Better acepts some preconceive notion of win and loss. No one is better than you

Common, you would be banned from respectable sports.


If there is a drunk contest I'm winning.

He spent his high school years wearing a unitard and rolling around on the ground with other young and virile men.

In that sport it is a reasonable question to ask of an opponent. I would doubt that it would even be considered rude.

That is highly doubtful.

Schizophrenia

I am reluctant to make a thread out of the following because I am aware that SMP is not anyone's doctor. The general topic might make for a good thread, however.

I teach a 15-year old adopted kid, both of whose parents are schizophrenic. He showed me a textbook about it, in which it said that if both your parents are then there is a 46% chance that you will be too.

I doubt there are any prophylactic steps he can take now to reduce that probability, but he's a good kid so I thought I'd ask.

BEER IS GOOD FOR YOU.

All he needs to do is be in the other 54%. Easy game.

***

More seriously, he needs to understand what the warning signs are and seek treatment if he is exhibiting them.

He also needs to make sure that he has good social support. Non-psychologists call that sort of things "having some friends" and "not being socially isolated." If he isn't so good at making friends (or is the typically awkward 15-year-old), joining groups is useful.

He also needs to have decent adoptive parents. Not much he can do about that.

Bruce Campbell is quite possibly the finest actor to have ever lived.

Do the voices count?

Did you see him in Burn Notice? That show was awesome.

I have not. I just watched all of the groovy boomstick ones with my son.

Movie appreciation night

Probably there is but there was nothing that great last time I looked. Things like smoking pot there wasn't a clear correlation but there were a possibility that it could trigger earlier, at the time I read if you lived in the country instead of the city you were less likely to have, they didn't test by moving people from one place to another, just statistics, same with living in countries that were high in fish consumption I think...

I guess the better would be learning coping mechanisms which are useful skills even if he doesn't come to be a schizophrenic.

I think CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) is where I would go if any sign of anything showed up. Also psychiatrist as this mental disease the difference is very noticeable if you take the meds properly.

I discovered my liver still works, I think I miscalculated how much wine there was in the barrel.

Plenty of information out there on the warning signs, at least.

That's what he said.

Does talking to people on the internet count?

I had a follow-up question about the meds, because they seem to make you fat and lazy and generally **** you up anyway, just not as badly as being psychotic does. Does that mean that schizophrenia is not well-understood and the only treatment is some brute-force, knock-out method; or does it mean that it is well-understood but is so heavy-duty that the meds have to be like that?

This can't be stressed too much. Glad my campaign for healthy beer intake is reaping the desired results on the bevy of SMP'ers frequenting this illustrious Forum.

It's important that inner monologues are considered normal, and they are not always controllable. People sometimes read about voices, but they are not true auditory hallucinations, but they still panic, and the doctors call these pseudo hallucinations, and psychiatry will often mistakenly treat these and create stigma. Haloperidol or something might be a good idea if they are disturbing.

FWIW I think it is 50% , not 46%.

Generally research shows smoking cannabis doubles the chances in lesser selected population but if there is hereditary pattern then I don't know. Not looked into data sets deep enough yet. I think type of cannabis is very important aswell, as they have many different effects on your mind. Ones that effect your memory more and cause more paranoia are more dangerous I feel.

A problem with early intervention is stigma, and reinforcement. Many personality disorders may exhibit psychotic symptoms. Some psychiatrists may read it as schizophrenia.

It is a critical period anyway, if he is going to become schizophrenic from now until about 21 will be more likely. Although I have seen people get it later on, but sometimes there is mis diagnoisis because they don't think about physical **** like nor-adrenaline, and then the meds and stigma is really disastrous.

As said social support is key, my personal view is there is a 50% vulnerability if there is hereditary pattern, the other 50% is about social interactions. It is important to consider what thought structures are developing in relation to reward path way and dopamine. It is too complex though to find rules, but you can easily find that if there is abuse, schizphrenia like or actual, symptoms are very likely going to occur with and without hereditary pattern.

