ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
"Can't you see how fortunate you are? You have worn yourself out through ceaseless striving, you have filled your muscles with pain and anguish. And what have you achieved but to bring yourself one day nearer to the end of your days?"
I'm probably out to lunch.
User ID: 4030
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
1d ago
I won't go so far as to say that all poor people are low-agency, but certainly low-agency people tend to be poor and exist in higher concentrations in poor areas. The blighted aren't damned forever, but any efforts at rehabilitation have to be coordinated and significant enough to overcome the social inertia of years of pessimism, apathy, and lack of opportunity. It's much easier to just let them tumble down and funnel new development into "good" areas.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
1d ago
Unrelated, but I really enjoy that you maintain a personal site and use it liberally. I'm considering starting one of my own. Would you speak highly of NearlyFreeSpeech.net as a network host?
I think some of this has arisen from the K-shaped economy. Any cities that survived the general contraction of manufacturing and industry are now bimodally organized: either a neighborhood is well-to-do with white-collar/tech/service jobs and the resources to match, or they're blighted, decaying, and continually downtrodden.*
*I don't think gentrification and the proliferation of "artsy" neighborhoods represent a meaningful alternative. They're too few and far between and often fail to generate much economic growth.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
1d ago
Username checks out.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
2d ago
A sentiment I'm seeing in this thread is essentially that Democrats propose policies that, when you hold them up to the light just right, are indistinguishable from mere gibs, so why shouldn't Trump do the same thing? I agree with the many posters here that democracy has increasingly shifted into a "to the victor goes the spoils" mindset, where politicians are incentivized to promise their constituents as much material benefit as possible if elected. However, it's my recollection that most Democrat gibs are at least presented under the pretense that they solve a problem or have a social benefit. Even reparations for the descendants of slaves, which are arguably the most diffuse and nebulous use of government funds, have been justified many times over with varying publications, media efforts, etc. We can discuss the veracity of these claims, but they're at least granted an air of historical importance and societal justification. Trump, in contrast, is simply saying "vote for me and you'll get money," without even gesturing at some social purpose. Simple quid pro quo. I don't see how this can be anything but concerning.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
9d ago
I have meditated in the past and I agree, it's helpful. Thanks for the suggestion.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
9d ago
I'm not going to follow through with that - it was an idea, is all.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
9d ago
Lol, thanks. As a part of the aforementioned "lifestyle changes" I'm cutting out alcohol for the time being, actually. I would normally agree!
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
9d ago
Does anyone have experience with short-term use of psychotropic medications (SSRI's, Benzos, etc.)? I have experienced an absurd amount of situational stress and grief over the past few weeks - long story, very tragic - and am looking for a little chemical help to make it more bearable. However, I don't want to be on them for very long and I know that coming off meds can be difficult once you start. Anyone have personal background? And yes, I'm trying to make lifestyle changes but any advice there would help as well. Appreciate it.
Perhaps middle-management isn't the perfectly apt term, but I still think the dichotomy (that some employees are concerned with appearances, and others are concerned with the bottom line) holds regardless of how you categorize the respective camps.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
11d ago
Wow! I didn't expect to make it on the list. After lurking here so long, it's a delight to actually have gotten there. Glad my background could be of some use.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
11d ago
For those seeking to discredit nominally progressive institutions, these examples are a satisfying just-so story. As you say, these ideas support the premise that progressives are hypocritical, undiscerning, and intellectually dishonest. I can understand the temptation, but I am drawn to another explanation. Companies are not single-minded entities, but loose collections of hundreds of individuals. It strikes me as almost tautological to say that the HR and branding departments are likely to be strongholds of progressive thinking, well-attuned to the image that the company wants to present. On the other hand, it seems equally intuitive to think that middle-management is not so concerned with appearances, instead prioritizing the bottom line. Ultimately, then, the conflict we observe not does not arise from a rusty cog in progressive ideology but instead a lack of internal coordination/agreement.
