Psychology is a science, and psychiatry is medicine, and they do scientific testing. They aren't perfect, but they're very, very far from being pseudoscience. If you think that way, I can only encourage you to get your medicine from whatever the heck stupid website you want to use, because I'm annoyed at all the assholes pontificating on other people's problems without bothering to learn anything first.
From my unfortunately detailed and lengthy experience, I generally agree with you. I had an HMO that did do talk therapy, with a very short list of people available to talk to. I talked to four therapists, and found one I could actually connect with and who could help me, and she wasn't working for an HMO.
Your friend had a really crap doctor, and apparently no proper talk therapy. There's very little in this world that can't be screwed up by incompetents. Anti-depressants can be prescribed to people with situational depression or no real depression. People can be given pills without any other sort of support because they're cheap and therapy is expensive.
As far as I can tell, right-wing sites say mass shooters are on SSRIs, left-wing sites don't, and what little I could find in the middle said that we don't know about everybody's drug use, and lots of the drugs the right-wing sites call SSRIs aren't.
Last I tried looking into this, I got right-wing sources saying there was a connection, left-wing saying there wasn't, and the best neutral I could find said we really didn't have the data.
To translate this into plain English: "This study irritates me, so I'll make stupid assumptions about the authors without bothering to see if they might be true or not. I'll also assume that the authors were dumb, and didn't think of obvious things."
More studies would be nice. Who's going to pay for them?
You know what happened to me a few years ago? I felt unhappy for the first time in maybe twenty years. Something unpleasant happened, I was unable to help, and I just felt sad and unhappy. It was an unfamiliar feeling at first, because for decades I'd been depressed instead of feeling when things like that happened. "Depressed" and:"sad" are two different things.
Which means you have to get yourself up and go do it. And again tomorrow. And tomorrow.
That's hard when you;re depressed. One problem with depression is that the lifestyle changes that will help are really hard to do because of the depression.
There's lots of antidepressants around. My doctors would change meds if I had bad side effects or they didn't seem to be working.
There are forms of psychotherapy that are very useful, also. One problem is that they're a lot more expensive than a prescription, so some people can't get decent psychotherapy. I found a psychotherapist I could talk to, studied cognitive therapy, and took the pills. I'm a lot better now, but it's still there.
That would seem to me to be time to change meds and see how that works. My experience is a little old here, but my doctors' first approaches were to try me on what was cheapest and might help and change as indicated.
Meaningful distinction in what way? SItuational depression might have the exact same effects as neurochemical imbalance depression, but it has to be treated in different ways.
outlook shapes how you feel. AND it can be taught.
Which is, basically, cognitive therapy. It's very useful. So are the antidepressants. Having been seriously depressed, I'm in favor of attacking it from more than one direction.
(It was very discouraging to go to a therapist and have him compliment me on my cognitive therapy ability and say he didn't have anything more to teach me. Good thing I was still on the antidepressants.)
The West Antarctic Sheet, which seems most at risk, would raise sea level by 3.2m. Antarctica as a whole would be more like 60-70m. I suspect Greenland would contribute a few meters if it all melted.
You know, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet goes into the ocean from global warming, or geothermal activity, or malevolent fairies, we're getting a sea level rise of 3.2m just the same.
You misread your source. It says that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level 3.2m if melted, and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet would add another 0.24m The East ice sheet would raise sea level something like 60m.
Slashdot Mirror
Psychology is a science, and psychiatry is medicine, and they do scientific testing. They aren't perfect, but they're very, very far from being pseudoscience. If you think that way, I can only encourage you to get your medicine from whatever the heck stupid website you want to use, because I'm annoyed at all the assholes pontificating on other people's problems without bothering to learn anything first.
From my unfortunately detailed and lengthy experience, I generally agree with you. I had an HMO that did do talk therapy, with a very short list of people available to talk to. I talked to four therapists, and found one I could actually connect with and who could help me, and she wasn't working for an HMO.
Your friend had a really crap doctor, and apparently no proper talk therapy. There's very little in this world that can't be screwed up by incompetents. Anti-depressants can be prescribed to people with situational depression or no real depression. People can be given pills without any other sort of support because they're cheap and therapy is expensive.
As far as I can tell, right-wing sites say mass shooters are on SSRIs, left-wing sites don't, and what little I could find in the middle said that we don't know about everybody's drug use, and lots of the drugs the right-wing sites call SSRIs aren't.
We also didn't have a prevalence of easily available right-wing fake news. Or as much carbon dioxide in the air. Just sayin'.
I had a friend who felt much the same way. Note the past tense.
Last I tried looking into this, I got right-wing sources saying there was a connection, left-wing saying there wasn't, and the best neutral I could find said we really didn't have the data.
Actually, no, but thanks for repeating right-wing propaganda.
Actually, we're going to call schools "uteruses", for those people who believe in protecting fetuses before they're born and not one second after.
To translate this into plain English: "This study irritates me, so I'll make stupid assumptions about the authors without bothering to see if they might be true or not. I'll also assume that the authors were dumb, and didn't think of obvious things."
More studies would be nice. Who's going to pay for them?
You know what happened to me a few years ago? I felt unhappy for the first time in maybe twenty years. Something unpleasant happened, I was unable to help, and I just felt sad and unhappy. It was an unfamiliar feeling at first, because for decades I'd been depressed instead of feeling when things like that happened. "Depressed" and :"sad" are two different things.
If it were just lack of resilience, it would have gone away when things were going well for me. It didn't. It does cause impaired resilience.
Lay off the conservative fake news narrative.
Europe isn't a country, but many European countries are a lot better off than we are by objective measurements.
Could be, but I'm alive, reasonably happy, and mostly functioning. There's a lot to be said for anything that helps that.
Which means you have to get yourself up and go do it. And again tomorrow. And tomorrow.
That's hard when you;re depressed. One problem with depression is that the lifestyle changes that will help are really hard to do because of the depression.
There's lots of antidepressants around. My doctors would change meds if I had bad side effects or they didn't seem to be working.
There are forms of psychotherapy that are very useful, also. One problem is that they're a lot more expensive than a prescription, so some people can't get decent psychotherapy. I found a psychotherapist I could talk to, studied cognitive therapy, and took the pills. I'm a lot better now, but it's still there.
Or, in my case, a good friend who refused antidepressants and killed himself.
That would seem to me to be time to change meds and see how that works. My experience is a little old here, but my doctors' first approaches were to try me on what was cheapest and might help and change as indicated.
Meaningful distinction in what way? SItuational depression might have the exact same effects as neurochemical imbalance depression, but it has to be treated in different ways.
Which is, basically, cognitive therapy. It's very useful. So are the antidepressants. Having been seriously depressed, I'm in favor of attacking it from more than one direction.
(It was very discouraging to go to a therapist and have him compliment me on my cognitive therapy ability and say he didn't have anything more to teach me. Good thing I was still on the antidepressants.)
However, with the proper applicator for the 9mm anti-stupidity pill, it doesn't matter that much if they resist.
I'm mostly non-violent, but some things are just too satisfying not to daydream about.
Your findings will never pass peer review, being obviously wrong.
The West Antarctic Sheet, which seems most at risk, would raise sea level by 3.2m. Antarctica as a whole would be more like 60-70m. I suspect Greenland would contribute a few meters if it all melted.
You know, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet goes into the ocean from global warming, or geothermal activity, or malevolent fairies, we're getting a sea level rise of 3.2m just the same.
Speaking from 180m above sea level, get off my lawn. I was here first.
You misread your source. It says that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level 3.2m if melted, and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet would add another 0.24m The East ice sheet would raise sea level something like 60m.