51. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #75263 by oxytocin on October 2, 2007 at 7:12 am

logical, as Russell alluded to, it is important that someone has the "capacity" to make decisions of this magnitude. Thus, in the hospital system, we have neuropsychologists who are trained to assess for this. The presumption is that if someone is unable to think in a logical and coherent manner, they should be deemed incapable of giving informed consent or making other important decisions. This is particularly relevant when someone has been diagnosed with dementia. It can also be relevant when someone is severely depressed or psychotic, amongst other diagnoses. These capacity decisions are considered by a committee, and they are temporary statements to protect the rights of individuals. Re-assessment is required.

52. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74946 by oxytocin on October 1, 2007 at 7:41 am

And I think you're incorrect [RCTs demonstrate the efficacy of SSRIs above and beyond placebo; this is a separate issue from the observed suicides]. I guess we'll have to leave it at that so we can avoid adding another "re" on to the iterations, lest the word collapse under its own weight.

Let's get on with debunking the god-botherers.

53. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74924 by oxytocin on October 1, 2007 at 6:30 am

Bonzai,
wrt robustness and mathematics: although I know that I learned about this issue at some point, it is lost in the recesses of my mind.

A.Person,
Yes, the burdon of proof does lie on the party making the positive assertion. The problem becomes when one party thinks they've provided the evidence and the other does not.

Well, maybe one day you'll contribute to the literature with rigorous studies using interesting new methodology. And you're very right, tearing a hole in something is far easier than the reverse!

54. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74841 by oxytocin on September 30, 2007 at 8:21 pm

A. Person, RCTs are "statistical" studies...you may have used the wrong word there. In addition, we don't actually do "population" studies since that would be a near impossibility. They're still samples...just really large ones that require inferential stats just the same.

With your conjecture about placebos preventing suicide: it's an empirical question. If it hasn't been done already, go, formulate a testable hypothesis, and do the research [and have fun trying to appease the ethics committees]. Be the iconoclast that the best scientists are. But I assure you, there's nothing "simple" about what you just said. Stats or otherwise. Nevertheless, I would be there cheering you on. Above anything else, I want the facts uncovered for all to see. If the issue was settled with the RCTs, this would be a dead issue. It's not even been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

I think all the suicide researchers would likely disagree with you on the meaningfulness of their research, but never mind that. Statistical trends and personal anecdotes are far from equivalent. I see that you'll never give quasi-experimental designs the props they deserve. Okeedokey.

Yes, where death is concerned, it's always a serious issue. Again, suicide subsequent to the consumption of an SSRI is a rare event. Although you will disagree, I find the research that says that not only are these meds useful, but they prevent suicide as well, valid. Yes, it's terrible that a subset of people exhibit paradoxical reactions to the medications. We need to work our asses off to prevent it from happening. I will state again, if this is a patient care issue, we need to make certain that psychiatrists properly monitor their patients for adverse reactions and take appropriate actions. Although only tangentially related, as someone who uses CBT for major depression, I see my patients weekly and monitor levels of suicidality with great regularity and seriousness.

55. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74827 by oxytocin on September 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Bonzai,
I think you've raised some very important issues.

I for one see tremendous value in qualitative research [my honors thesis, in part, used this type of analysis], and I very much agree that the issues we are discussing above [and indeed much about the field of health in general] goes beyond the biological. This is why many of use bio-psycho-social models. And yes, reducing this to hypothesis testing is often not at all what we do; other times it's extremely difficult to do without being overly reductionistic.

I think many of us who use stats are wary of them and see them with a particularly skeptical eye. Perhaps even ambivalence. Many of the things we do, such as the Bonferroni correction, leave many of us scratching our heads and wondering if it makes sense to do it.

Robustness refers to the ability of a statistical test to withstand violations of the underlying assumptions. For example, as a class, parametric stats are generally sensitive to violations of the assumptions, while non-parametrics are less sensitive [since they're not based on parameters]. For example, if we know that we are going violate the assumption of normalcy in the distribution, we would select a non-parametric stat. Some assumptions are easier to identify than others.

Psychology very much aspires to measure as the physical sciences do, but we're not there in almost any way. Being a young science, we don't yet have the technology to accomplish this task, but I think the striving to do so will will eventually get us there. [with multiples missteps along the way!]

kardde1492: I hope your friend is taking the PRESCRIBED dose.

56. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74776 by oxytocin on September 30, 2007 at 11:50 am

Nother Person,
My apologies for thinking your comment was directed at me...it seemed like a passive-aggressive attack. This is the challenge of this type of communication. I have no doubt that we can learn from each other.

I will need to disagree with your use of "faith" in my endorsement of the medical model. I would say "trust" instead since what I think about medicine is based on evidence and is falsifiable. The irony is that in here I'm defending medicine when in my life "out there" I'm actually quite critical of it [and vocally so]. How much fun would these boards be if we all sat around and patted each other on the back for being right?

A.Person,
Oh bother. My scientology comment was a poor attempt at humor. All of the psychiatry articles on this website are lambs to the slaughter. I was "joking" about the efficacy of the scientologists' methods in convincing the public to abandon support of psychiatry. That's all.

