Posts by Gary James88

hiddenhound3 said:It happens constantly; he never goes voluntarily. To be honest, I suspect he isn't even going during the day anymore, but rather just having accidents in his sleep throughout the night.

If there is any suspicion that these issues stem from psychological roots, the most prudent course of action would be to consult a child psychologist. Although resolving such a situation becomes significantly more complex once a problem has persisted for two years, I am confident that finding a solution remains entirely possible before puberty begins.

When we asked him why he stayed silent at first, he was completely unwilling to discuss it, eventually admitting through much insistence that he is simply afraid.

What exactly did he say he was afraid of?

It could be anything. You really need a child psychologist to sit down, run a full assessment, and look at his whole social environment to pinpoint what’s actually causing the stress. Honestly, this sounds like a reaction to daycare, though it could be something else entirely.

I'm also not totally clear on whether the psychologist started actual treatment or if they just had one single session.

hiddenhound3 said:Yes, though he mentioned they are simply waiting for puberty to hit, so nothing definitive has been established quite yet.🙄

It would be a lot better to just book an appointment with a different child psychologist. Honestly, based on a single session where they haven't even tried any actual therapeutic techniques or tracked progress, I don't buy this whole "wait until puberty" excuse one bit.

Does he only wet himself at daycare, or does it happen at home too?

If you think there's a psychological angle to this, your best bet is starting with a child psychologist. Since this has been going on for two years now, it's definitely getting harder to tackle, but I’d imagine it's still fixable before puberty hits.

redharbor9 said:Yeah, I used that same excuse last time... and someone basically told me, "When you run out of ideas, just lean on evolutionary psychology!"

But honestly, that’s the only lead we have on this weird phenomenon so far...

The whole thing about the bodies is actually pretty interesting, though. We need to dig deeper into that idea...

Did you tell those "skeptics" that maybe we're just seeing the future Leda Cosmides predicted when she said: "In the future, evolutionary psychology will simply be called—psychology..." 😛

Rebecca Scott3 said:Think about all animals... humans included... we tend to instantly recognize any shape or silhouette that looks like a potential threat......
...maybe that's the answer... or maybe it isn't...🙂

If we're just pulling theories out of thin air, this one doesn't sound half bad.

Throughout evolutionary history, one of the biggest threats to existing offspring likely came from unknown men—specifically, men seeking sexual access who might attack a woman's current children to clear the way for new ones. This ability to recognize them might be a built-in defense mechanism.

There’s also a broader theory: since violence was mostly a threat from males, it became more critical to identify them quickly than females. Since sex takes longer than life-or-death situations where milliseconds count, men might have evolved to recognize male faces faster.

It would be interesting to test how fast people recognize male versus female bodies, not just faces, since that logic suggests male silhouettes should be flagged even quicker.

That’s a massive question to tackle. Even if someone actually tried to run a study like that, you'd have to ask what the point is. You'd face a mountain of pushback regarding how you'd even measure it or control for all the outside variables. It reminds me of those old controversial studies trying to compare national IQ levels—they got absolutely shredded for their methodology and the ethics behind them in the first place.

placidwolf27 said:So, the prevailing standard seems to be that psychedelic experiences are essentially dismissed as "meaningless"—as if they don't actually count toward a clinical picture. If a client or patient were to sit down and describe a deeply personal, transformative encounter with such a substance, would a psychiatrist or psychologist simply check a box noting a "psychotic episode" and call it a day? Is that really where the conversation ends?

I’m asking whether anyone actually considers the entire cognitive and emotional discourse an individual carries away from such a state—those profound, albeit sometimes chaotic, realizations... or even the specific shape and content of the hallucinations themselves, which could serve as a window into the person's psyche. Or is all of that just brushed aside as nothing more than side effects of intoxication?

Furthermore, how does the psychiatric approach to dreams differ from how they treat psychedelic experiences? One is studied, the other is dismissed... or so it seems.

There are a lot of questions here. No, conventional therapy usually won't treat psychedelic insights as anything of therapeutic value. That’s why the movements within psychology and psychiatry that emphasized those experiences argued that we were ignoring a vital part of the client's subjective experience that could actually lead to healing. The mainstream response is simply that the drug is harmful and the insights are irrelevant.

Dreams get more attention, partly because they don't carry the stigma of being an illegal substance. It really depends on the therapist's orientation, though; you see everything from practitioners who ignore dreams entirely to those who see them as central to mental functioning. Among those who do pay attention, you have the camp believing in universal dream symbolism that needs decoding, versus those who believe dream imagery is purely individual.

Alright, enough talk about the funding side of things. Let's move on to how psychiatry and psychedelics actually interact.

"Quote:"

bluemason3 said:So, what’s the actual process for testing any kind of psychiatric medication?

