I would argue that defining mental illness by the DSM-6 is a really bad way of defining mental illness.

The same DSM previously said homosexuality and female hysteria were illnesses, and still causes black people to be diagnosed more frequently as anti-social because black children get labeled with conduct disorders more often that white children (quite likely due to racism), and still categories people as narcissistic based on a Greek myth. The DSM is so malleable and fluid because it was never based on science to begin with. Yes, these writers are oracles and soothsayers with Ph.D’s, but anyone with enough time and money can buy credits for such an unrigorous “scientific” discipline.

It’s really mostly only useful as an insurance billing tool, and one day there will be universal health care and hopefully the whole glossary of tripe can be forgotten, stored in the rare books section next to the textbooks about phrenology.

In defense of insurance companies, medical costs are astronomical because doctor professional associations protect doctor wages. Why do I need a 400 an hour doctor to prescribe an antibiotic for a bladder infection? Many people want to doctors and don’t get admitted into medical school. Instead of delegating less difficult responsibilities to this interested group of people by creating a more tiered system of expertise, the AMA hoards all the decisions for the doctors, fleeces and extorts the public, then scapegoats the insurance industry which is trying to reduce unfair costs while taking a slice of the parasite pie. The gullible public eats the slop right up, blaming insurance companies, never batting an eye at the exploitation of the public by doctors.

never underestimate the rage of cult members threatened with the cognitive dissonance of all their cherished moronic views being wrong. the cult of mental health has spoken: down-vote

Plenty of people who are not scientologists believe psychiatry and psychology are corruption incarnate. Sometimes I wonder whether scientology was invented by psychiatry to discredit those who point out its lack of efficacy, cruelty, and financial exploitation of vulnerable and naive people.

If you give your ID to a 3rd party company in the US, it’s impossible to know if they will delete you ID or whether you’ll be added secretly to a facial recognition system.

The US is allowed to issue secret orders to companies demanding they do things in the interest of “security.” They can also issue gag orders forcing companies to not talk about the secret orders. Therefore, any US company may be secretly forced to violate it’s supposed terms. A company that collects biometric information seems like it would be especially likely to be targeted.

Facebook, Instagram, and other social media such as Linked In are likely the largest source of law enforcement information being fed to facial recognition systems. Given the dystopian “ideals” of some politicians, I consider it a risk and wouldn’t do it. Your country may not be sharing that information with the US already.

Additionally, some of these companies have become the main way people get employed, rent things, or buy things. Because these companies serve a public function but are officially private, they can de-platform people for any reason, with no meaningful appeal, creating havoc and misery for an affected person. If you have been flagged to be banned, by giving them your ID, you will let them ban you based on a government document forever. Their system may have flagged you for verification, but it could have also flagged you to be banned forever based on TOS violations.

If you abandon your account, you can always create a new account, then later claim a hacker got you or your forgot your email password. If you provide an ID, you may be linking a government record to biometric information to something they can ban.

A company may also be claiming that they get rid of an ID but still keep a hash of some combination of biometric information.

In theory, anyone in Facebook in California should be able to submit a CCPA request to delete all information, including ban information, and then go on Facebook again, even after a lifetime ban. Anyone in the EU should be able to do this too through GDPR. But this doesn’t happen, because Facebook lies and is also just a rebranding of Lifelog.

I would say this would make the DSM of mental illnesses arbitrary, but the DSM also contains at least 1 mental illness based on a Greek mythological character.

Much of the mental health industry is an intersection of religion, new age mumbo gumbo, a dash of science, capitalism, and what society finds socially acceptable. It was only in recent decades that homosexuality and female hysteria (which required clitoral stimulation as the cure) were removed from the hocus pocus DSM, which pretends to have scientific rigor and never has and likely never will.

Columbia was already known to play loose with ethics (when it submitted information to US News & World report that inflated it’s national ranking so much that US News removed them temporarily from the national rankings), and this just makes them seem to be a school that caves in to money and lacks integrity.

If a student at Columbia engaging in controversial speech can be subject to degree revocation, why would anyone with any ideas other than the banal choose to foster new, risky, or exciting ideas there?

Which AI model is this?