1-It's not ad hominem to surmise that someone doesn't have much experience with research. I don't have any authority with regard to medications…I'm not a physician. But I do know research, that is, how to read it, and the practicalities of carrying it out. My sincerest apologies if you felt attacked…it wasn't my intent. I have students of my own, and the last thing that I ever want to do is attempt to quash dissent. Again, the folly of the written word alone…

2-I would caution against the word "proven". As we know, inferential statistics do not "prove" anything. They "reject" or "fail to reject". The best we can say is that we often value the evidence from RCTs more than other types of trials…

…but why might scientists employ other research designs when they are clearly and self-evidently useless? Well, because many researchers don't take such a black and white approach to the issue. They recognize the unique validity of other approaches. For example, have you noticed the number of participants in the retrospective studies? They are often far larger than an RCT would permit. With an increase in N comes an increase in statistical power. Now…RCTs are often substantially smaller and astronomically more expensive. Not every researcher has the coin or the infrastructure in place to carry out this Herculean task. Because RCTs are often small[er], they have the disadvantage of potentially failing to document rare events, such as suicide. One benefit of observational research is that you're far closer to population parameters, and the probability of capturing rare events in the data is much higher. Patients can also be reluctant to join an RCT. Why might that be? Well, because ethically, we have to tell them that they may not get the active treatment. [Note: many argue it is unethical to deny treatment to people, especially when the utility of a medication is well-established; the control then becomes the well-established medicine]. Might people who self-select out have something in common that is pertinent to the question at hand? Perhaps, perhaps not. Another issue is what we call external validity or generalizability. Sometimes people are taken out of studies with the goal of making the sample homogeneous, but it may "backfire" when attempting to say something about the population as a whole. Quasi-experimental designs attack the problem from a completely different angle by including all sorts of folks in their data sets and using huge numbers of people. Typically, RCTs are great at identifying a desired effect [called "efficacy"], while observational studies are better at demonstrating the ability to bring about an effect [called "effectiveness"]. Finally, RCTs are often limited to short term outcomes while observational research can cover much longer periods of time. Although we can make less specific and concrete conclusions with observational research, we are on more solid ground in our application of [conservative] blanket statements across a population. These are but a small sampling of the considerations.

I will also say with regard to the RCT that it is becoming a political issue. What I have noted, both in comments by researchers in the literature, and in my experience, is that people use "RCT" and "evidence based medicine" as a catchphrases without knowing what they really entail. We are increasingly being required to carry them out by people who don't understand the issues. This is a problem.

If we don't value quasi-experimental research, we are losing a lot of very interesting and valid data. What scientists need to do is to ensure that their studies of this sort are rigorously designed for maximal benefit. But this is what makes science challenging. We have to put together various sources of sometimes disparate information and hopefully paint a picture that appears somewhat coherent. Sometimes this happens, and sometimes it doesn't.

With regard to the medications: My goal was never to "prove" anything. This is not a black and white issue and it isn't how science works. Although you have raised some very important concerns with observational data [and which researchers constantly flog themselves for without the need for us to do it for them], you are failing to recognize that most scientists who work in this field do indeed value the data generated by quasi-experimental research. So, if you negate all the data from those studies, then we may never agree on anything. Each have their strengths, and both need to be considered to achieve a more complete picture.

Let's find common cause here. Clearly, it sounds as if we both care about what happens to people who are depressed, which is important to recognize. Ultimately, we're disagreeing over the interpretation of complicated data sets that are tough to pin down. What concerns me is that in the litigious US, regulatory bodies may be so concerned over law suits that they may become overly conservative in the application of their power, which has the very real potential to lead to harm. We need more research of all sorts, because one tool doesn't solve all problems. This will continue to be the state of affairs until our methodological technology is catapulted forward by the successor to the RCT. What form that will take is beyond me.

57. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74610 by oxytocin on September 29, 2007 at 5:22 pm

A. Person,
First, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I wasn't referring to the FDA as scientologists...in fact, I didn't refer to anyone as a scientologist. I was referring to actual scientologists. Second, I said in my post that I'm a psychologist, and I will further specify that I work on an inpatient unit alongside many psychiatrists. Please don't presume to tell me what's done. You've still failed to provide references for any of your assertions.

Hold on there professor. Although RCTs are the gold standard, it is not always possible to conduct them since they take a tremendous amount of work. I suspect, since you are a student in an as yet unidentified field, that you are unaware of the intricacies of this type of research [a friend of mine is conducting an RCT right now in fact]. It most certainly does NOT make other designs useless...we have several different types of research designs that ask different questions and are limited in different ways. If they were useless, they wouldn't be funded and they wouldn't be done. This is the economy of science. Again, it sounds as though you have only passing familiarity with what you're attempting to proclaim with great authority.

If there are psychiatrists who don't see their patients for 2 months after prescription, this is a patient care issue and not a drug issue. This isn't how the colleagues that I work with operate.

I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Columbine. What point are you trying to make? You seem to be supporting my assertions.

Yes, they often screen out suicidal people for drug trials. You are confounding this with depression severity [from your last post], since suicidality and depression are two separate entities, with the former potentially being a symptom of the latter, even at low levels of dysphoria. But then it might not be present at the severe end of the spectrum, even if the patient has psychotic features. They're separate but related.

Let's not use words like "miracle" with modern science...it's nothing of the sort. Of course the suicides are a problem that need to be addressed. No one has said anything to the contrary. I stated that in my last post [which you apparently didn't read]. Again, though, this same phenomenon appears in psychotherapy. This is a bit of a problem for your hypothesis.

Just so we're crystal clear, let's review some of the findings I cited in my previous post.

