Al B Sure, please reconsider your outlook on life

[kentonio]

Doesn't change the fact that you still don't get it, no doubt due to mental failure. Oh the beautiful irony!

You thought I was backing myself into a logical corner and making a stupid statement. The reason you thought that is because you were too dumb to see the bigger argument I was making. You then trying to mock me for being stupid is indeed beautifully ironic.

[Sava]

Given Kid's towering intellect I'll be sure to take that to heart.

One doesn't have to be a genius to recognize you as wrong.

[Sava]

You thought I was backing myself into a logical corner and making a stupid statement. The reason you thought that is because you were too dumb to see the bigger argument I was making. You then trying to mock me for being stupid is indeed beautifully ironic.

HAHAHAHHA

"I'm 2deep4u"

[Kidlicious]

You thought I was backing myself into a logical corner and making a stupid statement. The reason you thought that is because you were too dumb to see the bigger argument I was making. You then trying to mock me for being stupid is indeed beautifully ironic.

You are still failing mentally!

[kentonio]

Yes. That's the point. Defining a "severe" mental illness is stupid. Nobody does it. The descriptor is absolutely meaningless.

Which is why they do exactly that here..

“Severe and persistent mental illness” is a term that is commonly used to refer to a collection of mental disorders that usually affect people in early adulthood and often have profound effects on family relations, educational attainment, occupational productivity, and social role functioning over the life course. Disorders typically subsumed under this rubric include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Taken together, these disorders affect at least 2.8% of population, or 5 million people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435074/

Interestingly they use that 2.8% figure which is far lower than the 6% from the other studies.

[Sava]

Which is why they do exactly that here..

Yes. They do. It is also far from a scientific standard. "Severe" is a word... that gets used... to describe something... in absence of an exact and scientific standard.


Maybe this is just not a strong subject for you. You have a very basic understanding of the mental health system... yet are throwing around lots of "should"...

maybe leave the "shoulds" to people with a stronger grasp of the material

There's already enough bad public policy. We don't need more.

[Lorizael]

Hey, cool. According to the NIH, I have a severe mental illness. (I don't dispute that.)

[Sava]

Hey, cool. According to the NIH, I have a severe mental illness. (I don't dispute that.)

Exactly... because the definitions are so broad, EVERYONE could fit them.

But oh yeah, let's make that law and set bad legal precedent. That way, anyone with a menacing enough, meaningless descriptor can come up with bull**** laws that don't work.

[kentonio]

Yes. They do. It is also far from a scientific standard. "Severe" is a word... that gets used... to describe something... in absence of an exact and scientific standard.

Maybe this is just not a strong subject for you. You have a very basic understanding of the mental health system... yet are throwing around lots of "should"...

maybe leave the "shoulds" to people with a stronger grasp of the material

It was so refreshing yesterday having an actual discussion with Lori about something which involved actual information and genuine debate. He (and you) know far, far more about mental health issues than I do, my position on it was purely based on trying to research studies that had been carried out and seeing how they fit together with the beliefs that Lori had about the subject. One of the best ways to learn about something I've found is to debate it, and as a result of the process find out where the strengths, weaknesses and flaws in a position are.

The difference is that in that discussion I was absolutely ready (and fully expecting) Lori to knock huge holes in what I was saying, which he did several times. A few times he continued to hold views that didn't seem to fit with the studies, which is why I was interested to find out where that came from. It felt like at certain points there was a slight defensiveness there and I was trying to find out whether that came from a preconception that linking homicide with mental issues was a sign of inherent hostility towards mental health issues.

All you've wanted to do today is go 'You're wrong, and I'm right and I'm too clever to bother telling you why you're wrong so I'll just call you dumb'. I'm sure that's lots of fun for you, but to be honest it's just boring.

[Sava]

All you've wanted to do today is go 'You're wrong,

That's all I ever do. Don't get butthurt.

If you come to Poly expecting polite and serious conversation, you're gonna have a bad time.

Also, if you don't want to be called wrong, don't be wrong. Limit your definitive statements to verifiable facts. Don't rely on nuance. Choose your words carefully to ward off pedantic idiots like myself...

Honestly, poly is like a debate prep class.

[Lorizael]

Lori really is a fantastic poster.

...

kentonio, I don't doubt that some homicides by the mentally unwell are directly caused by poor mental health. Spree killings are rather dramatic examples of events that could really only be called crazy. But once you get away from those types of acts, it's very difficult to say whether or not someone's mental health is causally related to the crimes they commit.

