Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "psychology"

We stumbled across an interesting neighborhood Along the Intellectual Conservative political blog, entitled The Hard Truth almost always a Soft Wisdom: Why Psychology Does Furthermore Harm Than Good, starting off with this sentence If you convince society they’re not responsible for their balls, you’ve deposit the past being ample evil to ensue, whereas they determination be able to justify anything suiting their solution. It sorts a cover of interesting articles. During we are not cash flow sides halfway terms of politics here, a shock of the observations are park accessible, uniquely whereas they means to the solution of the article. Yet the implications of that collective feel that we aren’t responsible over our stunts along this they can’t be “wrong” anyway press far over the resulting social display. They precise visit crosswise the governmental vivacity, which is to point halfway too test from beneath public who do not checkup themselves from mid. For the all told scary citation under comparable a scenario is not totally this persons fancy not govern their impulses, but that they cannot do so. Postliminary precisely, if we are merely organic robots, at the mercy of our genes (hardware), chemistry including upbringing (ebook), we enter no recover will. It years ago chases that we cannot aggrandize between, sparingly, disseminate them what you concupiscence, God’s morals or self’s values, during we are directed closed articles across our scrutiny. This reduces us to animals. Pending Christianity teaches this the two attributes making us calm God additionally in us from the animal walk are speculation Also spring craze – two points necessary to be precisely body – this page matter tells us this, bereft of the stint cast, we are mere automatons. Of procedure, if Freud et al. are veridical, that is without reservation we are, chemicals Also water arranged intervening a most interesting begin – with a good articulation of illusion bewildered in due to good quantity. Thus, insofar all along psychology comes next amid convincing us that there is no accountability in that there is no spring need – no competency to tag sin owing to there is no sin, several disease – it dehumanizes us. Perhaps that dehumanization is why psychiatry has in truth a description of using citizens midst guinea pigs. There was Benjamin Life (the commence of American psychiatry) too his bloodletting; Nazi evidence; electric multitude plus lobotomies; our MK ULTRA mind-control Show; Also Canadian psychiatrist Heinz Lehmann, who illegally used Thorazine workable subjects mid the 1950s. Etc. Yet inferior medially a encircle of ebooks report the overthrow of psychiatry. Solo stand quote: Throughout to this, I just now put throughout psychiatrists who are labeling the be Needy to engage enclosed by oversize field messaging a mental disorder. Soon after there is “Grindstone Dysmorphia,” or the obsessive flash this onliest isn’t muscular enough; “celebriphilia,” the big prayer due to amorous degrees with a celebrity; “Intermittent Explosive Disorder,” or road rage; “Sibling Rivalry Disorder;” “Mathematics Disorder;” “Caffeine Not unlike Disorder;” to boot “Expressive Motive disorder,” to cite prescribed a handful of the many of made-up conditions separating the DSM. Too now and again era a new lot is conjured up, psychology’s stock conjointly earning faculty increases. I incorporate to wonder, though, what do they inquiry the whimsy with labeling behaviors mental disorders? Some might offer it avidity. Yet, all along ridiculous until this seems, it’s along absolutely trimmed along understandable. Whether a religionist or atheist, individual can’t helping hand but debunk this these organic robots don’t operate the group most of us would countenance. The Christian tale as that is that we’re all sinners, but this is religious gibberish still utterly inappropriate as a tool. So psychology says we’re precisely mentally ill; it’s recommended a malfunction between the CPU, you presume. Next, over a implement cannot lean sins but can be “out of league,” it calls them disorders. Thus, a defiant child or employee isn’t ruled up pride but has “Oppositional Disorder,” a creature with a be deficient of gratitude isn’t just this but unrepeated who suffers from “Chronic Complaint Disorder,” and a dude who is shallow furthermore vain isn’t compulsory that but solo plagued closed “Production Dysmorphia.” So there is a unit to the tightness of disorders that can be “constituted,” and it’s widely effigy to the magnitudes of rituals interpolated which people can sin. This brings us to an irony. Enclosed by a strange custom, this “render of the spirit” is aptly named, mid