I mean... it might not be in Big Pharma's best interest, but if there's even a shred of truth to using ibogaine for addiction, I find it wild that we aren't seeing more research on it. Instead, we just keep pushing half-baked solutions like methadone. 🤔

Sure, it's all just talk right now, but that's exactly why we need to be doing the research. 🤷

There’s actually some official research out there on this—it’s not like nobody is looking into it. For example...
Check out this study on Ibogaine: www.ibogaine.org/Ibogaine_JEP_Alper_et_al_2008_9-24.pdf

redharbor9 said:Nah, I’m talking about altered states of consciousness and how you perceive things... but that’s way outside the code of conduct so there probably isn't any 😛

It "doesn't exist"? Even the most hardcore behaviorists never doubted consciousness was a thing...

What would be interesting to see is how much those states—whether reached via psychedelics or naturally—actually overlap. People's experiences with psychedelics vary depending on what they take (for instance, an ayahuasca trip feels qualitatively different from psilocybin or LSD), and even different people using the same substance have unique journeys, yet certain themes always seem to resurface.

Has anyone looked into how similar or different the altered states of a yogi or a hermit practicing in the desert actually are compared to someone on psychedelics?

Maybe someone into spirituality can weigh in...

redharbor9 said:Yeah, and the fact that a placebo can pull off similar results just proves people can hit those same marks without needing any psychoactive junk in their system...

So, we're talking about high anxiety and a psychotic break? 🙂

Rebecca Bennett41 said:And what would one even consider a standard dosage in this context?

There isn't really a clear line here, and "normal" is a pretty vague term—normal for whom? You're looking at roughly 0-30 micrograms to feel anything at all, while anything over 150 micrograms could be considered a massive dose.
I suppose there are some people who might spiral into a psychotic break just thinking about taking LSD, regardless of the amount. Maybe we should just listen to our parents when they say drugs are bad news.

Rebecca Bennett41 said:So, are you suggesting that the actual purity or quality of the LSD doesn't even factor into the equation?

No, but dosage definitely plays a role.

Back in the States, during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there was this small circle of psychiatrists and psychologists who were actually pretty keen on using psychedelics in patient treatment. But once most of those substances were slapped with Schedule I status—meaning they were deemed to have high abuse potential and zero medical utility—research and treatment basically vanished. Trying to navigate the federal red tape and strict oversight required for that kind of work became an absolute nightmare.
It was much the same in other countries.

Plus, a huge chunk of mainstream psychology and psychiatry never saw psychedelic experiences as anything more than hallucinatory or delirious states caused by brain chemistry shifts; they just dismissed it all as "psychedelic poisoning." The minority who disagreed believed these were actually profound shifts in consciousness that, if handled correctly, could lead to genuine symptom relief and personal growth.

I haven't heard of that school of thought ever gaining any traction here in America. Given how our legal system and research institutions operate, I doubt anyone could even secure the necessary permits; they'd probably just look at you like you're crazy for trying. That said, some research is being done now in places like Switzerland or the US, and likely a few other spots too.

Paul Garcia25 said:1. Their mood doesn't suddenly skyrocket into hypomania—it usually just stays level.
2. They deal with all those unpleasant side effects.

The reality is that antidepressants aren't designed to turn a depressed person into a ray of sunshine (hypomanic or euphoric); they simply drag someone out of a negative hole and back down to zero—that "everything feels flat" sensation.

PS
Psychiatrists aren't exactly omnipotent, but they can tell when someone is playing games with their symptoms—which, in certain contexts, can actually cross the line into criminal territory (forensic psychiatry spends a lot of time teaching how to distinguish a genuine patient from someone just faking it).

Faking it could technically be considered a crime too, but whether they actually catch on really depends on their skill level and just how good the person is at acting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Affection + empathy + loyalty + respect + support + feelings + ingredient x = friendship

We need a better definition for Temu...

crimsonhound80 and Eric Jackson11, this back-and-forth is starting to feel less like a debate and more like straight-up insults. You've both been decent members up until now, so let's try to keep it that way...

Ethan Barrett88 said:The title pretty much sums it up. Have you guys seen movies like this? Any favorites or recommendations? I'd love to dive into some Eastern European or Soviet cinema. So far, I've mostly stuck to the big Hollywood hits.

Go with Stalker or Solaris by Tarkovsky. He's basically the Russian Kubrick—some would even argue he's better, if you believe the hype and think they can even be compared. 😉 But his stuff isn't exactly "popcorn" movies. Then there's Zulawski, and so on.

The questions are just too complicated. Maybe part of the issue is that we've spent decades treating the human brain like a computer, assuming it processes information the same way. But at the end of the day, using a computer as a model for the brain is just that—a model, and it's got its limits.