Sociopath Community

You first. Many of us have answered it already somewhere on the forum.

I believe it works for some.  If you hear voices, by all means grab a pill.  But if you are sad, get over it.  Depression should be called living smartly.  

Almost every woman over 35 years old I know chomps on depression meds.  It is such a fucking joke.  

The cure for depression is being thrown into an area with absolutely nothing to do except survive.  Get off the phone, facebook, and your boyfriend's cock.  It is all about everyone but you stupid.  That is your fucking problem.  Make it about you.

"Psychiatry is not a perfect science, but it is one that can be generally useful when properly practiced."
The main issue I see is a divide in opinion (from the more honest ones anyway). Some believe they are people who need help, while many many others are detached and see it as "an affliction" that must "be cured". The affliction assumption types are quicker to throw pills at you from not being able to relate to the problems at hand. It's like how alcoholic patients can compare psych people to AA participants, the lack of understanding and personal experience has them less likely to respond to it positively.

"There are some conditions for which medications can be life savers. Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and seizure disorders come to mind immediately."
Schizophrenia it depends on the case and if it's a matter of stress triggers or if it's constant. If they can be made to recognize the problems instead of believe the fabricated world thrown in front of them they can sort through some of the insanity.

"With some other conditions, psychiatry's role is somewhat of a gray area."
Gilded pockets for one...

"For instance, what is psychiatry's place in treating depression, or ADHD?"
An issue of overdiagnosis/misdiagnosis. It's super easy to get those labels.

"Pharmaceutical drugs have in our culture become "quick fix" drugs, in the same way that weight loss drugs have. "Take a pill a day and your problems will go away." There are many people who believe that pharmaceutical drugs are being over-prescribed, and I am one of them."
Same deal here. It's hard to see it as helpful when they develop a tolerance and have withdrawal symptoms that leave the patient ending up worse off than when they started, hard to see it as honest when they are quick to go towards answers that make them rich, and when the patients get older they're put on a cocktail of meds to treat the side effects of medications that are treating the side effects of other medications.

Part of why I want to go in the field is to not be one of those. Their bandage answer is a slow acting poison.

"For instance, I think that there are far too many hyperactive kids who don't pay attention in class that get put on Ritalin or Adderall."
Agreed. Adderall fucks people up more often than it helps people, especially if prescribed while they're still growing. It doesn't help that it's extremely easy to misuse. I knew people who'd take it as a weight loss solution since taking it without food can make you not feel hunger for the entire day. I also knew people who'd take it to substitute sleeping, leaving them red in the face and half-crazed as the fatigue set in unnoticed to them but obviously to those around them.

Tried it briefly, it's pretty crazy. Hard to believe something like that is given primarily from doctors and not drug dealers.

As for Ritalin, I've seen that make a fair amount of zombies. Most more openly recognize their hate of the side effects compared to Adderall. It scares me that some prescribers will instruct that they take speed before they sleep to deprive themselves of REM, like that's supposed to be a healthy solution.

"Firstly, many kids are naturally hyperactive, and secondly, maybe they're just not all that interested in the schooling they have no choice but to attend."
Thirdly, there's likely another context that might be leading to the behaviors even outside of the "kids have energy" clause, like problems at home with the parents or with siblings. So many clinicians do not explore context nearly far enough.

"If you take serotonin-boosting drugs to make you feel better, then you're going to have a mood boost if the drugs work, but you haven't resolved what caused you to feel depressed in the first place."
Even if the depression source context is cured while on it, they are still acquiring other newer problems from it. For many when it's given before a certain age, the "quick fix solution" bandage notion spreads to all aspects of their believed life, giving up whenever something cannot be solved in one or two swift steps. Go figure many of them become pill poppers and powder users if not other forms of chemical escapism in such a time where escapism is not only desired, but the norm.

As for the rest of it, I've always been a big fan of Behaviorism. In many regards it's seen as disregarding the depths of the mind, but it also isn't daring to claim bullshit about "the subconscious" or "dream symbology" as readily and openly.

