|
Hi, there's a spelling error in the chart -- "indigenous" rather than "indiginous". Just thought I'd let you know. (: -- Denihilonihil 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I’ve just read your message and liked the web site you linked to. I wonder if you could post a similar message at the bottom of this talk RFAR page [1]. I’m not asking you to engage in the discussion. Just to post your already written comment there and that’s it (perhaps the only needed change would be to add my name instead of the “you”). I agree with your comment: after this process is over I will avoid psychiatry/psychology articles like the plague. There’s much work to do in traumatogenic mode of childrearing articles such as the one you have been improving greatly in the last few days. — Cesar Tort 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I’ve just posted something in User:Cesar Tort/discussion (and an explanation at the bottom of its talk page [3]) as a draft for the new article. Any comment or criticism will be welcomed. — Cesar Tort 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookish. Excellent job on the psychohistory article. Congrats again. Lloyd will love it!
I just want to let you know that I’m going to archive my user mails. If you want to add another link or reference please do it here [4]. — Cesar Tort 00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions for the intro summary! I already incorporated it to the Biopsychiatry Controversy article. Re the Moynihan and Alan Cassels’ book, I used it instead for the Antipsychiatry article. The reason I left the Big Pharma stuff for the Anti article is that it strikes me a bit more as a financial/political issue than a scientific one. (BTW, I have used the Whitaker book in the Controversy article.)
I will copy and paste at the top of User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion the references you had posted in my (now archived) talk page for you convenience. — Cesar Tort 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for your recent posting. Please wait until I rearrange that page so that your entries don’t merge with my radical rearrangement. — Cesar Tort 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with you about the genetic section. That section was basically rewritten by Rockpocket from old version in Antipsychiatry article and I didn’t want to mess with it then. So this time, and only this time, may I ask you to edit that section? — Cesar Tort 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cesar: I hope you noticed the new link at the top of your discussion page. Thanks for providing your email address. Anyone can see what you've written anywhere on Wikipedia simply by clicking on your "User Contributions" link. However, I thought I'd explain something to you about the authors we both like. When I first read books by A.M. I searched for forums and mailing lists where I could compare notes with other readers. After having participated in a mailing list and a forum for a month or two I grew tired of the discussions. Why? Because, however they started out, they always ended up as lengthy debates over points of theory. I came to the conclusion that the best way is to meet with an enlightened reader in person. Back-and-forth discussions in cyberspace have a different quality: Write something, wait a day or two, read the reply, write something more, wait a day or two,... and on and on. -- Bookish 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Bookish. I thought it better i communicate with you here rather than across a multitude of cross references threads. I'm sorry if your communications to Cesar on his subpage were of a rhetorical nature. I simply saw you question my motivation, and therefore answered your question, before Cesar moved the comments to the talk page.
Anyway, you said, "if it was my article I would have tackled the issues in a completely different way." well it is your article as much as it is mine or anyone elses. If you feel you can improve the article then please do so. However, as you say yourself "many tentative research studies suggestive of a link between gene regions and schizophrenia". You then question whether they have been replicated. This recent review says (my bold) "After years of frustration, the search for genes impacting on schizophrenia is now undergoing some exciting developments. Several proposals of susceptibility genes have been able to be supported by replications. Thus, there are now at least three very strong candidates: the gene for dysbindin (DTNBP1), the gene for neuregulin-1 (NRG1), and a less well-understood gene locus, G72/G30, which are likely to influence manifestations of schizophrenia. Other "hot" candidates such as the disrupted-in-schizophrenia 1 gene (DISC1) and the gene coding for protein kinase B (AKT1) might also prove to be susceptibility genes in the next future."
Thus while non twin genetic linkage studies have yet to prove anything about behavioural heretability, they certainly are strongly suggestive. That is the context they were being mentioned in the article and that is why i can see no reason to remove it. Rockpocke t 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
strong candidates, likely to influence, "hot" candidates, might also prove, strongly suggestive.
