Skip to main content

View Diary: "I snapped, shot 3 people, I'm sure," Stidham told police. Police confirm: 3 people dead (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not a psychologist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook, shaharazade, mungley

    At least not one who has gone to school.

    But yes, I suppose any form of collecting can be seen as an addiction... but it's semantics.  The big question is, is your collecting doing any harm?  Are you spending money on coins instead of food for your kids? (gross exaggeration)

    •  which is the difference between collecting (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hangpilot, fuzzyguy, BachFan, mungley

      and hoarding.  However, even if it is only semantics, psychiatry depends upon semantics to make distinctions between various behaviors and the continuum of what is considered "normal" and "abnormal"

      •  Strange... the rest of medicine depends (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl, happymisanthropy

        on objective measurements of organismic function. But psychiatry depends on socially constructed notions of "normal" and "abnormal".

        Not so long ago, homosexuality was considered "abnormal" and was an "official mental illness", listed in DSM. Transgender is still an "official mental illness".

        There is something odd about a purported medical science whose basic entities change with changing politics....

        •  all of science changes as our understanding of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TeamSarah4Choice, mungley

          the world around us changes.  I would suggest the change in how we view homosexuality is less political and more due to our increased understanding in areas such as genetics

          •  No, it is due purely to our political activism (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl, happymisanthropy

            and the political climate in the 1970s (Watergate).

            No "gay gene" has ever been found. No scientific discoveries contributed to the improved freedom of LGBT people. And transgender people are still not out from under the thumb of DSM.

            •  you are arguing that while no gay gene (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TeamSarah4Choice, trumpeter

              has been found that there have been no scientific discoveries or advances in sexual orientation in the last 40 years?

              •  There has been mainstreaming of once-marginalized (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                sexual orientations by LGBT political action. I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific discoveries". I doubt that people who have had these orientations for millennia would consider a paper about them in a journal a "discovery".

            •  atana, mankind used to think earth is flat (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              and now we know it is spherical due to our understanding of the world changing and nothing at all to do political activism.

              No "blue eye" gene has ever been found, but I have never been dated nor been attracted to anyone with brown eyes; my spouse has blue eyes.

              There are x and y chromosomes which can determine masculinity or femininity

              so ... instead of looking for a gay gene perhaps you should realize that hereditary traits are found in chromosomes.

              •  Yes, I got it that DNA is the hereditary material (0+ / 0-)

                and could write a diary about the sequence of experiments that demonstrated this. But no genetic markers of homosexuality have been found, despite plenty of effort to find them. There has never been any evidence for a Mendelian inheritance pattern in LGBT, so the no-show of genetic markers is not a big surprise.

                A theory was recently proposed that epigenetic markers may be involved. These are not DNA, but chemical signals that control expression of genes. If this theory is true, we should find them as the human epigenome is mapped over the next decade.

                As for eye pigmentation, plenty of genes have been found to be involved.

                •  But none of this research is responsible (0+ / 0-)

                  for the increasing legal rights for LGBT people. And psychiatrists don't do research of this sort in any event.

                  LGBT rights are a result of LGBT political effort, much of it against opposition from the medical and mental health community. Transgender people are still fighting the inclusion of stigmatizing entries in the new  of DSM-V. We fought to to have conversion therapist Dr. Kenneth Zucker removed from chairmanship of the DSM committee on gender, but were ignored. Our struggles for our human rights against the entrenched opposition of shrinks and other pseudoscientists are not over.

                •  atana: respectfully, as you know in science (0+ / 0-)

                  not finding something is not an example of its non-existence.

                  In other words, in science the fact that something has not been found or discovered does not mean it does not exist.

                  So, my point is, you nor I nor anyone else knows what the chromosomal code for homosexuality would be so therefore we cannot say no such code exists.

                  •  Um, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    the genome is finite, and the portion of it that codes protein is pretty small. There are all sorts of lovely computer algorithms that sniff through whole genome sequences of people for common sequences. This has been done, repeatedly, on populations of homosexuals. Candidate markers have been proposed and shot down by subsequent studies.

                    At this point, hopes for finding a "gay gene" are looking pretty slim :-)

        •  sure about that, atana? Thought I saw (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the DSM would no longer cover Transgender folks?

          Also, the "science" of economics is right up there with astrology, IMO, for actual scientific reliability.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:52:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  So you're not a psychologist, Holiday Inn or not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, BlackSheep1

      Nothing, if you check the actual DSM, ( ya know, like the psychologist you're not would), is an "addiction" until there are negative consequences. It's the act of continuing, despite the negative consequences, that defines " addiction".

      As you've established yourself as unqualified, would you mind NOT making diagnosis?

      " Mental Health" has a meaning, and it's not what your context implies. " Addiction " has a meaning, also not what your context implies.

      I mean, think as sloppy as you want- but don't go calling it fact.

      Words have meanings.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site