Tom Cruise "interview"...:killingme

[Toxick]

The doctor isn't sitting down with the patient, getting to the core problems, and helping the person to change whatever in their life is going wrong. Instead they diagnose the person as being clinically depressed and hand them the don't worry be happy pills.

I think that pretty much sums up Cruise's point.

Just so that I'm clear, I somewhat agree with Cruise's point. There are a lot of quacks out there, and there is way to much medicinal band-aids which cover a problem rather than healing it.

On the other hand, I was fairly sure that chemical or hormonal imbalances being the cause of things such as bipolar disorder, and post-partum depression, was pretty well documented scientific fact.




So yeah, he's may have a point... but you can only polish a turd so much.

 

[FromTexas]

I think you just validated Cruise's whole argument with that statement. A person has an issue that they're having a problem dealing with. Rather than confronting their problem and eliminating the cause of their pain, they go to a doctor and get drugged. The cause of the problem is still there, it'll still be there when they quit using the drugs, and of course the person will feel better as the drugs are now controlling their behavior. All that's been done is that a doctor is using chemicals to make them care less about what it is that's bothering them, and for most people that's a whole lot easier than confronting the real issue. The doctor isn't sitting down with the patient, getting to the core problems, and helping the person to change whatever in their life is going wrong. Instead they diagnose the person as being clinically depressed and hand them the don't worry be happy pills.

I think that pretty much sums up Cruise's point.

The difference is that is some people and some doctors. There are others who have valid problems. Cruise dictates no chemical therapy.

But, again, if the person is aware of the side effects and it changes their quality of life, who are we to decide for them what is appropriate in their life?

 

[Nickel]

I'll have to dig around for it... That information comes from various sources.


The information is not supposed to be easy to come by, either. Within in the Church of Scientology, that information is a closely guarded secret and it is not divulged until after the unwitting dupe has blown thousands and thousands of dollars and has attained the Super Sekret Scientology level known as OTIII. And they are FORBIDDEN from revealing this Super Sekrit information to lower eschelon members of the church and to outsiders.



I'm not sure, but I'd presume that this is the point where most ex-scientologists become apostates.

That's what I've found...all of the "reputable" (and by that I mean I can believe them) sites on the internet seem to be funded by scientology, and I doubt they're going to reveal information like that. In looking for books about the subject on amazon.com, I've found a lot of reviews that support what you've said. I don't want to jump in with an L Ron Hubbard book, so I think I'll try L Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?. Looks like an interesting read.

 

[RoseRed]

Psychiatrists condemn Cruise mental health remarks ...

 

[SamSpade]

Theory = hypothesis = educated guess.

I'm sure you know this, but there's a distinct difference between "theory" and "hypothesis".

A hypothesis IS an educated guess - it is conjecture supported by observation. Declaring that heavy objects fall faster than light ones is conjecture, one that isn't supported by observation (because they don't do that). Declaring that they all fall at the same rate is hypothesis until it is supported by a substantial framework of experimentation and analysis until a theory is formulated.

Eventually, what arises is something like the "Theory of Gravity" - something we would never 'test' the factual nature of, by jumping off a cliff and saying "it's just a theory". In the scientific world, theory is as close to 'fact' as you can get.

In everyday language, theory is unfortunately used interchangeably with conjecture - or anything else arising from the mind of man. While this works for people most of the time, it is regrettably most often used to belittle concepts which have undergone serious scrutiny by placing them alongside ridiculous flights of fancy. In so doing, General Relativity, a theory which has stood up to almost a hundred years of testing, gets placed next to Xemu, the alien who dropped on Earth 75 million years ago and blew people up with volcanoes.

 

[virgovictoria]

I'm sure you know this, but there's a distinct difference between "theory" and "hypothesis".

A hypothesis IS an educated guess - it is conjecture supported by observation. Declaring that heavy objects fall faster than light ones is conjecture, one that isn't supported by observation (because they don't do that). Declaring that they all fall at the same rate is hypothesis until it is supported by a substantial framework of experimentation and analysis until a theory is formulated.

Eventually, what arises is something like the "Theory of Gravity" - something we would never 'test' the factual nature of, by jumping off a cliff and saying "it's just a theory". In the scientific world, theory is as close to 'fact' as you can get.

