Urstadt

My friends, and their friends, have been in a 10-day long debate over a math problem. I am hoping people on here can help us settle it.
 
 
About 60% of the commenters say the answer is 10:
 
 
 
 
but the other 40% are adamant that the answer is 58.
 
 
What do all y'all say?

Don't be surprised if in the next 10-20 years ADHD is no longer considered a disroder. Many of us counselors are already disillusioned by the notion of its existence. For example:
 
The brain organizes itself into 3 categories: System 1 (fast, automatic), System 2 (slow, deliberate; aka: Task Positive Network), and Default Mode Network (mind wandering; aka: DMN). These three systems are constantly interacting. We need all three systems, but the transition between each system creates the potential for fallibility. Thinking about so-called ADHD in this light changes how we conceptualize, define, and diagnose it.
 
Consider a hypothetical: ADHD would not come from the DMN, it would come from the transition between System 2 and the DMN, and vice versa. This is important to understand because if this hypothetical were true, and many ADHD researchers are looking into this, it could mean that ADHD, as we currently understand it, does not exist. one would not take ADHD, throw away the entire diagnostic criteria, and supplant it with neuroscience and neurology. The entire phenomenon would have to be revamped.
 
One plausible reformulation could be that ADHD doesn't exist, but that fallibility in task-oriented thinking and behaviors is to be expected by essence of the transition between systems, and as mistakes are already part of what makes us human. Therefore, fallibility (ie, inattentiveness) would be considered human nature. Meaning, what we call ADHD today will be considered perfectly normal in 20 years.
 
Now, some people have ADHD that is so severe, they can't function. To that, I say two things: A) that represents a very, very, very small percentage of the population: like less than 3% of 7 billion people. B) When it is that severe, psychiatry questions whether it is ADHD, as we currently understand it, or if it's on the milder end of another spectrum such as high-functioning autism, mental retardation, pervasive development disorder (which no longer exists per DSM-V), etc.
 
In short, saying you have ADHD is like saying that dreams are messages from ancestors from the past (see Carl Jung): it can make sense, but we really have no idea if it's true or not.

Yeah, we're seeing the same thing happening in psychotherapy. I get around it by teaching my clients about solipsism and contextualism. In other words, they can believe they are whatever they want to believe they are, but they are going to have to reconcile those beliefs with both of what I teach them: something that simply can't be done.
 
It's unethical for me to engage in conversion therapy. It is not unethical for me to teach true concepts about human nature, reality, and existence.

Yeah, we're seeing the same thing happening in psychotherapy. I get around it by teaching my clients about solipsism and contextualism. In other words, they can believe they are whatever they want to believe they are, but they are going to have to reconcile those beliefs with both of what I teach them: something that simply can't be done.
 
It's unethical for me to engage in conversion therapy. It is not unethical for me to teach true concepts about human nature, reality, and existence.

Yeah, we're seeing the same thing happening in psychotherapy. I get around it by teaching my clients about solipsism and contextualism. In other words, they can believe they are whatever they want to believe they are, but they are going to have to reconcile those beliefs with both of what I teach them: something that simply can't be done.
 
It's unethical for me to engage in conversion therapy. It is not unethical for me to teach true concepts about human nature, reality, and existence.

I'm curious as to WHY you feel better about it?
Do you actually believe that someone bent on murder and mayhem is going to care one whit about a sign prohibiting firearms?

Prison Chaplin, I have wondered about the origin of your handle. I narrowed it down to either a) you were/are a chaplin in a physical prison with convicts, or b) you try to spread the Good News to those who are in more of a spiritual prison due to a lack of Christ in their lives. :)
I have never wondered why you were here but am glad you are. I have wondered about things you've said, and on one occassion in particular a number of years ago that really frustrated me. But, it was nothing personal on your end, and I knew that at the time, just as I do now. :) I think we all wonder about what others say from time to time. I'm sure others have wondered about me. :) Such are the limitations of forum discussions versus face-to-face ones.
I do wish we heard from you on the forums as much as we used to.

