The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Steve Thomas]

Flu shots uptake is now partisan. It didn't use to be

by Harry Enten, CNN November 14, 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/politics/flu-partisan-divide-analysis/index.html

“Uptake of the Covid-19 vaccine has, unfortunately, become partisan like so much else in our society. Almost every Democratic adult (90% to 95%) has gotten a shot, while a little less than two-thirds of Republican adults have.

That partisanship appears to have transferred to at least one other important vaccination. An examination of flu shot data suggests that which party people belong to is highly correlated with whether they have or will get a flu shot this season -- something that was not predictive of flu shot uptake the last few years.

Take a look at two recent polls that have asked about whether or not people have gotten the flu shot: Axios/Ipsos and Kaiser Family Foundation. By assessing two polls instead of one, we know what we're seeing is a real phenomenon and not statistical noise.

According to the Ipsos data, 68% of Democrats said they have gotten a flu shot or are very likely to get one. Just 44% of Republicans said the same. This 24-point gap is very similar to the 30-point gap for Covid-19 vaccines.

The Kaiser poll shows basically the same thing. A clear majority (65%) of Democrats indicated that they had received or will definitely receive the flu shot. Just 40% of Republicans indicated they would. The 25-point partisan gap in this data is a near carbon copy of the 24-point gap in the Ipsos poll.”

 

Let’s bring back polio and malaria and smallpox!

I miss the good old days.

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

That may be the sales pitch they give in college courses, but they do not practice what they preach. They show their true self when they waste money on pointless "experiments" which prove nothing, like when College students earn extra credit by interviewing eachother and their "data" gets published in a journal like it's Albert Einstein. They show their true self when they throw people in prison for no solid reason or force them to take medication or control them in other ways, like when people are forced to talk to a therapist despite not wanting to, which is harassment and torture. They show their true self when they try to trick people into accepting a political or philosophical opinion as fact. The human rights abuses of psychology is such a horrible holocaust going on right now, there is no separation of science and politics. There is a N@zi concentration camp in every large hospital in the world. I now understand Jack Ruby's strange outbursts when he would say things like that.

Well, its been a long time since I was in the academic system and if I have children, I'll probably get them to read books instead. There is a lot going on these days that seems without merit. Your prison system in the USA is now a business, the incentives are there in incarcerate and deny parole. I managed to get another lad on the straight and narrow last year, a drug dealer, violent criminal, I took him fishing, to the pub, talked to him a lot, discussed his issues, mostly parental, I can't say he won't regress but, it certainly helped him and he felt valued.  

Ok, I get where you are coming from, it's the Joker thing. To me, dosing people up to make them placid isn't psychology, thats a lazy, sub-optimal solution. But, call me a conspiracy theorist but, I think it's no coincidence that 1/5 Americans are on some kind of mind altering prescription drug. The opiate crisis etc. It just makes for a distracted society. I don't think the stats are very different in the UK. If you add sugar, alchohol, caffeine and narcotics, you've got a whole society reliant on dopamine releasing substances, addicts. 

I think what I said in the previous post is reasonable. There are good and bad people in every profession. Have a listen to Dr Jordan Peterson's lectures or read his book. He is a clinical psychologist, he cares, he is the opposite of what you are listing above. He is about giving people value, building them up, encouraging them, giving them the best chance to succeed and live a meaningful life. I can honestly say that reading psychology has helped more than any other single thing in life. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

2. What psychiatrists call a "diagnosis" just describes a correlation of behaviors, not necessarily the cause of the behavior. So, what is a "behavior" when it comes to psychology? If a professional actor was acting in a scene, that would not count as a "behavior" which could lead to a diagnosis. But aren't we all "acting" to an extent in our day-to-day lives? There is no doubt that people express themselves on a spectrum ranging from their true feelings to acting a role. So, there is no reason to think that it is accurate to believe in the modern concept of "psychological diagnosis". Sounds more like something a cult would do. In fact, modern psychology just seems like a scam to make people ashamed of themselves, like how religion often makes people shamed.

Actually, Micah, this isn't accurate at all.

The subject is not really relevant here but, briefly, the diagnoses of modern descriptive psychiatry were formulated by long term clinical observations of syndromes and the correlated courses of various mental illnesses-- viz., schizophrenia (i.e., dementia praecox) manic depression, melancholia, systematized paranoia, etc.

The father of modern descriptive psychiatry was Emil Kraeplin, whose foundational Lectures on Clinical Psychiatry became the basis of the modern DSM.  His diagnostic classification of psychiatric disorders was based on 40 years of careful observations in a Munich psychiatric hospital.

A related foundational work was Viennese psychiatrist Ricard Von Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis-- a vast compilation of (mostly European) clinical case reports-- which served as the basis for the DSM classification of sexual paraphilias.

The original DSM has been repeatedly refined during the past few decades, incorporating more data about syndromes -- phenomenological, epidemiological, familial, genetic, and, increasingly,  biological correlates of psychiatric disorders.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/14/2021 at 11:08 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Actually, Micah, this isn't accurate at all.

The subject is not really relevant here but, briefly, the diagnoses of modern descriptive psychiatry were formulated by long term clinical observations of syndromes and the correlated courses of various mental illnesses-- viz., schizophrenia (i.e., dementia praecox) manic depression, melancholia, systematized paranoia, etc.