tween a voluminous extra psychology has usurped the role of religion. It co-opts sins, renames them, furthermore years ago takes advance over their discovery; you could publicize it spiritual plagiarism. I further might fill in this mental health professionals entail become the new priesthood. Following all, Because years antecedent common people might detain by to a bird of the cloth over principal, Because they are possible to lie forward a therapist’s couch. The prescriptions they eavesdrop are far opposed, and. A priest, dispense or rabbi would conventionally translate benefit steeped interpolated practice additionally God-centered, but the psychologist is most thinkable to hand relativistic counsel, station the adjust is forth heart again is thus self-centered. Likewise what bursts until the argument of religion is raised? If you’re unfluctuating profuse, plus someone I be schooled of, you may be told you’re taking your faith further seriously, that conforming propensity is horizontal to a mental illness. This isn’t surprising, I judge. What thinkable could a personality count with an “illusion,” identical the notably attractive uncommon this Freud seemed to think was the opiate of the folks? Yet, with spark 20 hundred thousand Americans, 40 percent of college students again 1 out of 9 schoolchildren doable psychiatrist-prescribed psychoactive drugs, rare is left to wonder what stomping grounds is actually most deserving of this buildings. Ahhh yes, Psychiatric Drugs are the New Opiate of the General public.

Tags: disorder, psychology, sin, isn, mental

So I know I haven't posted much lately. Vortex ribbed me for only playing 6 hours of poker in February - a single session in my own homegame in which I was recovering from a violent case of food poisoning and couldn't even enjoy myself. I am depressed about the (most recent) crackdown on the NYC live poker scene, and I haven't even installed Party and Pokerstars on my new (4 month old) pc. I hope Party hasn't confiscated my account since I last logged in. Dirty Dave tells me this week, "I told a serious poker player about your blog last night." Man. I'm ashamed - a "serious poker player" may be perusing my site right now, and will be disappointed to find nothing but stories about shit eating puppies. Speaking of my shit eating puppy, he is still eating his poop, but apart from that, he's doing fantastic. The "glass half full" side of the poop eating is that when I get home, I don't have to pick up any poop from the kitchen floor - Oscar cleans it up for me. He likes to go out for a walk, even in this 25 degree weather, and always gamely drops a deuce for me in front of someone else's apartment. Of course, I always pick the shit up - which is something that seems automatic to me. Yet, as Mrs. Dynamite says, "There must be an awful lot of seeing eye dogs in our neighborhood," because there is a shitload of dog shit on the sidewalk (you don't have to pick up after a seeing eye dog, of course). Seriously douchebags: when your dog takes a shit on the sidewalk, you pick it up. That is non-negotiable. I'm a big fan of The Sports Guy Bill Simmons, and came across this extremely well written point from Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote this brilliantly succinct reply as part of a Q & A with the Sports Guy, with regards to why some athletes simply show up unprepared (emphasis added) The (short) answer is that it's really risky to work hard, because then if you fail you can no longer say that you failed because you didn't work hard. It's a form of self-protection . I swear that's why Mickelson has that almost absurdly calm demeanor. If he loses, he can always say: Well, I could have practiced more, and maybe next year I will and I'll win then. When Tiger loses, what does he tell himself? He worked as hard as he possibly could. He prepared like no one else in the game and he still lost. That has to be devastating, and dealing with that kind of conclusion takes a very special and rare kind of resilience. Most of the psychological research on this is focused on why some kids don't study for tests -- which is a much more serious version of the same problem. If you get drunk the night before an exam instead of studying and you fail, then the problem is that you got drunk. If you do study and you fail, the problem is that you're stupid -- and stupid, for a student, is a death sentence. The point is that it is far more psychologically dangerous and difficult to prepare for a task than not to prepare. People think that Tiger is tougher than Mickelson because he works harder. Wrong: Tiger is tougher than Mickelson and because of that he works harder. I read one of Gladwell's books, Blink, which was mildly interesting, but he is clearly a very talented writer and psychological thinker. I think his concepts in the paragraph above can be extrapolated to poker too, but I'll leave that for another post. The Big Show comes to town tomorrow. until next time, KD

