Re: Emacs psychiatrist

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Bastien]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't prescribe any
>> drug), just a psychoanalyst.
>
> Well, that's incorrect I believe. Shouldn't it be
>
>   Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't
>   just prescribe some drug), it is a psychoanalyst.

AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.  So in most of the cases 
the role of the psychiatrists-psychoanalyst is not to "just" prescribe
drugs.

-- 
Bastien

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Bastien wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't prescribe any
>>> drug), just a psychoanalyst.
>> Well, that's incorrect I believe. Shouldn't it be
>>
>>   Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't
>>   just prescribe some drug), it is a psychoanalyst.
> 
> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.  So in most of the cases 
> the role of the psychiatrists-psychoanalyst is not to "just" prescribe
> drugs.

The condition to check would be if the are more psychiatrists that are 
also psychoanalysts then there are psychiatrists that are not also 
psychoanalysts.

And the answer to that seems quite obvious. Psychiatrits often have a 
much, much shorter education in psychology than most people would expect.

So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Bastien Guerry]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.

The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he 
is not also a psychoanalyst.

-- 
Bastien

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Bastien Guerry wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
> 
> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he 
> is not also a psychoanalyst.

No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Freitag, 21. März 2008 15:11 schrieb Lennart Borgman (gmail):
> Bastien Guerry wrote:
> > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
> > 
> > The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he 
> > is not also a psychoanalyst.
> 
> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.
> 
> 
> 

What about to invite a really good one? :)

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Andreas Röhler wrote:
> Am Freitag, 21. März 2008 15:11 schrieb Lennart Borgman (gmail):
>> Bastien Guerry wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
>>> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he 
>>> is not also a psychoanalyst.
>> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> What about to invite a really good one? :)

I thought Eliza was already reading this list, right?

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Johan Bockgård]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Bastien Guerry wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
>>
>> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he
>> is not also a psychoanalyst.
>
> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.

Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience anyway.

-- 
Johan Bockgård

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Johan Bockgård wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Bastien Guerry wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
>>> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he
>>> is not also a psychoanalyst.
>> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.
> 
> Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience anyway.

So is all science of course.

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:50:15 +0100 Lennart Borgman wrote:

> Bastien wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't prescribe any
>>>> drug), just a psychoanalyst.
>>> Well, that's incorrect I believe. Shouldn't it be
>>>
>>>   Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't
>>>   just prescribe some drug), it is a psychoanalyst.
>>
>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
>> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.  So in most of the cases
>> the role of the psychiatrists-psychoanalyst is not to "just"
>> prescribe
>> drugs.
>
> The condition to check would be if the are more psychiatrists that are
> also psychoanalysts then there are psychiatrists that are not also
> psychoanalysts.
>
> And the answer to that seems quite obvious. Psychiatrits often have a
> much, much shorter education in psychology than most people would
> expect.
>
> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.


Psychoanalysis doesn't play any role in modern psychology.  Psychology
is mainly applied statistics.  And I doubt any serious scientist these
days will count psychoanalysis as "science".  Check out some Popper or
the "light" and understandable comments from Feynman.

David

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Bastien]

"Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:

> Johan Bockgård wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bastien Guerry wrote:
>
>>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
>>>> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he
>>>> is not also a psychoanalyst.
>>> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.
>>
>> Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience anyway.
>
> So is all science of course.

:)

But if all science is a pseudoscience, how can a pseudoscience be a
pseudoscience?

-- 
Bastien

RE: Emacs psychiatrist

[Drew Adams]

I hate to pour cold water on such a hot topic, but could you
please take the discussion of psycho, sudo, and science off
list. Things are crazy enough on this list. :-)

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Hansen wrote:
> Psychoanalysis doesn't play any role in modern psychology.  Psychology
> is mainly applied statistics.  And I doubt any serious scientist these
> days will count psychoanalysis as "science".  Check out some Popper or
> the "light" and understandable comments from Feynman.

Or check what happened later, read neuropsychoanalysis.

Psychology is absolutely not only applied statistics. That is part of 
it. There is simply more knowledge than that kind you can catch with 
statistics. Why throw away things that does not fit?