I think this sounds nice, but often even with close people this doesn’t work well and a depressed person risks damaging the relationship. A spouse or best friend will sometimes deal with it for a year. They often won’t deal with it for yearS. I have a hard time envisioning you’ve been extraordinarily depressed before, even if you’ve been technically depressed and took Proaz for a month, and I doubt anything like that has even happened.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a real thing.

This is the view of someone who is slightly bummed out and not horribly depressed.

Some people have children murdered in war, damaged body parts, or people they love dead. Others have tried to date over and over, exercise and eat healthy, and are single virgins at 30 because no one finds them romantically attractive. Other people have extreme financial hardships while dealing with chronic incurable medical conditions like Huntington’s.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but for the people whose children were murdered in war, eating veggies may not improve things much.

The desire to thrive at any cost usually only exists when problems are theoretically fixable. You can’t bring back dead children, someone who has lost a body part and has chronic phantom pain isn’t going to become a neuroscientist and solve that problem while in chronic pain.

I feel like platitudes like that “Just overcome it bro. Exercise and veggies and grit” don’t help the majority of people with severe emotional problems. Once again, these ideas seem like ideas that help you, the reader of that post, feel better about depression existing rather than do anything for people who are depressed.

But I feel like you are in good company because it feels like 90 percent of mental health posts and slogans are really “Your depression is inconvenient for me and society and your possible suicide down the line may upset me. We support you! Call this number so we can lock you up and drug you, then bill you $30,000 and force you to work even harder while drugged up so we feel less annoyed about your ennui and sorrow.”

Like I get that your transitory sadness has been something you overcome with tech bro grit, but tech bro grit doesn’t overcome most reasons for severe depression that results not in brief suicide ideation but like getting to the stage of “What method will work best for me?” when people start buying tools to help them die or coming up with timelines and rewriting wills and debating whether to try to make it seem accidental so as to not harm loved ones.

I am glad you have grit and this works for you. Keep pushing. I just don’t like the messaging in society that feels like this needs to be a solvable problem because others are annoyed or saddened by it.

This isn’t realistic.

I’ve dealt with depression before.

People will say they want to support you and want to know what’s going on. If you describe a problem, the person listening almost always offers a solution. If you start to explain why their solution won’t work, they almost instantly get super annoyed and may suddenly become unavailable the next time you call.

People want to think of themselves as the type of person who would be supportive of a depressed person, but most “supportive” people who feel this way still adhere to normal social mores and expectations and get pissed or annoyed when a depressed person doesn’t follow them. It’s also super hard for a depressed person to simultaneously discus their depression and adhere to unwritten social niceties.

If I as a depressed person keep my feelings to myself, if I get better I still may have friends and if I die at least some people may show up to my funeral. If I lean on non-depressed people for support, they will expect normal social responses that adhere to unwritten codes and will get annoyed, the result being for me at best fewer friends and at worst a cremation with no one who cares about the ashes.

Honestly fuck that tweet or whatever. Shit like that is bout making society feel better with corporatesque platitudes like “Mental Health Awareness is Important! See something say something!” or whatever empty cheerleading slogan exists to encourage the workers while the most poor of all rot on the street (unless they fall asleep, causing them to be arrested, whenceupon they are fed in jail). Most people do not give a fuck, that’s why a homeless subpopulation exists, fuck this planet and fuck empty tweets like this.

No… This makes you seem real but based on that post I will always know you are AI.

That’s wild. Clearly AI.

So the value is getting a reputation on Lemmy to then influence or peddle shit?

Or is it a testing ground?

No human writes like that.

ew

time to become secretly addicted to netbsd

Removed by mod

Sometimes pretending to be too socially stupid to be deceptive has advantages. This seems naive.

Removed by mod

deleted by creator

Your logic (“I can’t believe it so it’s likely untrue”) is flawed. “I can’t believe the world is round so Occam’s razor it must be flat because that I can understand.”

Putin is very smart and the KGB were smart and they bested US intelligence, according to the now deleted article, not in those exact words. Why is that so implausible?

There could just as easily be other bought or compromised US officials, not just Trump. The thinking “but this couldn’t really happen, it’s too sneaky and complicated!” is a pretty naive counterpoint.