I barely know where to start.
In your analogy to reading, you said, "WE MUST BAN READING! Train people to STOP READING, and if they can't medicate them out of the habit. A couple doses of Thorazine mixed with Xanax will probably do the trick!"
Psychologists are not looking to ban anything, or even to prevent behavior. This is a common misconception likely forwarded as a result of sensationalist reporting and the misuse of studies by special interest groups. For example, many anti-drug crusaders have latched onto reports that marijuana can instigate schizophrenic episodes. What they don't tell you is that the studies have only shown a casual connection and even then mostly in individuals with genetic predisposition and other risk factors.
Later in your rant, you said, "There is no such thing as an obsession, unless you view it as such, or said behaviour adversely impacts the lives of others." The funny thing is that even though you thought you were disagreeing with psychologists on this point, you were actually stating (approximately) the accepted psychological definition of an addiction. From wikipedia: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
Finally, in your last paragraph you said, "These 'psychologists' are the same bunch of lame boneheads who write scripts for ADHD at the least sign of impatience or Social Anxiety Disorder because of simple shyness or apprehension." This is a very incorrect statement. Psychologists cannot and do not write prescriptions. They do frequently have knowledge of the effects of drugs used to treat mental health problems. A psychologist studies the mind and (sometimes) offers therapy (of the "talking" variety) to help those with mental health problems. Psychiatrists are individuals who have been trained in both psychological practices and medical pratices. Psychiatrists must complete medical school (like other doctors) before prescribing medication.
Like doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, programmers, etc., etc., psychologists and psychiatrists can act ethically and professionally, or they can act unethically and unprofessionally. Just as antibiotics were once over-prescribed for apparent bacterial infections (which could just have easily been viral infections), psychiatrists (and even many doctors) have over-diagnosed and over-treated the different forms of attention deficit disorder and depression. Does that make all psychology/psychiatry crap? Hardly. It means that the practitioners of this science are human like the practitioners of any other science.
Now, I also understand there is sometimes a need for anonymous speech
This is very important for a forum like slashdot, but does it apply to an online encyclopedia? I would think that, given their mission, copyrighted material, trade secrets, and whistleblowing would all be banned content on wikipedia. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where anonymity would need to be protected in order to add approved content to their site. Can you come up with such a scenario?
Grandparent: 1. Serve God first (not the flag, not your boss, not the IRS, not your family)
You: 1 foolish
Me: What an ass!
The worst part of your reply was that you labelled the granparent's personal beliefs either correct or incorrect. They are his freaking religious beliefs! They can't be right or wrong.
I'm not even Christian and I find your narrow-minded arrogance annoying.
So you have no problem that by the time kids finish high school, they've spent more time in front of a TV than with a teacher?
First, my kids will not have watched nearly that much TV by the time they finish high school. Why? Because I believe in good parenting, which shouldn't include the TV as a babysitter.
Second, do I care if other people's kids watch crazy amounts of TV? Not in the slightest. If parents want to stuff their kids with junk food, sit them in front of the TV for hours, then teach them that evolution is crap and God created all I don't give a goddamn. The great thing about freedom is that it's their choice to make. Their bad decisions shouldn't effect me or my own so long as I'm careful, so what's the big fucking deal.
Look, TV isn't the problem here. It is just a product like any other. Just like any other product that provides some amount of enjoyment, it can certainly be abused and can cause problems if it is. If you are looking for somewhere to focus blame (which it seems to me that you are), point the finger at the bad parents who let their kids watch obscene amounts of TV.
My question to you: why do you want to waste your time? These people obviously think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, and seem perfectly content watching. They aren't going to change because you are arrogantly screaming at them to give up their junkie ways. Why waste your energy? Just raise your kids right and move along.
FYI, I haven't watched commercials in a few years so I most certainly didn't notice the format changes they have made to ads in the last few years. TIVO keeps me well insulated from the shit on TV I don't want to watch. For those of you without TIVO, I hear the mute button also works pretty well.