My heart goes out to those of you who struggle with psychological difficulties. I would imagine that many of you are fighting the good fight and should be applauded for your efforts.
Yes. Not only is it broad, but so-called "mental disorders" are actually social artifacts. They are culturally defined and greatly informed by societal values. They also occur in a biological vacuum. If you read the entire DSM-V, you will see that not one single "mental disorder" has its cause explained. Good books to read about these critical issues in are The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry by Gary Greenberg, Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt... by Frances Allen, and Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker. (The anti-"Big Pharma" propaganda in the last two books are too cynical for me, and likely will be for many of you; but the material on the DSM and mental disorders is spot on.)I also recommend these two sites:
http://www.madinamerica.com/
https://bobfancher.wordpress.com/
Bob Fancher is a personal friend of mine and colleague. His book, Cultures of Healing: Correcting the Image of American Mental Health Care has been invaluable to me in my writing and practice. I also recommend Philip Cushman's book, Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural History of Psychotherapy.
Here are some articles to consider, too:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5-0/british-psychological-society-condemns-dsm-5
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd
http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/depression-serotonin/
Any critical thinker involved in the mental health field can see that the entire discipline is fragmented, biased, riddled with opposing armed camps, ill-informed, and laden with wishful thinking. I say "critical thinker" because mental health care (psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy) is not a truth-seeking profession.
"The distance between what we know and what we wish we knew is far to great to bear, and we fill it with believing." Bob Fancher, 1995, Cultures of Healing
Like I said, culturally informed. If a person doesn't do things the way the majority of people think something should be done, then there is something "wrong" with them. It really becomes ethnocentric with a cultural imperialism.

I agree.  We could say that mortality is a mental illness.  The term handicap is a relative term.  When I was in college I met a blind girl that hated to be called handicapped.  She felt that what she lost in sight she gained in other things that were made better because of necessity to her blindness.   Thus she believed she could see things those with sight could not.  I have come to believe the greatest handicap of life is to think of one’s self as handicapped or disabled because we are different. 
 
As a small child I suffered severe brain trauma and damage.   There are things that are very difficult for me.  Spelling for example – sometimes I cannot spell the simplest words.  Reading aloud is a problem because I have difficulty getting word orders correct (spelling is the same problem).  I was made fun of a lot in school and called stupid because I could not do many very simple things.  But there are things I can do that are almost impossible for anyone else.  For example I hear music in factories and can identify manufacturing problems.  Working with robotics in a factory is for me very similar to tuning a musical instrument. 
 
It is my theory that we all come into life with abilities and disabilities.  We all have our weaknesses and strengths.   To me it is not about what you can do that I can’t or what I can do what you can’t.  It is about what we can accomplish together.  And for me team work is such a disadvantage because I am a horrible leader that tends towards difficulty getting my input across without offending someone.   I really need someone like my wife that can explain to everyone else what I am doing.  It amazes me what others bring to the table – even at this forum.  But we all can do much better by seeing the great talents in others and ourselves instead of the weaknesses.
 
I am concerned when we center on each other’s and our own weaknesses rather than on our strengths.  Yah, I know this makes me and anyone that agrees look and seem arrogant.  Okay – get over it – put that thought aside and let’s doing something amazing together.

I think Mental Illness is a very broad term. There are many types of mental disorders and each is to be treated different. Depression for example can be broken down to dysthymia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, postnatal, major depression, bipolar disorder, situational depression, Psychotic depression. From reading Elder Hollands talk it sounded like he was alluding to something that was along the lines of situational depression. However after reading George Albert Smiths biography he certainly suffered from Major depression that actually left him bed ridden and physically exhausted for months and years.
Joseph smith, I think all of us would have suffered some kind of depression if we were put through what he had to endure.
I think Elder Hollands talk struck a cord with a lot of people cause it showed some vulnerability as a leader something not always seen in general conference talks. Often leaders can stand like spiritual giants, having it all together, finding the holy grail of gospel living. Which is fine and very well but sometimes people want to hear, hay I struggled too and that\'s OK? Elder Holland hit that cord in this talk

We don't like that term. We prefer "restorer".

