So they say woman are more agreeable than men ah?

18-01-2020 04:00AM

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Something tells me you're not a practising psychiatrist. Unbelievable how people are so willing to write off thereabouts ten years of medical schooling and how many years of specialist training thereafter because what, some pharmaceutical companies want to make a profit? Not every psychiatric drug has the same success rate with every patient, but talk to a single person suffering from a disorder who's life has been made manageable by prescription and ask them if they think "all drugs prescribed by psychiatrists are utterly pointless". Incredibly ignorant thing to say - you're literally writing off one of the most complex professions in the world that has help innumerable people, no doubt without having studied or practiced it yourself.

Agreed about the benefits, however, we don't know the long term side effects of such drugs on the brain. In some cases, side effects have been identified and prescribing such drugs is irresponsible... which is a part of US based psychology.

18-01-2020 04:03AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think being manipulative is attribute that can be easily associated with either women or men tbh. I don’t believe people of either sex are generally manipulative.

I think that women grow up in a culture that is far more prone to manipulation than the male culture. Males tend to be more direct due to the importance of physical aspects such as strength and to a lesser degree, aggression to show alpha/leadership. Females, on the other hand, because of the lesser physical aspects, lean towards controlling situations, which ties into many of the associations with females being more emphatic.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-01-2020 02:43PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

most people that have gone out with a woman for a long time or are maried to one (or multiple) woman will understand the phrase happy wife happy life.
from my own experience its easier to do what my GF wants than do what i want.
i want to go shopping in cork she want dublin,. we go to dublin
i want to paint the wall cream, 5000 questions later and she wants it yellow. wall is yellow
she wants to watch x , i want y . we watch x then more x and maybe a rerun of x .

most men will regularly talk about these situations . its a comon them that its easier to go along with women than to try to get what you want.

I never understand people in those situations. I wouldn't respect my partner if they always let me have whatever I want. And it would be a sure sign that I don't respect my partner if I expected them to give up whatever they want.

Likewise I'd know I wasn't respected by my partner if i had to concede everything to them. It's just not the kind of relationship id get involved in.

Scuid Mhór · 18-01-2020 04:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed about the benefits, however, we don't know the long term side effects of such drugs on the brain. In some cases, side effects have been identified and prescribing such drugs is irresponsible... which is a part of US based psychology.

???

Some psychiatric medications have been in use since the postwar period began. Obviously new medications are coming out every year after about a decade's worth of medical trials, but to say that "we don't know the long term side effects of such drugs on the brain" is a blanket generalisation that is wholly inaccurate. Do you know how many psychiatric drugs there are, and that they are used to treat innumerable different conditions?

REGARDLESS, side-effects, short-term, immediate and long-term are known to the manufacturers of the drugs and the doctors who prescribe them because they have had to go through a decade or more of medical trials before they come onto the market for medical prescription and general usage.

AND REGARDLESS OF THAT, any "side-effects" doesn't automatically negate a drug. If a drug messes with your attention span but prevents you from wanting to suicide yourself on a daily basis, I'd say that is probably a reasonable trade off. Almost every drug - even OTC Lempsip or Sudafed - have "side-effects", I don't know why you would assume that the existence of a side-effect means that "prescribing such drugs is irresponsible". It just sounds like you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about in any capacity.

which is a part of US based psychology

What does this even mean? In the US, psychologists aren't able to prescribe psychiatric medications, that's a job for the psychiatrists.

Honestly, klaz, I think you need to do some reading on psychiatric medicine because your knowledge on the matter is not what you are purporting it to be,

18-01-2020 05:25PM

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

???

Some psychiatric medications have been in use since the postwar period began. Obviously new medications are coming out every year after about a decade's worth of medical trials, but to say that "we don't know the long term side effects of such drugs on the brain" is a blanket generalisation that is wholly inaccurate. Do you know how many psychiatric drugs there are, and that they are used to treat innumerable different conditions?

OF COURSE it's a blanket generalisation... ffs.

And science/medicine is still finding out about the brain due to advancements in the ability to scan, and identify changes within it... But that doesn't really matter, I guess.

Honestly, klaz, I think you need to do some reading on psychiatric medicine because your knowledge on the matter is not what you are purporting it to be,

My knowledge on the subject?

It's a discussion board, and people voice their opinions. People tend to post links when they're seeking to prove themselves an authority on a subject. Did I do that? nope. Did I write a long in-depth piece with references to scientific material? Nope. And so it's simply a bloody opinion. :mad:

18-01-2020 07:13PM

Sorry to rerail the thread but his response annoyed me. Not looking to discuss this further, unless someone wants to start a different thread related to it.

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

What does this even mean? In the US, psychologists aren't able to prescribe psychiatric medications, that's a job for the psychiatrists.

Honestly, klaz, I think you need to do some reading on psychiatric medicine because your knowledge on the matter is not what you are purporting it to be,

Okie dokie. Here's some links.

"VandenBos and Williams (2000) found that 87% of their sample of practicing psychologists reported they had been involved in the decision to prescribe medication for at least one of the patients on their caseloads. However, it is unclear what role they played in the decision, especially since over 80% also indicated this was not a frequent occurrence. On the other hand, 7% of respondents indicated they participated in the decision to prescribe for more than half their patients, suggesting that they were consistently and perhaps formally involved in decisions about the appropriateness of medications for their patients. This might for example include making recommendations concerning specific classes of medications to be used or even specific medications, dosing, or other aspects of the treatment regimen, though the prescribing professional maintains ultimate responsibility for the decision."

Three states in the US along with military bases allow the prescribing of medication by psychologists. Secondly, while not actively prescribing drugs themselves, psychologists can refer patients to a doctor with recommendations for medications.

