They pretty much hit it as noting its overlap with Borderline Personality Disorder. Multiple Personality Disorder is pretty much therapist-induced, and as a favorite psychiatrist friend of mine once said, "The sad part is that the multiples add up to less than one personality."
Really loved your self-reflection at the end about audience capture and avoiding a bias against conventional wisdom. Preserving your even-handedness maybe isn't the most profitable way to approach a show, but you're making a really valuable contribution. Most science journalism is horrible.
I've heard conflicting information over the years about whether ADHD medications work differently for people who have ADHD. I'm curious with the research shows.
oh man, ADHD/autism would be a HELL of a fight to wade into. That's one for the paid only (but a really good one to do)
edit: I realise I am essentially talking about a completely different episode to the one you're talking about. But I'd love to do one about the boom in diagnoses
I studied Psychology in the 1970s, when the 'anti-psychiatry movement' (RD Laing, etc) was all the rage. Thomas Szasz's book 'The Myth of Mental Illness' is still a classic. So I am deeply sceptical about the continued medicalisation of normal life.
I came of age in the 70s as well and worked in emergency psych for over forty years, with the dangerous and suicidal and very sick.
Szasz never worked with any schizophrenics, not even as a student or resident. He had some good points about contextualising behavior, but is almost entirely discredited now, for good reason. Read up on Laing's personal life (10 children by four women, paid little attention to any) and why the British medical accreditation forced him to stop practicing medicine.
I am also skeptical of the "medicalisation of normal life," but not because the medical reasons are not true for even normal behavior, but because the approaches for coping with problems are often short-sighted.
You've only mentioned testing with using animals briefly. Do we need to do it? Also are there indeed benefits to pet ownership?
I would like more examples of results using Bayesian reasoning.
Also, I think it would be fun to look at the past -- the most obvious example is the responses of so-called scientists to Darwin and Wallace. But there are many more Anyway, thank you so much for your podcast I love the combination of good science and humor.
I'm very late to this - a full episode behind - but always happy to add to your burgeoning list of topics...
- personality disorders - do they exist as a 'real' condition or are they just based on behaviour? what is the difference between having a mental illness and 'being a bad person'?
- string theory! I've read criticism that it has so many degrees of freedom it cannot make true predictions and thus (critics allege) cannot even be considered to meet the Popperian notion of a theory
- I hear your point on audience capture and definitely don't want this to become a culture war podcast. But, once the furore has died down, an episode on DSDs and sport would be welcome in light of the recent Olympics boxing controversy. My uneducated gut feel is that the IOC probably got it wrong, but that's little more based on 'what is the likelihood that two gold medallists would have very rare DSDs and that these DSDs *weren't* performance-enhancing?'
- will echo the request to cover the rise in adult ADHD diagnoses.
- seem to recall a claim that 'if mindfulness or therapy were a drug, the rate of adverse affects are sufficiently high that they wouldn't be licenced'
The ideas about "cheating" via weight-loss drugs reminds me of the first episode of Reflector with the mysterious "Katie" about Naltrexone and the Sinclair method, which includes drinking alcohol in its cure for alcoholism and so can earn some similar ire.
Probably, but the useful question is how big a risk? I'd be interested in the scientific basis for the 'recommended limit' of 14 units a week (in the UK). This has been reduced a number of times, not sure if it's because of new scientific data or just a change in the risk criterion. I remember some while ago reading that the limit was set so the risk of death from alcohol consumption was the same as the risk from a road traffic accident. Now given that risk of death on the roads must be linked to miles driven (or as a passenger), I wondered why there was no recommended 'safe' maximum number of miles per year.
Second time of asking/suggesting : Please look at QRisk which is used by GPs to assess if patients need stains for primary prevention of CVD. ( it would result in all 80 year olds being on a statin ! )
Please do one on dissociative identity disorder. Please please please
They pretty much hit it as noting its overlap with Borderline Personality Disorder. Multiple Personality Disorder is pretty much therapist-induced, and as a favorite psychiatrist friend of mine once said, "The sad part is that the multiples add up to less than one personality."
(please)
Really loved your self-reflection at the end about audience capture and avoiding a bias against conventional wisdom. Preserving your even-handedness maybe isn't the most profitable way to approach a show, but you're making a really valuable contribution. Most science journalism is horrible.
