| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Bev Thornton" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 11:50:57 PM |
| Object: |
[FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
By John Briley, Special to The Washington Post, Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The body of evidence supporting exercise as a treatment for depression
and other mood disorders continues to grow. Many psychiatrists and
psychologists urge their patients to get more exercise and make other
lifestyle changes.
But perhaps no one takes this idea further than District therapist
Jane Cibel, a licensed clinical social worker and certified personal
trainer who conducts traditional talk therapy while clients walk on a
treadmill or crank out dumbbell curls. In an hour-long therapy
session, patients get their weekly counseling session along with a
high-heart-rate, sweat-inducing workout.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301418.html>
--
<bevthornton@despammed.com> Support: <http://www.tibetanaidproject.org/>
Words have the power to both destroy and heal.
.
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
14 Jun 2005 09:53:55 AM |
|
|
On 2005-06-14, Bev Thornton <Reply-To@Not.Invalid> wrote:
By John Briley, Special to The Washington Post, Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The body of evidence supporting exercise as a treatment for depression
and other mood disorders continues to grow. Many psychiatrists and
psychologists urge their patients to get more exercise and make other
lifestyle changes.
But perhaps no one takes this idea further than District therapist
Jane Cibel, a licensed clinical social worker and certified personal
trainer who conducts traditional talk therapy while clients walk on a
treadmill or crank out dumbbell curls. In an hour-long therapy
session, patients get their weekly counseling session along with a
high-heart-rate, sweat-inducing workout.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301418.html>
.... and the poor saps who don't fit her pre-conceptions rapidly find a
counsellor who isn't in to torture.
The neural pathways that would be reinforced inside my brain, were I to be
obliged to submit myself to her ministrations, would most emphatically not
be what she would classify as 'positive'.
My own theory about exercise and Depression, based on my own personal
experience, is that when the patient is on an up-swing one of the signs of
the up-swing is an increase in physical activity and in pleasure associated
with it. Telling me to get more exercise and I'll feel less Depressed is
like telling someone that eating more is a cure for famine.
I believe she has fundamentally misunderstood Edelman's theories - or is
cynically exploiting them to support her own particular (doubtless
lucrative) notions.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism>
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_summer/edelman.html>
Good luck to those who feel they benefit from her approach; just don't try
to make it obligatory.
What on Earth is a "clinical social worker" and how is it appropriate for
one to practice psychotherapy?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
14 Jun 2005 11:19:30 AM |
|
|
In article <3l73o2-mh9.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR200506130
1418.html>
I was wondering how you'd react to this.
... and the poor saps who don't fit her pre-conceptions rapidly find a
counsellor who isn't in to torture.
OK, she's (1) a "torturer".
The neural pathways that would be reinforced inside my brain, were I to be
obliged to submit myself to her ministrations, would most emphatically not
be what she would classify as 'positive'.
And (2) a dominatrix.
My own theory about exercise and Depression, based on my own personal
experience, is that when the patient is on an up-swing one of the signs of
the up-swing is an increase in physical activity and in pleasure associated
with it. Telling me to get more exercise and I'll feel less Depressed is
like telling someone that eating more is a cure for famine.
Maybe it really doesn't work for you. There's plenty of evidence that it
works for a lot of people. Do you have empirical evidence based on
anything other than your own personal experience that exercise is *not*
helpful as a therapy for depression? Why are you so determined to cast
it in such a bad light for others who might benefit?
I believe she has fundamentally misunderstood Edelman's theories - or is
cynically exploiting them to support her own particular (doubtless
lucrative) notions.
And she's (3) confused, (4) cynical, and (5) a mercenary. Jesus.
Or maybe she practices a treatment method that is helpful for her
patients. If you presented to her the way you present here, I doubt very
much that she'd find you suitable; you'd be fighting her every step of
the way.
Good luck to those who feel they benefit from her approach; just don't try
to make it obligatory.
Who said anything about making anything obligatory?
I really think you are being a dog in the manger here. Because it
doesn't work for you, it has to be a scam, a fraud, a bad joke.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
14 Jun 2005 12:39:33 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-14, Whiskers wrote:
... and the poor saps who don't fit her pre-conceptions rapidly find a
counsellor who isn't in to torture.
They probably go to a different one in the first place.
The neural pathways that would be reinforced inside my brain, were I to be
obliged to submit myself to her ministrations, would most emphatically not
be what she would classify as 'positive'.
That's right. Not all therapies are for everybody. Some people get
psychological stress from physical stress, those people would be made
worse by exercise.
My own theory about exercise and Depression, based on my own personal
experience, is that when the patient is on an up-swing one of the signs of
the up-swing is an increase in physical activity and in pleasure associated
with it. Telling me to get more exercise and I'll feel less Depressed is
like telling someone that eating more is a cure for famine.
Who is telling you that if you get more exercise you'll feel less
depressed? Is there anyone really doing that? Anyone worth listening to?
The studies to determine whether or not your theory is correct were done
long ago. In a population, it is wrong. For some given individual, it
could be correct, but there will be more of the other indivduals in the
random population of depressed people, more of the people who who are in
the group that can be predicted to improve merely by initiating more
exercise.
Just as data from a population does not represent any individual, data
from an individual does not represent everything that can occur in a
population.
Just as there is no one way to get depressed, there is no one way to get
well, to recover from it.
I believe she has fundamentally misunderstood Edelman's theories - or is
cynically exploiting them to support her own particular (doubtless
lucrative) notions.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism>
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_summer/edelman.html>
There is more to it than that, more recent research than what is presented
on the wikipedia. We now know that dendritic growth can be re-entrained.
