insane, back when I was in highschool there was no cops/guards/etc

We even had a smoking section, and guns could be brought on campus.

For smoking section you just needed a letter from parents that they knew you smoked. and on recess the smokers all hung out there.

To bring gun to school, it was during any hunting season. You had to have note from parents that they know. The gun had to be visible, either gun rack in back window of truck or in passenger seat. Rifles and Shotguns only no pistols.

You had to have your Hunter's Safety Course card, Your Hunting License both on you to give copies at office.

You had to leave your vehicle keys with the front office and submit to random vehicle search of the hunter's vehicles only.

So while everyone could go to their cars at recess, or if you had extra empty elective, some of us juniors would drive up to Hardees before lunch and grab fast food then be back before 4th period started, but the hunters had to leave their keys with front office and they could not retrieve them until end of school.

So much more freedom.

Smoking was banned on campus for students only my 10th grade year, but Teachers had the smoking lounge in building. There was a teacher's lounge on each hall, the back hall F where weight lifting, welding, home ec, and vocational classes were was where the teacher's smoking lounge was. Most students friendly with teachers could sneak in there and smoke anyhow.

crazy times.

I had a 84 Camaro and kept a flare gun under seat my dad owned a boat and had couple extra flare guns. So I had that for some crazy reason thinking if someone attacked me, at point blank range I'd put on a huge firework show


Then there was the stereotypes that were proven right not wrong.

The jocks hung out together, the headbangers/smokers hung out together, the nerds, the band folks like me as my senior year I was drum major
and the blacks stayed together all in separate cliques at lunch and recess and before/after school.

stereotypes even went further.

the only highschool girls with babies (during time I was there I stress) were black girls, they had to build a daycare from the old mechanic shop behind the highschool for them. And even though this was the early 90s in the south, you'd hear over the Intercom every 6 months "All Black female students to gym at this time please" where they'd get lectured on abstinence, or condom use, and std's and such.

the only time rest of the student body went through that was in 10th grade they'd take the boys one day, and girls the next day.

We had a blast though as the guys, the protection/std talk was given by one of the football coaches, and during the talk with the guys and showing various "shock images" of std's on penis on the TV, when he got to the "sex ed" portion, he flipped in a Nina Hartley porn intro where a nude Nina Hartley showed the correct way to place a condom on. haha was hilarious looking back before "political correctness" went out of control.

I loved highschool and college.

Graduated high school in 94, got associates in 96, took year off then got bachelors in computer science in 99.

But 89-94 (our highschool here in the deep south is 8th through 12th) most are 9-12, but not here. It's still 8-12th here. So it's nothing seeing 12th graders dating 8th graders. Freaky yea, but not unusual.


If you got into a fight, if a coach was around he'd let the fight finish, unless it got a bit too over the top then they'd break it up. You didn't get suspended, you lost recess privileges usually 3 days plus the starter of the fight got 10 licks of the paddle in principle office, the other only got 1 to 3, or if person was just dominated and got ass kicked you just got detention.


Kids didn't act up at all most times. And the reason was Corporal Punishment. Not private paddling either.


Once I was having a bad day, me and "highschool" sweetheart were having a bit of a spat. We sat next to each other so we were bickering a bit during class. Teacher had yelled at me to shut up and do the work. I sighed "Leave me the fuck alone"

bad move.

She called me to front of class and I got 5 licks of paddle in front of everyone. They'd stick finger in your belt loop and yank it up tight to put that extra sting on it. Embarrassing as hell! Even female older teachers who didn't paddle hard, it was just too embarrassing to get paddled, so kids behaved.


And of course if you refused paddling which you could but you'd take a zero for the day's work. few of those in a semester and no matter how hard you worked you were flunking that semester.


But the system worked.

It wasn't until they went crazy insane on political correctness, stopping corporal punishment, and putting cops/rent a cops/guards in schools and after the No Child Left Behind was signed into law, they severely dumbed down kids forcing the smartest to learn at the slowest kids pace. Doc's prescribing SSRI's like candy to kids in MASSIVE quantities, that schools in today's culture are crazy.

That sounds a whole lot like some kind of absurd "Reefer Madness" kind of "thinking."

On what are you basing that "feeling?" Leaving aside that serotonin is involved with mood (and not meaning or motivation) and that LSD's binding to the receptor sites increases not decreases the amount of serotonin available in the synaptic cleft (performing the same effect as any other SSRI like Zoloft, Paxil, or Prozac), there is actually no reason why any of the hundreds of successful professionals that I know who have taken LSD multiple times would express such a feeling on the basis of taking LSD.

If anything, your comment reveals a fear of your own mind and, having read your comments, I can't say I blame you.

The link selected was for its clarity of description, not for its modus operandi, but, if you like, here's additional support for the non-dichotomous (not "black and white") assertion I've made (despite your suggestions to the contrary).

Simply put, suicidality is a side-effect of anti-depressants due, in part, to the increased energy or motivation that could arise as a result of the commencement of a round of SSRIs. Someone suffering from a severe depressive episode may, within a few weeks of commencing an SSRI, avail themselves to the means for suicide (in the absence of therapeutic interventions) which, in the weeks previous, might have seemed too difficult or like too much work to pull off.

As a psychologist and clinician myself, I am trained to work closely with individuals struggling with depressive episodes with an eye on this very issue. Sadly, for whatever reason, Robin's therapist(s) were unable to intervene as quickly as was necessary, speculating as I have, that a recent round with anti-depressants was at play.

