121–130 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a way to signal incredulity with something being an issue which you think shouldn't still be an issue. https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/The_Current_Year
Tread carefully readers. This article is pretty benign but ED is decidedly NSFW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afraid that's not true. Around 60-80% of diagnoses in primary care settings are made purely on the basis of the patient history (followed by a brief clinical examination which usually aims at eliciting subjective responses)[1]. In principle it's true that you could find a pathological explanation for all somatic ("physical") diseases which in practice are diagnosed off patient histories (with the exception of disease…
>fibromyalgia, IBS, CFS There are objective tests for all of these pathologies, though those tests are often inconclusive in the face of the symptoms. >If you don't think there's a physical basis for mental illnesses though, skim through the figures in this article[2] for a prime example of the ways modern medicine is disproving that. There are physical symptoms of mental illness, but as yet there is no proof of phys…
No, objective tests are in these cases used to exclude other causes to the symptoms, not to diagnose the mentioned illnesses. These are diagnoses of exclusion[1].
> There are physical symptoms of mental illness, but as yet there is no proof of physical causes, which is why the chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine and the DSM-4 stated "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests". You'll find no objective biological tests in the DSM.
I'm not disputing the fact that it's not possible to do pathophysiological tests for mental illnesses in current clinical practice, but you're creating a false equivalence by implying that being unable to test for a pathophysiological factor is the same as that factor not existing. There are plenty of pathophysiological changes that occur in mental illnesses [2-4], but for obvious reasons it's not feasible to haphazardly take biopsies of the brain to test for them, especially when the patient history and subjective examinations suffice to make a diagnosis in most cases.
Conversely, my point still stands that the vast majority of somatic illnesses are diagnosed off subjective symptoms - doctors don't bother doing objective lab tests for a cold or a sprained ankle when the diagnosis is glaringly obvious based off subjective symptoms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis_of_exclusion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanisms_of_schizophrenia#Pathophysiology
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophreniaEarlier quoted context omitted.
You are very very right. When people have disorders like you list they are disabling. That's expensive for the worker and the employer and ultimately our social systems but it's just kind of expected that those people are forgotten with no resources but their own to cope. That's a horrible broken system. What scares me is the undiagnosed (as you pointed out). There's way too many people in public perception that when…
> Trump has something wrong with him, he'll never get treated A bit off-topic, but in case you're interested in that 'something', here's one analysis from a psychologist that made the rounds of liberal psychologists that my mother associates with: http://www.nationalmemo.com/psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/
The author himself admits it's horribly unethical and overwhelmingly likely to be entirely wrong in the very first paragraph, but somehow justifies his continued speculation because a random group of peers (as if these peers being located within the grounds of Yale for a conference gives them some sort of authority) decided it was okay this one time because they don't like the subject in question.
If you truly care about creating political change and/or defeating Trump you'll focus on policies that the majority of the electorate are willing to vote for instead of sharing feel good tabloid pablum to justify your superiority complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are very very right. When people have disorders like you list they are disabling. That's expensive for the worker and the employer and ultimately our social systems but it's just kind of expected that those people are forgotten with no resources but their own to cope. That's a horrible broken system. What scares me is the undiagnosed (as you pointed out). There's way too many people in public perception that when…
Two dangers around this perspective seem evident to me: 1. Diagnosing others based on second hand information. Presumably not as a professional either. 2. Attempting to define right and "wrong" behavior in a psychological context. On (1): you experience a vast minority of Trump's or Job's life (unless you know them personally). How can you possibly hold to those claims? You have no idea how either of them acted in no…
Trump also projects as someone with a personality disorder. We have plenty of material to suggest that his behavior is in fact unhealthy and detrimental.
My point wasn't to diagnose those two (you'll notice I did not), but to point out just two individuals which have signs of personality disorder. They may not in fact have any disorders, but how many Jobs wannabes do and that kind of behavior is not just tolerated but celebrated? That context is a real enabler for people with disorders.
There is a kinda secret code for OOO or WFH emails that managers should respect. Definitely got to "Respect the code" (say in a pirate voice). As a manager I'd write purposely vague emails to contribute to this, "Sorry will be late, got jumped by a gang of ninjas" because I really don't like to set a cultural tone that isn't trusting of employees. I basically need to know you aren't going to be here but I don't need…
I decided years ago to avoid detail in "I'm sick" emails, because I don't want to one day think "do I need to say I have horrendous diarrhea, or can i just say I'm sick?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>by the low-wage masses abusing it (and abuse it they did). This feeds directly into the popular narrative that the working poor somehow lack moral fortitude. Do you have evidence to justify this claim?
> Do you have evidence to justify this claim? Sure, I worked a lot of retail/physical labor/etc. type jobs in my younger years. I was out of the house at an early age, and took these jobs very seriously since they paid my bills. My co-workers for many reasons did not, at least a very significant minority of them. I don't think it's really "out there" to say that the typical minimum wage worker is not as high quality…
One other thing, is that minimum-wage jobs are often (not always) filled with entry-level workers. These are people who have never had a regular job. They don't know, or may have unrealistic ideas about the importance of being on time, showing up when scheduled, not taking random time off with short notice, etc. So policies are strict because many workers need to be "trained" about what to expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>fibromyalgia, IBS, CFS There are objective tests for all of these pathologies, though those tests are often inconclusive in the face of the symptoms. >If you don't think there's a physical basis for mental illnesses though, skim through the figures in this article[2] for a prime example of the ways modern medicine is disproving that. There are physical symptoms of mental illness, but as yet there is no proof of phys…
> There are objective tests for all of these pathologies, though those tests are often inconclusive in the face of the symptoms. No, objective tests are in these cases used to exclude other causes to the symptoms, not to diagnose the mentioned illnesses. These are diagnoses of exclusion[1]. > There are physical symptoms of mental illness, but as yet there is no proof of physical causes, which is why the chairman of t…
It is feasible post mortem but scientists still have no conslusive proof from such examinations.
>Conversely, my point still stands that the vast majority of somatic illnesses are diagnosed off subjective symptoms - doctors don't bother doing objective lab tests for a cold or a sprained ankle when the diagnosis is glaringly obvious based off subjective symptoms.
That is not in dispute because a cold and sprained ankle are objectively diagnosable post mortem. Mental illness is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>by the low-wage masses abusing it (and abuse it they did). This feeds directly into the popular narrative that the working poor somehow lack moral fortitude. Do you have evidence to justify this claim?
> Do you have evidence to justify this claim? Sure, I worked a lot of retail/physical labor/etc. type jobs in my younger years. I was out of the house at an early age, and took these jobs very seriously since they paid my bills. My co-workers for many reasons did not, at least a very significant minority of them. I don't think it's really "out there" to say that the typical minimum wage worker is not as high quality…
first off, good for madalyn, it takes too much courage to introduce specifics regarding any kind of sick time and mental health is especially burdensome. now, moving on to the rest of the post: of course it's still an issue. taking sick time for any reason is still an issue. everyone feels the pressure to not be sick, to not take sick time, and to work while sick. i have never worked for any organization where this w…
I also came back to say that I was unsure why you were being downvoted. I think you made some good points in the first half of the post. It's probably the tone of the writing. There is definitely a stigma around mental illness. In Sweden there is a law on the national level - "the vacation law" that governs the minimum amount of vacation an employee can have in a year. See https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/d…