That makes Edleman's use of the term "darwinism" even more misleading than
it originally was. He interprets 'most fit' as synonymous with 'fittest',
which is not at all what actually happens, and ascribes internal meaning
and valuation to non-conscious biological systems, which is simply
bizarre. The base of his theories are sound, but his explanations of them
are not. He has merely replaced 'god' with 'natural selection' and applied
that to what can be observed regarding dendritic entrainment. And he did
all that assuming that the only possible change in adulthood was atrophy.
His theories are not comprehensive enough to explain observable human
behaviour, that means his model is lacking in the first place.
The discovery of re-entrainment was in the late nineties.
Good luck to those who feel they benefit from her approach; just don't try
to make it obligatory.
I don't think anyone would do that.
What on Earth is a "clinical social worker" and how is it appropriate for
one to practice psychotherapy?
A clinical social worker in Canada has at least a Masters' degree with
training and practicum in clinical psychotherapy practice. They work with
people who have social problems which are often co-morbid with other
problems like depression and anxiety. I have no idea what the criteria is
in the UK.
A couple years ago I took a program that included CSWs on staff. The
groups they led were people with particular diagnoses, the kind of
diagnoses known to respond to plain talk therapy, which is what the
exercise therapist is delivering.
Her using exercise is not near as strange as the psychiatrist who spanks
patients. But perhaps she has a different clientele with other needs.
--
<bevthornton@despammed.com> Support: <http://www.ifaw.org/>
Little by little a person becomes evil,
as a water pot is filled by drops of water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
14 Jun 2005 04:23:00 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-14, Bev Thornton <Reply-To@Not.Invalid> wrote:
On 2005-06-14, Whiskers wrote:
... and the poor saps who don't fit her pre-conceptions rapidly find a
counsellor who isn't in to torture.
They probably go to a different one in the first place.
The neural pathways that would be reinforced inside my brain, were I to be
obliged to submit myself to her ministrations, would most emphatically not
be what she would classify as 'positive'.
That's right. Not all therapies are for everybody. Some people get
psychological stress from physical stress, those people would be made
worse by exercise.
Articles lauding the 'exercise makes you happy' approach don't seem to
mention that. Nor does anyone else, to judge by the press - or indeed the
USA's Center for Disease Control in their advice about treating Depression
(an earlier thread in this group contains my references and thoughts about
that).
My own theory about exercise and Depression, based on my own personal
experience, is that when the patient is on an up-swing one of the signs of
the up-swing is an increase in physical activity and in pleasure associated
with it. Telling me to get more exercise and I'll feel less Depressed is
like telling someone that eating more is a cure for famine.
Who is telling you that if you get more exercise you'll feel less
depressed? Is there anyone really doing that? Anyone worth listening to?
Press reports that start out with things such as
..-----
| The body of evidence supporting exercise as a treatment for depression
| and other mood disorders continues to grow. Many psychiatrists and
| psychologists urge their patients to get more exercise and make other
| lifestyle changes.
'-----
which to me means 'if you stop being Depressed, then you won't be Depressed
any more'.
The studies to determine whether or not your theory is correct were done
long ago. In a population, it is wrong. For some given individual, it
could be correct, but there will be more of the other indivduals in the
random population of depressed people, more of the people who who are in
the group that can be predicted to improve merely by initiating more
exercise.
I'm not convinced that any studies have ever been conducted to support the
contention that 'making Depressed people get more exercise will make them
less Depressed'. The closest I've seen are those which appear to
domonstrate a statistically significant (but most emphatically not
absolute) correlation between increasing exercise-levels and
diminishing Depression symptoms, (with which I have no dispute; my own
experience fits that scenario perfectly) but which are then seized upon as
if they 'proved' that 'getting more exercise helps to cure Depression'.
That is a very dangerous message to propagate. It encourages those who
fund the treatment of Depression and other 'mental' illnesses to buy the
nice, comforting, measurable, countable, 'Exercise Programme' provision for
*all* patients whose treatment they are funding, and then acting as if it's
the fault of the individual when the specified number of sessions (or laps
of the gym, or press-ups, or 6-mile jogs, or whatever) is not completed
'thus explaining your failure to recover' so that now 'you are not
Depressed, you are lazy or unco-operative, you get no more help.' If some
poor sod manages to survive the imposed Exercise Programme and still isn't
'cured', then that too is evidence that they weren't Depressed to start
with, or are 'malingering'.
I am one of those who do not fit the fallacious model. That is why I am
defending the position of myself and all others in that situation.
If the press report you quoted had said something like 'some Depressed
patients find that physical exercise can play a helpful part in coping with
or recovering from their illness ...' then my reaction to it might have
been gentler.
Just as data from a population does not represent any individual, data
from an individual does not represent everything that can occur in a
population.
Just as there is no one way to get depressed, there is no one way to get
well, to recover from it.
..-----
| "You can restructure your brain with exercise," Cibel said.
'-----
Well, maybe. Her approach to treatment takes a massive leap beyond that,
though.
I believe she has fundamentally misunderstood Edelman's theories - or is
cynically exploiting them to support her own particular (doubtless
lucrative) notions.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism>
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_summer/edelman.html>
There is more to it than that, more recent research than what is presented
on the wikipedia. We now know that dendritic growth can be re-entrained.
That makes Edleman's use of the term "darwinism" even more misleading than
it originally was.