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[stan]

Bastien wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't prescribe any
>>> drug), just a psychoanalyst.
>>
>> Well, that's incorrect I believe. Shouldn't it be
>>
>>   Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't
>>   just prescribe some drug), it is a psychoanalyst.
>
> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.  So in most of the cases 
> the role of the psychiatrists-psychoanalyst is not to "just" prescribe
> drugs.

My money is on Zippy to have access to better drugs than Eliza. ;)

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Joe Fineman]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.

I thought union of sets was commutative.
-- 
---  Joe Fineman    joe_f@verizon.net

||:  Dress for success: wear a white penis.  :||

RE: Emacs psychiatrist

[Drew Adams]

> My money is on Zippy to have access to better drugs than Eliza. ;)

8-)

Zippy is beyond drugs and beyond Eliza. He is beyond the laundromat. Beyond.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zippy.asp?

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Bastien]

Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
>> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.
>
> I thought union of sets was commutative.

Of course, I meant: "There are more psychiatrists that become
psychoanalysts than psychoanalysts that become psychiatrists."

-- 
Bastien

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Bastien wrote:
> Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net> writes:
> 
>> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>
>>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
>>> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.
>> I thought union of sets was commutative.
> 
> Of course, I meant: "There are more psychiatrists that become
> psychoanalysts than psychoanalysts that become psychiatrists."

Oh, yes, of course. That is the heart of it. Why should a psychoanalyst 
become a psychiatrist? ;-)

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:13:15 +0100 Lennart Borgman wrote:

> David Hansen wrote:
>> Psychoanalysis doesn't play any role in modern psychology.  Psychology
>> is mainly applied statistics.  And I doubt any serious scientist these
>> days will count psychoanalysis as "science".  Check out some Popper or
>> the "light" and understandable comments from Feynman.
>
> Or check what happened later, read neuropsychoanalysis.

At least they try to find some scientific base.  Don't know about their
success though.

> Psychology is absolutely not only applied statistics.

I said `mainly' (though this might be the case with almost any science).

> That is part of it. There is simply more knowledge than that kind you
> can catch with statistics. Why throw away things that does not fit?

"Knowledge" is kind of worthless if you can't prove it wrong or right.
Without falsifiability it's nothing more than a neat idea and no
knowledge at all.  And statistics is more or less the only way to deal
with any data, no matter if you observe planets orbiting the sun or far
more complex and weird objects like human beings.

David

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Hansen wrote:
> "Knowledge" is kind of worthless if you can't prove it wrong or right.
> Without falsifiability it's nothing more than a neat idea and no
> knowledge at all.  And statistics is more or less the only way to deal
> with any data, no matter if you observe planets orbiting the sun or far
> more complex and weird objects like human beings.


Are you sure about what you mean with "knowledge", "prove", "right" and 
"wrong" here?

Do you have some knowledge of that you are alive? Do you have some 
knowledge of your feelings? If you have some children are you sure of 
that? Is it a fact, is it knowledge?

Even if you would like to reserve "knowledge" for something defined 
within a "statistical onthology" (which is a strange thing to do for a 
common word) don't you think other things are worth knowning too? Aren't 
they important when you try to decide what to do?

Don't you think reasoning about this kind of knowledge can be as sharp 
as reasoning about statistical kind of knowledge?

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Joe Fineman]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>
>>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts
>>> than psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.
>>
>> I thought union of sets was commutative.
>
> Of course, I meant: "There are more psychiatrists that become
> psychoanalysts than psychoanalysts that become psychiatrists."

And of course, I meant: "I thought intersections of sets was
commutative".

%^)
-- 
---  Joe Fineman    joe_f@verizon.net

||:  If you're cute _and_ useful, your clock never stops  :||
||:  running.                                             :||

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Joe Fineman wrote:
> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
> 
>> Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts
>>>> than psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.
>>> I thought union of sets was commutative.
>> Of course, I meant: "There are more psychiatrists that become
>> psychoanalysts than psychoanalysts that become psychiatrists."
> 
> And of course, I meant: "I thought intersections of sets was
> commutative".
> 
> %^)

This is the thing that psychoanalysts may deal with, the real meaning of 
your words.

