Posted by boBB on May 12, 2000, at 20:13:27
In reply to Re: here we go again (sigh), posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2000, at 4:00:49
The curling iron/ample bun comment was clearly out of line in civil conversation, and the claim to be able to diagnose an individual in a crowd, on site alone, is poor practice of a diagnostic method that is widely questioned anyway.
Dr. Bob, or the university, owns the site and the hardware that serves it. By reading ISP numbers and setting cookies, he likely knows more than the rest of us do about how this individual has previously behaved here.
I advocate for clear rules of dialogue, which bar threats or implications of personal injury, and which bar malicious, demeaning and derogatory comments. But it seems problematic to allow relatively anonymous individuals to offer diagnoses while at other times an offer of a diagnosis is considered to be derogatory.
Minimizing someone’s experience of oppression further victimizes the person. Fred may use poor style to write “you are a victimizer” but he might accurately write “you are a person who victimizes.” I wonder if it is fair to exclude him (on this charge) simply because he does not know how to verbally parry and fight using the editorial style of the American Psychology Association.
Psychiatry has a long and rich history of abuse, torture and self-service. The father of modern pshyc was a reputed cocaine addict. Institutions tend to constantly claim their past problems were recently solved, and seldom recognize and account for how their problematic past contributes to current decisions.
In a legal system that claims to allow free speech, and that allows some licensed companies to push psychotropic drugs through persuasive, motivational advertising, while other non-licensed individuals are locked up for life or even threatened with lawful execution for selling very similar drugs, we should be very cautious about who we exclude from public discourse about psychotropic meds and other treatments.
The University of Chicago is a public institution. While Dr. Bob does us all a favor by maintaining this site, his effort also serves his professional purposes by providing proof of public service as is required of tenured members of major academies.
Though I lack detailed knowledge of the University’s history, I suspect it involves large grants of land and other wealth that came over to Anglo-Europeans by divestiture of older, and (I believe) wiser cultures. Even the wood frames of the buildings that house the University was likely hauled down from northern forests which were taken by dubious treaty from Chippewa, Osage, Mennominee and other nations.
My point is that, regardless the letter of the law, or the nuance of administrative rule, this site and this discussion is a public franchise.
Well, I aim to prove Fred wrong on one point. This board has not yet systematically excluded me, and I definitely do not echo the majority. I don’t want to see Fred’s perspective cut out simply because he has not had the same opportunity as I have to make his controversial arguments in an articulate voice.
Okay, back to the discussion of depression...
Any recent regular reader knows I think most depression is situational. I think our culture, with the loss of community, destruction of species and long term ruin of the climate is something worth being depressed about. I think anyone who is not affected by sorrow for the resources we wantonly consume is both sick and morally weak.But out of deference to the medical model, and out of sincere admiration for the practice of science, I wonder what research is being done into depression and the role of amino acids that are precursors of the neurotransmitters associated with depression, specifically, (I think I recall) tryptophan and lysine.
I know that, at a time when a situation was driving my routinely dark mood to an untenable depth, my use of a protein supplement rich in these amino acids correlated to an improvement in my outlook.
poster:boBB
thread:32651
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000508/msgs/33313.html