There is no way for me to prove this, of course, but the continual tension between games company employees and management (via union drives, public awareness campaigns about crunch, etc.) seems sufficient to point to the values gap between the two groups.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
17d ago
I can't imagine the law was written to fail. It seems more likely to me that the legislature tried to cast a wide net in its phrasing to ensure that not a single show escapes its reach. Drag is a malleable medium and it has a substantial grassroots presence. If the law was too specific, it is not unthinkable that motivated drag performers would tweak their shows in such a way to evade the ban, all the while they wink and nod to their knowing audience.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
17d ago
Out of curiosity, does your gym have a hack squat machine? I know they get some flack because they're less of a "compound" lift, but they are substantially more gentle on the back from my experience.
Reading this immediately reminded me of the Goomba Fallacy, which is an example of the Association Fallacy that you're broadly speaking to. I'm not normally one to bandy around fallacies, but it fits here.
To discuss the rationality of it requires specific examples. In some cases, the association is utterly ridiculous, like in the Goomba Fallacy. Another example that comes to mind is the notion that people in "red states" or "blue states" ought to suffer or experience material consequences as penance for the sins of their political leaders. Wine moms in North Carolina should not be denied natural disaster relief as penance for their sin of voting for Trump, not to mention the countless Democrats living there. On the other hand, some associations are quite viscous and difficult to overlook. The common pop-feminist idea — I've been victimized by a man, therefore I should act aloof and oppositional toward most men — may legitimately have protective value. Sure, #notallmen, but I think a young woman keeping her distance from young men she hasn't personally vetted may be protective, even if it is irrational. And, of course, plenty of associations are pre-rational, made entirely on the basis of in-group identification or out-group animosity.
The question that remains for me is how to distinguish between counterproductive, over-fitted associations vs. ultimately helpful ones. I think perhaps the solution is trying not to rely on just one demographic variable. Instead of screening against "men" as a category, perhaps it's best to screen against men of certain backgrounds, men who appear impoverished, men who have drinking problems, etc. so the associations can get more granular and actionable.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
19d ago
I think it's well-within the Overton window if you're a conservative or at least "family oriented." The problem is that it's verboten among most blue-tribers, for whom any incentives, no matter how gentle, toward more traditional family structures are equated to regressive coercion. The best they can do is support cheaper/subsidized childcare, which isn't nothing. However, if the Nordic countries where that already exists are any reference, cheaper childcare alone does little to promote additional births.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
20d ago
Don't forget "accountability."
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
21d ago
Yikes. The defense just wrapped. If the prosecution is any good, they'll pounce on this.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
22d ago
I think a combination of the inherent limitations of visual storytelling and the dumbing down of stories in general because of reductions in attention spans is a more likely set of culprits.
Pretty much. I also think that movies are uniquely limited in their ability to tell deep, thematically complex stories about psychologically whole characters. Certainly, the most virtuosic films can pull it off, but it's so difficult that we regard it as effectively magical when it happens. A book can have a duration of dozens of hours. It can take you on digressions with little regard for your need to be stimulated. The mental act of immersing yourself in the written word is enough to keep you engaged. Films, on the other hand, plateau at around 3 hours in length. Durations longer than that tend to be quite unpalatable to most audiences. As a result, they cannot spend nearly as much time creating rich worlds and instead have to "keep things moving."
Many people aware of this tend to prefer watching prestige TV shows, so they can see characters develop over the span of many hours. However, TV production has its own set of problems: more stringent budgets, more demanding and intricate production schedules, lower profitability resulting in less ambition, etc.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
22d ago
The impression I got is that she didn't endorse any CAH before or after the killings until meeting with someone hired by her defense.
Uh-oh. In my experience CAH tend to be quite persistent and well-documented, since they are public enemy no. 1 when it comes to patient safety.
...without proper practice managing symptoms things can go off the rails very fast.
I think this is the only scenario that I could really accept - if the killings happened in her first episode of psychosis, prior to treatment. It's going to come down to how thorough her psychiatrists were in documenting the progression and severity of her symptoms, so they can generate a rough timeline of her illness. I think we will probably never know these details and can only hope the court does its due diligence.
Comment as you wish! I welcome more discussion even if you think it's redundant. I have education in the issues at hand, though I do not currently work in a diagnostic capacity with psychotic populations. I'd describe more, but I am overly protective of my online footprint and anonymity is why I enjoy participating here.
