It's Not All In Your Head • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#41

Post by niea_11 » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

V-2 wrote: post #23

jlos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with Kriss or Tao Lin, but First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims, and even Peter Thiel. I've found they will print some authors from outside their normal milieu if they offer some insight that would benefit the high brow literary conservatism that characterizes the magazine.

"First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims" For what it's worth, "ecumenical" means promoting Christian unity. So if Catholics carry dialogue with protestants, it may be ecumenical in nature, but with Jews or Muslims (as commendable and fruitful as it may be, but that's not the point) it can't be called that.

I'm not a native english speaker. First time I encountered the word ecumenical in a tv show (Frasier) and understood it in the same way it was used by gp.

Maybe it's specific to american english.

I checked cambridge dictionary and it confirms that definition : tending to support and encourage unity among different religions

Merriam-webster has a similar definition : Worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application

Also collins dictionary : interreligious or interdenominational

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ecumenic...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecumenical

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ecumeni...

Link to the Frasier clip :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrFkxDzpLU

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#42

Post by MisterTea » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #26

I think doctors aggravate this problem of people believing they're ill even when the clinical evidence doesn't support it. I can't tell you how many doctors I've had tell me, explicitly, within 15 minutes of having met me that they know my body, symptoms, and experience better than I do. It used to come much later in the process, after I'd spent months following their instructions to the letter and having my symptoms…

The trope that doctors are very smart isn't one Ive ever understood.

A funny story was my shop teacher (Electrician class in high school) told us after he was sued by a customer who's doctor son attempted to rectify a "mistake" the electrician made. I forget the details but the doctor wound up blowing out or damaging something in his botched attempt to play electrician. Doctors father sues electrician for doing a faulty job when it was clearly his idiot "doctor" son who blew it all up. The mans argument in all this was summed up by his plea to the judge to understand why he thought the electrician was wrong: "Your honor, my son is a doctor." The judge laughed and dismissed the case.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#43

Post by civilized » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

hoseja wrote: post #13

I've seen a recent theory for chronic pain where the spinal/brain neurons get into a maladaptive feedback loop and report continual pain where none is coming from the periphery. I'll see if I can find the source.

The NYT has been doing a whole series about the neurological underpinnings of chronic pain. Apparently nervous system cells called "glia", which are not neurons but are deeply involved with neurons, play an important role. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/well/mind/glial-cells-chr...

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#44

Post by V-2 » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

niea_11 wrote: post #41

V-2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims" For what it's worth, "ecumenical" means promoting Christian unity. So if Catholics carry dialogue with protestants, it may be ecumenical in nature, but with Jews or Muslims (as commendable and fruitful as it may be, but that's not the point) it can't be called that.

I'm not a native english speaker. First time I encountered the word ecumenical in a tv show (Frasier) and understood it in the same way it was used by gp. Maybe it's specific to american english. I checked cambridge dictionary and it confirms that definition : tending to support and encourage unity among different religions Merriam-webster has a similar definition : Worldwide or general in extent, influence, or appli…

"Merriam-webster has a similar definition : Worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application"

Yes, but that's the broader understanding, not related to religion. You can even find somewhat bizarre (to my ear at least) examples like "ecumenical meal of German, Italian, and Chinese dishes", but it's a turn of phrase, and not necessarily applicable in the religious context.

In the religious context the very same Merriam-Webster you just quoted defines ecumenism as:

"a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches

b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation"

It's kind of like you can have a coding or eating marathon... because in broad sense it's defined as any "long-lasting or difficult task or activity"... but then you still shouldn't call a 10-mile run "marathon".

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

"involving or joining together members of different branches of the Christian Church"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ecumenic...

"encouraging the different Christian Churches to unite"

The same in encyclopedias:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ecumenism

"ecumenism, movement or tendency toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation. The term, of recent origin, emphasizes what is viewed as the universality of the Christian faith and unity among churches."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism

"Ecumenism (/ɪˈkjuːmənɪzəm/), also spelled oecumenism, is the concept and principle in which Christians who belong to different Christian denominations work together to develop closer relationships among their churches and promote Christian unity."

("Not to be confused with Interfaith dialogue", correctly points out the article).

But maybe I'm just a purist. (Not a native English speaker either, if that matters, although the term is rather universal and not really exclusive to English).

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#45

Post by geerlingguy » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

V-2 wrote: post #23

jlos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with Kriss or Tao Lin, but First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims, and even Peter Thiel. I've found they will print some authors from outside their normal milieu if they offer some insight that would benefit the high brow literary conservatism that characterizes the magazine.