Just turn the fucking thing off, okay? For ONE FUCKING DAY?
No.
Also, fuck you.
I'm a TV viewer. I've also managed to hold a great development job in the financial industry, learned to play the guitar and piano (well, I might add), brew beer, exercise regularly, be fairly well-read, travel frequently, do development on the side and maintain (relatively) healthy friendships and relationships.
Christ, does my life suck, huh? If only I hadn't watched so much TV!
You know what I hate as much as you seem to hate TV and its viewers? Self-righteous assholes who think anyone not conforming to their way of life is a loser. Man, those guys blow.
What a load of shit. Somebody seems to have a persecution complex...
I'm from a backwards area (the Upper Penninsula of Michigan--which happens to have the same type of accent as Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin--you know, derivatives of the Fargo accent). I can tell you that I don't call people from my home territory backwards because they are Republicans, I call them backwards because they are behind the times on many, many issues. Despite some great high schools in the UP, there is still a devastating lack of good education (both primary and secondary) among residents, with widespread ignorance on many topics the result. There is almost NO culture to be found off the campuses of the two Universities worth mentioning (MTU, and NMU). There is little appreciation for art, theatre, music, etc. The economy is almost entirely reliant on manufacturing (mostly paper these days) and tourism, which means little in the way of infrastructure appropriate for small IP-oriented businesses. And finally, the horrible accent. Even UPers make fun of their accent (via "Say ya to da UP, eh?" bumper stickers).
That said, there is plenty to like about the UP, and there are plenty of people to like in the UP. There are many articulate, informed and cultured citizens. The land is plentiful and beautiful. The way of life is relaxed and simple. But none of this changes the fact that in a large portion of citizens there is rampant racism and homophobia, and you have to search hard for any semblance of culture.
Yes, I consider much of the UP to be backwards (ditto for Alabama and some grain-belt states). Am I a bigot? I don't think so. I appreciate the fact that not all people from the UP (or from the ghetto, for that matter) are the same. There is a difference between acknowledging the truths behind stereotypes and bigotry.
It wasn't a personal attack so much as it was an attack against your self-righteous disrespect of a field where the majority of its practitioners use completely scientific methods (yes you read that last part right--go look it up on wikipedia, for instance). Keep in mind that you are reading about this study in a popular magazine that gives only a topical treatment to most items it covers. The fact that "90% of the time" you think psychological studies are crap proves nothing. You could be reading about the studies from crap sources or you may have a poor understanding of the field of psychology and how it fits into traditional scientific methods (as I believe, given your statements about psychology and how they jibe with the reality of the field).
A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?
Much of my post was dedicated to showing psychology in a realistic light in contrast to misconceptions most people have about it. I understand you didn't mention Freud, but you would be surprised how many people I encounter who are ignorant of modern psychological methods and theories and have a view of psychology that conforms to the Freud's theories. I think it is important to set the record straight and state that such theories are, by and large, considered invalid today.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be said that psychology is a somewhat fractured field. There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field? There are "legitimate scientists" (IOW, they have a degree) who put their weight behind theories such as intelligent design. The question isn't what do ALL members of a given field think about a given theory, but rather what the mainstream members of a field think. In psychology, as in most other fields, consensus is quite important. Any psychologist associated with a hospital or psychology school would recognize this and conduct their research or treatment accordingly. You may argue that psychology needs better standards to ensure only scientifically proven methods are applied during therapy (I would argue that myself--I'd like to see more strict licensing standards for therapists), but the lack thereof hardly invalidates the field as a whole.
By this, you mean to cause the patient's state of mind to conform more closely to the accepted normal behavioural patterns of the masses, yes?
