Larian Studios - Swen In Search of Women

Ripper said:

The key thing is that a person might well have some intellectual insight into their problems, but they are too entrenched in an emotional and psychological pattern to dig themselves out by choosing to. The point of psychological therapy is just like psysiotherapy - just knowing what's wrong doesn't fix it, but a consistent, planned, monitored process can improve it.

Click to expand...

In relation to the thread, this is what I was meaning. I oversimplified it by saying "telling people things they already know."

Wisdom said:

Its precisely the emotional attachment to the perceived "details and complexities" that make an easy solution unreachable for the person.

Its exactly why people pay billions worldwide for a therapist to tell them exactly what they already know… There is nothing groundbreaking in therapy. Its mostly someone explaining why emotions are preventing the person from moving forward.

Click to expand...

Personally I think people pay for a therapist just to be able to tell them all that's on their mind. Therapy as a kind of modern priest, therapy as some sort of a religious confession? Or a therapist, as a handy, always willing, modern best friend?
They visit the therapist - "s/he is good, s/he really understands me" - because the therapist is like you said telling them things they already know. S/he is a parrot - a mirror. Doesn't mean the proposed solution helps though, or that the person will indeed be able to move forward when putting theory into practice.

Eye said:

Therapy as a kind of modern priest, therapy as some sort of a religious confession? Or a therapist, as a handy, always willing, modern best friend?

Click to expand...

That is quite often how therapists are used, and just that trusted chat and understanding from another human being is all that some people need. There are very different cases though, and I know some therapists who wouldn't want to do that kind of work, because they don't feel that is their role. It's a massive field, with many (often contradictory) schools of thought. Sadly, I know a few that I wouldn't trust to change a lightbulb, let alone engage with people's deepest emotions.

Ripper said:

That is quite often how therapists are used, and just that trusted chat and understanding from another human being is all that some people need. There are very different cases though, and I know some therapists who wouldn't want to do that kind of work, because they don't feel that is their role. It's a massive field, with many (often contradictory) schools of thought. Sadly, I know a few that I wouldn't trust to change a lightbulb, let alone engage with people's deepest emotions.

Click to expand...

I think it is a soft science, psycho-therapy as well as a large part of psychiatry.
Talking to …. or following the school/programme/steps of … might work. And it might not. What are the odds? Great if it does work though, of course.

Eye said:

I think it is a soft science, psycho-therapy as well as a large of psychiatry.
Talking to …. or following the school/programme/steps of … might work. And it might not. What are the odds? Great if it does work though, of course.

Click to expand...

Well, I think it is fair to call it a soft science, because so much of it is built upon contentious theory, without a solid understanding of the pathology that physical medicine has. That said, it is our best effort with the knowledge we have, and I've seen it help a lot of people.

A lot of the definitions of psychological problems are done essentially by looking at patterns of dysfunction that recur in a fairly identifiable way. Matching these with the proper treatments certainly yields better results than pure chance.

Ripper said:

A lot of the definitions of psychological problems are done essentially by looking at patterns of dysfunction that recur in a fairly identifiable way. Matching these with the proper treatments certainly yields better results than pure chance.

Click to expand...

What do you think of DSM 5? I have read they were even discussing to label shyness as a disorder! Me thinks they're in desperate need of new patients...

Eye said:

What do you think of DSM 5? I have read they were even discussing to label shyness as a disorder! Me thinks they're in desperate need of new patients…

Click to expand...

It's always been controversial - DSM 1 had homosexuality in it! There is also quite a lot of heated debate over the degree of influence the drug companies had over it. Medicine, sadly, is not immune to the shenanigans that affect the rest of society.

IMO, this stuff should never be taken as a bible, and the appropriate stance of anyone involved should be one of humility and caution. Unfortunately, I have seen more than enough arrogance and undue certainty in this area.

That said, there is plenty of valuable information that has the potential to help a lot of people, as best we can.

This study shows that even though women are underrepresented as both founders and funders on crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, they’re more likely to get funded.
-> Source

So maybe Swen needs some more Swenjas in his team.

Ripper said:

It's always been controversial - DSM 1 had homosexuality in it! There is also quite a lot of heated debate over the degree of influence the drug companies had over it. Medicine, sadly, is not immune to the shenanigans that affect the rest of society.

Click to expand...

True! And since DSM 5, so I have read, BDSM is finally in the clear. Haha.

Shenigans… I have seen a documentary once about practices in psychiatry. Saddening.

Drug companies… Money is corrupting research, dictating the topics and the results, the enormous power of The Lancet and other medical journals, the pressure on researchers to be in them and to fabricate evidence just to be mentioned in the media with a catchy oneliner… One sometimes wonders whether science will still progress in the future….

HiddenX said:

This study shows that even though women are underrepresented as both founders and funders on crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, they’re more likely to get funded.
-> Source

Click to expand...

Smile:

and find evidence that some of lower investment in female-led projects by men can be attributed to taste-based discrimination.

Click to expand...

HiddenX said:

So maybe Swen needs some more Swenjas in his team.

Click to expand...

Let's kick him out.

Eye said:

Drug companies… Money is corrupting research, dictating the topics and the results, the enormous power of The Lancet and other medical journals, the pressure on researchers to be in them and to fabricate evidence just to be mentioned in the media with a catchy oneliner… One sometimes wonders whether science will still progress in the future….

Click to expand...

Of course it will Just at a pace that allows the drawing of profit from each stage of progress. Its the way the world is set up and human nature. You can't change it.

Wisdom said:

Of course it will Just at a pace that allows the drawing of profit from each stage of progress. Its the way the world is set up and human nature. You can't change it.

Click to expand...

Making a profit is fine. But corruption is bad.

Stockholders concentrate on the short term. But unfortunately the (undesired) effects of a drug take years and years to get known (to the public and prescribers).

Users and stockholders are often two seperate groups. It won't be the first time when people profit from other peoples misery, even when those making the profit are well aware of the devastating effects of the drug/treatment - they're not the ones suffering.

Well known drugs, with a good reputation, that have been used for years but that are no longer patented are being pushed out of the market because companies can make bigger profits with new, patented, unknown drugs with unknown side-effects; doctors are manipulated to prescribe the new drugs.

Research is focused on products that enables companies to make a profit. But it is also very helpful to know what does not work and why. Also, some products can't be patented, so they are not getting the attention they deserve when focussing on health promotion.

Research is focussed on troubles that affect the (physiological and mental) health or (potential) problems of the rich part of the world population, and/or on diseases that affect many patients.
Serving the poor or the rare would mean red figures for the industry so those groups are on their own.

Note. Often drugs do not cure. Many drugs merely lessen the symptoms, the harmful outcome - they do not deal with the core of the problem, the thing that's causing trouble.

Making profit is the way the world is set up, I agree. But regulation is needed to get rid of excesses.