I agree in part, it seems more apparent however that this cursory and throw away philosophy is the trend in modern intellectualism; the idea that in two lines one can convey a sense of authority, provide an accurate and irrefuteable conclusion, and then solve for x.
It is unfairly simplistic, to give people their own soundbites and bolster their already established opinions, when carefully approaching any one of the things listed would properly require an entire volume and much study.
On the 'reality' of mental illnesses, if I can be a little less serious, I do still recognise (as did my favourite professor) that it is still a very odd position to be in, to say that the illness must exist because of the presence of the treatment. Suppose that the treatment had for some reason not been invented, does that mean the illness didn't? Did the illness become 'real' the moment the treatment was discovered to be effective?
It’s why Fraud advocated cocaine use for hysteria. The work he did with Fliess is worth looking into as it’s relevant to you point about pathologies being revealed by the use of medication, cocaine in their case.
ZH, circa 8 years ago was half decent, lots of conspiracy nonsense but also lots of market rumours, since then it has become a Russian propaganda page full of nonsense.
Ah come on. ZH is a primarily contrarian financial news site. They often break important market-moving news faster than other mainstream media, aggregate better by considering all sources (including Twitter), and criticise just about everyone. Sure, they are often bearish (predicting crashes that then don’t happen), but that’s an easy bias to filter for, and not really that different from the general negative-news bias of most media (i.e. clickbait). Simply because they also criticise the West (politicians, governments, media, policies) (because the West is included in everyone) doesn’t immediately make them Russian trolls. I can’t believe this is even still a serious accusation, for me it’s in the realm of conspiracy theories.
Well, God knows I am opposed to the current anti-russia madness but I stopped reading zh a few years ago when they were systematically taking Russia' side including when Russia was so obviously red handed. I think the drop for me was their defense of Russia in the MH17 crash.
Why would they care about Russia specifically? What criticism do you expect to see from them?
I read ZH sometimes. They also don't spend much time criticising Iceland. You seem to be assuming they should share the same obsession with Russia as much of the rest of the mainstream media, but their different set of obsessions is rather what makes them useful as an outlet.
> By his own account, Lokey was writing as many as fifteen posts a day, among them most of the political pieces. The gig had a certain formula, he told Bloomberg: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.” For Zero Hedge, Syria was a special obsession, a sign of the essential strength of authoritarian regimes and the weakness of democracies.
ZH says he's a disgruntled employee, but there's at least some evidence it's more than "they hate everyone".
You highlighted a perfect example of why ZeroHedge and other contrarian news sources are so necessary: When the war drums were in full swing against Syria and every major western news outlet was breathlessly promoting intervention with propaganda of their own (pictures of shell-shocked kids, championing of the brave "freedom fighters" and white helmets, spurious claims of "chemical attacks"), ZH provided a counterpoint that challenged those perceptions.
In that particular situation, both sides were total propaganda and Syria was the grayest of gray areas. I like to think I'm not the only one who read both extremes of the reporting with a filter and arrived at my own conclusion.
Agreed. I still occasionally read through it, but it's 49% political propaganda, 45% conspiracy theory and 5% blatant racism now (the comments over there are 100% ick).
If you want contrarian market opinion, just stick a post-it that says "the market is going to crash" to your screen and eventually it'll be right - just like ZeroHedge.
Definitions are much too narrow, there is so much overlap, ultimately though therapeutic methods don't differ quite so wildly. The handful of conditions he was displaying are common differential diagnoses with very similar treatments.
However, there are stigmas attached to certain diagnoses and not their differentials so some people prefer less negative labels.
In my experience with world class psychiatrists your views are a little outdated, generally the more academic practitioners are much more like Dr Barron.