Not at all. Normal is not a term thrown around a lot in psychology (no matter what you hear on the news), primarily because the meaning of normal, in most contexts, is so difficult to pin down. Psychologists do use statistics and other benchmarks to help determine when treatment is necessary, but most often these are applied more to the perception of the individual than to somewhat arbitrary facts (such as the number of friends the individual has).
As for the hypothetical case you are describing--the individual is not harming relationships with existing friends or family and is not unhappy not having friends outside of the workplace--no harm to the individual or others is occurring. As such, his desire to work long hours is not considered an addiction in the clinical sense and no psychologist I know would treat him as such. Also--again assuming the hypothetical situation you described--given that his level of work does not approach the level of a compulsion, no psychologist I know would consider him in need of psychological treatment.
I see a fundamental lack of understanding in you comments about what psychology is. A psychologist does not feel "compelled" to treat anyone. A psychologist would only treat a) a person who came to them as a result of discontent with their mental state (loneliness, anxiety, depression, etc.) or b) a person who was considered, by the state, as a threat to himself or others.
Again, any ethical psychologist would not see your hypothetical case as a person in need of psychological treatment. They may feel the individual could benefit from psychological evaluation and treatment, but it is not their place (or right, professionally) to impose this on them.
My question to you is: where did you get such a negative impression of psychology?
I agree with you: government isn't the solution. Laws prohibiting behavior are not the solution.
No psychologist would tell you that TV, games, work, etc. are inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. However, the vast majority would admit that any of those things COULD be a problem with certain individuals. The purpose of studies like these, from a scientific perspective, is to gain further understanding of the causes of addiction and develop effective treatment methods.
My point is that it isn't science's fault that jackass politicians see a study like this and immediately think, "what laws could we put in place to protect the poor, innocent children?"
Congratulations! We obviously don't need psychologists anymore because you are clearly more qualified and knowledgable about the subject. Since YOU don't think psychological addictions are real, I guess they aren't. Problem solved!
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, though, people really seem to have huge misconceptions about psychology and its goals. When psychologists use terms like addiction, many unknowledgable people assume that they are just making excuses to obsolve "weak" people of their negative behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reason terms like addiction are useful is because they give psychologists the ability to categorize, study and treat undesirable mental conditions. Lets take phsychological addiction as an example. First, it is important to note that phsychologists DO make a distinction between physical dependence and phsychological addiction. From wikipedia:
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction).
Second, the term's definition is limited in scope so as to make identification of the problem, as well as research on and treatment of the issue, easier. Again, from wikipedia:
Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as "addiction".
With continued research of both behavior and chemical and nueral effects of stimuli, the definition could be refined even more and better tests could be developed to identify the problem.
Finally, to the issue of treatment, where I think most people have misconceptions of psychologists. Psychologists are not in business to absolve you of responsibility for your actions. They are not there to shift the blame from you to your mother (a common example people will bring up when discussing why psychology is crap). Rather their goal is to correct negative mental conditions and the behavior that results from those conditions. Sometimes, trying to identify the root of WHY a person thinks the way they do is an effective tool in correcting a mental condition. But it is important to understand that the identification of why a condition might exist is not the end goal of therapy. Rather, the end goal is to improve the patient's psychological condition. Realizing and processing the fact that your mother treated you like shit as a child, for instance, may be a starting point to understanding why you are having mental problems as an adult and improving on those problems. The point isn't to assign blame, but rather to improve the mental condition of the patient.
To your specific point...
If a person was so consumed with their work that it had a negative effect on their relationships with friends and family, or a negative effect on their mental or physical health, that could be considered an addiction. However, I should be careful to point out that a person could be working so much as a RESULT of poor relationships or existing mental health conditions. A trained psychologist would identify the patients specific problems and offer the best course of treatment (usually chosen based on the results of scientific studies). For example, research has shown that cognative therapy can be very effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders.
