Archives

Medicine

It is quite sad how conventional medicine and alternative/herbal medicine oppose each other more than they cooperate.

I could sometimes really do with the help of a qualified herbalist/alternative practitioner who a) has had as much medical training as any doctor, b) has an open mind and c) a willingness to keep informed of the most up-to-date research and to think of alternatives for patients not helped by conventional treatment choices d) who isn’t against conventional medicine.

Because what happens right now is that people like me go online and do their research on their own. But us without medical training aren’t really qualified to do that kind of thing. I certainly feel very unsure and incompetent. Alternative is to go to one of the self-taught people who are also unreliable.

But what can I do? There isn’t anywhere I could go with my questions. No specialists I could consult about dosage and possible side-effects. They’d think I’m one of the trouble-maker flat-earthers. No doctor I could take the results of a new study to and ask whether we might test it on me as well. In my dreams, that doctor would then do more thorough research and figure out the best treatment plan or tell me this is too risky to try. That kind of thing is what I’d really like.

I wish that if it became quite clear conventional treatment is not working OR if the patient prefers herbal treatment as a first option, they would be provided with alternatives. You don’t actually need to start the treatment of depression with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, for example. The doctor could ask the patient if they might prefer to try natural remedies first (like with many diseases you start with the milder stuff first if it is possible) and if these don’t work, gradually get more aggressive.  St. John’s Wort has been studied sufficiently as far as I know. 5-HTP seems more innocent as well and appears to have sufficient evidence about its effectiveness.Why not these over SSRIs?

Reality is that if you want to try either, you got to go to Doctor Google, unless you are very lucky and your doctor is open-minded.

And so, as the world polarises in every field, both sides lose and are stupider for it.

I wish one of the epic heroes of Charlton Heston’s would descend and fix the world.

Snobs

The title is to be pronounced in the voice of John Cleese as Basil Fawlty.

 

I spotted a bunch of intelligent folk bashing 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight and some other books whose titles won’t say anything to most people. It was old stuff but it annoyed me enough to inspire. There are moments recently when I feel I have to watch that I don’t become contrary for the sake of it. That I don’t suggest a different take on something because I CAN, not because I believed in it. I do believe in what I’m about to write though, so it’s not an exercise in thinking outside the box.

So, what’s the deal?

Snobs irritate me. Reading how some fifty people were bashing the same book, most of whom had not read it, and were just carried along by the tide of collective hatred and contempt for it, I felt like going “Snobs, you arrogant wannabe middle-class wannabe intellectuals you snobs!” as Basil Fawlty would have done if he had intellectual interests beyond Brahms’s third racket. What was even more striking in these discussions and reviews was that the readers were – more frequently than the law of averages would permit – mentioning how they had just read Houellebecq and needed a break, or suggesting they will get back to their Houellebecq now, after the excruciating experience of having read *insert title of some bestseller of dubious quality*. LOL. There’s comedy in this.

I have a feeling that the success of that book might have partially been based on everyone considering it so bad you gotta read how bad it is to be able to say “This is very bad indeed”. It unites people, hating the same thing.

I have not read either E. L. James or Houellebecq, but both are well-known status symbols in a certain segment of society: absolute trash and contemporary masterpiece. So those intelligent people, who are sadly still lacking in the ability for independent thought and are frequently interchangeable with each other, as they read, watch and enjoy the same stuff, suppressing whatever their individual taste may drive them towards, well, that bunch decorates themselves with the name of Houellebecq and defines their taste by being against the trashy bestsellers.

Now, I’m a mighty insecure person too and I used to do that in my late teens and very early 20s. I read critically acclaimed authors because they were critically acclaimed and watched many a critically acclaimed movie for the same reasons, but that was mostly because I was a newcomer to the world of literature and film and did not know how to find my way yet. I defined my taste against modern literature and people like T.S. Eliot more than any bestseller authors, though. Why would I do that? They were simply not relevant. But that was a long time ago, and I digress.

What I’m trying to say is kicking downwards collectively is a bit wannabe intellectual and suggests lack of independent thought and backbone. I’d find it refreshing if one intelligent person admitted to liking something bad instead of parroting how horrible it is.

Point is, the world does not consist of intellectuals or people with excellent artistic intuitions, but enjoying different forms of art is pretty universal and human. I don’t think one should appeal to the lowest common denominator, but it is natural that, for example the third generation intellectuals and artists have their own art and culture with their own standards for quality, and the people who are different – I failed to find a good general term for them – so let’s just say different – they have their art, their favourite books and music, and their own standards for what is good.

This sort of kicking downwards is just annoying when it is done collectively. Individually I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if someone had bashed trash novels, that’s normal, but collectively, it just struck me as one of those moments when it begins to work against the accusers, making them appear quite silly and brainwashed and in need of someone interfering and holding up a mirror.

Kicking upwards is much more interesting, if sincere. I think that is why I enjoyed that John Clare story about the man who thought Shakespeare was the title of a play. He kicked upwards and he was sincere. Stupid, yes, but we can’t help our own stupidity, can we? That too the wannabe elite fails to realise. We can’t all be intelligent, beautiful, artistically gifted, assertive and socially extroverted because we aren’t born that way. And the things people enjoy, are able to enjoy, and how they enjoy, are just so very different as a result of who they are, and they can’t do much about it. So enjoy and let enjoy, I suppose. Read your Houellebecq and leave the rest to its target readers.

My arrogant opinion is that if you are truly intelligent and confident, and not masochistically curious, you don’t need to lift your status at the expense of lower league competitors. They are just not relevant. Champions League teams do not need to trash local fourth league players for how they play like shit.

