> The NSDUH AMI and SMI estimates were generated from a prediction model created from clinical interview data collected on a subset of adult NSDUH respondents (4,912 total respondents between 2008 and 2012) who completed an adapted (past 12 month) version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (Research Version, Non-patient Edition) (SCID-I/NP; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 2002), and was differentiated by level of functional impairment based on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF; Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss, & Cohen, 1976).
Diagnostic criteria are imperfect. You can put the same person in front of various doctors and get differing diagnoses. On the whole though, experts tend to agree more than they disagree. Someone has to self-report symptoms that place them a couple of standard deviations away from the mean, and for many disorders like ADHD (combined type here!), you need someone who has known you for a long time like a parent or spouse that can speak to your behavior over a long span of time.
As someone who really struggled to get a diagnosis as an adult, followed by medication, I would suggest trying to get a diagnosis from a psychiatrist. Go through the process and expense and let us know how easy it is. It was a nightmare for me despite having good insurance. A doctor's note for a mental health day is very different from getting diagnosed with a developmental or personality disorder.
Lastly, while people can and often do blame their disorders for unwanted behavior, we still have agency. Most disorders are manageable with treatment, and it's possible to "cure" in certain cases. Children medicated for ADHD will most likely not need medication for it as adults. Having a disorder isn't an excuse or shield for bad behavior. In many cases you can't address the bad behavior at the root level without knowing. For my case it helped me stop being so anxious I was giving myself ulcers because I had the words to describe what was going on, and a treatment plan that I saw was giving me results. I still struggle with certain symptoms, but it is my responsibility to work through those gaps, and medication+therapy have made it possible to put in that work.
For whatever it's worth when I went to university a decade ago for my undergrad in neuroscience the figure cited was "50% of Americans will meet clinical thresholds for something in the DSM-V at least once in their life". This isn't very surprising in that light. A lot of people exist at sub-clinical thresholds.
> As someone who really struggled to get a diagnosis as an adult, followed by medication, I would suggest trying to get a diagnosis from a psychiatrist.
Diagnosis from psychiatrists are not based completely on self-reported data.
> Go through the process and expense and let us know how easy it is.
For a psychiatric diagnosis it's a long and laborious process, because those are actual doctors. Unfortunately they take referrals from Psychologists, and those diagnoses are based on almost completely self-reported data.
TLDR: It's exceptionally easy to get a Psychologist to confirm someone's self-diagnosis as long as that person knows what "symptoms" they must self-report. It's exceptionally difficult to get a Psychiatrist to confirm someone's self-diagnosis.
I am not addressing, in any way, the diagnosis from a Psychiatrist. I am limiting my argument specifically to diagnoses from Psychologists.
You can already limit speech in america provided the regulation (1) advances a compelling interest
(2) through narrowly tailored means and (3) does not excessively burden the
expression or action relative to the interest advanced, i.e. be proportional
A good instance where we might draw the line differently despite current first amendment norms is lobbying.
Lobbying, at its core, is just speech. Industry leaders and representatives go to meetings (public or private) to talk to congressmen. Thus lobbying has been affirmed as protected speech in our constitutional law
The problem is money changes access. And sure we can pursue contribution limits (which is generally constitutional) but lobbyists don't actually care about those -- they welcome the ability to save money. The problem is that they are just so well-connected their speech has disproportionate weight
So you could argue limiting their speech advances a compelling interest, but you'd have to think about other factors as well
It is just true that every liberty and right has limits, otherwise they could cut the public interest or other individual rights. This is true even in the US which orients itself as largely pro-speech sovereign relative to other states
43% of all white students at Harvard are legacy, athletes, directly related to faculty, or have family that donated to the university. That number falls to 16% or lower for black, latino, and asian students.
75% of that aforementioned group of white students would not have been admitted had it been based on merit. 70 percent of all legacy applicants are white, compared with 40 percent of all applicants who do not fall under those categories.
Why does the average applicant need to be penalized when their grandparents legally could not attend these institutions? I think it's pretty obvious why people have such reactions to DEI when it's literally just "legacies for people who legally were barred from participating".
> Why does the average applicant need to be penalized when their grandparents legally could not attend these institutions? I think it's pretty obvious why people have such reactions to DEI when it's literally just "legacies for people who legally were barred from participating".