Psychology has come a long way since Freud (in fact, his methods are rarely used in treatment today). If you are ignorant of the field of psychology or the psychological meaning of words, I implore you to research the field and its goals and methodology before casting dispersions. Many people (most?) have an unfair negative impression of the field based on ignorance and a pop-science treatment of old and unused theories by the media.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, the irony.
May I humbly suggest that you're a fucking idiot.
Taft
Following years of supreme court decisions upholding gun control laws, it is plausible to say that the right to bear arms is not absolute. That is the position the ACLU takes on the issue. I personally oppose most gun control laws, though not from a rights stance, rather from a practicality and harm-reduction stance.
Contrast this with years of supreme court decisions upholding free speech. Again, the right isn't absolute (see the go-to example of yelling fire in a burning building), but it is far more established in legal precedent. Accordingly, the ACLU is a strong supporter of this established legal right.
Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.
Now that's just silly. Last I heard the job of ending racism fell to groups like the Anti-Defimation League. As a matter of fact, the ACLU frequently defends racists (mostly white, might I add) and their right to use racist speech. They also defend anti-discrimination laws which, while you may find them overreaching and of questionable legality, are designed to protect the rights of certain minorities.Listen, I think the ACLU overreaches frequently, but their purpose and goals are nobel, even if their execution is less than perfect. In my experience, ACLU haters are generally NRA members and Christian zealots whose interpretation of rights offered by the constitution differs from the ACLU. This hardly makes them left wing.
Taft
Seriously, what do you have a against the people developing mono, anyway? Is this one of those "you aren't a real programmer unless you code in C++" attitudes? What's your beef, man?
Taft
As an example, I'm a .Net developer and I think the IDE sucks (well, 'sucks' may be a bit strong--how's deficient?). Add ReSharper to it and it becomes far more useful, but who really picks a language on the basis of the GUI's available for it, anyway? If we were doing that, I'd pick Java with IDEA any day.
No, what attracts me to .Net is the large, well documented framework API's available out of the box, the rich set of free third party libraries available (many (most?) of which have been ported from Java), the relatively clean and feature-rich primary language, and the subsequent rise in productivity it gives me and my programmers.
The IDE itself is a bit buggy and constricting for my tastes. Try, for instance, checking out changes to two project files at the same time. Visual Studio will inform you that a project has changed outside the IDE and asks if you want to reload it. How nice! Until you realize that it only reloads one of the two projects, that is. Recycle time. Or how about the shitty way it handles references to other assemblies. Rather than treating the assigned path to a referenced assembly as the gospel, it treats it as a "hint." This can cause wierd and hard to debug problems when compiling on another programmer's machine (granted the incidents of this happening are relatively rare, but I've seen it bite people 4-5 times in the last few years alone--zero would be far more acceptable).
Another annoying point is that all folder management (moves, renames, etc.) have to be done from within the IDE. This requires a lot of point and click gymnastics in certain scenarios. No fun at all. And don't even get me started about C++ support. They really punted there (in 2003, anyway--supposedly they tried making it far better in 2005, but reports from my C++ collegues indicates that they ended up breaking things like intellisense entirely).
Taft
In terms of mods, I'd be more interested in how they got the thing to travel more than the advertised 6-10 miles on a single charge. From wikipedia: "The p-series is capable of covering 6-10 miles (10-16 km) on a fully charged standard battery, depending on terrain. It takes 4-6 hours to recharge."
Can you imagine covering the country 6 miles at a time?
Taft
Presumably, if the average 51 year old drives as poorly as a person with a BAL of 0.08-0.10, then the average 71 year old would drive comparably to a person with an even higher BAL. If an elderly person has the same driving capabilities as a person with a BAL of 0.15 should the be allowed on the road because they don't have a choice? In fact, they DO have a choice: they could choose not to drive.
Similarly, a person who has slept 1 hour in the last 48 hours is likely to be a terrible driver, comparable to a person with a high BAL. Doesn't this person have a choice to not get behind the wheel of a car? How about a terribly sick individual?