The second paragraph in the Wikepedia article makes that clear (I'm looking
at "This page was last modified 10:21, 26 Jun 2004.")
He interprets 'most fit' as synonymous with 'fittest',
which is not at all what actually happens, and ascribes internal meaning
and valuation to non-conscious biological systems, which is simply
bizarre. The base of his theories are sound, but his explanations of them
are not. He has merely replaced 'god' with 'natural selection' and applied
that to what can be observed regarding dendritic entrainment. And he did
all that assuming that the only possible change in adulthood was atrophy.
His theories are not comprehensive enough to explain observable human
behaviour, that means his model is lacking in the first place.
His use of Darwin's name in a totally inappropriate context is regretable,
but a seperate issue from the equally inappropriate invocation of his
neurological theories (however valid they may be in and of themselves) by Dr
Cibel in support of her idiosyncratic approach to psychotherapy.
The discovery of re-entrainment was in the late nineties.
1998, according to the Wikipedia article.
Good luck to those who feel they benefit from her approach; just don't try
to make it obligatory.
I don't think anyone would do that.
Colour me cynical.
snip
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
14 Jun 2005 07:48:37 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-14, Whiskers wrote:
Articles lauding the 'exercise makes you happy' approach don't seem to
mention that. Nor does anyone else, to judge by the press - or indeed the
USA's Center for Disease Control in their advice about treating Depression
(an earlier thread in this group contains my references and thoughts about
that).
That's because either the article has an angle and that is it or because
medical organisations must work in generalities from population data. It
is up to individual practitioners to tailor the treatment to the
individual.
Articles telling you that 47% of depressed patients repsonded well to
treatment with exercise are also telling you that the rest did not. You're
expected to understand that on your own and not need it spelled out. It's
a given, like a dozen in half-a-dozen, it's the part that isn't there.
Press reports that start out with things such as
.-----
| The body of evidence supporting exercise as a treatment for depression
| and other mood disorders continues to grow. Many psychiatrists and
| psychologists urge their patients to get more exercise and make other
| lifestyle changes.
'-----
which to me means 'if you stop being Depressed, then you won't be Depressed
any more'.
Well, it doesn't mean that at all. It refers to a body of evidence and to
what many psychiatrists and psychologists do. You are deriving a meaning
that is not there. And it isn't telling you to go out and exercise and
your depression will get better, it is just describing what can be found
in the population of depressed people and what many psychiatrists and
psychologists do.
I'm not convinced that any studies have ever been conducted to support the
contention that 'making Depressed people get more exercise will make them
less Depressed'.
There are no studies like that because they would be unethical and
confounded by coercion. The data from them would be useless for anything
but the study of coercion itself.
Also, there is no evidence to support that statement. It can't stand up to
the evidence.
The closest I've seen are those which appear to domonstrate a
statistically significant (but most emphatically not absolute)
correlation between increasing exercise-levels and diminishing
Depression symptoms, (with which I have no dispute; my own experience
fits that scenario perfectly) but which are then seized upon as if they
'proved' that 'getting more exercise helps to cure Depression'.
No one credible even presents cingulotomy, ECT or drugs as a cure for
depression, let alone therapies and lifestyle changes. And the proofs are
of what can be observed in a randomised, controlled population, not of in
any given individual at all.
Behavioural science and medical studies simply do not work the way you are
expecting nor do they make the sorts of conclusions that you seem to think
they do. It's not material science nor simple mathematics. It's
population data of living organisms and can only render conclusions in
regards to what can be observed of that population. It is a mistake to
interpret that data and attempt to apply it to an individual, it simply
doesn't work and is not meant to be applied that way at all, ever.
That is a very dangerous message to propagate.
Who in the world is propagating it? When someone publishes a study
indicating that 47% of depressed patients improve with exercise that means
that the rest didn't. Almost everybody understands that as a given.
It encourages those who fund the treatment of Depression and other
'mental' illnesses to buy the nice, comforting, measurable, countable,
'Exercise Programme' provision for *all* patients whose treatment they
are funding, and then acting as if it's the fault of the individual when
the specified number of sessions (or laps of the gym, or press-ups, or
6-mile jogs, or whatever) is not completed 'thus explaining your failure
to recover' so that now 'you are not Depressed, you are lazy or
unco-operative, you get no more help.' If some poor sod manages to
survive the imposed Exercise Programme and still isn't 'cured', then
that too is evidence that they weren't Depressed to start with, or are
'malingering'.
When has that ever happened? 200 years ago in the Navy?
Now you have an entire scenario of people who are somehow incapable of
understanding study data coming to wrong conclusions regarding it and also
having the power to enforce treatment based on their wrong conclusions.
I'm pretty sure such boards and commissions are not composed of people so
challenged by the data. I think they would all know that 47% means 'out of
a hundred' and would know from that that they also need to make provision
for the remaining 53% and wouldn't want to waste any exercise programme on
them.
In a population of depressed people there are some that will respond to
exercise. That is what is now known, so it is worth applying. But because
53% do not respond, it is not worth applying across the board to
everybody, that is obvious from the data. It's the same with drugs,
traditional psychotherapies, hospitalisation, ECT, all of it. Even that
monstrosity of veterinary medicine applied to human mental disorders that
is being sold to whole states, the TMAP thing, is not so narrow.
They don't even treat livestock the way you are imagining.
I am one of those who do not fit the fallacious model. That is why I am
defending the position of myself and all others in that situation.
I think you may find that it is a situation of your own design, that it
does not exist.