Cesar Tort replies:
With all due respect, rockpocket, and pace Godwin’s law, trying to understand schizophrenia and its causes from a strictly genetic perspective is something aberrant, stupid and reactionary that will always fail: it’s like trying to understand Judaism by analyzing the genes from Jews!
According to sociologist Karl Mannheim ideology refers to a group become so intensely interest-bound to a situation that they are simply unable to acknowledge certain facts which would undermine their interests (e.g., that child abuse and psychological trauma are as mind-destroying as Auschwitz). The situation in which bioshrinks find themselves is such that they simply cannot question the validity of the medical model without committing suicide: for once the perceived ideological veil of the model is torn away, they will be revealed as total incompetents incapable of managing such mental disorders as schizophrenia in even a halfway enlightened or humane way.
It’s wholly inappropriate for bioshrinks to take pride in their supposed expertise when the problem they deal with is clearly not of a medical nature. In fact, as far as increasing their ability to understand and empathize with their patients is concerned, medicine is the very worst subject that psychiatrists are taught to dehumanize the person: to regard him or her as nothing more than a somatic machine (just like saying that only hard sciences exist but not the humanities). In view of their lack of any useful training and lack of mental insight that their training is totally useless, it’s hardly surprising that psychiatrists generally do more harm than good.
The biopsych notion that schizophrenia is a somatic condition is the ultimate way in which the establishment defends itself. As soon as the child is diagnosed, the parents conclude that all the family’s problems can be localized exclusively within the child. The parents and the society are sane; the child is sick, and the doctor will take care of everything. The parents can therefore stop worrying about their abusive behavior.
Moreover, the medical model with its concepts of “mental health” and “mental illness” also helps to stabilize society’s norms by providing a crypto-ethical standard for evaluating human conduct. What we have here is an uncritical validation of society’s taboos and moral prejudices so absolute as to suggest they are the same with the laws of universe.
The notion that persons labeled “schizophrenic” are somehow genetically flawed or inferior to other people is nothing more than a dehumanizing myth —another example of man’s inhumanity to man; a myth that the biopsych community, and especially the Legion of abusive parents, have a huge vested interest in perpetuating.
And now, Bookish: with your permission may I cut and paste this discussion to the Biopsychiatry Controversy talk page please? — Cesar Tort 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You know perfectly well rockpocket that the Rfar “caution” merely refers to article namespace; not to user pages. Besides: biopsych is a psycho ideology with no basis on science (in contrast to the absolute reality of child abuse and trauma). I think you will live enough to see my books translated to English, rockpocket —in which I might recount my misadventures in Wikiland.
And now: time for my wiki-vacation... — Cesar Tort 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookish,
I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your sound advices that helped me to improve the biopsych controversy article.
Rfar is finally over and I’ll start today with my new book. However, even though my three month wiki-addiction is over I may still edit a bit once a week.
Thanks again and see you on Sundays. — Cesar Tort 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again.
Status quo’s warriors are the worst offenders in wikipedia. Yes: the only way to get rid of a stalker-warrior is to get our asses out of Wikiland. Perhaps you may want to take a final look at the letter I just wrote to the land’s king? [6].