From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter. Because we treat it as such, we are more afraid of the consequences of taking away drivers licenses than of having dangerous drivers on the road. How many chances does the average DUI offender get before their license is permenantly revoked? How many accidents does an elderly driver have to have before their license is revoked? Too many, if you ask me.
What is the difference between a drunken driver and a driver who is impaired in other ways? Nothing. They are all shitty drivers and they all have a choice: the choice not to get behind the wheel of a car.
Taft
I love the new "arrogance is truth" culture we are building in this country. Just say something loud, arrogantly and with enough venom and OF COURSE it is true, dummy. You could teach Punditry 101.
Taft
Just like any other application, a good web application should be designed to be intuitive to the end user. Breaking commonly used browser features in your web app is probably a really bad idea in terms of usability (or the perception of usability by the end user).
Taft
From the JS Online article: "The critics, including the student's attorney, recognize that private universities have a greater ability to limit student speech than their public counterparts, Taylor said. When students enroll in a private university, they agree to follow restrictions of the administration.
What bothers Taylor and others is what they call vagueness of Marquette's codes of conduct and the decision to apply them in this case. The dental school's code requires students "to conduct interactions with each other, with patients and with others in a manner that promotes understanding and trust" and condemns "actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature."
As a private institution, Marquette can do whatever the fuck they want. What the critics are saying--and I agree--is that this is an exceedingly stupid thing for the university to do. Their code is impossible to enforce consistantly and that results in inappropriate actions against a student who has done nothing unethical. Stupid and childish? Sure. But not unethical.
Taft
I don't know how you got that from my post. The original poster was clearly blaming the "psychology industry" (whatever the fuck that is) for the problem of calling expert witnesses to deflect blame in the courtroom. I suggested that it isn't the psychologists who are to blame, but rather the lawyers who are deflecting the blame in the first place.
I personally am not looking for anyone to blame. I am fine accepting personal responsibility and I expect others to own up to their responsibility for the the situations they create.
That said, my post was mainly directed at the (very popular) fallacy that psychologists main motivation is to absolve people of their bad actions and decisions. That is simply not true. I wholeheartedly agree that this nation is very caught up in blaming others or external issues for problems they create. This lack of personal responsibility is a big problem. However, psychologists do not enable this notion of non-responsibility in their patients.
As I see it, people assume that because psychologists acknowledge certain conditions' existance, that they must also use those conditions as an excuse their actions. This simply isn't true. As a friend of mine (a psychologist) once said, "you can't always control your thoughts, but you can control your actions." Psychologists might use a diagnosis of a mental disorder to explain the actions of a subject, but that isn't the same as exusing those actions, is it?
As I commented in another post, many of these misconceptions of psychology come from very uninformed sources. When the media reports on psychological studies, some of the conclusions they draw are almost funny. Ditto for special interest groups; they will reinterpret any psychological study to forward their own agendas. The next time you read about one of these studies, look carefully at who is making the biggest and boldest conclusions based on the study's results. I bet you it won't be the study's author.
Taft
Every failing that a person has is now some addiction or other problem that is beyond their control.
First, not every failing a person has is considered an addiction. An addiction is specificly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive behavior despite harm." Second, no ethical psychologist or psychiatrist would ever say that an addiction is something beyond a person's control. The whole point of psychology is to treat mental health problems which cause harm so that the person no longer exhibits the negative behavior. To do this, the person being treated has to have active involvement with his/her treatment.
Psychologists (at least the good ones) do not use addiction as an excuse to absolve people of their wrongdoings. Rather, they diagnose patients with addiction in an attempt to find the best treatment options for making that person healthier mentally.
Every big trial now has competing "experts" that will take whatever position they are paid to take.
You think this is limited to psych experts? Trials routinely feature experts from nearly every profession. Doctors, medical examiners, civil engineers, auto experts, forensic pathologists, etc. How exactly did psychology cause this? If you were looking for someone to blame for this phenominon, I'd blame the lawyers.