Smith & Wesson

My understanding is that it will be a monthly newsletter with a message from the First Presidency and other bits of information.

Once a month doesn't sound bad. It'll still get it's own special little filter and folder though, so it doesn't get mixed with all the other email messages.

I'll answer with some words of wisdom
 

Heavenly Father is never ungrateful, and He certainly isn't entitled.

This is a super long (by internet standards) article, but I think it's awesome, and very though-provoking.  Please read it, tell me what you think, discuss, argue, bicker, etc.  Thanks! :)
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/

I have no time to read the article...but, I scrolled through and just looking at the pictures brought back some super great memories of when I was a youngster. I so want to go play in that adventurous playground. Run through the tires and try to sit inside them and have someone roll me down the hill. We did that when I was little.
 
I love the backyard forts. My friends and I built plenty of those. We used sheets. My mom always had to go looking in the back yard and take the sheets down that we used to build our big forts. Memories!
 
I am not sure if parents are over protective today... but, I think a lot of them take the easy way out with allowing their children to watch hours upon hours of tv, internet surfing, cell phone texting etc. Sometimes they use those things as babysitters.
 
Parents need to get their children out of the house for play time. It's sad that even a 5 year old knows how to get on the internet... but doesn't know how to build a fort in the back yard. I know it takes extra time to be out there or supervisor activities, but it's well worth the time.
 
Thanks for the memories!

((Continued from previous post))
On a personal level, this may make us frustrated. However, at a policy level, it's completely inconsequential. APA and ACA codes of ethics already deem it unethical for behavioral health professionals to try to change sexual orientation either way. The consequences of being caught doing so range from sanctions up the ying-yang, to loss of license to practice, to malpractice lawsuits.I'm with you that there are most definitely those who have a choice. As you alluded to with your friend above. However, where I get off the boat is when you allude to how rare it is for people to not have a choice. I don't get off the boat because I disagree, I get off the boat because the literature coming out of psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology admit to inconclusive results. In other words, no one knows to what degree it is a choice, and to what degree humans are born with the hardwiring to be that way. The only consensus is that some may be choosing to be gay while others may be hardwired that way. But what percentage either way is indeterminable at this time. So, it's illogical to make a claim one way or another.Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work.I completely agree with you to a large extent. We should not be teaching that we can't control our sexual feelings. We should also not be teaching that sexual arousal doesn't evolve over time. However, sexual orientation is indeed very much innate and typically does not change. I agree with you that we should not blanket statement all of humanity with the notion that orientation doesn't change. But, there is consensus in the medical literature that orientation, for the most part, does not change.Again, we must differentiate between sexual desire/feelings/behaviors/attractions/orientations. While they are all inter-related, they are not intrinsically the same within human nature.
The affective neurosciences are demonstrating through deep brain scan imaging that emotions are our first responses to the environment. They are proto-responses (proto- meaning first, primitive, raw) that serve a specific purpose: to inform us. These emotions from the limbic system are what psychology refers to as primary emotions because they come first in response to that environment. They are 100% uncontrollable. Anyone who argues this is beyond uneducated on the matter and/or has allowed wishful thinking and confirmation bias to cloud their understanding.Now, someone may say, "I used to get mad at my child talking back at me, but now I don't. So that means I am controlling my anger." This is actually fundamental attribution error. Developing a habit to respond a certain way in the exact same situation means neural pathways (habits) have been created for that particular situation. That alone does not mean that you have learned to control your anger by and large. A person would need to demonstrate this through numerous expected/unexpected situations to prove that they are controlling their anger--which no research study to date has successfully demonstrated to be possible. This is why a father has learned not to get angry at his child but still erupts into anger when his subordinate at work becomes argumentative and insubordinate. A person may certainly develop appropriate responses to their primary emotions, and even manage the salience with which they experience them. However, they cannot control them.
Secondary and tertiary emotions are within our capacity to manage, and even control; primary emotions, however, are not.