In everyday language, theory is unfortunately used interchangeably with conjecture - or anything else arising from the mind of man. While this works for people most of the time, it is regrettably most often used to belittle concepts which have undergone serious scrutiny by placing them alongside ridiculous flights of fancy. In so doing, General Relativity, a theory which has stood up to almost a hundred years of testing, gets placed next to Xemu, the alien who dropped on Earth 75 million years ago and blew people up with volcanoes.

To support this to a degree, then to perhaps, branch off as it were, there are often times of "mistaken identities" of scientific fact, whereas a theory may produce a desired result over and over again, thus "proving" that it must be true, i.e. "fact". However, due to limitations in research, or "guided" studies, results will most likely always become that which is desired.

With that said, in the case of psychiatry, the best approach is to, in my opinion, use faith in what science has been able to determine. Ethics does not allow too much in the way of live human neurological brain study, which is why the brain is still such a mystery to neurologists and pathologists alike. The two specialists can't often communicate with each other, and incorporate findings to contribute to scientific studes, along with the findings of a psychiatrist to isolate and document specific certain mental disorders.

Wanna find a volunteer for exploratory surgery of the brain?

I fully believe in pyschiatry, but not over-medicating or apathy on the part of the physician. You'll find that in any field. It's difficult in mental complexities while adjusting to stabilizing disorders because you can't wear your badge like a cast and the stigma adds to the stress which often triggers more episodes of many disorders.

My suggestion is to have a treatment team. A pychologist you trust. A general physican you trust who can monitor your bloodwork and your general well being and a psychologist who can help you deal with the issues associated with your recovery and/or stabilizing. You may need, in addition, a neurologist and a sleep specialists for SPECT scan, MRI and sleep studies and such. It's serious business and not just a "lark" that's in your head. It can REALLY be IN YOUR HEAD.

Some disorders are situational, some life-long. It IS more common than you think. And, it's unfortunate that big stars make idiotic comments that can influence a lot of people who idolize them, who may already be struggling with their own inadequecies.

Again, part of the mental complexities CAN be determined by scientific association and patterns, granted. Some cannot, at least right now. Some can only based on historical behavior - suicide, impulsivity, delusions, promiscuity, voices, MPDs, ticks, anxiety, depression, self-injury, attention, hyperactivity and much, much more. Believe what you will, but many have been helped by medication and behavior modication and they and their families are grateful.

 

[SamSpade]

And, it's unfortunate that big stars make idiotic comments that can influence a lot of people who idolize them, who may already be struggling with their own inadequecies.

I was thinking about this sort of thing this morning - why is it when celebrities say something stupid, it's so much more infuriating than when Uncle Bill says it? How many times have we heard someone say they're not crazy about celebrities stumping their cause or spewing their marginally informed political acumen? We tolerate it continually in almost everyone else. The complaint celebrities make so much is why should they be punished for saying the same thing we tolerate others, saying?

And it's been mentioned partly here and elsewhere - celebrities, unlike say, athletes, but very much like politicians - *survive* on how much they're liked. If Tiger Woods says a lot of unpleasant and rude things, it probably will have little effect on his ability to play golf, although it may cost him a few fans. But if Tom Cruise or Sean Penn say something we don't like - it *does* affect their livelihood. If it costs them fans, they won't show up at the theater. If no one shows up to watch Tiger, he still wins anyway. If some schmuck on the Orioles or Nationals mouths off, fans will still watch them play ball. People don't care how A-Rod votes; they just like to watch him play.

Actors and musicians are still somewhat under the delusion that their fan base rests on their talent and artistry. Only a little. It's based on popularity. It's why so many of the biggest actors in the industry have such a short acting pedigree, because they had a former life as a wrestling champ, martial artist or body-builder - we *like* them anyway. It's why talented actors and musicians fade from public life so fast - we get tired of them, even though they've lost none of their talent. When they spew off their political nonsense - we lost interest. Yeah, some get irate and want to run them out on a rail, but basically, they bore us. We just wish they'd shut up and get back on the big screen where they belong.