Taft
Well, it actually means that you aren't truly addicted, at least according to the accepted psychological definition of addiction. From wikipedia: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
In other words, even if you display compulsive behavior (for instance, if you compulsively eat; which is different than eating three square meals a day, I might add), you are not considered addicted by the psychological community unless you are causing harm to yourself or others. What is actually considered harm is a grey area, but there are usually guidelines for identifying harm associated with compulsive behavior.
Taft
In your analogy to reading, you said, "WE MUST BAN READING! Train people to STOP READING, and if they can't medicate them out of the habit. A couple doses of Thorazine mixed with Xanax will probably do the trick!"
Psychologists are not looking to ban anything, or even to prevent behavior. This is a common misconception likely forwarded as a result of sensationalist reporting and the misuse of studies by special interest groups. For example, many anti-drug crusaders have latched onto reports that marijuana can instigate schizophrenic episodes. What they don't tell you is that the studies have only shown a casual connection and even then mostly in individuals with genetic predisposition and other risk factors.
Later in your rant, you said, "There is no such thing as an obsession, unless you view it as such, or said behaviour adversely impacts the lives of others." The funny thing is that even though you thought you were disagreeing with psychologists on this point, you were actually stating (approximately) the accepted psychological definition of an addiction. From wikipedia: "Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm'; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as 'addiction'."
Finally, in your last paragraph you said, "These 'psychologists' are the same bunch of lame boneheads who write scripts for ADHD at the least sign of impatience or Social Anxiety Disorder because of simple shyness or apprehension." This is a very incorrect statement. Psychologists cannot and do not write prescriptions. They do frequently have knowledge of the effects of drugs used to treat mental health problems. A psychologist studies the mind and (sometimes) offers therapy (of the "talking" variety) to help those with mental health problems. Psychiatrists are individuals who have been trained in both psychological practices and medical pratices. Psychiatrists must complete medical school (like other doctors) before prescribing medication.
Like doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, programmers, etc., etc., psychologists and psychiatrists can act ethically and professionally, or they can act unethically and unprofessionally. Just as antibiotics were once over-prescribed for apparent bacterial infections (which could just have easily been viral infections), psychiatrists (and even many doctors) have over-diagnosed and over-treated the different forms of attention deficit disorder and depression. Does that make all psychology/psychiatry crap? Hardly. It means that the practitioners of this science are human like the practitioners of any other science.
Taft
This is very important for a forum like slashdot, but does it apply to an online encyclopedia? I would think that, given their mission, copyrighted material, trade secrets, and whistleblowing would all be banned content on wikipedia. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where anonymity would need to be protected in order to add approved content to their site. Can you come up with such a scenario?
Taft
Maybe you'll change your tune when CBS airs that expose about you selling baby meat to restaurants.
But then, something so irresponsible and untrue couldn't possibly cause you any real damage, could it?
Taft
You: 1 foolish
Me: What an ass!
The worst part of your reply was that you labelled the granparent's personal beliefs either correct or incorrect. They are his freaking religious beliefs! They can't be right or wrong.
I'm not even Christian and I find your narrow-minded arrogance annoying.
Taft
First, my kids will not have watched nearly that much TV by the time they finish high school. Why? Because I believe in good parenting, which shouldn't include the TV as a babysitter.
Second, do I care if other people's kids watch crazy amounts of TV? Not in the slightest. If parents want to stuff their kids with junk food, sit them in front of the TV for hours, then teach them that evolution is crap and God created all I don't give a goddamn. The great thing about freedom is that it's their choice to make. Their bad decisions shouldn't effect me or my own so long as I'm careful, so what's the big fucking deal.
Look, TV isn't the problem here. It is just a product like any other. Just like any other product that provides some amount of enjoyment, it can certainly be abused and can cause problems if it is. If you are looking for somewhere to focus blame (which it seems to me that you are), point the finger at the bad parents who let their kids watch obscene amounts of TV.