— Cesar Tort 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Having recently been told that my own contribution of data which merely sums individual country data published elsewhere violates the WP:NOR policy, I have had to flag yours as likewise constituting Original Research. The image will be deleted in 7 days. I would personally be delighted for Wikipedia to permit summarizations, visualizations, tabulations, etc... of data published elsewhere, but as my own attempts to contribute such redacted material was rejected, it is only consistent that yours be rejected on the sames grounds. For what it's worth, I would be happy to join you in an appeal to the powers that be to permit such syntheses. Regards, -- Ubarfay 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Major religions 2005 pie small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PNGOUT plugin.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. wL< speak· check> 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
From your user page, I thought that you might be interested in joining the new Galápagos Islands task force. GregManninLB ( talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi, there's a spelling error in the chart -- "indigenous" rather than "indiginous". Just thought I'd let you know. (: -- Denihilonihil 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I’ve just read your message and liked the web site you linked to. I wonder if you could post a similar message at the bottom of this talk RFAR page [1]. I’m not asking you to engage in the discussion. Just to post your already written comment there and that’s it (perhaps the only needed change would be to add my name instead of the “you”). I agree with your comment: after this process is over I will avoid psychiatry/psychology articles like the plague. There’s much work to do in traumatogenic mode of childrearing articles such as the one you have been improving greatly in the last few days. — Cesar Tort 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I’ve just posted something in User:Cesar Tort/discussion (and an explanation at the bottom of its talk page [3]) as a draft for the new article. Any comment or criticism will be welcomed. — Cesar Tort 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookish. Excellent job on the psychohistory article. Congrats again. Lloyd will love it!
I just want to let you know that I’m going to archive my user mails. If you want to add another link or reference please do it here [4]. — Cesar Tort 00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions for the intro summary! I already incorporated it to the Biopsychiatry Controversy article. Re the Moynihan and Alan Cassels’ book, I used it instead for the Antipsychiatry article. The reason I left the Big Pharma stuff for the Anti article is that it strikes me a bit more as a financial/political issue than a scientific one. (BTW, I have used the Whitaker book in the Controversy article.)
I will copy and paste at the top of User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion the references you had posted in my (now archived) talk page for you convenience. — Cesar Tort 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for your recent posting. Please wait until I rearrange that page so that your entries don’t merge with my radical rearrangement. — Cesar Tort 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with you about the genetic section. That section was basically rewritten by Rockpocket from old version in Antipsychiatry article and I didn’t want to mess with it then. So this time, and only this time, may I ask you to edit that section? — Cesar Tort 02:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cesar: I hope you noticed the new link at the top of your discussion page. Thanks for providing your email address. Anyone can see what you've written anywhere on Wikipedia simply by clicking on your "User Contributions" link. However, I thought I'd explain something to you about the authors we both like. When I first read books by A.M. I searched for forums and mailing lists where I could compare notes with other readers. After having participated in a mailing list and a forum for a month or two I grew tired of the discussions. Why? Because, however they started out, they always ended up as lengthy debates over points of theory. I came to the conclusion that the best way is to meet with an enlightened reader in person. Back-and-forth discussions in cyberspace have a different quality: Write something, wait a day or two, read the reply, write something more, wait a day or two,... and on and on. -- Bookish 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Bookish. I thought it better i communicate with you here rather than across a multitude of cross references threads. I'm sorry if your communications to Cesar on his subpage were of a rhetorical nature. I simply saw you question my motivation, and therefore answered your question, before Cesar moved the comments to the talk page.
Anyway, you said, "if it was my article I would have tackled the issues in a completely different way." well it is your article as much as it is mine or anyone elses. If you feel you can improve the article then please do so. However, as you say yourself "many tentative research studies suggestive of a link between gene regions and schizophrenia". You then question whether they have been replicated. This recent review says (my bold) "After years of frustration, the search for genes impacting on schizophrenia is now undergoing some exciting developments. Several proposals of susceptibility genes have been able to be supported by replications. Thus, there are now at least three very strong candidates: the gene for dysbindin (DTNBP1), the gene for neuregulin-1 (NRG1), and a less well-understood gene locus, G72/G30, which are likely to influence manifestations of schizophrenia. Other "hot" candidates such as the disrupted-in-schizophrenia 1 gene (DISC1) and the gene coding for protein kinase B (AKT1) might also prove to be susceptibility genes in the next future."
Thus while non twin genetic linkage studies have yet to prove anything about behavioural heretability, they certainly are strongly suggestive. That is the context they were being mentioned in the article and that is why i can see no reason to remove it. Rockpocke t 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
strong candidates, likely to influence, "hot" candidates, might also prove, strongly suggestive.
