41–50 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unconvinced this is true for physiological addiction (e.g. opiates).
You still need a reason to regularly take them in the first place, before the physical addiction kicks in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I think about half the problem is that psychiatric illnesses don't make people bleed, so there's no way to universally tell something is wrong.
I think the conflict here is more in that way: Do you want to give people medicine so they can conform to what society expects from them, or do you instead try to change society so it doesn't have this expectations in the first place. With ADHD what a lot of people see is this: You are not being efficient, so that is a flaw that needs to be fixed. But where is the line? Should we really optimize for maximal productiv…
ADHD interferes with everything from social relationships to doing anything that you want to do. We have to be productive insofar as to pay for food and shelter, but you're addressing a very narrow aspect of what ADHD medication treats. For some people, it's the ability to socialize, finish a joke, and achieve their life ambitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. modern clinical psychiatry is an evidenced-based, research-driven field which treats and forms diagnoses on the basis of decades of research into any particular condition. It isnt the 1950s. But isn't modern clinical psychiatry marred by the same problems social or economic sciences are? Ultimately you are studying/interpreting human behaviour, which doesn't lend itself well to quantisation or categorising.
Most recent studies in psychiatry and social sciences that I have read, even those published in Nature, use sample sizes of around 50 people, which should be considered insufficient. Instead they use various cooked up formulas for correcting for gender/ethnicity etc. Instead, sample sizes should be much bigger. Of course this is not practical or even perhaps impossible. I find this to be a poor excuse, though. The ma…
"Small sample size thus irrelevant" does not make sense despite often being the top comment on Reddit.
Video games are obviously addictive. The way you make money off of games is to make them addictive. There is a direct feedback loop between more addictive games and more profits and so the addictiveness of games can be research, refined, and optimized over time. The WHO is way behind the curve here. If society treated video games the same as alcohol and drugs they would already be banned for minors. Eventually they p…
We should also ban other dangerously addictive activities, such as fiction books, non-video games, sports, DIY hobbies (e.g. electrical engineering, painting or storywriting), pets, hanging out with other people and lots of other things. I'm no expert on the matter, but I think you're completely missing the point. The keyword here is "gaming addiction" not "video games". Please, for the love of all the sanity that's…
These can be addicting too, but certain video games can be on an entirely different level, ie. they fulfill many more psychological needs.
I don't know whether what I had (have?) meets this WHO definition, but I can tell you that at points in my life, I've had an unhealthy relationship with video games. For me, and maybe others as well, it's about having control over something and feeling a sense of accomplishment, feeling like I'm achieving something. Video games give you that. For a small cost ($20-$50), you can have pure escapism from reality, think…
The underlying root cause often is loneliness. Many addictions are just symptoms of loneliness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I think about half the problem is that psychiatric illnesses don't make people bleed, so there's no way to universally tell something is wrong.
The bane of society, I think, is mentally healthy people. They run politics but have absolutely no appreciation for what works for non-healthy people. Which is all the people who acutally rely on politics/society. I think conservatism as a personality is a symptom of good mental health: if you arent able to do something, its lazyness. So you must just need some motivation: either a beating or some money. etc. That's…
This is a really cynical view of conservatism and I have a hard time seeing how you don't see half the country as evil if that's what you think.
Another view might be: this stuff is so complicated, and as you pointed out it's so difficult for political leaders to have real empathy for people in these situations, there is a high degree of chance we will screw this up and make it worse while trying to help. Example: homosexuality being in the DSM. Or really much of the history of how state institutions have treated the mentally ill, which has mostly had to do with keeping them away from the non mentally ill and not actually treating them.
I hope this doesn't get abused. Also, maybe a social media disorder is next on the list?
Without a doubt. This should have been a far more serious consideration than gaming addiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I think about half the problem is that psychiatric illnesses don't make people bleed, so there's no way to universally tell something is wrong.
The bane of society, I think, is mentally healthy people. They run politics but have absolutely no appreciation for what works for non-healthy people. Which is all the people who acutally rely on politics/society. I think conservatism as a personality is a symptom of good mental health: if you arent able to do something, its lazyness. So you must just need some motivation: either a beating or some money. etc. That's…
> They run politics
Assumes facts not in evidence.
The underlying root cause often is loneliness. Many addictions are just symptoms of loneliness.
There is some merit to this. The Rat Park experiment comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park