I would make sure that team based sports are within his routines, and hand/eye co-ordination practices are within his routines, and reward:cost is kind of flat. People with schizophrenia can appear totally fine for long periods of time provided their environments , interactions and activities are comfortable. Learning about stress (management) is probably more beneficial than learning about schizophrenia.

Early intervention is clearly massive in future quality of life, but there are stigmatic effects to remember. Schizophrenic symptoms may manifest psychologically IMO.

The term 'anti-psychotic' is a load of ****, it is branding. These drugs need to be branded by their physical function like normal medications instead of this bull ****, i.e 'D/H antagonists (with %'s and including advers effects etc (so a game theoretical model can be applied)'. Clozapine is the worst drug for physical health (out of accepted modern medications). It varies alot between person to person. Something like Queitiapine is much 'weaker' but still generally results in increased weight gain due to sedation. Clozapine is also shown to have the best results when it gets bad. Most of the time psychiatrists start out on weaker drugs and only up the ante if the problem worsens. The problem is the subjectivity of diagnosis and the weaknesses within a pure medical model. Psychiatrists are just gamblers and drug pushers for the pharmaceutical companies much of the time. It is clear when medication regimes are required, and that is where they treat , and there is relapse. people can get stuck on meds their whole life due to fear of relapse and their liberty is totally ****ed. There are people who have recovered without meds and it is worth considering their stories and reflections if someone is worried.

Yes. He can even learn about the cognitive biases that he should be worried about.

Then it sounds like he has already gotten at least some education on it. That is good.

Nope. It has to be friends and group activities.

I am sure that you have wondered about the sanity of many of the people you have come across on the internet. If the internet "counted" then you wouldn't find so many nutcases here.

Fish-dude is completely uneducated on this. Ignore him.

The disease is not particularly well-understood. Even if it were well-understood it would be incredibly strange if we could come up with a pill with no side effects to treat it. It isn't just a chemical disorder or too many receptors of some type thing.

Skinhead rally
Meeting of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
Wiccan ritual flagellation
...

Crazy != crazy

That question was not intended to be taken seriously.

The others were, and thanks for your replies.

I don't know. Knowing those cool drug names impressed the **** out of me.

Saying that he is uneducated was nicer than pointing out the conspiratorial tone and linking it more directly to the comment about the nutters on the internets.

His two posts could be an excellent training tool for your student to learn about the dangers of certain cognitive biases.

Note to mod: I am entitled to the following comments as, like I predicted, assumptions are made about my character, I do the same in defense of my meaningless e-integrity.

You are clearly uneducated on anti-psychiatry thought (thought often expressed by psychiatrists themselves, want citations?), psychiatry has a dark and barbaric history, it (society) is getting better in it's response, it is patriotic/chauvinistic fools like yourself who believe it has reached a golden age and say I don't know what I'm talking about, you are too old and set in your conventional institutionalized thought processes to understand without experiencing some discomfort and so you are burnt out defensive noob. There does not need to be a conspiratorial tone when profit motivation exists, a smart person assumes game theory techniques (i.e marketing) by default, and of course there is enough power 'above you' to out smart. Of course it depends on where you live. America is totally different to Northern Europe, Australia, China, India, in how the diagnose and treat and what pharmaceutical companies are involved and their links to governance. Societies perception and response of disorder is highly varied and stigmatic. There is clearly inequality with regards to race and culture (I.e high detainment in afro-Caribbean persons)

Is that a firmly held belief without evidence? I would be willing to bet great deals of money against this statement, except that is not why I post on 2+2. It also displays your vulnerability to make stereotypical assumptions about people and what defines 'order' or 'worth'.

I am quite well educated on anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology thought.

