ATTN, Von Zwietracht & other libertariantards

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.

Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.

Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.

[The Johnny]

As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.

Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.

Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.

***Regional differences might vary***

Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).

Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).

For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.

Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.

Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.

***Regional differences might vary***

Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).

Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).

For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.

I want to live in your universe.

Because in my universe, public care gives them goofball pills and sends them back out into the street.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As an aside (it isn't really relevant to the conversation, just personally interesting to me) there is a pretty big difference between psychologists and psychiatrists these days, although 100 years ago there wasn't. Psychiatry is the branch of medical treatment that deals with mental illness; psychiatrists are MDs. There are MDs who do research rather than clinical work but that typically requires research training, thus there are joint MD/PhD programs. Psychologists are research oriented, and although things are changing all the time the breakdown tends to be that psychiatrists treat people, while psychologists study people. A medical doctor who specializes in the brain is a neurologist, while a research doctor who studies the brain is a neuroscientist. There is overlap, though.

Confusing matters, there are also clinical psychologists who treat patients. And, all PhD psychologists are trained and qualified to assess a person's mental state, although not all are trained and qualified to diagnose and treat illness.

Confusing matters even more, neuroscientists are not so much psychologists as molecular biologists or biochemists. There is also the emerging field of neuropsychology, but right now so few schools are offering that as a degree that most budding neuropsychologists kind of have to take a "build-your-own" approach.

***Regional differences might vary***

Psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, they are closer to what a Doctor is, but their pharmacological knowledge is oriented towards the brain and chemical unbalances, but they don't have formal training in social/humanities and dont do any talk treatment (therapy, analysis).

Psychologists have different suffixes: labor, clinic, social, institutions, etc. Clinical psychologists treat people thru talk in whichever method they were trained (Gestalt, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive-Conductual); labor focuses on human resources management and recruitment; social is focused on research but has some clinical capabilities; institutions focuses on how organizations function and can do consulting (NGOs, government, corporations).

For example, a patient with schizophrenia can be hypothetically treated by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a social psychologist, each one providing an important part of the treatment.

I want to live in your universe.

Because in my universe, public care gives them goofball pills and sends them back out into the street.

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

Yes, but we're still better.  Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

Yes, but we're still better.  Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

Yes, but we're still better.  Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.

Way I see it, I have three neighbors.

On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah.  On the other, I have Mexico. 

Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.

Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.

Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.

So guess which neighbor I prefer?

[The Johnny]

I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.

The manicomial institutions we have only give psychiatric treatment, in the sense that its only pills, but thats only free if you are in it for life; for example, being a homeless person with psychiatric condition.

And the hypothetical treatment by a team of 3 specialists is far off from reality, thats just the ideal that only the high class can afford.

I think mental health treatment is quite grim worldwide, either because of a bad approach or because of lack of resources to apply it; ive heard of a new generation of psychiatrists that have a more well-rounded training, but i think it only happens in France.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.

Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison.  Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich.  We don't even have proper crisis management.  Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.

I think mental health treatment is quite grim worldwide, either because of a bad approach or because of lack of resources to apply it; ive heard of a new generation of psychiatrists that have a more well-rounded training, but i think it only happens in France.

I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet.  Out of sight, out of mind.  It's pretty horrible.

[The Johnny]

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

Yes, but we're still better.  Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.

Way I see it, I have three neighbors.

On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah.  On the other, I have Mexico. 

Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.

Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.

Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.

So guess which neighbor I prefer?

Thats between a rock and a hard place really: zealots, bureucrats or anarchy.

[East Coast Hustle]

Thing is, you can't control The Machine, and being contrarian is just another way of letting The Machine dictate your behavior.  Even if you oppose it at every turn, you're still using it as the basis for your behavior.  I've found that letting my principles guide me regardless of what society says or who is "in charge" tends to let me sleep at night.

I'm more or less a rigid moralist in some regards, though not the same way a Baptist or a Catholic would understand the term.

This has taken some time to think about...

Regardless, if the machine is unwavering, then what is the point of concerning yourself with my ideological underpinnings? Although I may switch who's idea-book I take information from depending on the state of the machine, my complete lack of genuine conviction in whatever I'm arguing about reamains constant.

Sure, ill dig in, ill yell, ill try to beat peoples opinions down with full furor--but that's just the game of arguing for the sake of arguing. Its fun, it gives one a reason to commit research, but in the end, its only a game -- assuming the machine is so unchanging as you present.

You describe yourself as being a moralist; that you stick to your predetermined set of ideals and it makes you feel good to do so. I'm much more of a cynic in this regard. I see flaws in almost every ideolgy; this has led me to believe that nothing is "correct" in a meaningful way, thus it helps me to sleep at night knowing that I dont honestly hold fast to anything lest it be rendered incorrect by morning.

You know what's worse than a Libpretendian?

A goddamn moral relativist, that's the fuck what.

[Pergamos]

I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:


Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?

That seems impossible.  How would the government support its operations with no income?

[Cain]

I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:


Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?

That seems impossible.  How would the government support its operations with no income?

Conquest.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Mexico has, from what I've heard, superb medical care compared to the United States.

Arizona oughtta suck on THAT for a while.

Yes, but we're still better.  Or so I am told by people who are very sure of this.

Way I see it, I have three neighbors.

On one side, I have Phoenix and Utah.  On the other, I have Mexico. 

Mexico is that neighbor that squabbles a bit and has really loud parties...But only on the weekend, and they always invite you over for the party.

Phoenix is the neighbor that calls the Home Owner's Association if you have an oil spot the size of a dime in the driveway.

Utah is the neighbor that's really, really concerned about your soul, while they cheat on their taxes and on their spouses.

So guess which neighbor I prefer?

Thats between a rock and a hard place really: zealots, bureucrats or anarchy.

Sonora isn't that bad.  They have problems, no arguing it...But in terms of being neighbors, not so bad.

This IS Tucson, though.  We don't give a shit about drug smuggling, or any of that garbage.  It's simply not relevant and besides, the cartels only exist because the USA is a huge local market.  Also, it's hardly fair to spend 150 years knocking your neighbor on his ass, only to blame him because he got mud on his pants. 

Whenever anyone starts trash-talking Mexico (not common here, most people have family and/or friends on both sides of the border), I ask them what Henry Wilson would say.

They invariably say "who"?  Then I stop caring about their opinion.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm not sure we're better here: the public psychiatric resources available are focused on crisis management post-facto, they dont do prevention, prevention is the patient's burden; in other words, they'd gladly lock you up if you have a suicidal crisis or a manic attack for a couple of days, otherwise its out of pocket.

Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison.  Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich.  We don't even have proper crisis management.  Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.

In the northeast, it's possible to get adequate preventive care if you're INSANELY proactive and covered by insurance. Of course, the mentally ill are well known for their level-headedness and excellent planning ability...