You mentioned a couple times that people with mental health issues have trouble controlling their actions, but this is not universally true. Poor impulse control is a symptom of some disorders, but not others. And even when poor impulse control is present, it doesn't necessarily present itself with violent acts. For example, sufferers of OCD may have a lot of trouble not scrubbing their hands down to the bone, but there's nothing to say they're more likely to commit violent acts.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that mentally ill individuals can commit violent acts that are in no way associated with their mental health. If a sane person robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk dead in the process, we don't say the shooter did it because he was sane. Similarly, an insane person may commit the same act, and in that case their mental health is entirely incidental to the crime.

Again, I don't deny that mental health can be causally related to violent acts. The difficulty is in sussing out how much poor mental health actually contributes to violence, how much it leads to situations that cause violence, and how much it and violence are correlated by way of a third factor. Unless you can sort out those confounding factors, it's premature to say that poor mental health is a direct cause of violent acts.

[kentonio]

That's all I ever do. Don't get butthurt.

If you come to Poly expecting polite and serious conversation, you're gonna have a bad time.

I've been around on and off for a decade, I know what Poly is. It's just that every now and again a decent discussion reminds you of what Poly can be when it's not being totally one dimensional. I can live with 90% trolling and bull**** and 10% interesting discussion, but if its 100% trolling and bull**** then I guess we've got no right to criticize Ben. After all, that's only what he does.

Also, if you don't want to be called wrong, don't be wrong. Limit your definitive statements to verifiable facts. Don't rely on nuance. Choose your words carefully to ward off pedantic idiots like myself...

I don't care about being called wrong, I just want to know why I'm wrong. Perhaps it's a personality thing, but I don't learn from being lectured at, I learn from engaging and getting involved. If I pick a side in a debate I know very little about, then when I'm losing an argument I'll spend limitless amounts of time researching and learning the strengths and weaknesses of a position so I can fight it efficiently.

Honestly, poly is like a debate prep class.

Only if the standard of debate is extremely low.

[Sava]

I'd really like it if we could all just get back to the topic here...

Speer is terrible.

[Sava]

I know what Poly is.

Are you sure? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

I don't care about being called wrong, I just want to know why I'm wrong.

I told you why you were wrong. The standards of "severe" are arbitrary, broad, and unscientific.

Only if the standard of debate is extremely low.

I got news for you... this is the way the world is. In America, our past two presidential elections have been:

"OBAMA IS A SECRET GAYISLAMOFASCISTSOCIALISTMUSLIM FROM KENYA"

versus

"uh, no."

with the "winner" of the debate winning by being not-a-******.

[kentonio]

kentonio, I don't doubt that some homicides by the mentally unwell are directly caused by poor mental health. Spree killings are rather dramatic examples of events that could really only be called crazy. But once you get away from those types of acts, it's very difficult to say whether or not someone's mental health is causally related to the crimes they commit.

You mentioned a couple times that people with mental health issues have trouble controlling their actions, but this is not universally true. Poor impulse control is a symptom of some disorders, but not others. And even when poor impulse control is present, it doesn't necessarily present itself with violent acts. For example, sufferers of OCD may have a lot of trouble not scrubbing their hands down to the bone, but there's nothing to say they're more likely to commit violent acts.

Absolutely. I'd just guess (and it is just a guess) that people suffering from issues such as severe depression which causes people to focus intensely on self and of course things like schizophrenia are going to lead to higher rates of people ignoring social constructs and be more prone to acts we'd consider extreme, be that violence towards self or towards others.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that mentally ill individuals can commit violent acts that are in no way associated with their mental health. If a sane person robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk dead in the process, we don't say the shooter did it because he was sane. Similarly, an insane person may commit the same act, and in that case their mental health is entirely incidental to the crime.

Again, I don't deny that mental health can be causally related to violent acts. The difficulty is in sussing out how much poor mental health actually contributes to violence, how much it leads to situations that cause violence, and how much it and violence are correlated by way of a third factor. Unless you can sort out those confounding factors, it's premature to say that poor mental health is a direct cause of violent acts.

It's probably premature to form a completely concrete conclusion, but equally how could you ever completely discount other factors? I haven't found figures on it, but if for instance a study showed that people in poverty with severe mental health issues committed more homicides than people in poverty without them, would that be enough to make the case? How do we determine how many barriers there are to overcome to reach a conclusion that you'd find satisfactory?