1-The number of suicides reduced by 60% in the 1st month of drug use and fell even further thereafter.
2-Suicide rates following treatment is higher for adolescents than adults, but still have lowered rates of suicidal ideation [it appears to be vulnerable individuals who are most at risk, and scientists are now attempting to identify who they are] overall.
3-For adults, suicidality was highest before treatment began and declines sharply subsequently.
4-Rates of adolescent suicide were lower in counties in the US where more SSRIs were prescribed [even after controlling for income and availability of psychiatrists]; it's not double blind, and it's retrospective, but it still has value, whether you want to admit it or not. Sorry, but it IS a valid research method. It has limited power [as do all methods], but not in the way that is damaging to the present case!
5-Rates of suicide fall when using SSRIs and older meds [e.g., tricyclics] with veterans and young people.
6-Untreated depression places people at risk for suicide; antidepressants protect them from it.
7-After a steady decline in suicide rates from 1988 onwards [after Prozac was introduced], there was an increase in suicide rates following the "black box" labeling of SSRIs by the FDA.
8-"Several large-scale studies in the United States and Europe also screened blood samples from suicide victims and found no association between antidepressant use and suicide. "Researchers found blood antidepressant levels in less than 20 percent of suicide cases," said Licinio. "This implies that the vast majority of suicide victims never received treatment for their depression. Our findings strongly suggest that these individuals who committed suicide were not reacting to their SSRI medication," he added. "They actually killed themselves due to untreated depression. This was particularly true in men and in people under 30". "Licinio and Wong fear that overzealous regulatory and medical reaction, public confusion and widespread media coverage may persuade people to stop taking antidepressants altogether. They warn that this would result in a far worse situation by causing a drop in treatment for people who actually need it." [Then they go on to talk about the effect of increasing energy and so forth that I mentioned in my last post.]

These are ALL important findings. As always, the data speaks for itself.

In conclusion, the benefits of antidepressants outweigh the costs. But the costs need to be considered seriously, in research and with vigilant treatment.

58. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74546 by oxytocin on September 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Wow, what is it with people and psychiatry? It sounds to me as though the scientologists have succeeded in their plot to discredit the field…it's like the Rodney Dangerfield of the science world.

Nother Person, I'm taking a wild guess that your comment was directed at me; if this is true then you're making unwarranted assumptions. I can assure you that I have no desire to toe the line of the "science industrial complex", as you say…as a scientist and clinician, I care about the data and the welfare of my patients. As a psychologist, I neither prescribe medications, nor do I have any ties with pharmaceutical companies. What I stated above is based on what I've read in the research, not blind adherence to the status quo. I am a "cheerleader" for the scientific method. Further, science, by definition, does not claim to have final answers; it is inherently tentative, and I have no idea how you derived the contrary from what I wrote above. We strive for technology to help us solve problems, but we do not know if it will ever be complete in this regard. I am stunned that you would suggest [if you have indeed] that I used psychiatry in a "religious" manner…this is the very antithesis of my worldview. By your reasoning, if I were to defend evolution against the pestilence of intelligent design, I would be mindlessly defending without cause.

A. Person,
1-What I've said previously about people misunderstanding the risks involved in taking an antidepressant medication does not negate the risks in their entirety, only that people are making a bigger deal out of them than is warranted by the data; I deal with the fallout of such pronouncements very frequently. In order for us to accurately assess the nature of the risk, we must examine the data that have been gathered on this important issue. For the present purposes, I have linked to brief statements that everyone can access, since I assume the majority of people won't be able to access academic journals.

For adults:
[http://tinyurl.com/yovbwu],[http://tinyurl.com/yvqgad],[http://tinyurl.com/2utbyv]

For children & adolescents:
[http://tinyurl.com/2yjjdb],[http://tinyurl.com/ywyn44],[http://tinyurl.com/yqfgv8],
[http://tinyurl.com/26m86l]

If more references are deemed necessary, I will provide them. I will be unable to do so, however, until Monday when I return to my workplace.

2-To make the statement that "the drugs make people want to kill themselves" represents a misunderstanding of experimental design and the idea of causation. You've simply created an unjustified sound byte. You worsen things by commenting on "suicide-inducing doses", as if psychiatrists are twirling their moustaches and plotting the demise of patients. If you have evidence for this statement, please present it. What are the alleged doses by drug that induce suicide? Further, although I can't comment on the practice of all psychiatrists, the ones I know do not cut people loose upon prescription of medication. If it's a relatively simple case, they may re-direct them to the care of their family physician, but I've not observed patients cast aside without follow up since that would be unethical. I have no doubt that people fall between the cracks, but I don't know why you'd accuse physicians of callousness and apathy.

3-That the risk for suicide increases in the initial stage of psychopharmacological treatment, perhaps due to a reduction in psychomotor retardation coupled with an increase in motivation and cognitive ability, is a well-known phenomenon. This isn't wild speculation on my part; research supports the notion, which is why I stated it. The thing that you need to understand is that this relatively rare phenomenon has been observed in the initial stages of psychotherapy as well, so it's not even unique to antidepressant medications, suggesting that it may be a natural sequelae of the upward trajectory of the illness. With regard to children, they have fewer coping skills, they are more impulsive [particularly if they have co-morbid ADHD, Conduct Disorder, or substance abuse, which are also risk factors for suicide], and they are less cognitively complex [depending on developmental stage] when compared to adults, making it extremely important to observe them throughout the course of any psychopathology.

4-I'm uncertain why you assume that drug trials are limited to "minor" depression; are you aware of what that actually means? In fact many of the findings we discuss in my profession are related to severity of depression and its interaction with psychotherapy.

Also, in a subsequent comment, you state that "all antidepressants have a number of very real miracle stories associated with them, which is why they're in such wide use". This couldn't be more wrong. They're in use because RCTs have shown them to be effective in large numbers of people [60-70%], not based on miraculous cases. That would be horrifically unscientific.

5-Yes, while people are more likely to commit suicide when they experience suicidal ideation, only a relative minority of people who consider suicide [~15%] will take action on such thoughts [e.g., Kovacs et al., 1993]. Thoughts and attitudes are actually notoriously poor predictors of behavior [Glasman & Albarracin, 2006]. Now, that is not to suggest that clinicians take suicidal ideation lightly…we take great precautions whenever someone presents with these thoughts.


Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778-882.

Kovacs, M., Goldston, D., & Gatsonis, C. (1993). Suicidal behaviors and childhood onset depressive disorders: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 8-20.

59. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74437 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 9:40 pm

A. Person, I just wrote a retort to your post but lost it upon attempted submission. I'm most aggravated. I will re-construct it tomorrow. What is your line of work, if I might inquire?