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Tim X]

stan <smoore@exis.net> writes:

> Bastien wrote:
>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't prescribe any
>>>> drug), just a psychoanalyst.
>>>
>>> Well, that's incorrect I believe. Shouldn't it be
>>>
>>>   Actually, it's not a psychiatrist (obviously: it doesn't
>>>   just prescribe some drug), it is a psychoanalyst.
>>
>> AFAIK there are more psychiatrists that are also psychoanalysts than
>> psychoanalysts that are also psychiatrists.  So in most of the cases 
>> the role of the psychiatrists-psychoanalyst is not to "just" prescribe
>> drugs.
>
> My money is on Zippy to have access to better drugs than Eliza. ;)

I think the destinction is between psychiatrist and psychologist - the
former is able to prescribe drugs while the later cannot. 

Back when I did psychology, psychoanalyst was either a psychiatrist or
psychologist who subscribed to Freud's psychoanalytical approach i.e. it
was a specific school of thought on the analysis and treatment of
various psychological disorders. It is not the only approach an in fact,
back in the early 80's at least, had pretty much fallen out of favor
compared to other theories that were not based on defining what was
'normal' essentially through interviews with people defined as
'abnormal' and dependent on unproven concepts such as the edipus/elektra
complex, penis envy, Id, super Id and Ego. Modern psychology tends to
prefer theories with more scientific rigor (or at least pseudo-rigor!).

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

Re: Emacs psychiatrist

[Tim X]

bojohan+news@dd.chalmers.se (Johan Bockgård) writes:

> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Bastien Guerry wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> So I guess "just" prescribe is what happens in most cases.
>>>
>>> The fact that a doctor just prescribes some drugs doesn't prove he
>>> is not also a psychoanalyst.
>>
>> No, but maybe that he is not also a good psychoanalysts.
>
> Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience anyway.
>

Psychoanalysis is not even a pseudo science - no scientific methodology
was applied. Psychoanalysis is another name for Freud's theories and
analysis/treatment 'techniques'.  These days, it has pretty much fallen
out of favor. 

Issues of ethics and human experimentation make it very difficult for
psychology to apply the same types of experimental rigor that most
associate with science, but generally it does try to apply the
principals of scientific rigor to experimental research. Things are
complicated by the fact we still don't really know what concepts like
'mind' 'intelligence' 'emotion' etc really means and as we can't really
define it in a universally acceptable way, we can't look at it, measure
it, poke it or dissect it. To a large part, psychology is really
statistics - its a best guess based on the collection of large amounts
of data obtained via surveys, subjective observations and other data
sources that are pushed through some statistical model which identifies
some correlation. Frequent points of debate/arguement amongst
psychologists tend to be based on statistical analysis and
interpretation or application of statistical models rather than
arguements regarding the underlying theory. This isn't to say there is
just one theory or there aren't competing theories - just that this
isn't where the debates tend to focus. Different schools of theory tend
to just discount those schools they don't agree with, but within their
school of choice, they tend to spend large amounts of time arguing about
the statistics rather than the underlying theoretical constructs. 

Psychiatrists tend to be people with a medical degree who have also
studied psychology. As they have a medical degree, they are able to
prescribe drugs. Psychologists tend not to have a medical degree and
therefore cannot prescribe drugs.  As mentioned by someone else,
psychiatrists may not actually have much training in
psychology. Normally, you can become a psychologist by completing an
undergraduate degree, but to practice as a clinical psychologist
(i.e. be able to have and treat patients), you need to do some post
graduate studies. 

To be a psychoanalyst you have to speak with a thick Austrian accent,
look a bit like Einstein after a bad night and be obsessed with sexual
disfunction that all stems from a desire to have sex with your
mother/father. All problems stem from feelings of guilt and jealousy
rgarding either your father's relationship/access to your mother or your
mother's access/relationship to your father. 
Lying on a couch and talking about it provides lots of vicarious sexual
pleasure for the therapist. One of Freud's treatment techniques,
particularly for many of the women he use to see, was a nice relaxing
genital massage, which apparently was quite popular with the sexually
repressed women around in the late 1800s. 

Tim
> -- 
-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au