Wayfarer brought up the issue of the placebo effect being a case of downwards causation. I would think this is true. How can the brain organize itself from a state of disorder to one of order?

There's something Platonic about all this.

I'm not sure what your point is here. — unenlightened

There really isn't one. It's just that I'm wondering what's causing the placebo effect?

Not entirely true Sir,

How do you explain purely mental states of mind caused by some neurotransmitter imbalance or even more profoundly alterations in brain structure and plasticity?

I mean it's a common 'shame' in the psychiatric community that antidepressants on average are as effective as placeboes. Going further, where you have more profound alterations in states of mind such as that seen in schizophrenia, you can also see a profound placebo effect when most medications are administered alongside them.

QM

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent?

Well, the placebo effect is just plain open evidence that certain beliefs can alter behavior. Whether there some immaterial force or entity inducing these brain states to arise is beyond me.

but then the whole superficial simplicity of the approach starts to unravel. — andrewk

But, that's what's so elegant about it. I mean sure, if we had a Stasi database on the psychological profile and motives of every citizen, then technically, you could deduce his or her probability in committing crime. But, that's just unrealistic but I doubt that would stop the FBI/CIA/NSA, lol!

The function, denoting y, depends on an underlying utility function, which is rarely known.

I think that addresses the 'inner life that motivates' a criminal.

Welcome back.

Hope you can post some threads on current issues as this place has become very political or rather dominated by politics due to jumbling all threads on the front page.

But, why is it that crime is so low in other places in the world if every young person is feeling inclined at some age to be 'rebellious'. Seems like an oversimplification being made here.

How would you explain the phenomenon of 'prostitution'? It seems like something not motivated by any sick passion and instead monetary gain at the expense of... well, a lot of things.

I think the issue presented above is not one of the types of crimes you mentioned or things a repeat offender would do.

The issue is to decrease the lure for young lads to engage in criminal activity that brings in a handsome profit.

People often forget that Ludwig Wittgenstein was once one of the richest people in Europe and gave away all his money. — mcdoodle

(L)

I had terrible ADHD in childhood that was never treated, which in my adulthood changed to ADD, which I treated for a while and allowed me to get into a good school. Luckily for me, learning came easily and without too many issues due to having a rather higher IQ relative to other children. I devised my own way of learning by memorizing what was said in school and using my own reason to follow through all the implications and such at home, before I slept, just during the day. A highly inefficient way of learning, but much more effective at the actual process of learning and understanding. Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to reason through arguments and facts, draw the dots and see the bigger picture, and then from the bigger picture fill in the blanks. This seems to work for me in my younger years, but at college, such a method is just burdensome due to how large the picture gets.

I would say that boredom is another word that can be interchanged with ADHD/ADD. One of the primary things stimulants do is increase interest in some activity.

Anyway, here's the big problem with stimulants from a patient to the witchdoctors willing to prescribe it. The threshold where they are effective medications for people with ADHD/ADD (and even normal people, as there's a big fad nowadays with the area called 'nootropics'. Meaning enhancing performance above one's normal ability.) and where they become abusable drugs, is too slim. The temptation also is too great. Profound neurological changes occur after the administration of these drugs that persist into adulthood. Some of these changes in brain structure/wiring are thought to be positive in people with ADD/ADHD, while in normal children this can lead to an increase in hedonistic tendencies. It's really basically fucking over the future of such a child as they will be inclined to spend and not save at any opportunity. Then there's the issue of tolerance, which is actually a codeword for "I'm not feeling high anymore".

I'm an advocate for better alternatives, or at least safer and not as profound as amphetamines. Ritalin/Focalin is OK; but, again there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes of such children, as you pointed out. My way of resolving the issue was to simply go to one of my favorite places and learn there e.g a library and take me meds. I'm for looking into alternatives such as combining THC with CBD to cancel out the stupefying/dumbing/psychoactive effects of THC. I have found out that one can use the beneficial effects of THC on staying focused on a task and canceling out most of its psychoactive effects through combining it with CBD, a natural calming and relaxing constituent of cannabis. Given the appropriate combination, you can hit two birds with one rock. You calm the person down with the CBD constituent while increasing their level of interest/desire in some task through the increase in dopamine and norepinephrine induced by THC.

One thing has to be mentioned though. How do kids in other countries manage their ADHD/ADD without access to stmulant medications?

I presume parents give it to their kids because they appreciate the value of big pharma to the economy and want to make sure it continues to make shitloads of money so we can all live happily ever after in the consumer utopia that we deserve. — Baden

:P

Ah, confirmation bias. Just human nature I guess.

And by cocaine — Baden

We've come a far way from having it legally available to prescribing it to children (almost the same shit in my textbook, with Ritalin being practically like cocaine). Oh, but, then there's amphetamine!

Does anyone have any idea why we prescribe children this stuff? Don't the parents need to get their heads checked before giving their children this stuff?

If only we valued food and clothing and health as much as money, then things might be a lot better for many and not a few.

What do you mean to say by that?

Surely, democracy would tell us something about that.

Oh, well then look at Japan for the matter. Nothing unique of Germans. I wonder why Japan became part of the axis circa WWII?

Low-blow!

Fascism solves problems in a direct, if unimaginative, fashion: by pretending they are not there. — Banno

I would say in the past issues were projected as having causes separate from their actual causes. Germans thought their sorry state of affairs was due to the outcome of WWI, Italians believed that corruption (I think?) was dragging the country down.