Some of the drugs do the trick, I just don't think most people know what that trick is. I personally think illegal drugs have much more potential to help people. Unfortunately moderation is not the way with most, so, the psychologists have to use the hard shitty drugs. They're harder than illegals if you ask me. And yes, I know more than you.

Each of the fields that you mention have several inherent dynamics to them which must be weighed into consideration if we are to evaluate them properly.

Psychiatry, as a practice, serves the function of helping people overcome mental disturbance by chemically altering one's neurology. Of course we cannot know for certain that a person will react to a drug positively. Some people experience more side effects from a drug than others do. Some people are completely unaffected by a drug, while others have adverse reactions. Some drugs carry more risks with them. The psychiatrist (at least one who is good at their job) must evaluate all of these factors together. Psychiatry is not a perfect science, but it is one that can be generally useful when properly practiced.

There are some conditions for which medications can be life savers. Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and seizure disorders come to mind immediately. With some other conditions, psychiatry's role is somewhat of a gray area. For instance, what is psychiatry's place in treating depression, or ADHD? Might a psychologist and no drugs be better for some of the people who have those conditions? Or perhaps seeing both a psychologist and a psychiatrist?

Pharmaceutical drugs have in our culture become "quick fix" drugs, in the same way that weight loss drugs have. "Take a pill a day and your problems will go away." There are many people who believe that pharmaceutical drugs are being over-prescribed, and I am one of them.

For instance, I think that there are far too many hyperactive kids who don't pay attention in class that get put on Ritalin or Adderall. Firstly, many kids are naturally hyperactive, and secondly, maybe they're just not all that interested in the schooling they have no choice but to attend. But because these behaviors have become synonymous with a popular concept known as ADHD, and pills have become synonymous with quick fixes, you have kids being put on speed, with little regard to what the long-term effects of that may be. The same goes for depression. Depression is most often the culmination of a set of negative emotions which have taken deep root into a person's psyche. If you take serotonin-boosting drugs to make you feel better, then you're going to have a mood boost if the drugs work, but you haven't resolved what caused you to feel depressed in the first place. The drugs may help in the resolution process, but I have personally known many people for which they haven't.

Psychology is a science which continually grows and improves. I find cognitive psychology particularly neat, and many interesting phenomena have been discovered in that field, such as the framing effect, which basically states that how information is framed influences decision making, and researchers have made many discoveries deepen our understanding of how that happens.

If I remember correctly from the psychology courses I took at university, psychoanalysis is not a particularly results-producing field. I could be wrong at that though, and don't feel like doing research on it at the moment after typing all of this up.

There's a reason why "speculative" is tacked onto it, but I'd say they make sense when collaborated alongside past real life events. Each pattern likely roots from somewhere, and if it's on a wide enough scale it can be worth looking into the cause. Understanding people helps companies scam others weaknesses, like how businesses and casinos can go about profiting off of it.

Everything we believe ourselves to know is just theories anyway, but people do tend to follow patterns. Even if the reasons why might be off-base, the cause and effect can still be studied. Any theories greased to becoming a believed one from paying off the right people can still be disproved elsewhere, and "Science" is about being willing to be wrong, not about always being right.

Edit: People answering beyond the typical pattern show as variation from it. It'd still show a theme, or at least have the lie show a pattern that might be questioned itself. People choosing to not answer honestly might push for a different experiment to get around that.

That data could very well be bullshit...I have done countless psychological experiments for money (some of them paid a pretty penny too) and I can probably gaurentee you that I lied on every single one of them...for various reasons like purposely throwing off data (because I'm an asshole, I'm getting paid to be an asshole and I hate money actually funding that kind of shit) or just not wanting to answer properly because they were too personal

Psychology is a first world "science". it's like a scam in my opinion, what rich people think of to get money

those two videos are the result of people having too much time on their hands

Why only 5%, because the people who practice it themselves in an interactive sense fail to utilize it properly?

There's still the trials where humans are more like lab rats in the name of learning, what about that data?

What do you mean lab rats?

Do you mean social experiments or me giving you some experimental drug? Because i'd give two different answers for that