(I also suspect that big-time celebrities, who often get to do and see things and places most of us don't, somehow get the idea that they DO know what it's like to be on a battlefield, or in a burning building, or in the Oval Office - sometimes moreso than the ones who do it for a living.)

 

[Tonio]

I was thinking about this sort of thing this morning - why is it when celebrities say something stupid, it's so much more infuriating than when Uncle Bill says it? How many times have we heard someone say they're not crazy about celebrities stumping their cause or spewing their marginally informed political acumen? We tolerate it continually in almost everyone else. The complaint celebrities make so much is why should they be punished for saying the same thing we tolerate others, saying?

Good post. I think celebrities get more flak because, rightly or wrongly, we perceive them as speaking from a position of wealth and privilege. So their uninformed opinions often come across as arrogant. They appear to believe that their fame makes their opinions more important than ours. Whether the celebrities actually believe that is mostly irrelevant.

I suspect that many celebrities aren't all that eager to voice their opinions on issues that don't have to do with their latest project. We only see the clips on TV or the quotes in the newspaper. It's possible that most of the time, the press catches the celebrity at some event and puts him or her on the spot: "So, what do you think of this whole Schiavo thing?" (I wanted to see some movie star respond with, "Well, that's a personal family matter and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to voice an opinion.") That's different from a celebrity who is trying desperately to push a cause they passionately believe in, like Tom Cruise or Bono.

 

[SamSpade]

To support this to a degree, then to perhaps, branch off as it were, there are often times of "mistaken identities" of scientific fact, whereas a theory may produce a desired result over and over again, thus "proving" that it must be true, i.e. "fact". However, due to limitations in research, or "guided" studies, results will most likely always become that which is desired.

Since I work in statistics, I learned a long time ago to question data that comes from a clearly biased source, and to scrutinize any "poll" for its scientific basis and what questions were specifically asked. (I once participated in a very long telephone poll where they interjected my responses with "information" - that was little more than propaganda - and a follow-up if I wanted to change my response. At that point it became clear they were not interested in "measuring" anything.) Same is true in scientific research, although the advancement of science is steeped in resistance to proposals that are contrary to established "fact".

My favorite example is the Millikan oil-drop experiment. It's a simple experiment which eventually won Millikan the Nobel prize, but until his experiment, no one thought of "charge" as coming in discrete little packets, such as electrons. Without elaborating on the details much, he noticed that the differences in his charge results were always in multiples of (some number) - suggesting that there was a finite number of carriers of charge. After MANY trials, he came up with a value for the charge on an electron which is close to what we use today.

But - not completely. At least TWO frauds occurred in this famous experiment.

Millikan, in his lab notes - completely threw out the results of experiments that did not conform to the value he expected to get. In one set of trials, he discarded over two-thirds of the results. He already knew what answer he wanted to get, so he ignored the ones he DID get. Fraud number one.

It's the second fraud that is MORE interesting.

See, Millikan also was using an incorrect value of air viscosity. His experiment depends on a precise value, because he has to establish the terminal velocity of an oil droplet. Since his number was wrong, his original charge value was wrong.

When scientists tried to DUPLICATE his experiment over many years, they found that their results were higher. But they only adjusted their results GRADUALLY. Over the next twenty to thirty years, the value went up, and up, very slowly. Not because they were getting more precise - the final difference was substantial. No - they just didn't want their answer to be WRONG. So they threw out results that didn't conform to HIS incorrect answer.

It took many years, but they finally got it right.

The thing about theory is, it takes only ONE piece of verifiable data to prove it WRONG, and a million pieces of supporting data never "prove" it *right*. For all practical purposes, Newtonian mechanics is correct - until you approach the speed of light. Most theory is like that - it works within a given framework. Good theory even predicts the outcome of future events - such as was observed when signals were bounced off different planets in the 60's as they went behind the sun, and observed the expected "bend" in the path predicted by Einstein.

But scientific prejudice can be as stubborn as any other, because we confuse our "facts" with "truth".

 

[Toxick]

In so doing, General Relativity, a theory which has stood up to almost a hundred years of testing, gets placed next to Xemu, the alien who dropped on Earth 75 million years ago and blew people up with volcanoes.

You see the same thing in golf: a 3 inch putt scores the same impact as a 450 yard drive.