---
"Four decades of drug development resulting in over 20 antipsychotics and over 30 antidepressants have not demonstrably reduced the morbidity or mortality of mental disorders," Insel writes. There should be more attention given to psychotherapy, and yet, he notes in a blog post, "there are few if any 'metrics' for measuring [its] quality ... Is there any other area of health care that would tolerate this low level of quality or quality control?"

"Insel points to a report released last month from the Institute of Medicine that flags "the gap between what is known to be effective and what is currently practiced" in mental healthcare, and makes the sobering point that even when we do know what works, those strategies don't consistently make it from research to practice."

---
A 2007 Journal of the American Medical Association paper coauthored by John Ioannidis—a Stanford University medical researcher and statistician who rose to prominence exposing poor-quality medical science—found that it took 10 years for large swaths of the medical community to stop referencing popular practices after their efficacy was unequivocally vanquished by science.

---
The 21st Century Cures Act—a rare bipartisan bill, pushed by more than 1,400 lobbyists and signed into law in December—lowers evidentiary standards for new uses of drugs and for marketing and approval of some medical devices. Furthermore, last month President Donald Trump scolded the FDA for what he characterized as withholding drugs from dying patients. He promised to slash regulations “big league. … It could even be up to 80 percent” of current FDA regulations, he said. To that end, one of the president’s top candidates to head the FDA, tech investor Jim O’Neill, has openly advocated for drugs to be approved before they’re shown to work. “Let people start using them at their own risk,” O’Neill has argued.

---
(skipping the personal story takes about 60% down)
"Antidepressants are now taken by roughly one in eight adults and adolescents in the U.S., and a quarter of them have been doing so for more than ten years. Industry money often determines the questions posed by pharmacological studies, and research about stopping drugs has never been a priority.

Barbiturates, a class of sedatives that helped hundreds of thousands of people to feel calmer, were among the first popular psychiatric drugs. Although leading medical journals asserted that barbiturate addiction was rare, within a few years it was evident that people withdrawing from barbiturates could become more anxious than they were before they began taking the drugs. (They could also hallucinate, have convulsions, and even die.)

Valium and other benzodiazepines were introduced in the early sixties, as a safer option. By the seventies, one in ten Americans was taking Valium. The chief of clinical pharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital declared, in 1976, “I have never seen a case of benzodiazepine dependence” and described it as “an astonishingly unusual event.” Later, though, the F.D.A. acknowledged that people can become dependent on benzodiazepines, experiencing intense agitation when they stop taking them."

There's a lot more mentioned.
---
We know that antipsychotics shrink the brain in a dose-dependent manner (4) and benzodiazepines, antidepressants and ADHD drugs also seem to cause permanent brain damage (5). Leading psychiatrists and the drug industry usually say that it is the disease that destroys people’s brain, but it is very likely the drugs that do it, which also animal studies have found.

Should be enough I imagine to provide some backing for my earlier opinion, and address some of your declarations. But as I said before, It was an opinion. I'm not a medical practitioner. I have a Bachelor in Psychology but I've never gone beyond personal interest in such things. I'm not up to date or clued into the whole thing... and yet, I've heard enough to know that your responses are missing a large part of the story. I could have posted dozens of more links about weaknesses with the Drug testing/approval, the influence of Pharma companies on results, or the effects of medication on the brain or general health of patients... along with the prescribing of multiple different drugs.

I could, but this thread isn't about that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-01-2020 01:26AM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Some do, but those are men you really wouldn't want to be taking seriously anyways.

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people".

Then pretty much everyone is small-minded, going by that saying. It’s one of those glib, sanctimonious sayings that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Church on Tuesday · 19-01-2020 02:02AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Then pretty much everyone is small-minded, going by that saying. It’s one of those glib, sanctimonious sayings that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

People who spend their time gossiping about other people behind their backs and are, therefore, not able to defend themselves tend to be small minded individuals.

The general gist of that quote stands up IMO and experience.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-01-2020 02:59AM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

People who spend their time gossiping about other people behind their backs and are, therefore, not able to defend themselves tend to be small minded individuals.

The general gist of that quote stands up IMO and experience.

There’s nobody here who hasn’t gossiped. Lots of people like to think they don’t but the reality rarely matches the idealistic statement.

blinding · 19-01-2020 03:47AM

Women are more agreeable when they are looking for cock.

ILoveYourVibes · 19-01-2020 05:27AM

How does one measure that?

I mean how do you know a person doesn't just agree on the surface but do what they want anyway?

Church on Tuesday · 19-01-2020 12:43PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There’s nobody here who hasn’t gossiped. Lots of people like to think they don’t but the reality rarely matches the idealistic statement.

I can safely say I never have.

It holds no interest for me.

19-01-2020 02:13PM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I can safely say I never have.

It holds no interest for me.

Typically, me neither. Usually. However, I have done it. It's very difficult to avoid it when someone else approaches you with information about someone you knew particularly well, and then drifted apart... might be an ex-girlfriend, an old buddy, etc.

I think it depends on how loosely you decide what gossip entails. Personally, I think it's any conversation about other people when they're not present, discussing information that may or may not be true. In that, the info hasn't been confirmed from a reliable source, but it's still used to change your opinion of that person in some manner.

TBH it's mostly an ex-girlfriend thing with me, where some friends are still connected with her, and since I still have some bitterness about her behavior, I latch on to anything negative in her life. I'd consider that to be gossip since it's coming from other people, and I haven't confirmed that it's true.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-01-2020 05:02PM

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I can safely say I never have.

It holds no interest for me.

I don’t know you so I can’t say I don’t believe you. All I can say is, anytime I’ve heard somebody say it to me in the flesh, I’ve always known it not to be the case because I’ve heard them gossiping at some point or another.

So they say woman are more agreeable than men ah?

Comments