The same sorts of studies also show that 15% of depressed people do not
respond to any known treatment and another 17% are extremely limited in
response. The model includes those figures and it is a population model,
not a model of you or anyone else.
If the press report you quoted had said something like 'some Depressed
patients find that physical exercise can play a helpful part in coping with
or recovering from their illness ...' then my reaction to it might have
been gentler.
They weren't reporting on what 'some depressed patients find', only the
one in the case study presented at the end of the article and she did find
that exercise helped. As did the researchers of the article from the AJPM,
which included differential controls and yielded differential results.
.-----
| "You can restructure your brain with exercise," Cibel said.
'-----
Well, maybe. Her approach to treatment takes a massive leap beyond that,
though.
No, it doesn't. It's just re-entrainment by using exercise as a means of
instrumentality and reward for the client. It's just an extension of
existing practice in light of recent research, specifically that of the
possibility of neural re-entrainment and the effects of exercise.
The second paragraph in the Wikepedia article makes that clear (I'm looking
at "This page was last modified 10:21, 26 Jun 2004.")
It doesn't really tell you how it is that the possibility of
re-entrainment makes his evolutionary model not apply at all, makes the
whole thing developmental, even the fixed parts.
His use of Darwin's name in a totally inappropriate context is regretable,
but a seperate issue from the equally inappropriate invocation of his
neurological theories (however valid they may be in and of themselves) by Dr
Cibel in support of her idiosyncratic approach to psychotherapy.
His findings, the base of his theories, are valid. It's just that when he
extends them he gets into all this nonsense about imperatives that do not
exist, that are imputed by the reification of natural selection into a
force, into a god and capable of meaning or into an energy and capable of
being valued on a scale. Life.
Edelman identified the networks and their function. Since then, others
have discovered that those networks are changeable and still others have
discovered means of changing some of them. Cibel just represents an
example of all of that being applied in practice.
The discovery of re-entrainment was in the late nineties.
1998, according to the Wikipedia article.
Yes, very new still. But it is paying off quick in application.
I don't think anyone would do that.
Colour me cynical.
Cynical? I don't know, I think you're jumping to conclusions, that's all.
Maybe because you do not trust your government and its provision of
healthcare and are fearful that they will mess it up. That's my guess.
But, I think protesting things just because someone might grab onto them
for a political agenda is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
--
<bevthornton@despammed.com> Support: <http://www.aahuk.org/>
The way is not in the sky.
The way is in the heart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
15 Jun 2005 07:47:34 AM |
|
|
On 2005-06-15, Bev Thornton <Reply-To@Not.Invalid> wrote:
On 2005-06-14, Whiskers wrote:
snip
That is a very dangerous message to propagate.
Who in the world is propagating it?
The newspaper report you brought up.
When someone publishes a study
indicating that 47% of depressed patients improve with exercise that means
that the rest didn't. Almost everybody understands that as a given.
The report in quesetion makes no attempt to quantify anything.
It encourages those who fund the treatment of Depression and other
'mental' illnesses to buy the nice, comforting, measurable, countable,
'Exercise Programme' provision for *all* patients whose treatment they
are funding, and then acting as if it's the fault of the individual when
the specified number of sessions (or laps of the gym, or press-ups, or
6-mile jogs, or whatever) is not completed 'thus explaining your failure
to recover' so that now 'you are not Depressed, you are lazy or
unco-operative, you get no more help.' If some poor sod manages to
survive the imposed Exercise Programme and still isn't 'cured', then
that too is evidence that they weren't Depressed to start with, or are
'malingering'.
When has that ever happened? 200 years ago in the Navy?
Almost constantly, to me, since childhood.
snip
I won't be drawn into a discussion of Edelman's work. That's a red
herring.
Colour me cynical.
Cynical? I don't know, I think you're jumping to conclusions, that's all.
Maybe because you do not trust your government
Of course I don't! I don't trust insurance companies either - I used to
work for one.
and its provision of
healthcare and are fearful that they will mess it up.
Not merely 'will mess it up'; 'have' and 'do' also apply.
That's my guess.
But, I think protesting things just because someone might grab onto them
for a political agenda is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Not at all; I'm trying to point out that throwing the bathwater at the baby
is likely to be counter-productive. Particularly if the bath is also
thrown.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
15 Jun 2005 10:58:20 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-15, Whiskers wrote:
On 2005-06-15, Bev Thornton <Reply-To@Not.Invalid> wrote:
On 2005-06-14, Whiskers wrote:
Who in the world is propagating it?
The newspaper report you brought up.
I don't see how. The article refers to 'a' treatment, not the 'only'
treatment. Also, it is describing a combination therapy, not just
exercise, so it doesn't even describe the message you claim it propagates.
When someone publishes a study indicating that 47% of depressed
patients improve with exercise that means that the rest didn't. Almost
everybody understands that as a given.
The report in quesetion makes no attempt to quantify anything.
Yes, it does, look:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301418.html>
The most recent major study, published in the January issue of
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, showed that adults aged 20 to
45 with mild to moderate depression who participated in 30-minute
aerobic exercise sessions three to five times a week reduced their
symptoms by almost 50 percent.
The study, conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center in Dallas, involved 80 people divided into five groups. One
group performed moderately intense aerobic exercise five days a week,
and another group did the same workout three days a week. Two other
groups mimicked that schedule but did lower-intensity aerobic
activity. The fifth group did 15 to 20 minutes of stretching exercises
three days per week.
Participants in both moderately intense groups experienced a decline
in depressive symptoms by an average of 47 percent after 12 weeks.