The father of modern descriptive psychiatry was Emil Kraeplin, whose foundational Lectures on Clinical Psychiatry became the basis of the modern DSM.  His diagnostic classification of psychiatric disorders was based on 40 years of careful observations in a Munich psychiatric hospital.

A related foundational work was Ricard Von Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis-- a vast compilation of (mostly European) clinical case reports-- which served as the basis for the DSM classification of sexual paraphilias.

The original DSM has been repeatedly refined during the past few decades, incorporating more data about syndromes -- phenomenological, epidemiological, familial, genetic, and, increasingly,  biological correlates of psychiatric disorders.

 

 

Allow me to provide a bonus smoking gun of basic logic that debunks modern psychology:

 

No matter the quality of your psychological data, it will just become outdated in about 5 years maximum time because of how quickly human culture changes.

 

And if you want to argue that a specific trait is biologically inherent in all people and not just cultural, then gathering evidence to prove that is almost always a colossal or impossible challenge.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Jeff Carter]

After the Court refused to intervene and the Congress refused to overturn the Electoral College, there was no means for Trump or his supporters to overturn the election result or otherwise seize power. As far as I know, there is no rule mandating an election certification at a precise time or else the previous guy gets to be president again. I suppose Buffalo Horns and his friends could have proclaimed a new government while they were in the rotunda but, unlike the Ukraine where very powerful and influential foreign interests had the clout to bestow “legitimacy” to an unconstitutional transfer of power, I cannot imagine any diplomatic support for such a move in D.C.  back in January or at anytime. Objectively then, there was no possibility of a successful coup, but there has been a very obvious campaign to generate emotional responses from the general public over something that could not have happened, led by politicians who in other circumstances had no principle regard for constitutional procedures or democracy, at least in other countries.

[Denny Zartman]

36 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

something that could not have happened

Tell that to Donald Trump, who has clearly and explicitly articulated his belief that Pence had the power to make it happen. Trump still believes that if only Pence had willed it, Trump would be President today.

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

As far as I know, there is no rule mandating an election certification at a precise time or else the previous guy gets to be president again.

Hmm.

Then why do you think Pence was reluctant to leave the Capitol on January 6th if, as you seem to believe, he could come back any time to certify the election?

[Jeff Carter]

Trump's personal opinions had no bearing on the certification and, as far as I know, there are no rules or laws which mandate that the certification process must proceed at an exact time or else the election is voided. 

[Matt Allison]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Objectively then, there was no possibility of a successful coup

Friendly advice: you should read more on what the coup plan was, because you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

[Jeff Carter]

29 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Friendly advice: you should read more on what the coup plan was, because you really have no idea what you're talking about here.

What is the "coup plan" and how does one access it?

[Matt Allison]

Read either the Eastman memo or the just released memo from Jenna Ellis. If you're going to make grand sweeping statements about the crisis in the U.S., you should be well read on the subject first.

[Matt Allison]

The Republican party has been taken over by the Trump separatist movement, and is waging war on the US from the inside.

Biden has made 78 ambassadorial nominations but just seven have been confirmed

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/14/ambassador-shortage-biden-foreign-policy-senate?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Allow me to provide two more smoking guns of basic logic that debunk modern psychology:

 

1. Despite being only 5 percent of the world's population, United States citizens comprise 70% of all psychiatrists and 70% of psychological test subjects. No matter the quality of your psychological data, it probably does not apply to people who aren't U.S. citizens with exposure to college life - because of how much culture influences people.

 

2. No matter the quality of your psychological data, it will just become outdated in about 5 years maximum time because of how quickly human culture changes.

 

And if you want to argue that a specific trait is biologically inherent in all people and not just cultural, then gathering evidence to prove that is almost always a colossal or impossible challenge.

Geez...

     As I just explained to you, Micah, the original clinical observations that were foundational for the modern Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Psychiatric Disorders happened mainly in Europe-- not the U.S.-- e.g., Kraepelin in Munich, Eugen Bleuler in Zurich, Krafft Von Ebbing in Vienna, et.al.

     And there is, in fact, a great deal of cross cultural data about psychiatric disorders.

     Secondly, the diagnostic criteria of psychiatric disorders were never merely "behavioral," as you imagine.  They have always included characteristic signs and symptoms-- e.g., disturbances of affect, mood, volition, cognitive functions, delusions, and hallucinations, etc.

    The brain, like all organs in the body, may be subject to inherited and/or acquired infirmity and dysfunction.

    Why would that not be the case?  🤥

    

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Read either the Eastman memo or the just released memo from Jenna Ellis. If you're going to make grand sweeping statements about the crisis in the U.S., you should be well read on the subject first.

Dodgy never-acted-on legal advice does not really constitute a cogent “plan”, and claims that it “outlined a coup d’état” is simply a manifestation of the hyper-partisan “news reporting” discussed earlier in context of Fox News.

[Matt Allison]

52 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Dodgy never-acted-on legal advice does not really constitute a cogent “plan”, and claims that it “outlined a coup d’état” is simply a manifestation of the hyper-partisan “news reporting” discussed earlier in context of Fox News.

LOL