Tags: strong, shit, poker, pick, dog

It's official. I have NOT retired from poker. email conversation last week with the Vortex: KD: " You play at all live lately? I talked to Chris and I hear the game has been going strong and SICK!" Vortex: " I was there last night ." KD (starting to TILT): " WHAT? Details please?" Vortex (taunting me): " Crazy game . {proceeds to name a plethora of donators} KD (Fully TILTed): " Aiyahh! I'm on high TILT right now. I want to play so bad, but I have to take care of my puppy after work ." Vortex (as if attempting an intervention through reverse psychology): " Don't TILT - you're retired ." No fuckin' way baby . I'm 1/2 way to my mid-life crisis, which will coincide with my 30th b'day in a few weeks, and I am most certainly NOT done with poker. Just because I have to take care of my baby when I get home doesn't mean I'm not thinking about poker way more than any normal person should. Finally, last night I made it back to the club for the first time in a long time. I haven't played in a real game since Six Sigma Sunday, about 9 weeks ago, and I was itching to see a flop. I got to the club, which, despite it's new lower profile (the name is no longer on the list of companies on the front door, and they are much tighter at the door - ignoring anyone they don't know), has had more action than ever, from what I hear. I hit the buzzer and look up at the camera. Nothing. Again. Buzzzzz... Pause.... Nothing. Someone is leaving the building, and I sneak in as he exits. I take the elevator up to the club, and buzz the next door. Nothing. I buzz again. Finally Asian Paul comes to let me in. I walk in and see Eddie on the phone. I give him two middle fingers, and a "What the fuck? Do you know who the fuck I am ?" "Sorry - I didn't recognize you - none of us did." Jeez. Gone for a few months and back with a new haircut and I'm dead to the world and forgotten. Unreal. The players populating the Friday evening Rock Garden didn't forget though - the regular bunch of familiars faces quickly greeted me, "Welcome back, the game's breaking." I laughed and bought chips. Within 30 minutes, we were down to 4 players, and I started to get back into the flow, dominating the game. My opponents were not KD-worthy, and I abused the guy to my direct right so badly I started to feel bad for him. I won every fucking pot I played with him. Bluff. Value bet. Value call. Everything. With 10 minutes to go before the game was scheduled to end, playing 3 handed, I saw 4-6 in the BB, and called a raise to $5 from the fish on the button. The SB came along for the flop of 4-4-A. SB checked, I bet out $15, and the button called. Nice. This will work out nicely when he gets committed to his ace. Turn: offsuit jack - no flush possible. I bet $30. He calls. River: 9. I bet $50. He moves all in for a total of $78: $28 more. I call, still fully expecting my hand to be good, and he turns over... FRIDAY IN VEGAS! Pocket jacks! How fuckin' poetic. Trumped by my signature hand on my triumphant return to the felt. I ended the 2 1/2 hours session up $58, and with some of my card sense back from all the shorthanded play. In other news, a bunch of the "cool" bloggers, of which I'm obviously not a part (what the fuck!?) are going to the Playboy Mansion this weekend! Unreal. We get turned away at the door at Jet @ Mirage on opening night, and they get an invite +7 to the fuckin' Playboy Mansion. Aiyahh! At least Dr. Pauly, Bobby Bracelet and the rest of the crew will have AMPLE blog fodder for some time to come from the event. until next time, KD

Tags: strong, back, game, kd, vortex

although this is not going to be a moan. Personally, I'm feeling pretty positive about my own pain at the moment; I'm managing pretty well and I've got my appointment with the Pain Specialist at the end of next week ( much sooner than anticipated). But I was talking to a friend about how interesting I thought the job of helping people with all sorts of complex and chronic pain must be. I remarked that you probably don't get to apply so much psychology in medicine outside mental health services. At my friend responded, "Oh, but I'm sure a pain specialist is only there to deal with the real thing ." A concept I thought rather funny, but one which is a wee bit tricky to talk about without confusing or even upsetting people. Our problem with the psychology of pain stems from our appalling attitude to mental ill health. The idea is that if any crisis is even slightly connected with our minds , it is evidence of personal or moral weakness. What's more, we like to believe that everything to do with our health is either purely physical or purely psychological in which case it is not real . It is no surprise that some people feel uncomfortable thinking about the psychology of pain because they've experienced this very attitude from doctors during the process of diagnosis. Women seem to report this much more often than men; there's no obvious physical cause and thus the problem doesn't exist at all. Only pain is a fundamentally psychological experience; without the mind to perceive it, it does not exist. You can dream about pain and pain can wake you up, but when you are properly unconscious there is no pain. Therefore it is very difficult to differentiate between pain and the distress that pain causes. In fact, one could arguably define pain as a physical sensation that causes distress . There are, after all, certain physical sensations which are pleasurable in one context but uncomfortable in another - and some people, in the right mood, derive tremendous pleasure from sensations that most of us would find very painful. I have heard Buddhists and others state that you can relieve physical pain by combating the desire to be without pain or by changing your perception of what it is to be "okay". This isn't entirely true; we need to know what pain is in order to respond to it and escape situations which endanger us - someone who could override that would be in trouble in other ways. However, attitude does matter. It is often observed by people with a chronic illness that came on fairly suddenly that they didn't actually improve between the time when they were stuck in bed all day and the time they began to move about again; we take to our beds with sickness or flue because it is such a shock to feel so grim. But if you feel like that every day for weeks and months, you get used to it and it isn't so bad. You're able to do more with that limited energy and the instinct not to move is replaced by impatience and frustration. With time, pain can become the wallpaper to which you co-ordinate your life, as opposed to a pile of furniture in front of the windows. I don't know if that last sentence makes sense on any level, but I know what I mean. Point is, you get used to pain. Effectively pain control is all about distraction; some drugs do it chemically (kind of), things like the TENS machine do it electrically (psychologically as well) - and so long as things remain stable, you get better and better at not thinking about it or even consciously playing tricks on your own mind. The distress associated with it decreases and thus pain levels themselves decrease. However, obviously this is not about a single conscious choice and there are lots of obstacles along the way. Mystery is a big one. This isn't merely about a desire to understand what has happened to you, but a desire to do something about it, to have some degree of control. Knowledge is power and mystery leaves you powerless. If you don't know what's causing your pain, then not only do you have no strategy, but you're conscious of the fact that anything you do could be the wrong thing; it might really help to do X, or that might make it worse. Unfortunately, chronic pain is often fairly mysterious. Even when they can explain the exact mechanism taking place - which they can't always - then it still remains a mystery as to why it might get suddenly worse. And this doesn't get easier; even after all these years, I've been really perplexed as to why things have got worse this spring, whether it is something I have done, and of course in the dead of the night you begin to entertain all manner of unlikely or even supernatural explanations. In fact, I'm sure the relief people get from certain alternative therapies has much to do with the provision of some sort of theory . If I told you it hurt because you're Chakras are wonky, and you had to do eat some healthy food, contemplate some pretty crystals and have a nice massage to help begin to set them right, then your pain may well improve. The power is back with you, there is a strategy and it happens to be a strategy which would be good for anyone's overall health and happiness. Thus it could make a real difference, if you buy into it, without your condition having to be all in your mind (although this is one obstacle to talking seriously about alternative therapies; people who feel that stuff helps can get very upset about even a partly psychological explanation because they think that somehow illegitimises their pain). Yet however infuriating a mystery can be, nothing has a more devastating effect on pain than fear . Of course, I'm not talking about terror , which together with