"First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims" For what it's worth, "ecumenical" means promoting Christian unity. So if Catholics carry dialogue with protestants, it may be ecumenical in nature, but with Jews or Muslims (as commendable and fruitful as it may be, but that's not the point) it can't be called that.

Ecumenical, in common use in the Catholic Church in the US at least, typically means "unity among religions" and is not exclusive to Christian/Christocentric religions.

For example, a page explicitly outlining an ecumenical relationship with Muslims from the Archdiocese of Chicago: https://eia.archchicago.org/muslim-catholic-relations/about-...

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#46

Post by nkurz » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

theobeers wrote: post #19

Kriss mentions Freddie deBoer’s review of Douthat’s book. Some of you might be interested in reading that. In fact, it’s probably more up HN’s alley, in terms of directly addressing the controversy surrounding chronic Lyme. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/review-ross-douthats-th...

Wow, that's a fantastic review. Thanks for linking it.

To others: If you are someone who is interested in this topic, even if you've previously been put off by deBoer's politics or reputation, you should definitely read it.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#47

Post by twobitshifter » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #28

smeej wrote: post #26

I think doctors aggravate this problem of people believing they're ill even when the clinical evidence doesn't support it. I can't tell you how many doctors I've had tell me, explicitly, within 15 minutes of having met me that they know my body, symptoms, and experience better than I do. It used to come much later in the process, after I'd spent months following their instructions to the letter and having my symptoms…

> I just ask in the very first appointment before I consider hiring that doctor to help me. Ask what?

I had to read 3 times to get it: They’re asking within 15 minutes of meeting the doctor about their symptoms and providing their personally identified cause and seeing what the doctor does. Whereas before they would go through the long drawn out process of following the doctors recommendations and getting no progress because the doctor misdiagnosed them.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#48

Post by nkurz » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #20

_2d30 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel identifies as Catholic.

Does he? I got the impression he was an unorthodox Protestant. He's a Christian, but I've never seen him identify as Catholic.

I think you are right. David Perell has a great article titled "Peter Thiel's Religion" (https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/) which doesn't even mention the word "Catholic". This would seem unlikely if he identified as such.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#49

Post by V-2 » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #45

V-2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First Things, while predominantly Catholic, is ecumenical. They have regular columns from protestants, Jews, Muslims" For what it's worth, "ecumenical" means promoting Christian unity. So if Catholics carry dialogue with protestants, it may be ecumenical in nature, but with Jews or Muslims (as commendable and fruitful as it may be, but that's not the point) it can't be called that.

Ecumenical, in common use in the Catholic Church in the US at least, typically means "unity among religions" and is not exclusive to Christian/Christocentric religions. For example, a page explicitly outlining an ecumenical relationship with Muslims from the Archdiocese of Chicago: https://eia.archchicago.org/muslim-catholic-relations/about-...

The header of this website clearly says "ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS AFFAIRS".

Now, if "ecumenical" and "interreligious" were really a potato/potahto thing, would there be a reason for using both side by side... I'm sure you see my point.

The event is called "Muslim-Catholic Interfaith Iftar Dinner". Interfaith, not "ecumenical".

I didn't watch the video itself. Does the bishop call this relation "ecumenical"?

I don't argue with what the common use is, or seems to be (let alone in the US, where I don't live).

I'd only insist that this particular common use - however widespread - is kind of incorrect, or at least inaccurate, misleading.

Re: It's Not All In Your Head

#50

Post by revolvingocelot » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

incrudible wrote: post #35

PaulKeeble wrote: post #32

This has happened over and over. Multiple Sclerosis was a psychological disease until we found the cause. Medically unexplained simply means we don't know the cause and a lot of conditions are very hard to diagnose, especially since doctors tend to stop after their first test for the problem fails and they then try the depression route. I am convinced depression will become a physical biological condition that is tre…

> I am convinced depression will become a physical biological condition that is treatable once we investigate its causes. From a materialist perspective, all psychological issues necessarily have a physical manifestation. That doesn't mean it needs to be a specific pathology. Placebos do have a real effect, does that mean there is some hitherto unidentified substance in Placebos, doing all the work? Of course not. Th…

>You have to consider that the field faces significant practical challenges when it comes to applying the scientific method. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, cognitive behavioral therapy does show results on par with commonly prescribed medications.

Yet any sort of talk therapy is almost as good as CBT, and psychiatric medications lose effectiveness over years since their development. The former leads me to suspect that the therapy isn't the point, it's a psychological connection with one's therapist. The latter leads me to suspect that most psychiatric medication isn't "fixing the problem" so much as re-rolling a few stats such that the user can feel different for a bit, and hopefully thereby pull up from their metaphorical depressive nosedive.