My question to you: why do you want to waste your time? These people obviously think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, and seem perfectly content watching. They aren't going to change because you are arrogantly screaming at them to give up their junkie ways. Why waste your energy? Just raise your kids right and move along.
FYI, I haven't watched commercials in a few years so I most certainly didn't notice the format changes they have made to ads in the last few years. TIVO keeps me well insulated from the shit on TV I don't want to watch. For those of you without TIVO, I hear the mute button also works pretty well.
Taft
No.
Also, fuck you.
I'm a TV viewer. I've also managed to hold a great development job in the financial industry, learned to play the guitar and piano (well, I might add), brew beer, exercise regularly, be fairly well-read, travel frequently, do development on the side and maintain (relatively) healthy friendships and relationships.
Christ, does my life suck, huh? If only I hadn't watched so much TV!
You know what I hate as much as you seem to hate TV and its viewers? Self-righteous assholes who think anyone not conforming to their way of life is a loser. Man, those guys blow.
Taft
I'm from a backwards area (the Upper Penninsula of Michigan--which happens to have the same type of accent as Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin--you know, derivatives of the Fargo accent). I can tell you that I don't call people from my home territory backwards because they are Republicans, I call them backwards because they are behind the times on many, many issues. Despite some great high schools in the UP, there is still a devastating lack of good education (both primary and secondary) among residents, with widespread ignorance on many topics the result. There is almost NO culture to be found off the campuses of the two Universities worth mentioning (MTU, and NMU). There is little appreciation for art, theatre, music, etc. The economy is almost entirely reliant on manufacturing (mostly paper these days) and tourism, which means little in the way of infrastructure appropriate for small IP-oriented businesses. And finally, the horrible accent. Even UPers make fun of their accent (via "Say ya to da UP, eh?" bumper stickers).
That said, there is plenty to like about the UP, and there are plenty of people to like in the UP. There are many articulate, informed and cultured citizens. The land is plentiful and beautiful. The way of life is relaxed and simple. But none of this changes the fact that in a large portion of citizens there is rampant racism and homophobia, and you have to search hard for any semblance of culture.
Yes, I consider much of the UP to be backwards (ditto for Alabama and some grain-belt states). Am I a bigot? I don't think so. I appreciate the fact that not all people from the UP (or from the ghetto, for that matter) are the same. There is a difference between acknowledging the truths behind stereotypes and bigotry.
Taft
A big point I made in my post was that the clinical definition of an addiction is NOT sloppy or loosely defined. Why did you ignore this?
Much of my post was dedicated to showing psychology in a realistic light in contrast to misconceptions most people have about it. I understand you didn't mention Freud, but you would be surprised how many people I encounter who are ignorant of modern psychological methods and theories and have a view of psychology that conforms to the Freud's theories. I think it is important to set the record straight and state that such theories are, by and large, considered invalid today.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be said that psychology is a somewhat fractured field. There are factions within the field that take less than scientific approaches to their work or throw their weight behind untested and unorthodox theories. However, isn't this the same in any field? There are "legitimate scientists" (IOW, they have a degree) who put their weight behind theories such as intelligent design. The question isn't what do ALL members of a given field think about a given theory, but rather what the mainstream members of a field think. In psychology, as in most other fields, consensus is quite important. Any psychologist associated with a hospital or psychology school would recognize this and conduct their research or treatment accordingly. You may argue that psychology needs better standards to ensure only scientifically proven methods are applied during therapy (I would argue that myself--I'd like to see more strict licensing standards for therapists), but the lack thereof hardly invalidates the field as a whole.
Taft
Not at all. Normal is not a term thrown around a lot in psychology (no matter what you hear on the news), primarily because the meaning of normal, in most contexts, is so difficult to pin down. Psychologists do use statistics and other benchmarks to help determine when treatment is necessary, but most often these are applied more to the perception of the individual than to somewhat arbitrary facts (such as the number of friends the individual has).