Mm, but I would say that fascism inverts this formula: it's about the interests of the State over and above the welfare of individual citizens. — StreetlightX

It depends on the presumption you want to assert here. Is it that citizens are capable of making decisions that are in their own best interest or that the State can decide what is best for the individual.

Exactly how to articulate the limits of both the state and its citizens (along with other interests) is, I think, the very political problem that is grappeled with in both instances. — StreetlightX

In fascism, the State has no limits. Its power is absolute and made so-so that the best interests of the individual can be fulfilled. If you remove any authoritarian doctrine that 'everyone must be happy because we (the State) say it so' then you have the utopia many fascists dreamed about. Which sort of brings me to my next line of thought as to whether fascism is necessarily authoritarian or can it exist without such shortcomings?

Well, in times of peace fascism would never arise. Only when people are unified against some common threat does fascism rear its ugly head.

the ideal state the fascists want only can exist as an mobilizing ideal. (so, yeah, a lot like permanent revolution.) — csalisbury

Not necessarily, though that would be a sine qua non if the guiding premise for the existence of such a dire state of affairs would be for the need for security from a threat. And, nothing speaking to people like fear.

I mean, communism just doesn't make sense when presented with fascism and in many ways, I can see (devil's advocate!) why fascists thought communism was inferior to fascism. This is why in many ways Soviet Russia resembled more a fascist state (during certain periods) in my view than a communist one. A communist state is just economically unfeasible.

It would be useful to use different words, I think. — Moliere

How else would you talk about this?

Quite interested in your input.

What do you understand by socialism? — StreetlightX

I understand socialism to be placing the interests safety and welfare of the citizens by a nation above all other concerns. That's about as concise as I can present the concept without idiotizing it.

The differences become sharpest however, where Moussolini discusses the function of the state, which is totally alien to any socialist conception of it:

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ... 'For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions...

The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself... The State is the guarantor of security both internal and external. but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people. as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of the present, it is also linked with the past and above all with the future, and thus transcending the brief limits of individual life, it represents the immanent spirit of the nation." (Mussolini,The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism; this particular document is only a couple of pages long. Well worth the read if you're interested). — StreetlightX

Strangely enough, I don't see that as a distinct from of socialism. Like I said it is socialism taken down to its most extreme and logical form.

But, I would wager that nowadays fascism has no enemy to fight or at least to fight and win, of course, if you aren't the dominant power in the world already. The weapons of the past are absolutely nothing compared to what is available nowadays.

Furthermore, it seems fascism is exclusive to homogenous societies where division and differing views are not common.

I would also like to mention that any state that treats defense and security as a national goal (The US for example) is very prone to any form of fascism in any degree. The US is committed to maintaining its budget to maintaining its military force and comparative advantage contra other nations. This has proven, contrary to what others think, beneficial to its national interest.

@casl & Baden

I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. The most efficient use of public funds has always been in my understanding spent through infrastructure and the military along with 'taking care of the population'.

That's enough to persuade me.

Just needed someone else to give me some idea what they think.

The Reasons of Love, Harry G. Frankfurt

Frankfurt is one of my favorite philosophers as of recent. He presents a compelling case for treating love and more importantly self-love as the highest good.

Freedom ain't free.

That entails civil liberties as well.

Hell, you had the director of the FBI coming out today and saying that there's no such thing as absolute privacy in America. I can understand why given how many people hate America for meddling with their affairs, which is something I hope decreases and not increases with these tools the CIA and other agencies use.

Yeah; but, it's been going on for/since the start of the cold war.

It's been pretty good so far?

Well, guess we should all give up then. — discoii

Give up on what exactly? I never trusted the government, but I'm a nobody and never will be. Besides, there's so much information out there, that there's no way to sift through it all by any human means. Unless, you become a target for whatever reason.

Journalists have pretty safe protection still, though.

You can use plenty of operating systems that are hardened and secure to a reasonable degree along with some pretty sophisticated anonymizing techniques.

If it's for the sake of national security, and always will be, then there will always be ways around civil rights, even more so post-Patriot Act.

So, what's your point here?

I mean, it's kind of obvious. The only safe place is cyberspace or a house in the middle of nowhere; but, even using TOR and other such methods flags you for further surveillance.

It's really a no win situation.

There's something fundamentally wrong in resorting to having someone put you in a state where you're incapable of doing anything yourself and having them do everything for you.

Throw in some Marx, and you get the exploitation of the human psyche at the grandest of scales.

I've become wary of psychology that turns to the "roots" of the issue, a la Freud and such. As if one were conscious of an ideal self and can adjust one's self to that ideal in comparison to their troubled past.

I did consider and still, do, hypnotherapy in the past/present, but, it seems like Freudian psychoanalysis with a twist to it. Something about it smells of passivity (literally) and giving one's self away to be treated actively in someone else's hands. It doesn't seem like a long term solution.

Besides, this whole thread and article are on a big hype-fest, that would create the impression that this shit really works.

Behavior is hard to change, and I don't see the remedy in hypnosis or in the mental masturbation over the past.

A bit of point missing going on here. One of the right things of which one should be proud was not 'being proud'. One of the things one should not love oneself for is loving oneself. — unenlightened

No, but one should be happy about being happy.

But if pride is a virtue and shame is a vice, as promoted by certain cod psychological quarters, the feedback destabilises the personality, and leads towards manic depression, the overachiever's disease. — unenlightened

Ahh, but that's all biological. Just take some lithium!