Cesar Tort replies:
With all due respect, rockpocket, and pace Godwin’s law, trying to understand schizophrenia and its causes from a strictly genetic perspective is something aberrant, stupid and reactionary that will always fail: it’s like trying to understand Judaism by analyzing the genes from Jews!
According to sociologist Karl Mannheim ideology refers to a group become so intensely interest-bound to a situation that they are simply unable to acknowledge certain facts which would undermine their interests (e.g., that child abuse and psychological trauma are as mind-destroying as Auschwitz). The situation in which bioshrinks find themselves is such that they simply cannot question the validity of the medical model without committing suicide: for once the perceived ideological veil of the model is torn away, they will be revealed as total incompetents incapable of managing such mental disorders as schizophrenia in even a halfway enlightened or humane way.
It’s wholly inappropriate for bioshrinks to take pride in their supposed expertise when the problem they deal with is clearly not of a medical nature. In fact, as far as increasing their ability to understand and empathize with their patients is concerned, medicine is the very worst subject that psychiatrists are taught to dehumanize the person: to regard him or her as nothing more than a somatic machine (just like saying that only hard sciences exist but not the humanities). In view of their lack of any useful training and lack of mental insight that their training is totally useless, it’s hardly surprising that psychiatrists generally do more harm than good.
The biopsych notion that schizophrenia is a somatic condition is the ultimate way in which the establishment defends itself. As soon as the child is diagnosed, the parents conclude that all the family’s problems can be localized exclusively within the child. The parents and the society are sane; the child is sick, and the doctor will take care of everything. The parents can therefore stop worrying about their abusive behavior.
Moreover, the medical model with its concepts of “mental health” and “mental illness” also helps to stabilize society’s norms by providing a crypto-ethical standard for evaluating human conduct. What we have here is an uncritical validation of society’s taboos and moral prejudices so absolute as to suggest they are the same with the laws of universe.
The notion that persons labeled “schizophrenic” are somehow genetically flawed or inferior to other people is nothing more than a dehumanizing myth —another example of man’s inhumanity to man; a myth that the biopsych community, and especially the Legion of abusive parents, have a huge vested interest in perpetuating.
And now, Bookish: with your permission may I cut and paste this discussion to the Biopsychiatry Controversy talk page please? — Cesar Tort 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You know perfectly well rockpocket that the Rfar “caution” merely refers to article namespace; not to user pages. Besides: biopsych is a psycho ideology with no basis on science (in contrast to the absolute reality of child abuse and trauma). I think you will live enough to see my books translated to English, rockpocket —in which I might recount my misadventures in Wikiland.
And now: time for my wiki-vacation... — Cesar Tort 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bookish,
I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your sound advices that helped me to improve the biopsych controversy article.
Rfar is finally over and I’ll start today with my new book. However, even though my three month wiki-addiction is over I may still edit a bit once a week.
Thanks again and see you on Sundays. — Cesar Tort 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again.
Status quo’s warriors are the worst offenders in wikipedia. Yes: the only way to get rid of a stalker-warrior is to get our asses out of Wikiland. Perhaps you may want to take a final look at the letter I just wrote to the land’s king? [6].
— Cesar Tort 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Having recently been told that my own contribution of data which merely sums individual country data published elsewhere violates the WP:NOR policy, I have had to flag yours as likewise constituting Original Research. The image will be deleted in 7 days. I would personally be delighted for Wikipedia to permit summarizations, visualizations, tabulations, etc... of data published elsewhere, but as my own attempts to contribute such redacted material was rejected, it is only consistent that yours be rejected on the sames grounds. For what it's worth, I would be happy to join you in an appeal to the powers that be to permit such syntheses. Regards, -- Ubarfay 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Major religions 2005 pie small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PNGOUT plugin.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. wL< speak· check> 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
From your user page, I thought that you might be interested in joining the new Galápagos Islands task force. GregManninLB ( talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)