In conclusion: SNOBS!

(said in the voice of Mr. Fawlty once more)

 

 

Idiocies

Would someone please, please tell Google not to give me endless pages of Chinese (and other) machine-translated websites when I search for things in my native language. A filter, please, for omitting machine-translations from the results.

#2019 #sucks #googlesucks #discrimination #money #pleasestop

Zeitgeist is a very suspicious thing

The more I read stuff and observe stuff, the more I feel that zeitgeist is a lie, an over-simplification like gender. Something we cling to for its clarity as it makes the world appear logical and coherent, but which is really narrow-minded and limiting. Half the population sometimes does not live accordingly. I think that’s significant.

Postmodernist meaninglessness

Reading legal documents is sometimes worse than any postmodernist work of doom and gloom and general lack of meaningfulness.

Marriage turns into an economic contract and child custody laws make the child into a property of the parents. The child’s life is thus neatly split between two parents, because the right of both parents to see their child equally is superior to the child’s right to a stable, settled environment. But it’s not really that. I could envision a teenager who may even enjoy the change of scene. It’s the tone of these things. The extreme regulation, the splitting of hairs to achieve equality.

Values

I encountered an opinion that for an intellectually stimulating and rich life one requires money. The reasoning being that otherwise you cannot go to the theatre, travel, go to concerts and participate in various courses.

 

LOL. Stupid wannabe educated middle class narrow-mindedness at its best.

Job market absurdism

I saw an ad for the job of a translator, translating technical and legal documents.

The requirements – and yes, requirements – included having a positive attitude to life.

I don’t think pessimists would make for any worse translators. The only place where they would not be great is the service sector.

So who do I complain to about this sort of personality-based discrimination? It has nothing to do with a person’s actual skills and ability to translate.

Why, what with all manner of discrimination types being discussed to death, has practically no one pointed out the extreme discrimination that goes on in the job market? Why is it okay to discriminate based on some qualities and not others?

On pathologisation

I was sitting in a lecture the other day and the topic was developmental, emotional and behavioural disorders in childhood and early adolescence.

I couldn’t believe my eyes nor ears when the figures were displayed on the board. 20% of children and young people suffer from some mental disorder?!! 30!!? Jesus effing Christ.

Where are those disordered children? Are they really hidden away from us, being home-schooled or taught at specialized institutions? But how can you hide as large a proportion of society as 20-30%. You could not. When I went to school, and I went to more than one and came in contact with at least 100 children and teenagers, almost no one had a psychological disorder. I’m not making this statement as a doctor or psychologist, I’m making this statement as a human being assessing other human beings. Nearly all children and teens I encountered were mentally healthy individuals to me. I was a mentally healthy individual. Some of us had certain qualities that made us different. I was shy. Excruciatingly shy, but I never thought of myself as being mentally disordered. Nor did I think so of anyone else, even if they were hyperactive, highly-strung or uninterested in studying. With the exception of two people, who indeed seemed ‘very different’ on some deeper, fundamental level. In hindsight, they may have had an autism spectrum disorder. That still accounts for roughly 2%.

Furthermore, a large proportion of children, but more so adolescents and adults go through their life undiagnosed. It strikes me as being particularly common with depression, eating disorders and various anxiety disorders. If we add all the undiagnosed people to the list of the diagnosed, wouldn’t that add up to a half of the population? Is it really right to classify half of the population as mentally disordered?

The good and bad of pathologising

I do not think that pathologization is all evil. Its chief merit lies in helping people with personal difficulties find themselves, adjust better and hopefully be more successful in life. Here and there, I’ve spotted the opinion that the label of a specific disorder helps people. Instead of feeling ‘weird’ and all alone, trying to fight for your position in society against overwhelming odds and personal disadvantages, you suddenly belong. The responsibility and the need to fight are eliminated. You have a disorder and that explains all your problems and exempts you from needing to be strong, a social success, or whatever it is your particular disorder keeps you from being, but society expects of you.

All good, isn’t it?

It is and it isn’t. For example, introverts struggle too. And are often glad and relieved to learn more about it. It achieves the same thing for them – they belong, no longer feel weird and learn to adopt (hopefully) a positive attitude to their personality.

Why can’t hyperactivity be just a quality? Anxiety (milder forms)? Depression? Who is shy and who has a social anxiety disorder? Who draws the line? Should we draw the line so that to pathologize a large proportion of society or should we restrict the label of ‘disorder’ to a minority of extreme cases, in the end?

It probably does not require an explanation that I support the latter. Google catatonic schizophrenia and suddenly, nearly everyone with ADHD and mild to moderate depression seems a perfectly healthy human being.

What pathologization achieves is that it limits both the individual with the supposed disorder and the perceptions others have of them. Everything begins to revolve around the disorder.  The person may start avoiding certain situations as incompatible with their disorder (without actual necessity), may restrict their social interactions to people also suffering from the same disorder, may turn down job offers as incompatible with their condition (even if they wouldn’t really be). They may adopt a victim position, alienating others, or they may be treated as a disorder and not as an individual, with many other qualities besides the disorder.

The following is not a mental disorder, but the analogy works very well. A little while ago I read about a woman who had lost her left arm in a work accident. Since then, she has lived the life of a ‘proper’ disabled person, attending disabled person’s Christmas parties and having disabled people as friends. I read this and thought – it is only an arm, for heaven’s sake, she could have lived like anyone else if she wanted to! Maybe not done certain activities and jobs, but otherwise….