Nathanial.Dread wrote:Redguard wrote:
I appreciate the lesson in modern (I'm more old school if you haven't noticed) methods of analyses, truly I'm not being sarcastic. It will allow me to form better arguments in the future but I believe the problems I outlined speak for themselves. There are enough flaws within the system to create more then a shadow of a doubt in my mind.
What I ask of you is to shut down that fine analytical side of your mind just for an instant! Imagine if you will, you are a Father. You have a child that is starting to behave irrationally, you mention this offhand to your child's doctor when you take her in to see him because she came down with a bad cold. The doctor gives your daughter a survey to fill out. Surprise surprise, the survey states she has depression. Said doctor prescribes your daughter anti depressents. In this situation, would you trust the system and the doctor or take your daughter to see someone who is professionally trained in these matters to make the diagnoses?
Faith/trust has a lot to do with it. When studies like this are conducted and the research given out to the public it can have huge consequences on people's lives. To simply shrug your shoulders and say "meh" it's the best we got might as well trust the results, well I think it's a bit lazy. It's dangerous as well.
I've been around psychedelics and the counter culture for a long time. I've seen and experienced the effects of prolonged exposure to psychedelics. In many cases it's not a very pretty picture. People with latent psychiatric disorders can have extremely adverse reactions to prolonged exposure. In many cases you will never know if you are in danger of becoming neurotic until it actually happens.
It seems to me that the crux of your argument is (please correct me if I'm wrong), it's the best we got. Well when it comes to people's health and well being that will never be good enough for me. At least when Freud and Jung came out with their methods they were incredible improvements for the time. You can't really say the same with these newer methods can you?
It sounds like nothing I saw will convince you of the validity of symptom-based psychiatry, and that's fine. I agree with a lot of the points you make, I really do, but again (and I feel I must stress this), the attitude you're describe is extremely defeatist. It wouldn't be possible to the kind of in-depth analysis you're describing for a useful number of subjects. No researcher, or research team, has anything like the time, or resources available to do that.
I would also say: look into some of the theory behind the statistics used in these papers. There is a lot of mathematical validity to the idea of using samples to make conclusions about a larger population. Honestly, the authors of these studies have gone above and beyond the call of duty with 100k+ respondents, the vast majority of survey-based psychology papers use groups that are less than 50 individuals (most of whom are middle class, white, Psych 101 College students).
Blessings
~ND
Thanks for admitting I made some good points, it will make me much more willing to continue conversations with you in the future, that's for sure
. (that is if I have a future at the nexus after this thread lol) Perhaps I've been overtly critical to the point of being completely closed off to being wrong and that's not something I want to be. I will admit that it does seem like a very good tool to point a professional in the right direction, a means to an end but not the end itself. In science we have developed tools to measure objects all the way up to the quantum level. In doing so our idea of physics will be completely rewritten once we fully understand what we have found. It's a fact that the closer we look into something the more we learn about it. When I look at something as complicated as the human brain and how much we don't know, this deep level of analyses is something that is required if we want to get anywhere (imo).
Perhaps we can run a case study, find some incredibly hard heads like snozzleberry and inject them with a gram of lsd (wouldn't want him to throw any of it up). He could then have appointments with a well known and respected psychologist once a month for ten years who would analyze his mental well being.
The western/eastern psyche is so incredibly different I would have a much easier time with the idea if the sample was taken in a developed eastern country as well. Such as Japan or India. Off the top of your head, are there any particular theories you find rather illuminating? Perhaps I should take a look.
“I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long …arousing and persuading and reproaching…You will not easily find another like me.”-- Socrates