Ashley1319: there is research suggesting that antidepressants can sometimes switch people over into a manic phase of bipolar disorder if that is their diagnosis. However, I sincerely hope you don't use one case to make generalizations about this class of medications.

60. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74382 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 11:12 am

Yes, this is the battle we have in the free market...let the companies take us for a ride with their never-ending barrage of nearly-equivalent options vs. strict regulations requiring them to "get on with it" already.

61. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74364 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 8:43 am

hungarianelephant, I think that the public would be shocked to discover the number of treatments for which we do not understand the mechanism. Pragmatically, if they work, they work. And you're right: without understanding the mechanism, it's tough to improve on the effectiveness. This is the case with antidepressants. There are many choices, but all have roughly [with few exceptions] the same level of effectiveness in large groups of people, differing mainly in side effect profiles. When the mechanism is understood, we will be in a better position to say which drug will work well for which people. From what I've read, tailored medicine is the next possible revolution.

62. Mind Over Manual

Comment #74339 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 7:27 am

Thanks for the great post John. Your description of the brain as a heterergenous collection of smaller organs is something that I have thought myself, but never really vocalized.

63. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74335 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 7:16 am

The hysteria surrounding the use of antidepressants is similar to the hysteria surrounding vaccinations. Sadly, state of the science medical interventions come with risks. If these risks aren't properly communicated to the public, misunderstandings prevail, and decisions based on faulty premises are made.

It is common knowledge within mental health that people with depression are at greater risk for suicide when one starts to experience an alleviation of symptoms. If someone is severely depressed, cognitive slowing and lack of energy often prevent people from commiting [or even thinking about] suicide. When they start to become more energized and cognitively activated, suddenly they have the capacity to consider other options and even act on them. This has explanatory power when considering why some people who take meds [and engage in therapy] might become more suicidal rather than less, in the early stages of treatment.

Also, most people don't act on suicidal thoughts. The single largest predictor, unsurprisingly, is a previous suicide attempt. This is followed by having a concrete plan and the means to carry it out.

64. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74331 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 6:45 am

hungarianelephant, you bring up some interesting points to be sure.

In statistics we do have causal models, regardless of whether one's involved in commercial endeavors or not. In fact, I've never been involved in RCTs within industry...I work in the public system [in Canada] and, if anything, I've done research to disprove the findings of industry in a particular field.

Now, with regard to causation: I think you're right that the general population does not understand what this concept means. When analyzing these models, we do talk about causation [i.e., x came before y, and likely lead to y], but it's not so simple.

The goal of research like this is to account for the variation within and between groups [simply referred to as "variance"] subsequent to intervention. That means we have to match our groups on a whole host of variables, so we can say, with relative confidence, that the differences between groups at the end of the trial are due to the intervention and not individual differences. If there are indeed statistically reliable differences between groups after implementation of the research protocol, then we attempt to see how much of the between group variance can be explained by the intervention [having accounted for within group variance]; we derive an index such as the mutiple regression coefficient that takes into account the "error variance" that all research of this type generates, and then evaluate the strength of the intervention. Sometimes, the effect size, or the impact of the intervention, is small [but statistically significant], an aspect of this type of research that is WAAAAAY lost on the general public. When looking at trials like these, there is far more to account for than "this caused that".

Also, I think you're confusing mechanism with effect. Those are two entirely separate lines of inquiry. Both important, without doubt.

Scientists have a lot of responsibility to communicate findings to the public as accurately and clearly as possible, with the full understanding that they'll be terribly misunderstood no matter what! It's a constant battle.

65. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74217 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Bonzai, No, I'm a psychologist.

We don't need to get into the specifics of statistics, but health research does attribute causation, depending on the nature of the study's design. Obviously, correlational research suggests connections, but nothing more. If we're using a longitudinal, double-blind controlled trial design with multiple regression, for example, we talk about prediction and causation.

I think the only time that we're ever able to say something relatively concretely in science is when we examine entire population parameters and those are very hard to get. Even then, the very spirit of science is that our knowledge is always tentative, hence, the inherent omnipresence of probabilities behind all of our statements. Now, there are some things in this world that we act "as if" that's not the case, such as "Pluto exists". But the essence of science is that it is really only a very high probability. I don't know of any instance where measurement error is zero. That's one of the main reasons that "proof" isn't what we generate, although I'm sure we'd all like to be able to do so. Again, the practical differences between us, Bonzai, are truly microscopic.

I will also mention that your ideas concerning finding evidence of the celestial teapot are very much in keeping with Victor Stenger's approach to disproving the god hypothesis. Unfortunately, I don't think that any theist will be moved by such arguments since they commonly assert that their deities are outside space-time, and could even go so far as to willfully prevent us from detecting their presence. This assertion breaks down somewhat when theists further posit that the deity also exists in our material universe, as Francis Collins does. Then we might be in a position to detect the residue of its alleged presence. Even still, we likely wouldn't have enough data points to say anything meaningful unless "god" remained very still for a loooong time and permitted multiple measurements!

66. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74150 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Bonzai, I don't know if you're a scientist, but that really isn't the way that we speak about things. When we make statements to colleagues and in our published reports, we don't speak about "proving" propositions. We talk about "evidence in support of", or "failed to find evidence for". In other words, we talk about the "null" and "alternative" hypotheses, and then conclude on the basis of probabilities. Not "proof for".

I'm actually sure that we agree on what we're talking about, but are perhaps using different language. As a scientist, I sure as heckfire hope I don't misunderstand inductive reasoning as you seem to be suggesting. That would be most unfortunate for my work!!

67. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74139 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 11:37 am

Bonzai, just a minor suggestion: science does not "prove" anything...we leave the proofs to mathematicians. All science can do is disprove something...that is, showing an idea is false by finding evidence that contradicts that assertion.

68. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74123 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 10:14 am

Wee Flea, what stuns me is that godbots generally chastise non-theists for the enormous amount of faith that it takes to be an atheist. Although I think the very notion of that idea is vacuous [i.e., many of us here try very hard to avoid believing in things in the absence of evidence], by your standards, shouldn't it actually be a "good" thing that we allegedly have a lot of faith? Religious folks generally consider faith a virtue...if atheism requires so much...don't we "win"? What's our prize? Where do we collect it?

No, rather, I think that most of us abhor the very idea of belief without evidence. Even ignoring the fact that the negation term, atheism, does not, by definition, imply any worldview, you need to tell us what assumptions ALL of us are making when we deny the existence of things unseen. And further to the point, how does denying the existence of something make one fundamentalist? If we need to pull out the dictionary, then we will. Are you a fundamentalist a-fairy-ist? If not, then why? Are you willing to hear the evidence and discuss the merits of the fairy-ist case?

69. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73589 by oxytocin on September 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

Quine, one possible hypothesis is that the writings of Dawkins et al. are finding their way into public discourse. Another possibility might be that the same non-theists on this and other sites are becoming more assertive. We know that the book-reading population is embarrassingly wee. Which brings me to...

Wee Flea, Ugh. First, please tell us exactly how "atheism" is a faith. I'm very much looking forward to learning something revelatory from you. Second, it doesn't appear as though this instructor was preaching at all, but rather discussing the contents of the bible from an objective perspective. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't think academic learning about ALL religions should be taken out of school. It's simply that no one religion can be given preferential treatment with the goal of converting your students.

70. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72867 by oxytocin on September 23, 2007 at 9:24 am

You've got it BAEOZ. Let's hear it for the data!

Well, more and more we're coming to understand that our most cherished ideals are less noble than we once thought. They are feelings that have evolved...and they're shared with our fellow mammals. This is data that won't be taken well by our deluded brothers and sisters.

71. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72706 by oxytocin on September 22, 2007 at 11:50 am

The problem with putting "mind your own business" or some such thing is that people of no faith will be under-represented and we'll continue to be perceived as a puny, whiny, insufferable minority.

72. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72690 by oxytocin on September 22, 2007 at 9:48 am

NJS, wow, you feel strongly about filling out forms. If you want, you could submit a short essay with every form that requests your religious status. I can't see any reason for "none" being wimpy, unless you're super surly and just want to take every opportunity to bash people. None means simply that. It's accurate and succinct. As you say, putting atheist there implies a set of beliefs where there are "none"...and so we're back to that word again.

73. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72684 by oxytocin on September 22, 2007 at 9:04 am

NJS, at the hospital where I work, we have several options to choose from, and I often see "None" selected. I think that sums it up.

74. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72676 by oxytocin on September 22, 2007 at 8:36 am

I've never felt comfortable with the term "atheist" and have taken to referring to my stance as "rational materialist". This has the benefit of positively stating one's method of thinking, and circumventing the stigma associated with the negation term "atheist". People simply don't understand the latter term.

75. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72472 by oxytocin on September 21, 2007 at 7:54 am

We need a permanent link to PZ Myers' "Courtier's Reply" on this website.

It's amazing to me how "much" can be said by these apologetics without saying anything at all. These pieces are literary rice cakes. The authors purport to know the mysteries and complexities of religion, cite RD's personal shortcomings in this regard, and then fail to discuss their personal insights.

76. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70771 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 9:26 pm

I think we may have reached the nadir of this thread...

77. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70758 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Bonzai, Spinoza,
Wow! Three Ontarians on the same page! I'm in Ottawa.

Bonzai, I think humans have an ambivalent relationship with groups and society in general. I agree with you that it is undesirable to emulate almost anything that religious organizations do. It would be nice if we could just present the facts of science and let people come to their own logical conclusions without resorting to proselytizing. But then that would mean that we would have to have the freedom to teach real science in schools.

Sapient,
Thanks for the info you posted on how you handle the theistic lurkers. That makes things much clearer.

I think we can relax on poor Mitchell Gilks now. He clearly stated his apology several times. No need for sadism. Let's move on.

78. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70712 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm

ksskidude, I think people in the States are really the ones who are in a bad place with regard to admitting your non-theistic status. As a Canadian, I have never once hesitated to deny my allegiance to the pantheon.

Let's face it: most people aren't going to make a big impact, nor should they be expected to. Not everyone has the drive or the ability to do this type of work...that's human diversity. The average individual struggle consists of conquering one's fear and then standing up in their own way, perhaps to a family member or friend. To me, that's a victory.

I'm educating myself about the psychology of religion, and may one day do research in the area. I don't have much of a research allocation built into my position, and it doesn't really fit with my area of practice, but I think I might be able to sneak it in somehow. I just have to be devious enough.

79. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70674 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Yorker, The argument I was making was to minimize the nastiness and accept that there's going to be diversity of opinion, which is actually a good thing. I don't at all disagree with you that groups are required, and I did not make an argument in contradiction of that anywhere. We're social critters without doubt...but we need to minimize our tribalistic tendencies, otherwise we'll always end up killing members of the outgroup who border our territories!

80. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70666 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 2:15 pm

sapient,
Just wondering, even if you were able to sniff out xian posters, what do you do with that information?

My feeling is that as unfortunate and annoying as it might to have that situation to deal with, it should be left that way [I'm uncertain if you're suggesting otherwise]. We have seen several instances of creationist websites banning atheists from posting on their boards. In my opinion, we need to protect the freedom of people to post as they choose...even if mischief is their goal. If we do not, we may be accused of rooting out dissent, which would be catastrophic for a site that claims to value science.

Perhaps you would consider expanding on what you have done with the data you have uncovered on your own site.