Those in the lower-intensity groups showed a 30 percent drop in
symptoms, and those in the stretching group averaged a 29 percent
decline.
Somehow, you missed that part.
'Exercise Programme' provision for *all* patients whose treatment they
are funding, and then acting as if it's the fault of the individual when
the specified number of sessions (or laps of the gym, or press-ups, or
6-mile jogs, or whatever) is not completed 'thus explaining your failure
to recover' so that now 'you are not Depressed, you are lazy or
unco-operative, you get no more help.' If some poor sod manages to
survive the imposed Exercise Programme and still isn't 'cured', then
that too is evidence that they weren't Depressed to start with, or are
'malingering'.
When has that ever happened? 200 years ago in the Navy?
Almost constantly, to me, since childhood.
Almost constantly? To me, that comes across as exagerrated.
I won't be drawn into a discussion of Edelman's work. That's a red
herring.
I know.
Cynical? I don't know, I think you're jumping to conclusions, that's all.
Maybe because you do not trust your government
Of course I don't! I don't trust insurance companies either - I used to
work for one.
Ah, well, there you go.
But why would any funding body want to waste a treatment on everyone that
is good for only 47% of the target group?
and its provision of healthcare and are fearful that they will mess it
up.
Not merely 'will mess it up'; 'have' and 'do' also apply.
Sometimes, butthey usually try to make it better over time. Just ten years
ago we got our pick from talk therapy (ineffective), drugs, ECT and
cingulotomy. Now we have more to choose from.
That's my guess. But, I think protesting things just because someone
might grab onto them for a political agenda is throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.
Not at all; I'm trying to point out that throwing the bathwater at the baby
is likely to be counter-productive. Particularly if the bath is also
thrown.
The bathwater at the baby, or the funding bodies and insurance companies,
are an entirely different issue than the efficacy and application of known
effective treatments.
--
<bevthornton@despammed.com> Support: <http://www.guchusum.org/>
Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
16 Jun 2005 10:35:39 AM |
|
|
On 2005-06-16, Bev Thornton <Reply-To@Not.Invalid> wrote:
On 2005-06-15, Whiskers wrote:
snip
The report in quesetion makes no attempt to quantify anything.
Yes, it does, look:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301418.html>
The most recent major study, published in the January issue of
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, showed that adults aged 20 to
45 with mild to moderate depression who participated in 30-minute
aerobic exercise sessions three to five times a week reduced their
symptoms by almost 50 percent.
The study, conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center in Dallas, involved 80 people divided into five groups. One
group performed moderately intense aerobic exercise five days a week,
and another group did the same workout three days a week. Two other
groups mimicked that schedule but did lower-intensity aerobic
activity. The fifth group did 15 to 20 minutes of stretching exercises
three days per week.
Participants in both moderately intense groups experienced a decline
in depressive symptoms by an average of 47 percent after 12 weeks.
Those in the lower-intensity groups showed a 30 percent drop in
symptoms, and those in the stretching group averaged a 29 percent
decline.
Somehow, you missed that part.
snip
Those are not quantities, they are proportions, and subjective estimates of
proportions at that as far as the effectiveness is concerned. Eighty people
is too small a sample to have any meaning anyway. 80/5 = 16. So in a group
of 16 people, an 'average' (??) 'drop ... in symptoms' of 29, 30, or 47% -
what does that mean? Some of them felt half better and some felt a quarter
better? Two or three felt 100% better? x% better than what starting
point? 'drop in symptoms' sustained for how long?
Wallpaper jourmalism. 'Hey, here's a freaky crackpot let's have a laugh'.
Not science, not medicine.
The 'conducted at ...' is striking; not 'conducted by ...'? Journalists
are good at choosing words that keep the lawyers out of their lives.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
16 Jun 2005 11:31:21 AM |
|
|
In article <bri8o2-7da.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Wallpaper jourmalism. 'Hey, here's a freaky crackpot let's have a laugh'.
Not science, not medicine.
As opposed to your version of scientific medicine, which generalizes
from a sample of exactly one and brands any evidence to the contrary as
"dangerous"? EXERCISE HELPS A LOT OF PEOPLE, Mr. Whiskers, and you can
mock and whine to your heart's content -- maybe that helps *you* with
*your* depression, though I doubt it -- but your "theory" that exercise
does not help, that the ability to engage in it follows, not precedes,
an abatement of depression, combined with all your allegations of sadism
and selfishness and incompetence and fraud ("What on EARTH is a
'clinical social worker'???") does no one any good, it just potentially
turns people off to something that might help them and might help them a
lot. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with it that you
are deluding yourself into believing that you are protecting depressives
from some "danger". Have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "humble.life" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
16 Jun 2005 11:47:04 AM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <bri8o2-7da.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Wallpaper jourmalism. 'Hey, here's a freaky crackpot let's have a laugh'.
Not science, not medicine.
As opposed to your version of scientific medicine, which generalizes
from a sample of exactly one and brands any evidence to the contrary as
"dangerous"? EXERCISE HELPS A LOT OF PEOPLE, Mr. Whiskers, and you can
mock and whine to your heart's content -- maybe that helps *you* with
*your* depression, though I doubt it -- but your "theory" that exercise
does not help, that the ability to engage in it follows, not precedes,
an abatement of depression, combined with all your allegations of sadism
and selfishness and incompetence and fraud ("What on EARTH is a
'clinical social worker'???") does no one any good, it just potentially
turns people off to something that might help them and might help them a
lot. The most charitable interpretation I can come up with it that you
are deluding yourself into believing that you are protecting depressives
from some "danger". Have a nice day.