I haven't read about Clancy extensively, so my comments are tentative and open to correction. Generally speaking, psychotic diagnoses are a shitshow. Presentations vary wildly within the same diagnosis and treatment is a blunt instrument, to put it nicely. The defense claims she experienced some form of bipolar disorder with accompanying post-partum depression. From what I have read, her presentation aligns more with depression with psychotic features, but again, these categories are extremely fuzzy.
Notes taken from her psychiatrist indicate she was experiencing what are commonly called "command hallucinations," or voices that tell you to do things. It seems trivial to us mentally sound folks to resist voices - just say no - but it's not merely a voice. These hallucinations are often experienced like a form of possession, where the voice is accompanied by a loss of control or feeling of being "overridden." I once worked with a man who attempted to strangle me while crying and saying, "I'm so sorry, I don't want to do this." I believe him. He warned me when he was about to lunge so I could avoid it. I knew him well and in his right state of mind, he was a kind and gentle person. During his worst moments, he believed he was possessed by a pagan god. There was nothing we could do to talk him out of it, the only thing that worked were very strong doses of rescue medication (usually benzodiazepines). It is entirely possible that Clancy had similar experiences. It's hard to say. Much of the commentary around her mental health has focused on the depression, suicidality, and sleep disturbances that she experienced, rather than the psychosis. I am surprised the defense has taken this approach.
The other point I'd like to make is that the day-to-day experience of psychosis varies incredibly. I've worked with patients who have had fantastic weeks and consistent upward progress. These good periods can create a false sense of security and normalcy and often result in medication adherence wavering. Naturally, the progress comes to a swift halt (or even regression) in these cases. Even worse, sometimes downturns occur for no apparent reason despite consistent treatment. Here, there is little that can be done other than providing rescue medication, hoping the episode passes, and tweaking the prescription. Even within a single day, presentations can change dramatically. As such, the claim that she could wake up in the morning, take her kids to school, and come home to kill them does seem psycho-medically plausible.
Ultimately, it's hard to diagnose her remotely or evaluate the validity of the expert claims. I am very interested in her presentation these days. She appears to be able to sit in the courtroom with minimal difficulty and is evidently not experiencing these symptoms anymore. Perhaps she's just better at concealing them. I wonder what changed - was it time, or a new treatment?
I've written this and am only now seeing you are a physician. Apologies if some of these observations are elementary to you.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
22d ago
she was suffering from mental issues, but in my judgement not nearly severe enough to completely strip her of her agency and free will
I didn't read the previous subthread, so I can't speak to the discussion you all have had there. I'd just like to point out that you're displaying the behavior that I described in my post. You acknowledge that she has some degree of mental issues - in other words, her cognition and impulses are different from yours, perhaps more distorted or reactive. Yet, because she isn't "completely" stripped of agency, you are choosing to categorize her as "culpable," which is likely the moral matrix in which you would regard yourself. Of course, what she did is monstrous and she is culpable in some form. But why does it have to be an either/or?
I think suggesting that a short-term medical anomaly affecting 1-2 in 1000 women is representative of baseline female hormonal function is quite dishonest. When people are in the throes of mental illness, we do deprive them of autonomy and rights temporarily (5150's), but once their mental normalcy returns, their rights return in tow.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
22d ago
Correct, this binary distinction is precisely what I'm talking about in my other examples.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
23d ago
Of course - legally speaking, she has minimal wiggle room and the consequences will be unquestionably severe. Her case just got me thinking more about how attitudes toward moral transgressors develop generally. Should we regard someone with derision, pity, anger, fear, or another emotion? What makes something a "troubling mistake" or an "act of depravity?" Should they be treated with dignity or cruelty, punished or reformed? All these questions are at play based on what the cultural apparatus deems is the person's nature, and I think language isn't doing us any favors.
I am very unsettled by how much we know about this guy. Yes, he's no longer a member of an active jury, but I feel like it's unheard of for a juror to be practically doxxed and berated publicly, even if he was obstinate or unreasonable. I can't even begin to imagine the chilling effect this will have on jurors assigned to future high profile cases. I'm extremely disappointed in our media for fueling this extravaganza.
More options
Context Copy link