Spinoza, man, you are one gloomy gus. If you are really feeling that this site is pointless, and that no one here has anything of use to say, why are you lingering? Also, what does it mean to BE an atheist [I'm not claiming you're wrong to do so, BTW]? I never identify myself as such...preferring to say "rational materialist" or some such thing like this.

81. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70642 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Well shucks robotaholic, ain't that just a quaint notion. As Sam Harris quipped, this argument is like being in a tennis match and suddenly realizing that your partner is playing without a racket. If you refuse to examine the empirical evidence, your opinion is worth very little. Uneducated and ignorant individuals have opinions all the time. How are we to differentiate them? Perhaps through evidence? Or is this just a matter of opinion?

If only reality were like that: my belief makes it so. What lay people think about science, or reality for that matter, doesn't make an ounce of difference. If your reasoning was sound, we would have democratically elected to agree on the earth being flat and the center of the universe.

...and cite your evidence that people [more importantly scientists] don't consider psychiatry science. Although I'm a psychologist, I'm fairly certain that I used the scientific method in my dissertation [and my other research]. It is that fundamental quality, the process of the scientific method, that determines whether something is a science or not. Not your baseless assertions.

The claims I make are because it's my profession! I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences with psychiatry, but there are reasons that we use science to educate us rather than personal experience. Each of us is too biased and small to accurately see the bigger picture.

You're right. Perhaps you should say the same thing to a religious person as well. You "just" have a difference of opinion. There are no facts, only opinion. Brilliant. This world will make unlimited progress subsequent to the adoption of your approach.

82. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70634 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 11:53 am

There's a lot of passion here about how to handle this important issue. Something similar has been going on at Pharyngula with regard to whether or not to frame science when communicating with the religious.

I think the important thing to remember is that we can be strong because of the diversity we all represent. This has happened with the gay movement and with women's rights. I've read arguments from the 60s that castigated those "angry vocal feminists". Subsequently, those folks turn around and criticized women who wanted to take a more measured and calm approach.

In my opinion, the strength of the atheistic argument, like the evidence for evolution, will emerge from a number of different angles/approaches [some caustic, some calm and collected; some divisive, some conciliatory], from myriad social/intellectual/occupational strata.

Naturally, we should all disagree with each other, since disagreement is important in understanding and growth. I would humbly suggest, however, that we need to consider that the battle will be won only with the combined views and methods of ALL the people here. We all agree with the fundamental assertion [as stated by Bertrand Russell]: that it is undesirable to believe in something for which there is no evidence. We're all in the same fight, let's not turn on each other.

83. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70579 by oxytocin on September 16, 2007 at 6:38 am

robotaholic,
It seems you have an entrenched opinion that you are unwilling to reconsider, even in the face of evidence from two professionals who know more about the subject than you do.

First, you actually can infer psychological states from verbal reports, as Dr. Benway says. These reports have been correlated with fMRI, PET, SPECT, EEG, etc, which is how we know anything about the connection between brain and cognition/emotion. If you eliminate that source of info, you have no way of knowing what brain activity on the imaging might be. We have also linked verbal reports with galvanic skin response [GSR] to determine connections with somatic physiology. Do you not think that there are reasons why scientists think that verbal accounts are valid?

Second, I don't know what you think a neurologist does, but there is a lot of inferential work, and a heck of a lot of data is gathered via verbal report. You seem to have the idea that physicians who work in disciplines that you deem "real sciences" are sitting in rooms with "objective tools". This is not the case. I work with neurologists as a member of our sleep disorders team and I have observed what they do. Your view is incorrect. Even if a physician had the tools so that every patient simply hopped into an MRI [or whatever] upon presentation at the office, it would either be cost prohibitive for the system or the patient, depending on the country. At present time, this cannot be done.

Third, I work on an inpatient psychiatry unit. Your assessment of the situation is dead wrong. You describe these sick individuals using pejorative labels [i.e., "crazy"], and then make unsubstantiated claims that they don't get better. How do you know this? What individuals are you talking about? Which diagnoses? What severity? What data is this based on? People are not kept in psychiatric institutions in the way you have specified...there are ethical standards, and the goal of treatment is to actually help people get back to their lives.

Rather than assuming you're right, look at the science. The data, not someone's opinion. Look here as examples:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/current.dtl

http://content.apa.org/journals/neu

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/2007/00000098/00000003;jsessionid=13x9ksc9wbp5a.victoria

http://content.apa.org/journals/psp

http://content.apa.org/journals/xlm

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g781666680~db=all

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236745%232007%23999459998%23640045%23FLA%23&_cdi=6745&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=13e8a790403c4173001ecb9f7eeafe88

These, along with countless other journals, are the science of psychiatry and psychology.

The paper you linked to has nothing to do with science. It sounds like it was written in the 1950s.

I like Dan Dennett too. Again, though, he's not a scientist and does not collect data.

The brain versus the mind? Huh? The further we go, the more we reveal just how little you know on this topic. You sound like someone who has had no contact with real science or its clinical applications.

I think we've come to the end of this discussion since we won't make any headway even upon presentation of the facts.

84. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70426 by oxytocin on September 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm

robotaholic, we need your definition of "science". I think it may differ from many of us who were trained as such.

I think examining any psychiatry journal will confirm that conclusions are made all the time in the same way that they are in any other branch of science. However, those conclusions should be stated tentatively, since that is the very nature of science.

I don't understand your argument in your first paragraph. Perhaps you would be kind enough to re-state it.

85. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70383 by oxytocin on September 15, 2007 at 7:47 am

Dr Benway, I had stated molecular biology "or something else". It wasn't meant to be restricted to that.

Agreed on the black box issue. Steven Pinker does a great job explaining the issues. We come with software installed.

86. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70375 by oxytocin on September 15, 2007 at 6:36 am

Good quotes from Carl Sagan. I love science too.