Ahh. So that's what you think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
16 Jun 2005 11:51:06 AM |
|
|
In article <3hdomiFgjdhcU1@individual.net>,
"humble.life" <nospamoriwillfindyou@justryit.com> wrote:
Ahh. So that's what you think.
I agree. Well, at least as I interpret me. I'm of the school that holds
that the individual is not authoritative with respect to his own beliefs
and attitudes, but anyway. I suppose I should restrain myself a bit
better at times like this. But all that talk of "dangerous" articles
really frosts my jogging shorts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 09:03:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:51:06 GMT, RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
<(((*> I agree. Well, at least as I interpret me. I'm of the school that holds
<(((*> that the individual is not authoritative with respect to his own beliefs
<(((*> and attitudes
That *is* one of your less endearing traits.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 10:14:17 AM |
|
|
In article <ci4ob1lrrsjvj6eo4aoa9laadr0qchk140@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
I'm of the school that holds that the individual is not
authoritative with respect to his own beliefs and attitudes
That *is* one of your less endearing traits.
(Why you do have nothing but snipes for me in public these days?)
Anyway, it's not a "trait", it's a belief, one that corresponds to an
important turn in in the history of the philosophy of mind. If you just
wanted to sneer and read my remark up there on a purely personal level,
and a nasty one at that, you may as well just stop reading at this
point, but if you're interested, I'll explain.
No, actually, I started out and it's just too complicated and too early.
Suffice it to say that the mind is an incredibly complex system, and
when you throw in self-monitoring as part of that incredibly complex
system, where everything, including the monitor, is always being
influenced by vast arrays of beliefs and desires, not to mention
unclassifiable biological crap, it shouldn't come as any surprise that
the monitor is quite capable of error.
"I can't make John's party because I have to catch up on my woodwork..."
cheeyahright, maybe the person really believes that's all there is to
it, but his wife, knowing the history of the whole situation, might have
a much better understanding of what's actually going on in John's head,
especially after that last party. (I'll lie and make up details about
that party on request.)
That's all I mean, really, and I wouldn't think it would be so
controversial. I do believe most people accept and apply the principle
in the practice of ordinary life. Usenet, of course, is weird.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 10:49:16 AM |
|
|
In article <drVue.177474$JA.171578@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
a much better understanding of what's actually going on in John's head
Sorry, that should have been, "what's actually going on in *****'s head".
.
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 07:01:20 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <drVue.177474$JA.171578@fe01.news.easynews.com>,
RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
a much better understanding of what's actually going on in John's head
Sorry, that should have been, "what's actually going on in *****'s head".
eh heh eh heh heh...you said *****'s head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 07:20:49 PM |
|
|
In article <42BC9ED0.409@ix.netcom.com>,
kerfoker <kerfoker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Sorry, that should have been, "what's actually going on in *****'s head".
eh heh eh heh heh...you said *****'s head.
Why, I guess I did, now that I glans at it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 07:51:16 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <42BC9ED0.409@ix.netcom.com>,
kerfoker <kerfoker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Sorry, that should have been, "what's actually going on in *****'s head".
eh heh eh heh heh...you said *****'s head.
Why, I guess I did, now that I glans at it.
Well now will urethra-ed this exchange?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
24 Jun 2005 01:58:06 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-24, RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
In article <ci4ob1lrrsjvj6eo4aoa9laadr0qchk140@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
I'm of the school that holds that the individual is not
authoritative with respect to his own beliefs and attitudes
That *is* one of your less endearing traits.
(Why you do have nothing but snipes for me in public these days?)
Anyway, it's not a "trait", it's a belief, one that corresponds to an
important turn in in the history of the philosophy of mind. If you just
wanted to sneer and read my remark up there on a purely personal level,
and a nasty one at that, you may as well just stop reading at this
point, but if you're interested, I'll explain.
snip
I think you are mistaking 'beliefs and atitudes' for 'state of mind and
internal functions'. My mind is fully aware of and able to explain and
justify its own beliefs and attitudes, whereas other people are not in a
postion to even know what my beliefs and attitudes are except insofar as
they have seen me express thm. But my mind would be the first to admit
(after some very disturbing episodes) that it is not in a good position to
analyse its own 'state of mind' or 'mood' with any great accuracy, and is
not always in perfect control of its 'behaviour'.
That's all I mean, really, and I wouldn't think it would be so
controversial. I do believe most people accept and apply the principle
in the practice of ordinary life. Usenet, of course, is weird.
I think I must know a different set of 'most people' from you, then. I
don't think I've ever known anyone ask 'what do I think about this?', but I
see and hear lots of people saying 'I'm right' and 'you are wrong' about
almost any subject imaginable - and sometimes at great length and with
vigour, even to the extent of inflicting violence. Usenet is exactly like
the rest of [the|my] world in that respect. So there! ;-P
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
25 Jun 2005 11:47:48 AM |
|
|
In article <um1uo2-bj8.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I'm of the school that holds that the individual is not
authoritative with respect to his own beliefs and attitudes [...]
I think you are mistaking 'beliefs and atitudes' for 'state of mind
and internal functions'. My mind is fully aware of and able to
explain and justify its own beliefs and attitudes, whereas other
people are not in a position to even know what my beliefs and
attitudes are except insofar as they have seen me express them. But
my mind would be the first to admit (after some very disturbing
episodes) that it is not in a good position to analyse its own
'state of mind' or 'mood' with any great accuracy, and is not always
in perfect control of its 'behaviour'.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. Beliefs and attitudes
*are* states of mind, depending on its internal functions, are they not?