Doctrinally, this is correct with certain contexts: spiritual vs. carnal. However, human nature is rather more complex. Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Taylor remind us that we are actually polyphonic beings. Meaning, we are multi-voiced beings inescapably engaged in series of ongoing conversations with ourselves, others, the world, and a "super-addressee" (Bakhtin's term for God). We are not governed by an overarching ego, but rather by multiple voices from ourselves and others.No.I have no disagreement here. I am actually with you on this one, TFP. But, where I get off the boat is the question, "To what extent?" Psychologically speaking, we are always subject to possibility and constraint. Meaning, how possible it is for us to change will always be constrained by both internal and external factors. Ex: it is certainly possible for a person with a chemical imbalance to change, but that possibility will always be constrained by the chemical imbalance itself, (what we call in therapy) supportive factors, effectiveness of medication, effectiveness of priesthood blessings, the individual's faith, and quite frankly, God's willingness (cf. Paul's thorn in his side).In other words, I am meeting you way beyond half way here because I agree with you for a very long way down the river. But, I do get off the boat before you because the questions becomes one of possibility vs. constraint: how much change can realistically occur?
A good book on this is The Psychology of Human Possibility and Constraint by Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman.
With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.But, that is in no way evidence that that is what you are doing. And, this isn't intended to be an attack. I could way off base here. I completely recognize that I don't know either way.
The clinical literature from the APA and ACA has not determined this conclusively. The truth is, no one on this planet knows if this statement is accurate or not. Many psychologist don't even consider IED a disorder. That's why it is categorized in the DSM in a separate category. And that category is called by many practicing therapists the "throw away category" because they don't really know what to make of it, it's so-called symptoms, and how it manifests. We actually know very little about both. Again, I am not saying your statement is wrong, I am saying that the most up-to-date clinical literature hasn't been able to determine the accuracy of sich a statement.That's why the LGBTQ community, according to the HRC training I attended back in July, put on by the LGBTQ community, distinguish between behaviors and identity. Engaging in same-sex behaviors is very different than same-sex orientation being a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of a person's self-concept. We must distinguish in these dialogues between those choosing to be gay, and those who are gay. Granted their behaviors make up their orientation and identity. You'll get no argument from me there. The difference I am pointing out is an issue of self-concept.I am not really taking a position with this statement, merely pointing out some psych-education.
100% agreed.

I meant it was relative to context (situation). I tried to clarify in my last post.I forgot there was a whole line of thinking (relativism) that takes this all to a bad extreme.

That sounds like a decidedly dangerous challenge. I hope no one takes you up on it.

From a debate point of view, it almost seems like if I had then I'd be able to back up some of my ideas from personal experience better.
 
But no. I'm about as hetero as they come.
 
My adamant goal, (and you should be well aware of this based on our past history) is to defend the church, the gospel, etc. And, as you also may have noticed, my emphatic stand points stretch to all topics. I am simply emphatic about things.