This is the path that most of us who use the scientific method are on. Whether we study psychology, zoology, chemistry, or physics, the goal is the same: the hope of capturing some glimpse of what was thought to be unknowable.

87. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70308 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Just to let everyone know, there's a debate on this data with regard to the "framing" of science.

You can find it here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/note_to_self_dont_go_easy_on_e.php

and here:

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/aaas_panel_communicating_scien.php

88. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70293 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Raiv:
On the matter of faith and relationships, I would agree with you that we call upon our histories with people in our midst. The interesting thing about this, though, is that it is a non-conscious process...we don't sit there recollecting all of our transactions with people in our social circle, but we react with a feeling or intuition as to whether we should trust someone. This is one of the shortcuts of human cognition; these feelings can be experimentally induced as well, as can feelings of intimacy [behaviorally and chemically]. People will not consciously know where their feelings came from.

sabre_truth:
I think we're all in the same boat with regard to our individual niches of expertise. This becomes increasingly problematic the more advanced we become as a species; our knowledge grows and our ability to take it in remains constant, and we become specialists within specialties. I think this is why it is so vital that we learn about the scientific method, fortify the structural integrity of science, and learn about critical thinking from an early age. If we do this, we might have some chance at evaluating evidence presented in branches of science with which we have only passing familiarity. If we cannot fully know as much as we would like, at least we should have the intellectual tools in our possession to do so if we choose.

What worries me is that the perception of our knowledge [growing ever larger] may become so overwhelming to society that I wonder if people, en masse, might not just flee back to the safe confines of religion as a means of simple "knowing". Although it may not mean knowing anything substantive, it is an illusion that I think humans gravitate towards all too readily.

89. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70286 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 5:58 pm

robotaholic, my apologies, I have not been clear.

Here's what I meant to say: I think psychology and psychiatry are transitory sciences that will make headway as they are now. They will eventually morph into molecular biology [or something else] somewhere down the road. I hope that is clear now. My comments were clear in my head, just not here.

You're right, I stand corrected on the "fiat" comment. You did indeed write that.

I was trying to write my last post between seeing patients and I couldn't pay as much attention as I might have.

90. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70254 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 3:24 pm

robotaholic, I think we are in complete agreement that eventually, neither "psychology" nor "psychiatry" as we currently understand them will exist. The molecular biologists will take control.

With regard to your other comments: I think it's "dangerous" when someone declares by fiat that something of benefit to people, and which has empirical validity, to be categorically unhelpful or unscientific. What about looking at the data? How about looking at some psychiatry/psychology journals?

I don't think that I have any "woolly romanticism" about the brain. As a rational materialist myself, I think it likely that we will eventually uncover its secrets. I just think that people should admit when they don't know something.

The problem with discussing psychology and psychiatry is that as a species, we've evolved to be lay theoreticians about human behavior. This means that we have strong attitudes in this realm, and there is sometimes a resistance to psychology because of it. All things being equal, I find it far more difficult to convince someone that their lay notions of morality, for example, might be in error [based on research] versus their lay notions of physics or biology.

91. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70196 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 10:00 am

Nick6742, neurodegenerative diseases are a very challenging area of diagnosis indeed.

I guess it depends on what you use. If we're talking about meds, then yes, we're coming to understand that our tailored treatments are not as uniquely effective by diagnosis as we had once thought. Physicians are prescribing anticonvulsants as "mood stabilizers", and antipsychotics are being used increasingly for a wide array of diagnoses, including agitated depression. They also prescribe them for sleep, but I can't talk about that without becoming enraged [sleep is my specialty].

When we talk about psychological treatments, there is no doubt that tailored treatments work well, particularly in the areas of insomnia, phobias, and depression. Here, matching the different cognitive-behavior protocols to the specific diagnosis is essential and would be nonsensical otherwise. The research supports this approach.

92. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70173 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 8:44 am

Bama, I am sure you're right. No worries; I think all scientists should help to inform people about what science is really about.

93. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70168 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 8:30 am

Bama,
Ok, let's return to science 101. A hypothesis is a VITAL component of science. It says: based on the evidence we have so far, I think that under these conditions, x will be the case. That is called my "alternative hypotheis". The baseline assumption, however, is called the "null hypothesis" which states the reverse: NO! It is not the case. Inherent to the scientific method, then, is the philosophy of disconfirmation. This is essential. Rather than saying: I must prove x to be the case, the orientation is ultimately stated as: I must prove x wrong. This is a strength of science that assists in facilitating objectivity.

Yorker: Sadly, I must report that a psychiatrist buddy of mine confirmed that he did not learn a lick about evolution in med school. That, of course, says nothing about med school as a whole in Canada, but it was his experience nonetheless. And yes, as it has been said before, nothing in biology makes sense outside the context of evolution.

BAEOZ: I am a pimple of the ass of science.

94. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70155 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 8:10 am

Yorker, to be frank, my experience with physicians has been entirely devoid of religious content. That is, I have never heard a physician refer to any magic [beyond their own god-complex, that is]. I've heard some psychiatrists comment disparagingly about religion, but that's the extent of it. I would defer, however, to the data on the beliefs of physicians since my own perceptions of informally collected data will invariably be inaccurate.

However, I will say: 1-physicians are not trained as scientists, 2-I've read that they're leaving evolution out of medical school for fear of controversy, and 3-experiencing death often times increases one's belief in deities. I would refer you to Francis Collins and his account of how he became deluded.

BAEOZ, I think that this chap you've mentioned is relying on his moral feelings, and justifying them with the Quran.

bamafreethinker, contained within your facetious comment of slapping arses is a kernel of truth. Aggression can be used by an authority to re-assert their position of power, resetting the cognitive stance of the underling. Xians do this very well with shunning and fears of eternal punishments. Consequently, one's doubts may "vanish" when coming face-to-face with Satan's pitchfork.

95. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70135 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 7:44 am

bamafreethinker,
All scientists have agendas. Some of us are better at hiding them than others! Also, some of us do research in areas in which we have no stake one way or the other, which is probably the best way to do it. In my doctoral training, I conducted research in several areas that I was interested in, but didn't have any assumptions beforehand. Consequently, I think I did my most objective work there. Although passions can drive scientists to do a lot of work, it might not be their BEST work since they may be motivated to confirm a theory or provide preliminary evidence in support of a hypothesis. The beauty of science, though, is that there are always other scientists [many times anonymously, in the case of the peer review process] waiting to assault your work with intellectual bazookas. This is what keeps us honest, and it is what differentiates science from other forms of discourse. Individual scientists cannot be and should not be ENTIRELY trusted in and of themselves. It is the body and process of science as a whole that has credibility. I think this is a fundamental point.

Again, I will assert that we might be best served if we refer to our respect of authorities as "trust", since we can examine the evidence for ourselves if we choose to. For example, if a physician prescribes you a med for epilepsy, and you're still flopping around on the floor on a daily basis, you may choose to dig into the data for yourself to see if you have other options. This is in stark contrast with faith in religion for which there is no evidence [except for magic books].

As for your comment on faith, yes, upon further reflection, I think you're right in the case of young children. If we assume that a child's unwavering belief in their parent's infallibility is a homologue to religious belief, then we are on firm ground. This all needs to be empirically supported, and I have no idea how to do that.

96. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70122 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 7:02 am

Yorker and bamafreethinker,
This is a very interesting scenario.

First, bama, you've expressed an idea that Dawkins has posited as a potential evolutionary mechanism for religion. Because children would likely die quickly and spectacularly in the absence of respected parental authority, children may be hardwired for credulity. In fact, their brains are incomplete in their development, and, consequently, they think qualitatively different than adults. I think you have suggested something interesting when you call it "faith" in the parents. I would tend to call it "trust", but it is something I would need to think further on. I think adult relationships are based on trust as opposed to faith, but I suppose it depends on how the individual thinks about it; that is, whether or not they believe that their assumptions can be tested.

Yorker, I think your question is an interesting one, and one that has no firm answer. I would say that it depends on two important variables. 1-How old is the child? Children of different ages think and behave differently. 2-what is this child's learning history? Does this child trust his/her parents? We know that children, in efforts to develop autonomy, rebel against their parents and do things in order to test boundaries. These tendencies are strongest in the toddler and the young teenager; they are to be expected. If children did not assert their will, they would fail to develop autonomy and remain overly connected to their parents. Discovering that parents are wrong is an integral part of development.

97. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70118 by oxytocin on September 14, 2007 at 5:50 am

robotaholic,
Nice to know that you have such strong opinions on this matter without evidence. As a scientist [who, by definition, has done research] within the mental health profession, I can provide your comment with a proper smack down. Psychiatry IS medicine [it DOESN'T treat the issues any differently than any other medical condition], and your oversimplification of human psychology is potentially dangerous. I suggest that you learn about a subject before you declare something to be the case. Shouldn't we be here on this website because we value evidence? Your summary dismissal of these fledgling sciences has demonstrated not only a lack of knowledge, but a potentially damaging bias. Without the facts, we have the potential to exhibit faith and conviction in our attitudes just as certainly as if we were religious ourselves.

Prufrock: Behavioral fascist? Cardiological fascist? Neurological fascist? Methinks the media has wiggled its way into some brains and done its worst.

Here's a dangerous idea: it's ok not to know something and to admit it.

98. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70038 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Duff, you may want to read the article above. The whole point of it was that many of our discoveries are profoundly counter-intuitive. In fact, the more we learn about the world, the more we learn that we perceive a thin slice of an illusion. As Dawkins says, we live in "middle earth"; there is much to this universe happening around us that we cannot see. Many of our ideas about physical motion are wrong; most of us cannot comprehend quantum physics because it is so unrelated to the human condition and how we experience our world. Evolution does not make intuitive sense as we are creatures who exist in essentially the same form all our lives and will never experience an evolutionary shift; our self-concept is dominated by object permanence. The evidence for the validity of Jiten's statement is endless.

99. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70036 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 pm

phasmagigas, medicine has been very successful, but you should be aware that many so-called "medical" [as opposed to "psychological"...which will eventually be an outdated distinction] disorders are poorly conceptualized and far from clear cut. Diagnosis in medicine can be imprecise as well.

Nick6742: as a psychologist who works with psychiatrists on a daily basis, I would say that your comment about clinicians using dx criteria as "vague guidelines" does not ring true. Because the DSM-IV-TR is the best system that we have, we act "as if" it was true. We all know that there are far better systems ahead of us, but we use the criteria sincerely. To do otherwise would not be scientific or useful, since, in the latter case, communication about any commonly understood phenomenon would be effectively meaningless without strict taxonomic adherence. As we hone our skills at understanding the constitution of these disorders [schizophrenia is particularly poorly understood] we will not only diagnose more reliably, but we will develop highly effective treatments that are tailored for these newly re-conceptualized disorders. Our current tools are transitory, but as a scientist, I hope that this is the case for all of our tools.

100. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69962 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 10:47 am

sidfaiwu,
I agree that Myers brings up a good point about the surveys. In fact, the data has shown that members of groups who are "one-down" tend to evidence reduced mood as compared to the leaders of a group. It may have nothing to do with the benefits of religion, per se, but rather a dip in the mood of the minority group.

...on the other hand, maybe it is beneficial. Research in social psychology shows that people who maintain certain illusions about the world [and themselves] are often happier than those who do not. People who are slightly unhappy tend to have a more accurate take on reality. This has lead researchers to speculate that illusions are actually beneficial to humans, promoting productivity and health.