Averages are meaningless, only individuals matter. Suggesting that preference for legacies be removed is a fine topic on its own, but it's orthogonal to explicitly discriminating against individual applicants based upon the color of their skin.
Since you clearly feel strongly about this topic, I'll ask again. Why should the poor white kid with no legacy relationship get cast aside for some other non-legacy kid with a tan?
> Averages are meaningless, only individuals matter.
Exactly. We shouldn’t treat similarly situated people differently because of group averages. That’s the definition of racism.
It’s also irrational in practice. If you want to compare whose grandparents had it harder, Indians and Chinese are clearly entitled to the most affirmative action.
im sure youd keep the crows away from any field with that much straw man.
we actually dont need the vast majority of for profit pharmaceuticals. billions invested in all political parties to make sure you think theyre the savior. thats why theyve banned antibiotics from anyone but an expensive prescription, create vaccines that get banned, and sell a lot of “mental health” drugs that tranquilize society.
Nit: when anyone dies in a hospital the money-makers are the health providers, not the drug-makers. Health providers (think “non-profit” hospitals and medical centers, as well as clinics) have the biggest operating profit margin and return on equity in this business: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/insurance-companies-arent-the-...
Thank you. And there is a WSJ article linked that talks about nonprofit hospitals having high executive comp and funding new projects. It does also say:
> To be sure, some nonprofit hospitals, particularly ones in inner cities that handle large numbers of uninsured patients, remain under financial strain and are struggling to keep their doors open.
And it is also worth mentioning that in some (many?) systems, 'providers' refers to physicians who aren't part of the hospital system in which they work. So the doctors can be doing just fine while the hospital is barely scraping by.
It's mostly citizens and residents protesting in solidarity. People who came here the "right" way. Undocumented folks try to minimize interactions with law enforcement.
That immigration is desired by all these red state agribusiness entities that receive no punishment. Curious that we're deploying thousands of soldiers to a blue state to deport... 100 people so far? When they could much more easily go after the people paying these migrants under the table. They wouldn't come here if they couldn't make money doing so. Trump is clearly a television personality and lives for the drama. Makes sense why Obama and Biden managed to deport more people during their terms.
They deported many, and incentivized even more to come, by actions like deportation protection for 5 million [1], or special programs to allow 500k more to come [2]. And while the federal government cut funds to states that set their own drinking age [3], it did nothing when those same states flaunted immigration laws (so-called "sanctuary" states & cities). So long as they permit more immigrants to come. If they tried to enforce immigration laws, i.e. the border, their efforts were swiftly crushed [4].
I don't know how effective Trump is at border control, but to imply previous administrations (Republicans included) were hostile to immigration, legal or illegal, is laughable.
Veterans are not getting support because Republicans vote against the bills. Fentanyl is claiming lives because both political parties sold out the American people to the Sackler family. I don't feel the need to address your "thug" comment. Most of those undocumented folks are employed. Together they make up 5% of our national workforce. And every undocumented person pays taxes without qualifying for benefits.
It has been 60 years since the national guard has been deployed without consent of the governor. The last time was the Kent State massacre. It's an intentional provocation that will kill Americans, same as last time.
The deployment to Kent State was ordered by Ohio's governor. Maybe you are thinking of the Little Rock Crisis? In 1957, Eisenhower federalized the entire Arkansas national guard and deployed the 101st Airborne Division (regular army) to enforce desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, without the permission of the governor.
The national guard was deployed to Kent State by the governor. The last time the guard was deployed without the governor’s consent was to protect civil rights marchers in Selma in 1965.
We rely on plastic for quite a bit, such as sterile medical packaging. Not to mention all the existing plastic liners in important infrastructure. It would be incredibly disruptive
Tourism into the US is also down in general. You can disparage this particular academic all you want, but unfortunately when you start deporting foreign nationals with valid visas you don't get to pick and choose the second and third-order effects. It's not just academics—and not just the academics you personally find silly—that are choosing to not visit the US.
There's someone at my employer's travel agent who keeps her ear close to the ground and hears a lot of things. The companies who act as secretariats for conferences hear about things and spread the news, too. Neither of them ignore or disparage particular groups of travellers.
reply