Doctrinally, this is correct with certain contexts: spiritual vs. carnal. However, human nature is rather more complex. Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Taylor remind us that we are actually polyphonic beings. Meaning, we are multi-voiced beings inescapably engaged in series of ongoing conversations with ourselves, others, the world, and a "super-addressee" (Bakhtin's term for God). We are not governed by an overarching ego, but rather by multiple voices from ourselves and others.No.I have no disagreement here. I am actually with you on this one, TFP. But, where I get off the boat is the question, "To what extent?" Psychologically speaking, we are always subject to possibility and constraint. Meaning, how possible it is for us to change will always be constrained by both internal and external factors. Ex: it is certainly possible for a person with a chemical imbalance to change, but that possibility will always be constrained by the chemical imbalance itself, (what we call in therapy) supportive factors, effectiveness of medication, effectiveness of priesthood blessings, the individual's faith, and quite frankly, God's willingness (cf. Paul's thorn in his side).In other words, I am meeting you way beyond half way here because I agree with you for a very long way down the river. But, I do get off the boat before you because the questions becomes one of possibility vs. constraint: how much change can realistically occur?
A good book on this is The Psychology of Human Possibility and Constraint by Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman.
With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.But, that is in no way evidence that that is what you are doing. And, this isn't intended to be an attack. I could way off base here. I completely recognize that I don't know either way.
The clinical literature from the APA and ACA has not determined this conclusively. The truth is, no one on this planet knows if this statement is accurate or not. Many psychologist don't even consider IED a disorder. That's why it is categorized in the DSM in a separate category. And that category is called by many practicing therapists the "throw away category" because they don't really know what to make of it, it's so-called symptoms, and how it manifests. We actually know very little about both. Again, I am not saying your statement is wrong, I am saying that the most up-to-date clinical literature hasn't been able to determine the accuracy of sich a statement.That's why the LGBTQ community, according to the HRC training I attended back in July, put on by the LGBTQ community, distinguish between behaviors and identity. Engaging in same-sex behaviors is very different than same-sex orientation being a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of a person's self-concept. We must distinguish in these dialogues between those choosing to be gay, and those who are gay. Granted their behaviors make up their orientation and identity. You'll get no argument from me there. The difference I am pointing out is an issue of self-concept.I am not really taking a position with this statement, merely pointing out some psych-education.
100% agreed.

((Continued from previous post))
On a personal level, this may make us frustrated. However, at a policy level, it's completely inconsequential. APA and ACA codes of ethics already deem it unethical for behavioral health professionals to try to change sexual orientation either way. The consequences of being caught doing so range from sanctions up the ying-yang, to loss of license to practice, to malpractice lawsuits.I'm with you that there are most definitely those who have a choice. As you alluded to with your friend above. However, where I get off the boat is when you allude to how rare it is for people to not have a choice. I don't get off the boat because I disagree, I get off the boat because the literature coming out of psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology admit to inconclusive results. In other words, no one knows to what degree it is a choice, and to what degree humans are born with the hardwiring to be that way. The only consensus is that some may be choosing to be gay while others may be hardwired that way. But what percentage either way is indeterminable at this time. So, it's illogical to make a claim one way or another.Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work.I completely agree with you to a large extent. We should not be teaching that we can't control our sexual feelings. We should also not be teaching that sexual arousal doesn't evolve over time. However, sexual orientation is indeed very much innate and typically does not change. I agree with you that we should not blanket statement all of humanity with the notion that orientation doesn't change. But, there is consensus in the medical literature that orientation, for the most part, does not change.Again, we must differentiate between sexual desire/feelings/behaviors/attractions/orientations. While they are all inter-related, they are not intrinsically the same within human nature.
The affective neurosciences are demonstrating through deep brain scan imaging that emotions are our first responses to the environment. They are proto-responses (proto- meaning first, primitive, raw) that serve a specific purpose: to inform us. These emotions from the limbic system are what psychology refers to as primary emotions because they come first in response to that environment. They are 100% uncontrollable. Anyone who argues this is beyond uneducated on the matter and/or has allowed wishful thinking and confirmation bias to cloud their understanding.Now, someone may say, "I used to get mad at my child talking back at me, but now I don't. So that means I am controlling my anger." This is actually fundamental attribution error. Developing a habit to respond a certain way in the exact same situation means neural pathways (habits) have been created for that particular situation. That alone does not mean that you have learned to control your anger by and large. A person would need to demonstrate this through numerous expected/unexpected situations to prove that they are controlling their anger--which no research study to date has successfully demonstrated to be possible. This is why a father has learned not to get angry at his child but still erupts into anger when his subordinate at work becomes argumentative and insubordinate. A person may certainly develop appropriate responses to their primary emotions, and even manage the salience with which they experience them. However, they cannot control them.
Secondary and tertiary emotions are within our capacity to manage, and even control; primary emotions, however, are not.