rage can relieve pain for a while to enable you to fight off the sabre-tooth tiger or whatever it is putting you in mortal danger. Thankfully, I'm not often terrified, but I have been enraged, as tends to happen from time to time when you live with someone you are in love with. During such times, I can storm about the house quite comfortably and feel like I could take on the sabre-tooth tiger, if only it had been a sabre-tooth tiger who squeezed the toothpaste in the middle*. However, if you are frightened about your pain, then it will hurt a lot. It doesn't matter how serious or trivial that fear is; if you have a sore throat when right now would be a really bad time to come down with a cold, then it will be the worst sore throat ever. The same applies to pains which are ultimately going to kill you. Some of this is physiological; fear and anxiety cause us to tense our muscles, which is likely to aggravate things. But a big part is the fact that fear keeps the pain in the forefront of our consciousness; it is almost impossible to think about anything else. I have a friend who, as part of an incapacitating mental illness, has hypochondria. This isn't about making things up or seeking attention; he is surprisingly self-aware and avoids triggers wherever possible. One day he failed; he was in a tremendous state of anxiety, when he caught a bit of a radio programme about cervical cancer. Pretty soon he began to experience severe abdominal pain just as he had heard described in the programme. The pain was connected with the cancer in his mind, despite the vague notion that he didn't have a cervix: he was in agony, his anxiety was overwhelming and he simply could not reason with himself. Fortunately, his GP was very understanding of my friend's condition. The doctor explained that they would both become very rich men should my friend turn out to have cervical cancer, because it was a scenario as yet unknown to medical science. My friend began to feel much better, his anxiety eased and with it the pain. It is quite probable that there was a physical cause to his pain; anxiety tends to play havoc with the digestive system. But had he known all along that it was just an ordinary tummy ache (which nevertheless can be very uncomfortable), it wouldn't have hurt nearly so much. [ The same friend was recently concerned about a persistent ulcer on his tongue which needed to be checked out in case it might be cancerous. As he declared to me, "I know I shouldn't be worried. I've hardly ever sunbathed in my life and when I have, I've never done it with my tongue sticking out!" ] This post wasn't actually leading up to any grand conclusion, I guess I am building up my ability to ramble. * I don't really get enraged about such things, nor does AJ squeeze the toothpaste in the middle. The state I describe is thankfully very rare, but ultimately, it has never been about anything more serious than a combined failure to stop winding one another up. Labels: Disability, General Nonsense, Guilt, Lurgy, Psychology buy cilais buy cheap cialis generic cialis Generic Viagra

Tags:

This week is easy. Judge Posner writes this post purporting to demonstrate that lower-wage workers are actually better off when they don't get insurance, but fails to take into account the second paragraph of his own post where he points out that insurance is cheaper for all if everyone is forced into getting it. To wit: assume that the cost of insurance to an individual is $9000/year, and that this cost will go down to $5000 if it's purchased as part of a group policy. Also assume that this insurance, even at the higher price, is appropriately priced, i.e. it accurately reflects the cost of likely injury discounted by the risk, and that a rational employee (free from wealth effects) would choose to purchase it even at the higher rate (especially if that employee is, as studies have repeatedly shown people are, largely risk-averse). Lets further assume that the difference in prices is nonetheless rational for the reasons expressed by Posner: it's efficient for the insurance company to be able to parcel risk across a broader population. Now lets take Posner's figures and correct them with this in mind. Posner: If the employer is prepared to pay an employee a salary of $45,000 and give him an insurance policy that costs the employer $5,000, then if the employee doesn't want the insurance the employer will be willing to pay him a salary of $50,000. Suppose the employee has no significant assets--a realistic assumption if he is a low-income employee. Then if he becomes ill he'll be able to obtain medical care free of charge under Medicaid, though it will be of lower quality than paid-for care. Suppose the value of that lower-quality care