I've heard conflicting information over the years about whether ADHD medications work differently for people who have ADHD. I'm curious with the research shows.
oh man, ADHD/autism would be a HELL of a fight to wade into. That's one for the paid only (but a really good one to do)
edit: I realise I am essentially talking about a completely different episode to the one you're talking about. But I'd love to do one about the boom in diagnoses
I studied Psychology in the 1970s, when the 'anti-psychiatry movement' (RD Laing, etc) was all the rage. Thomas Szasz's book 'The Myth of Mental Illness' is still a classic. So I am deeply sceptical about the continued medicalisation of normal life.
I came of age in the 70s as well and worked in emergency psych for over forty years, with the dangerous and suicidal and very sick.
Szasz never worked with any schizophrenics, not even as a student or resident. He had some good points about contextualising behavior, but is almost entirely discredited now, for good reason. Read up on Laing's personal life (10 children by four women, paid little attention to any) and why the British medical accreditation forced him to stop practicing medicine.
I am also skeptical of the "medicalisation of normal life," but not because the medical reasons are not true for even normal behavior, but because the approaches for coping with problems are often short-sighted.
I would love to see one on climate change.
Also organic food, from what I've read it doesn’t appear to have much, if any, additional health benefits, but it still sells. Did I miss something?
You've only mentioned testing with using animals briefly. Do we need to do it? Also are there indeed benefits to pet ownership?
I would like more examples of results using Bayesian reasoning.
Also, I think it would be fun to look at the past -- the most obvious example is the responses of so-called scientists to Darwin and Wallace. But there are many more Anyway, thank you so much for your podcast I love the combination of good science and humor.
Danny from Des Plaines Illinois.
Mindfulness would be great, especially with Stuart background
I'm very late to this - a full episode behind - but always happy to add to your burgeoning list of topics...
- personality disorders - do they exist as a 'real' condition or are they just based on behaviour? what is the difference between having a mental illness and 'being a bad person'?
- string theory! I've read criticism that it has so many degrees of freedom it cannot make true predictions and thus (critics allege) cannot even be considered to meet the Popperian notion of a theory
- I hear your point on audience capture and definitely don't want this to become a culture war podcast. But, once the furore has died down, an episode on DSDs and sport would be welcome in light of the recent Olympics boxing controversy. My uneducated gut feel is that the IOC probably got it wrong, but that's little more based on 'what is the likelihood that two gold medallists would have very rare DSDs and that these DSDs *weren't* performance-enhancing?'
- will echo the request to cover the rise in adult ADHD diagnoses.
- seem to recall a claim that 'if mindfulness or therapy were a drug, the rate of adverse affects are sufficiently high that they wouldn't be licenced'
Love you guys! Favourite pod. Banter’s good, the intellectual honesty is better.
Would love to hear something on Dental Science which I’ve heard is trash.
Do an episode on Lucy Letby
Some episodes I'd like to hear in no particular order:
- Intelligence topics
- Mindfulness or meditation in general
- Psychological measurement
- Grit
- Teaching generalizable critical thinking skills
- Brain training
- Dissociative Identity Disorder
- Conditions like chronic lime and adrenal fatigue
- Social media echo chambers
- Stereotype threat (https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000420)
The ideas about "cheating" via weight-loss drugs reminds me of the first episode of Reflector with the mysterious "Katie" about Naltrexone and the Sinclair method, which includes drinking alcohol in its cure for alcoholism and so can earn some similar ire.
Is there a concensus that alcohol, in essentially any amount, is bad for health?
Probably, but the useful question is how big a risk? I'd be interested in the scientific basis for the 'recommended limit' of 14 units a week (in the UK). This has been reduced a number of times, not sure if it's because of new scientific data or just a change in the risk criterion. I remember some while ago reading that the limit was set so the risk of death from alcohol consumption was the same as the risk from a road traffic accident. Now given that risk of death on the roads must be linked to miles driven (or as a passenger), I wondered why there was no recommended 'safe' maximum number of miles per year.
Nuclear fallout/ post apocalyptic fear mongering. The doomsday clock nonsense type stuff.
Also, UBI and, more generally, the welfare state.
I would be very happy about an episode on the topic of "psychological safety". It seems to me that everything you like to talk about is here.
Need for a meta episode: How you search for the literature and asses it?
Second time of asking/suggesting : Please look at QRisk which is used by GPs to assess if patients need stains for primary prevention of CVD. ( it would result in all 80 year olds being on a statin ! )