As for people not knowing what yours are until you express them, of
course I agree -- though I would factor in non-verbal forms of
expression, and I would not take verbal expressions as authoritative.
I haven't really given examples of what I have in mind here, but it's
stuff like: I think some people believe they believe in God but really
don't. I think they've grown up assuming that they do, and are socially
conditioned to abhor the idea that they might not, but when you get down
to their behavior and what they say and how they respond to major events
in their lives, there seems to be nothing about how they live and
function that indicates an actual belief in God. So I believe that
people can be mistaken about their own beliefs. Does that really sound
so wonky to you?
And aren't certain forms of therapy all about just that, bringing to
light beliefs and attitudes that one might not be aware of, and in fact
might explicit, and with complete sincerity, deny?
======================================
P.S. -- I think I may have accidentally emailed this to you the first
time instead of posting it. Please to disregard (though how you can
disregard an email and attend to a post when the content is identical is
an interesting questions. Doublethink?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
25 Jun 2005 01:23:44 PM |
|
|
On 2005-06-25, RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
In article <um1uo2-bj8.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I'm of the school that holds that the individual is not
authoritative with respect to his own beliefs and attitudes [...]
I think you are mistaking 'beliefs and atitudes' for 'state of mind
and internal functions'. My mind is fully aware of and able to
explain and justify its own beliefs and attitudes, whereas other
people are not in a position to even know what my beliefs and
attitudes are except insofar as they have seen me express them. But
my mind would be the first to admit (after some very disturbing
episodes) that it is not in a good position to analyse its own
'state of mind' or 'mood' with any great accuracy, and is not always
in perfect control of its 'behaviour'.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. Beliefs and attitudes
*are* states of mind, depending on its internal functions, are they not?
No!
There have been governments who have treated their critics as if they were
'mentally ill', though.
If beliefs and attitudes were in the same category as state of mind and
internal functions, then there would be lots of potential profits to be
made from a pill to cure racism or rudeness, wouldn't there? Would
Protestantism or Buddhism be the 'illness'? Is cricket or chess the
'normal' game?
As for people not knowing what yours are until you express them, of
course I agree -- though I would factor in non-verbal forms of
expression, and I would not take verbal expressions as authoritative.
So you can tell a Methodist from an Episcopalian just by looking?
I haven't really given examples of what I have in mind here, but it's
stuff like: I think some people believe they believe in God but really
don't. I think they've grown up assuming that they do, and are socially
conditioned to abhor the idea that they might not, but when you get down
to their behavior and what they say and how they respond to major events
in their lives, there seems to be nothing about how they live and
function that indicates an actual belief in God. So I believe that
people can be mistaken about their own beliefs. Does that really sound
so wonky to you?
I think in that example you've found someone who actually has no detailed
beliefs beyond a vague notion of what their parents may have believed -
which was probably equally vague. When challenged, they have to start
thinking for themselves and begin to formulate beliefs - or at least,
formulate questions. Most people simply don't think; it's hard work, and
likely to get them into trouble if they ask difficult questions, so they
just don't. People are very like sheep in some ways.
There have been surveys in which people are asked to rate various
statements on a scale from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' and are
then asked their political or religious affiliation; frequently, their
claimed affiliation is in direct contradiction to their itemised
preferences. They simply haven't thought about it before.
Illogicality is another normal human trait, often working in tandem with
intellectual laziness.
And aren't certain forms of therapy all about just that, bringing to
light beliefs and attitudes that one might not be aware of, and in fact
might explicit, and with complete sincerity, deny?
All forms of psychotherapy can unearth subconscious conflicts.
======================================
P.S. -- I think I may have accidentally emailed this to you the first
time instead of posting it. Please to disregard (though how you can
disregard an email and attend to a post when the content is identical is
an interesting questions. Doublethink?
Now you are confusing the medium with the message. Someone else became
famous for doing that.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
25 Jun 2005 02:35:51 PM |
|
|
In article <g2k0p2-9c8.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. Beliefs and attitudes
*are* states of mind, depending on its internal functions, are they not?
No!
There have been governments who have treated their critics as if they were
'mentally ill', though.
Huh?
I wasn't talking about illness, nor was I talking about government.
If beliefs and attitudes were in the same category as state of mind and
internal functions, then there would be lots of potential profits to be
made from a pill to cure racism or rudeness, wouldn't there?
Who said every bad attitude is an illness that can be cured by a pill,
merely because it's a state of mind?
Would Protestantism or Buddhism be the 'illness'? Is cricket or chess the
'normal' game?
What the ***** are you TALKING about? Why is everything suddenly an
"illness"? All I was saying was that beliefs and attitudes are states of
mind, and suddenly you've jumped into your favorite antiutopian
nightmare, but there's just no connection at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 08:16:34 AM |
|
|
On 2005-06-25, RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
In article <g2k0p2-9c8.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. Beliefs and attitudes
*are* states of mind, depending on its internal functions, are they not?
No!
There have been governments who have treated their critics as if they were
'mentally ill', though.
Huh?
I wasn't talking about illness, nor was I talking about government.
Those governments were classifying political opinion as a 'state of mind'
which, if not in agreement with the party line, must be something requiring
hospitalisation and 'treatment'. That is the inevitable result if 'beliefs
and attitudes' are classified as 'states of mind' - some of those states of
mind will be 'sick' or 'ill'. 'Obsession' and 'paranoia' and 'aggression'
are not in the same category as 'Buddhism' and 'Catholicism' and
'Socialism'. The distinction is very clear.
If beliefs and attitudes were in the same category as state of mind and
internal functions, then there would be lots of potential profits to be
made from a pill to cure racism or rudeness, wouldn't there?
Who said every bad attitude is an illness that can be cured by a pill,
merely because it's a state of mind?
Would Protestantism or Buddhism be the 'illness'? Is cricket or chess the
'normal' game?
What the ***** are you TALKING about? Why is everything suddenly an
"illness"? All I was saying was that beliefs and attitudes are states of
mind, and suddenly you've jumped into your favorite antiutopian
nightmare, but there's just no connection at all.
I'm trying to point out that 'state of mind' has absolutely nothing
whatever to do with 'belief or attitude' by demonstrating to you just how
ridiculous that conflation is. You seem to be able to see the preposterous
results of the conflation, so you are getting closer to perceiving the
distinction between a 'state of mind' and a 'belief'. That is what I'm
talking about - and it's working :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: [FEATURE] Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 12:00:17 PM |
|
|
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:iem2p2-tba.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
I'm trying to point out that 'state of mind' has absolutely nothing
whatever to do with 'belief or attitude' by demonstrating to you just how
ridiculous that conflation is. You seem to be able to see the
preposterous
results of the conflation, so you are getting closer to perceiving the
distinction between a 'state of mind' and a 'belief'. That is what I'm
talking about - and it's working :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
You clever ducky you :)
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 12:52:17 PM |
|
|
In article <YoAve.107$Ai.33883@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You seem to be able to see the preposterous results of the
conflation, so you are getting closer to perceiving the distinction
between a 'state of mind' and a 'belief'. That is what I'm talking
about - and it's working :))
You clever ducky you :)
You're still pissed at me for having what you regard as the abusive
attitude that people can sometimes understand the beliefs of others
better than those others can themselves, aren't you?
In any case, the Clever Ducky here has used this motif before, the one
of crafting examples which elicit reactions which he then cites as proof
that you actually agree with him even though you continue to claim you
don't. Oddly enough, one might see that as an example of the very
Naughty Thing in question, mightn't one?
Anyway, not to be exclusively confrontational, good morning! =8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 01:07:28 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lXBve.206427$4M.169338@fe08.news.easynews.com...
In article <YoAve.107$Ai.33883@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You seem to be able to see the preposterous results of the
conflation, so you are getting closer to perceiving the distinction
between a 'state of mind' and a 'belief'. That is what I'm talking
about - and it's working :))
You clever ducky you :)
You're still pissed at me for having what you regard as the abusive
attitude that people can sometimes understand the beliefs of others
better than those others can themselves, aren't you?
In any case, the Clever Ducky here has used this motif before, the one
of crafting examples which elicit reactions which he then cites as proof
that you actually agree with him even though you continue to claim you
don't. Oddly enough, one might see that as an example of the very
Naughty Thing in question, mightn't one?
Anyway, not to be exclusively confrontational, good morning! =8^)
i have a client
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 04:16:14 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lXBve.206427$4M.169338@fe08.news.easynews.com...
In article <YoAve.107$Ai.33883@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You seem to be able to see the preposterous results of the
conflation, so you are getting closer to perceiving the distinction
between a 'state of mind' and a 'belief'. That is what I'm talking
about - and it's working :))
You clever ducky you :)
You're still pissed at me for having what you regard as the abusive
attitude that people can sometimes understand the beliefs of others
better than those others can themselves, aren't you?
I'm not pissed at you. Truth is, I'm almost never pissed at anyone. I can
disagree with someone yet feel absolutely no animosity towards them. It
takes a really hefty push to incite me to something as benign as annoyance,
never mind anger. I just thought it was clever way to convey his point, but
I would have thought so, no matter who he was addressing.
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
"All those who believe in psychokinesis
raise my hand."
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 03:49:51 PM |
|
|
In article <XaEve.409$Ai.64539@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I just thought it was clever way to convey his point, but
I would have thought so, no matter who he was addressing.
So do you agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is
to invite totalitarianism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 07:38:11 PM |
|
|
"RGB" <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote in message
news:NxEve.59298$581.19156@fe05.news.easynews.com...
In article <XaEve.409$Ai.64539@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I just thought it was clever way to convey his point, but
I would have thought so, no matter who he was addressing.
So do you agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is
to invite totalitarianism?
Yes, I do agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is to
invite totalitarianism.
--
rhianon@sympatico.ca
"All those who believe in psychokinesis
raise my hand."
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 07:03:35 PM |
|
|
In article <S%Gve.694$Ai.77394@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
So do you agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is
to invite totalitarianism?
Yes, I do agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is to
invite totalitarianism.
Cool. Rarely has there been such a clear exchange of information. I
suspect we mean rather different things by "mental state", but in any
case, yes, I have stopped beating my wife.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Working Out Your Issues |
26 Jun 2005 04:42:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:49:51 GMT, RGB <rrggbb@mac.com> wrote:
<(((*> In article <XaEve.409$Ai.64539@news20.bellglobal.com>,
<(((*> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<(((*>
<(((*> > I just thought it was clever way to convey his point, but
<(((*> > I would have thought so, no matter who he was addressing.
<(((*>
<(((*> So do you agree that to regard beliefs and attitudes as mental states is
<(((*> to invite totalitarianism?
So, Mark, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