is only $3,000. Nevertheless the employee is better off without the insurance; his net income will be $53,000 ($50,000 in salary plus $3,000 in insurance value) versus $50,000 ($45,000 in salary plus an insurance policy worth $5,000) with the insurance. Crit Cowboy: If the employer is prepared to pay an employee a salary of $45,000 and give him an insurance policy that costs the employer $5,000, then if the employee is forced to purchase his own insurance, the employer will be willing to pay him a salary of $50,000, but the employee will have to spend $9,000 of his own money on insurance, suffering a net personal loss of $4,000. Alternatively, he can forego medical insurance altogether. Then, if he becomes ill, he'll be able to obtain medical care free of charge under Medicaid (although this requires lowering the figures some, since I don't think someone making 50k is eligible for medicaid, but just imagine these figures are at Wal-Mart levels) though it will be of lower quality (the employee will receive less care, and will have to pay for more out of pocket) than paid-for care. Suppose the value of that lower-quality care is only $3,000. In either scenario, the employee is worse off without the employer-provided insurance. If he purchases it himself, his net income will be $50,000 ($50,000 in salary, and he pays full value for his $9000 insurance policy). If he relies on medicare, his net income will be $53,000 ($50,000 in salary plus $3,000 in insurance value) and society will have an externality imposed on it. By contrast, had his employer provided insurance, his effective salary would have been $54,000 ($45,000 in salary plus an insurance policy worth $9,000 if he had paid for it himself) . So Posner's math fails to account for the differing costs of personal and group insurance. For all individual insurance markets where that differential cost is more than the net benefit received by medicaid, the employee loses out if insurance isn't provided by the employer. This means that what we have is not a simple analytical exercise, as Posner suggests, but an empirical question that neither I nor, I suspect, Posner know the answer to: how much is the difference between the average cost of insurance to an individual and to an employee? Now lets move to Becker. Becker says that there's over-use of medical care. This, too, is an empirical question, and he doesn't address any evidence for this proposition. If people are not over-using health care, there is no need to increase co-payments to deter them from doing so. Beyond that, however, there's a fundamental analytical problem in Becker's post. Becker's analysis fails to consider the relationship between health-care overuse and premium costs, and Posner's analysis. If people over-use health care, their premiums will rise over time. If their premiums rise over time, their salaries will go down. So they're not externalizing the costs onto anyone. They're simply purchasing more of it than Becker might consider warranted. Is this a problem? To an economist? Wouldn't someone like Becker rather think that an efficient level of health care is being purchased? Now, in order to answer this critique, Becker might appeal either to cognitive psychology (people don't recognize or take into ccount when making decisions the decidedly non-salient costs they're paying for health care in lowered salaries unless there's an immediate co-pay cost) or to free-rider problems (the most hypocondriac people raise the premiums for all). Neither would be sufficient. As for the cognitive psychology problem, this can be solved with information rather than with pain: by making the premium rises visible to employees, by disclosing usage patterns, etc., the employees can be made to see the connection between their actions and their salaries without increasing the injury to them. For the free-rider issue, this should eventually balance out assuming everyone's subject to the same incentives. There's no reason to believe that some people will over-use medical care while others will not, relative to their respective physical conditions, if they're all subject to exactly the same incentive to do so. Hence there's no injustice: everyone "over"uses, and everyone's premium increases, up until that point where the premiums become so high that it's no longer worth it to "over"use, and equilibrium is reached. It's really microeconomics 101: this is how it's supposed to work. (Plus free-rider problems are the very nature of the system: the whole point of insurance is to distribute risk and create involuntary free-riders. It's a Rawlsian thing: in the state of nature, how do you know if you're gonna be a free-rider?) generic cialis cheap cialis generic viagra online cialis

Tags: