a few cultural differences

[nomadthethird]

You should be on Luvox. And possibly Buspar.*

St00pid to treat depression in someone with OCD without treating the OCD first.

NEVER GO TO A GP FOR A PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS. That's like going to a guy who does body repair to get your engine fixed.

By the way, Fluoxetine is *not* serotonin. It's a reuptake inhibitor. It's not that you're not "tolerating" serotonin, it's that chances are, you don't have a big problem modulating serotonin production in the first place. It's also generic, and sometimes they have worse side-effects than the brand name.

I'm surprised s/he didn't start with Pristiq if s/he was going to treat depression in someone with OCD, ffs. Though I don't know if that's available other places.

Anyway, I can't take them either, because they cause mania in people with bipolar disorder (unless you take an anti-psychotic with them).

*Even I can tell from your post that your primary symptom is anxiety, not depression...

 

[nomadthethird]

But environment can generally override genetics. (Switch off genes etc, correct me if I'm wrong).

You're wrong. That's not how plasticity works. Nothing's being "overriden" by the environment. Differently regulated, maybe, but not overriden.

 

[nomadthethird]

the notion that antidepressants work by (just by) increasing serotonin is highly speculative.

Nobody in the medical profession thinks this.

 

[grizzleb]

NEVER GO TO A GP FOR A PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS. That's like going to a guy who does body repair to get your engine fixed..

That's all you can really do in the UK, without going through waiting lists of 1 year + to see a psychiatrist. I've heard a million and one equivalent horror stories off the back of SSRIs.
four five one's case is another unfortunate example of exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Numbers]

Hah, all that talk 'bout suicide and nobody mentions good, old Durkheim. Gotta love that DNA-fascism.

 

[scottdisco]

Hah, all that talk 'bout suicide and nobody mentions good, old Durkheim. Gotta love that DNA-fascism.

how dare you m99188868! why, i had my own half-arsed mention of ancient afternoons in school (the usual scottdisco pseudo-profundity) a few pages ago.

true to form, i didn't actually say anything, but the thought was there

ach man, that's horrible to hear. i'm sorry

isn't it the case (please stop me if i'm crossing over into some mythic line the outside world gets wrong about Japan) that you do get plenty of office joes offing themselves for (the ostensible 'reason', anyway) some minor professional infringement?

apologies to any/all if i sound so dim-witted on this issue, suicide, suicide stats, etc isn't something i've considered really at all since i was 16 and reading up on Durkheim and anomie etc etc for sociology class...

 

[hucks]

That's an interesting graph, but it does make me wonder: how exactly are they quantising "health and social problems"? I mean, there must be a virtually infinite number of different ways you could apportion weight and significance to all kinds of different indicators. In contrast to income inequality, which is well defined.

From what I can gather from reading the book, the Index of Social Problems is All the Things We Have Looked at in This Book, which is problematic, at best. Presumably, and I don't think they go into this in the book, this index is a simple composite ranking of eg health, crime, incarceration etc, as is the income inequality across the x axis. Which is why you get such a tight line of best fit, and why (@Scott) the income inequalities look so stark. In reality, the difference in income inequality in the UK and Canada (for instance) isn't that massive.

The big problem going through the book is that the correlations (eg crime higher in more unequal countries) is taken for causation. They do point this out, but are forced to skate over it a bit to make their case.

From what I've looked at, the type of measure of inequality you use (Gini coefficient, 90:10 ration, 80:20 ratio) makes a difference to the rankings of the countries, too. Which means the analysis is not that robust.

You also get stuff like incarceration rates being higher in more unequal countries, but this surely can't be cause and effect. You could easily incarcerate loads of people (eg New Labour since 1997) without any difference to inequality one way or the other ( also New Labour since 1997).

All of which is a shame, cos I'd like to agree with them, but the evidence in a lot of places isn't that strong. The stuff on health, though, is fascinating, and that's where both of the authors come from. They're both epidemiologists, if I recall.

 

[scottdisco]

From what I can gather from reading the book, the Index of Social Problems is All the Things We Have Looked at in This Book, which is problematic, at best. Presumably, and I don't think they go into this in the book, this index is a simple composite ranking of eg health, crime, incarceration etc, as is the income inequality across the x axis. Which is why you get such a tight line of best fit, and why (@scott) the income inequalities look so stark. In reality, the difference in income inequality in the UK and Canada (for instance) isn't that massive.

The big problem going through the book is that the correlations (eg crime higher in more unequal countries) is taken for causation. They do point this out, but are forced to skate over it a bit to make their case.

From what I've looked at, the type of measure of inequality you use (Gini coefficient, 90:10 ration, 80:20 ratio) makes a difference to the rankings of the countries, too. Which means the analysis is not that robust.

You also get stuff like incarceration rates being higher in more unequal countries, but this surely can't be cause and effect. You could easily incarcerate loads of people (eg New Labour since 1997) without any difference to inequality one way or the other ( also New Labour since 1997).

All of which is a shame, cos I'd like to agree with them, but the evidence in a lot of places isn't that strong. The stuff on health, though, is fascinating, and that's where both of the authors come from. They're both epidemiologists, if I recall.

cheers hucks, nice one. (granted, i fear i may have overstated my credulity in quite how stark differences were in implying that i felt the graph's pictorial representation was the be-all and end-all of rating the differences across states.)

interesting you said Canada specifically, as i know their 90's debt reduction ideas are getting touted around a lot across the pond in recent times as how to reduce govt debt, when AFAICT Ottawa's measures then just resulted in a winnowing out of services/ramping up of hardship for lower income Canadians, thus possibly/probably exarcerbating Canadian inequality.

don't different bodies (eg World Bank, UN) end up coming at Gini slightly differently? (sorry if i'm being stupid hucks, and your 90:10, 80:20 ratios shout is a direct reference to this, but i am a total duffer for these sorts of things.)

that Wilkinson chap is an epidemiologist, deffo.

(though i guess i don't want to make it sound like i'm piling on to the Canadian govt specifically above; inequality rose in most places throughout the 00's i believe, after all.)

re Gini, @hucks (or any other kindly person that has the patience to explain) when i said what i said about Gini i just meant if you take the table from this Wiki list of countries by income inequality here you get some different measurements of Gini depending on your source eg UNDP, Cia Factbook.

now, is that just because naturally different bodies will collect slightly different data about these sorts of things in the first place, or, is it because there is more than one way of interpreting and using the Gini system?

(again, apologies if this sounds sub-sixth form questioning, i am a total ignoramus i must admit )

 

[nomadthethird]

That's all you can really do in the UK, without going through waiting lists of 1 year + to see a psychiatrist. I've heard a million and one equivalent horror stories off the back of SSRIs.
four five one's case is another unfortunate example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Well then your health system sucks and is biased against the mentally ill.

Although, it's distinctly possible that Four_five_one is not mentally ill at all, and doesn't need medication.

 

[nomadthethird]

Ah yes, Durkheim.

Some random "authority figure" who lived a hundred years ago before molecular genetics existed... better consult him before we draw any conclusions based on hard data.

While we're at it, maybe we should ask Pope Benedict X about the arrangement of the solar system.

 

[scottdisco]

Ah yes, Durkheim.

Some random "authority figure" who lived a hundred years ago before molecular genetics existed... better consult him before we draw any conclusions based on hard data.

While we're at it, maybe we should ask Pope Benedict X about the arrangement of the solar system.

i got an undergrad degree in sociology and social anthro from a university that was at least at that time rated very well for those things (bully for me...), and must say my favourite thing about Durkheim are the cartoon caricatures of his wondrous facial fuzz

that's pretty much all you need to know about the guy, to be blunt

 

[nomadthethird]

i got an undergrad degree in sociology and social anthro from a university that was at least at that time rated very well for those things (bully for me...), and must say my favourite thing about Durkheim are the cartoon caricatures of his wondrous facial fuzz

Read some of his stuff in grad school, but I haven't the faintest memory of it. Most sociology writing I've read is dry-- even drier than philosophy... admire anyone with the patience...

I was close with a sociology professor at my college first time around and he was always talking about Durkheim and Weber, etc.

 

[Numbers]

Scottdisco: my bad, I did read over that bit. I liked the cartoon as well.

Nomad: Calling Durkheim a random authoritative figure is a bit unfair, although I can see where this is coming from. Still: his suicide studies are certainly a bit dated, but they managed to explain suicidal behavior without recurring to psychological or biological motivations. I believe that's really not to be taken lightly and I'll take his dull texts over any "hard facts" that claim that any deviant behavior has its roots written down somewhere in our DNA at birth. Why people tend to prefer biological over social determination is beyond me, really.

 

[matt b]

That's an interesting graph, but it does make me wonder: how exactly are they quantising "health and social problems"? I mean, there must be a virtually infinite number of different ways you could apportion weight and significance to all kinds of different indicators. In contrast to income inequality, which is well defined.

For example, the "social problems" index presumably doesn't attach too much significance to the suicide rate, which is twice as high in Sweden as is it in the (apparently highly dysfunctional) UK. And Japan's is far higher still. OK, so there's more to how 'healthy' a society is than how low or high the suicide rate is, but to me it seems a pretty significant figure.

All the data are from World Bank, WHO, UN, OECD etc and use a variety of methods, both statistical and qualitative. It's all mentioned/discussed in detail in the book and the authors are aware of the issues.

BTW, you do realise that suicide is a social construct?

 

[matt b]

I would ask, 'What does it take to be in the bottom-left of that graph?' and I would say that these are the prerequisites:

- very strong economy, so that income equalising measures can be financed
- high cultural homogeneity, with attendant strong sense of obligation to the collective
- low reporting of health/social problems, as individuals feel obliged to the collective
- poor collection of health/social problem data, as collective self-concept comes first

In order to maintain its position in the bottom-left, a country would need to be un-accepting both to cultural outliers and to outlying individuals (with health/social problems), hence the restrictive Scandinavian and highly restrictive Japanese immigration policies.

Even for you, this is an idiotic set of prerequistes (yes, ad hominen...). Point 1 makes no sense whatsoever; points 2,3 and 4: the data collected is not soley qualitative, but includes life expectancy, infant mortality etc, which people, even when they feel a monstrous obligation to the collective will struggle not to report.

I suggest you go and read the book.

 

[nomadthethird]

is beyond me, really.

Yes, apparently...

 

[nomadthethird]

BTW, you do realise that suicide is a social construct?

Wow someone just took a sophomore seminar at the liberal arts school of pomo.

 

[matt b]

Wow someone just took a sophomore seminar at the liberal arts school of pomo.

Nope, but got to go to a meeting now. May expand later

 

[nomadthethird]

Do you realize that culture is natural? It's an evolutionary adaptation? That there's no line of demarcation between nature and culture?

 

[matt b]

To be brief, suicide rates (rather than the act itself) is a social construct based upon how suicide is defined, stigma related to the act, the nature of the death, where & when it took place, whether or not the victim had close family members, issues surrounding the person's life etc.

There are plenty of studies that address these issues.

For example, coroners use 'common sense' definitions regarding suicide, so if the victim lived alone, drank a lot etc, the death is much more likely to be classified as a suicide rather than an accident, compared to a seemingly happy family man.

One of the reasons why Scandanavian countries have higher suicide rates than in the UK is that their definition of 'suicide is broader/looser than the one here- you can give the two sets of coroners the same set of case studies and they come out with very different suicide rates.