Every psychiatrist and psychologist is. You would have a difficult time finding one who is unconcerned with side-effects or doesn't weigh the risk/reward of prescribing a particular drug. You would have a difficult time finding one who believe we have reached a golden age of treatment and can now sit back and enjoy our mentally-ill-free society. You would find a difficult time finding one who isn't aware of past barbaric treatment of mentally ill people.

I take it that you are also anti-carpenter for similar reasons.

Clearly I was just 'doing a you'. I was aware you would be educated on such, I anticipated specifically your commentary in my first posting on this topic (in other thread). You do not read clearly, you cannot follow, because there is a game you are playing unwittingly. Very boring. If I broke down each of your statements they would only be true to differing extents.

The Peter principle manifests in many ways, how long ago would you say that psychiatry became 'non-barbaric', is it within current practicing generations? I found 400 research papers on something I thought emerging, I can't imagine these psychiatrists keeping up to date in their spare time, unless they are particularly passionate, driven and smart in a game theoretical sense. Much is based upon probability and reducing risk rather than 'recovery' - maybe not for innocent 18 year old Junior but don't forgot those who have been detained within systems for extended periods of time. The element of game theory is not understood in many areas, but I can't speak for your surrounding culture aswell as you, but you can't speak about mine either.

I would bet that stigma based prescription is rife within psychiatry-forensics in the USA. Then there is a huge debate on values. I can claim what I want about what I observe based upon my own values. The weighing of risk/reward is not advanced and it only uses pseudo game theoretical models, it is conventional and categorical. There is momentum from historical tradition.

Anyway, you have rose tinted glasses probably because you are looking at yourself when looking at the group I am describing.

We had almost no tools at all until recently other than to sedate and cage.

The current tools are far from perfect, but we are talking about

Nowadays you have to be severely crazy to be locked up for "extended periods of time." Institutionalizing people went out quite a while ago. It just isn't relevant today. It hasn't been for decades. It is incredibly difficult to even land in a community-based half-way house, and nearly impossible to be institutionalized.

Psychiatrists are required to keep up with new research.

You would be incorrect. Psychiatrists do (based on available research) advise some patients to stay on a maintenance schedule of meds for certain disorders. That isn't "stigma"; it is ongoing treatment.

If you mean that diagnoses tend to follow patients, that is just correct Bayesian probability.

The "weighing" of benefits/risks is based on what the patient states about their symptoms and which symptoms are apparent (and blood tests where there are heart/liver risks). It is no different than if you go to any doctor.

It isn't a "huge" debate except for the overmedicalization of people who are just whiny about normal everyday problems (hello, everyone who claims that they have adhd).

I am also not in the group. I got away from being a psychologist quite a while ago.

Or suffered iatrogenic effects from treatment 15 years ago when you was relatively only slightly unwell. This generation still exists.

How is this audited?
How can it be possible : assimilate the great magnitudes of information that is released annually in their spare time if they are working and they have all this money to spend. I'm not sure about USA but in Uk their councils are not even public.
Why do psychiatrists tend to have differing prescriptive tendency i.e Mirtazapine opposed to Citalopram when looking at the same patient?
Why are people able to fake mental ilness? What are implications of this?


Psychiatrists also use trial and error and patients can get through many drug variations and consultants whilst deteriorating and becoming socially isolated.

Yes, it is difficult to lose a diagnosis once receiving it and there is some discrepancy between psychiatrists and diagnosis. DIsorders are added in and taken out of manuals.

You don't get my point. It is alot different than going to another doctor. Especially if there is a perceived risk of harm to self and others (and human resource cost), which if you look at DOlan/DOyle is highly variable in it's 'weighing'. Anyway it depends on the skill of the psychiatrist, which will be lower in multi cultural societies on average.


USA has a pretty high rate of anti-depressants aswell. You don't see this as problem? Don't see how society can be exploited? Maybe future method to stop rebellion, or other frowned upon practices?

You are in the group which absorbed the environmental/social constructs.