As for the hypothetical case you are describing--the individual is not harming relationships with existing friends or family and is not unhappy not having friends outside of the workplace--no harm to the individual or others is occurring. As such, his desire to work long hours is not considered an addiction in the clinical sense and no psychologist I know would treat him as such. Also--again assuming the hypothetical situation you described--given that his level of work does not approach the level of a compulsion, no psychologist I know would consider him in need of psychological treatment.
I see a fundamental lack of understanding in you comments about what psychology is. A psychologist does not feel "compelled" to treat anyone. A psychologist would only treat a) a person who came to them as a result of discontent with their mental state (loneliness, anxiety, depression, etc.) or b) a person who was considered, by the state, as a threat to himself or others.
Again, any ethical psychologist would not see your hypothetical case as a person in need of psychological treatment. They may feel the individual could benefit from psychological evaluation and treatment, but it is not their place (or right, professionally) to impose this on them.
My question to you is: where did you get such a negative impression of psychology?
Taft
Have you seen how fast a Mac goes into and wakes up from sleep? Hint: it's much faster than suspend.
Taft
No psychologist would tell you that TV, games, work, etc. are inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. However, the vast majority would admit that any of those things COULD be a problem with certain individuals. The purpose of studies like these, from a scientific perspective, is to gain further understanding of the causes of addiction and develop effective treatment methods.
My point is that it isn't science's fault that jackass politicians see a study like this and immediately think, "what laws could we put in place to protect the poor, innocent children?"
Taft
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, though, people really seem to have huge misconceptions about psychology and its goals. When psychologists use terms like addiction, many unknowledgable people assume that they are just making excuses to obsolve "weak" people of their negative behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reason terms like addiction are useful is because they give psychologists the ability to categorize, study and treat undesirable mental conditions. Lets take phsychological addiction as an example. First, it is important to note that phsychologists DO make a distinction between physical dependence and phsychological addiction. From wikipedia:
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction).
Second, the term's definition is limited in scope so as to make identification of the problem, as well as research on and treatment of the issue, easier. Again, from wikipedia:
Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as "addiction".
With continued research of both behavior and chemical and nueral effects of stimuli, the definition could be refined even more and better tests could be developed to identify the problem.
Finally, to the issue of treatment, where I think most people have misconceptions of psychologists. Psychologists are not in business to absolve you of responsibility for your actions. They are not there to shift the blame from you to your mother (a common example people will bring up when discussing why psychology is crap). Rather their goal is to correct negative mental conditions and the behavior that results from those conditions. Sometimes, trying to identify the root of WHY a person thinks the way they do is an effective tool in correcting a mental condition. But it is important to understand that the identification of why a condition might exist is not the end goal of therapy. Rather, the end goal is to improve the patient's psychological condition. Realizing and processing the fact that your mother treated you like shit as a child, for instance, may be a starting point to understanding why you are having mental problems as an adult and improving on those problems. The point isn't to assign blame, but rather to improve the mental condition of the patient.
To your specific point...
If a person was so consumed with their work that it had a negative effect on their relationships with friends and family, or a negative effect on their mental or physical health, that could be considered an addiction. However, I should be careful to point out that a person could be working so much as a RESULT of poor relationships or existing mental health conditions. A trained psychologist would identify the patients specific problems and offer the best course of treatment (usually chosen based on the results of scientific studies). For example, research has shown that cognative therapy can be very effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders.
Psychology has come a long way since Freud (in fact, his methods are rarely used in treatment today). If you are ignorant of the field of psychology or the psychological meaning of words, I implore you to research the field and its goals and methodology before casting dispersions. Many people (most?) have an unfair negative impression of the field based on ignorance and a pop-science treatment of old and unused theories by the media.
Taft
Taft