30 minutes:46 seconds
Despite the positive changes in the side effect profile of antidepressant drugs, the rate of admissions due to antidepressant-associated adverse behavioral effects remains significant.
free online article at The Journal of Neuroscience “Breakthrough” dopamine supersensitivity during ongoing antipsychotic treatment leads to treatment failure over time.
Antipsychotics often lose efficacy in patients despite chronic continuous treatment. Why this occurs is not known. It is known, however, that withdrawal from chronic antipsychotic treatment induces behavioral dopaminergic supersensitivity in animals. How this emerging supersensitivity might interact with ongoing treatment has never been assessed. Therefore, we asked whether dopamine supersensitivity could overcome the behavioral and neurochemical effects of antipsychotics while they are still in use. Using two models of antipsychotic-like effects in rats, we show that during ongoing treatment with clinically relevant doses, haloperidol and olanzapine progressively lose their efficacy in suppressing amphetamine-induced locomotion and conditioned avoidance responding.
The following Department of Treasury document about the national debt limit was published in May 2011, and is as true and factual now as it was then.
Debt Limit: Myth v. Fact
Excerpt from Natural Resources from The Dream of a Common Language
by Adrienne Rich
I am tired of faintheartedness,
their having to be exceptional
to do what an ordinary woman
does in the course of things
I am tired of women stooping to half our height
to bring the essential vein to light
tired of the waste of what we bear
with such cost, such elation, into sight
(— for what becomes of what the miner probes
and carves from the mountain’s body in her pain?)
This is what I am: watching the spider
rebuild— “patiently”, they say,
but I recognize in her
impatience— my own—
the passion to make and make again
where such unmaking reigns
comment #11 by Bijan Parsia responding to the question, Anyone have any thoughts about what sorts of advice one might give to an aspiring male feminist?
“Benefit others more than you benefit.” Esp. if it’s status, material gain, etc. You don’t need to be a martyr, but feminism is, in part, a social movement looking for justice. Activism implies aiming for the greater good.
“Do the shit jobs.” The shit jobs always need doing so why not do them? If you don’t do them, someone else, often with less resources, ends up doing them. But don’t preen or anything. Just do them.
“Speak for yourself among others.” Don’t speak for others, but only yourself. Use your own voice while recognising that it is a voice among others. Think about the voices as much as what’s said. Listen a lot and look for listening opportunities. Be more glad to have heard someone or something new than to have said something awesome. Use your voice to facilitate new voices over extending the reach of your own. I find Joyce Treblicot’s Dyke Ideas very helpful reading here.
“Own and repair your fuckups.” If you mess up, own it fast and make serious efforts at restitution. If that means leaving a scene, then do that. Try hard to do better. If you persistently fail to do better, recognise this and consider whether you are a net good. Ask for help *before* the next big failure. Even if your fuckups aren’t your fault (or you think they aren’t’) think more about fixing them then getting the blame right.
Sexual Harassment Conversations, in Comic Form by Jim C. Chines at his website
Cartoon Versions of Science and the harms they do (in Anthropology) by Eric Schliesser at New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science
This post opens with an excerpt from –Justin Smith’s review of Napoleans Chagnon’s book the Noble Savages: My Life among Two Dangerous Tribes– The Yanomamö and the Anthropologists .
One can’t help but share in Chagnon’s frustration at the hasty decision of the majority of his disciplinary peers to disown its historical connection to any branch of the complex and variegated scientific tradition. After all, until very recently (and to some extent to this day still in languages such as French and German), a ‘science’ was any relatively systematic body of knowledge, anything the goal or product of which was scientia, and it is only in the very most recent times that the notion has been reduced to the figure of somber men seeking to run the world on the basis of claims of unassailable expertise. Yet the cartoon version of science that Chagnon proposes in response, in its total failure to recognize that there might be special problems of theory-ladenness, power inequality, looping effects, prejudice –in a word, all those factors that make the scientific study of humans a more delicate matter than the study of other domains of nature – , can easily make one wish to take the ‘postmodern’ turn oneself, if only to get away from this astoundingly simplistic pretense of scientificity.
Justin is one of the leading historians of philosophy of my generation. He is also a staunch defender of the fact that “one can in fact approach the subject matter of anthropology naturalistically, using the conceptual tools of European traditions of thought, and still come up with theoretically sophisticated accounts of indigenous beliefs that remain nonetheless sensitive to the actual concerns, to the ‘voices’, of the people being studied.” (He also wants to bring some anthropological methods into the history of philosophy.)
See Karl Popper’s wikipedia page for more information on the philosophy of science.
See Thomas Kuhn’s wikipedia page for more information about paradigm shift.
See Napolean Chagnon’s wikipedia page for more information about Napolean Chagnon and scandal.
Naturalistic Approaches at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
photo by Michael Nagle for The New York Times
Americans Finally Saying No to God Awful ‘McWages’ by Ben Cohen at The Daily Banter
A Glut of Antidepressants by Roni Caryn Rabin
Over the past two decades, the use of antidepressants has skyrocketed. One in 10 Americans now takes an antidepressant medication; among women in their 40s and 50s, the figure is one in four.
Experts have offered numerous reasons. Depression is common, and economic struggles have added to our stress and anxiety. Television ads promote antidepressants, and insurance plans usually cover them, even while limiting talk therapy. But a recent study suggests another explanation: that the condition is being overdiagnosed on a remarkable scale.
The study, published in April in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, found that nearly two-thirds of a sample of more than 5,000 patients who had been given a diagnosis of depression within the previous 12 months did not meet the criteria for major depressive episode as described by the psychiatrists’ bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or D.S.M.).
The study is not the first to find that patients frequently get “false positive” diagnoses for depression. Several earlier review studies have reported that diagnostic accuracy is low in general practice offices, in large part because serious depression is so rare in that setting…
…The new study drew 5,639 individuals who had been diagnosed with depression from among a nationally representative sample of over 75,000 adults who took part in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health in 2009 and 2010. The subjects were then interviewed in person with questions based on the D.S.M.-4 criteria.
Foto: NurPhoto, David von Blohn/NurPhoto/Sipa US
What’s the real story behind the Snowden leak? by Smartypants at Smartypants
We all know that Snowden went to work for Booz Allen in March 2013 for the express purpose of gaining access to classified information he planned to leak.
Initially we were told that Greenwald and Poitras first met Snowden in May 2013 in Hong Kong.
Greenwald then tweeted that he and Poitras had been working with Snowden since February 2013.
The NYT article today says that Snowden first contacted Greenwald in November/December 2012 and Poitras in January 2013.
The NYT also says that Greenwald and Poitras didn’t talk to each other about Snowden until April 2013.
Greenwald said he started getting documents from Snowden in late March, early April 2013. But he also says that Snowden took months to review the documents before releasing them. Snowden didn’t start working at Booz Allen until March 2013.
All these stories can’t be true. It seems clear to me that what we have here are some major omissions with people having trouble keeping their fabricated versions straight.
Published August 14, 2013 at Smartypants http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/08/whats-real-story-behind-snowden-leak.html
U.S. Probes Use of Antipsychotic Drugs on Children from The Wall Street Journal