Yes, unlike others on the sift, I post information that is supported by evidence

I'll just add some nuance to your assertion below. The issue is not so much that depression is "misdiagnosed." The issue is that depression doesn't have a known physiological cause. That is, there is no anatomical or physiological marker for depression. It's a behaviorally defined disorder. That means it is entirely possible (even likely) that multiple patients all suffering from "depression" (i.e. exhibiting the behavioral symptoms of depression, thus being properly diagnosed) could be suffering as a result of differing physiological problems.

Almost all psychiatric disorders (other than maybe Parkinson's and some other known neurological malfunctions) have this issue. The problem I have with this is our readiness to prescribe physiological interventions for conditions that can't be diagnosed physiologically. While many of these substances are relatively benign, some have the potential to cause extremely problematic side effects (e.g. acute suicidal urges). The real work is going to be in finding better mechanistic level diagnostics.

In the mean time, I think more conservative treatment protocols are warranted. If sugar pills show some efficacy, why not start with those? You could still ramp up to an SSRI or the like when the sugar pill is shown to be ineffective in that patient. Better still are behavioral therapies, e.g. exercise or sleeping schedule changes. At the very least, I think they should be prescribed along with and emphasized just as much as the pills and counseling.

Longterm, I think pharmacological interventions into the brain are somewhat misguided. Serotonin receptors, for instance, are expressed all over your brain. I think more promising are the newer treatments like deep brain stimulation. It has been shown to be extremely effective in disorders like Parkinson's, and trials are already underway in the treatment of depression. Not only do I think the treatment will ultimately be more effective, I also think research into that sort of treatment is more likely to bear fruit in understanding the mechanistic underpinnings of these disorders. Hopefully that will lead to better sub classifications of people exhibiting depressive behavior.

>> ^DuoJet:

I'm inclined to believe that, as is often suggested, depression is very commonly misdiagnosed. This would surely introduce "extraneous variables" into placebo studies as well.

>> ^marinara:

No question that the active part of the molecule is the F.
http://saturn.med.nyu.edu/files/mylab/wang/pdf/Zhou-LeuT-SSRIs-2009.pdf

"All SSRIs possess halogen atoms at specific positions, which are key determinants for the drugs’ specificity for SERT"
"The SSRI halogens all bind to exactly the same pocket within LeuT."
That said, Fluoride isn't a drug. Putting fluoride in the water to make people happy is just crazy.


Seriously, just because a chemical has some fluorine atoms, does NOT make it the same as sodium fluoride. Every study (a massive three of them) mentioned on that page is talking about sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride. There has never been any legitimate evidence that Flouxetine has anything remotely similar to the behavior of either of those. Look for actual peer-reviewed research, not the crap you get from conspiracy sites.

No question that the active part of the molecule is the F.
http://saturn.med.nyu.edu/files/mylab/wang/pdf/Zhou-LeuT-SSRIs-2009.pdf
"All SSRIs possess halogen atoms at specific positions, which are key determinants for the drugs’ specificity for SERT"
"The SSRI halogens all bind to exactly the same pocket within LeuT."

That said, Fluoride isn't a drug. Putting fluoride in the water to make people happy is just crazy.

http://bit.ly/gNSnlb
says fluoride can act as an neurotransmitter in general, triggering neurotransmitter receptors, apparently all kinds of them.

in presence of aluminum fluoride (alf4-), a receptor-independent activator of g-protiens in cells.

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.

now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.

i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.

let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.

while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).

i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.

please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

>> ^m00t:

SSRIs have some very adverse side effects in a non-trivial percentage of the population which typically include increased aggression and suicidal behavior. Frankly, SSRIs should be banned. They're often more harmful than good and there are alternate medicines that work as well or better with fewer side effects. For medications such as Zoloft the clinical trials were heavily manipulated where patients that committed suicide were removed from the results after the fact, even though the suicide rate for the control group was significantly lower.
Gun owners on SSRIs should have their guns taken from them until they are safely off the medications (after withdrawal symptoms have subsided) and then returned, no questions asked and no records.


Imposter!

SSRIs have some very adverse side effects in a non-trivial percentage of the population which typically include increased aggression and suicidal behavior. Frankly, SSRIs should be banned. They're often more harmful than good and there are alternate medicines that work as well or better with fewer side effects. For medications such as Zoloft the clinical trials were heavily manipulated where patients that committed suicide were removed from the results after the fact, even though the suicide rate for the control group was significantly lower.

Gun owners on SSRIs should have their guns taken from them until they are safely off the medications (after withdrawal symptoms have subsided) and then returned, no questions asked and no records.

Good points all,
I don't know what the answer is for our national epidemic of obesity. It is totally out of control. U.S. citizens are addicted to "value" of portions, i.e. "how much food can I get for a dollar?" and addicted to high carbohydrate diets. It's sugar, with it's stimulation of insulin secretion, that makes you obese, not fat. Sedentary lifestyles are also a huge problem.

People can criticize the fast food chains (our local newspaper editor laments the decision to exempt restaurant chains from lawsuits by obese people....arrrggg.), but you can't blame a business for giving the public what they want. And don't throw that brainwashing business at me, TAKE SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. QUIT EATING SO MUCH.

Depression has a huge genetic component. As KP pointed out, there are people who need meds to stay healthy and, as it turns out, we are both in that camp. And I know about "activation" from SSRIs because they made me absolutely whacko.

National health service? Again, I'm stumped. Our current system is rife with middlemen profits. When you see the middleman for orthopedic hardware at your hospital living in a mansion and driving a car a doctor can't afford, you know something is wrong.

Don't let people con you in to thinking the quality of medicine in the U.S. is inferior to other industrialized countries. It's not. Infant mortality rates are high when drug, alcohol, or tobacco abuse exist during pregnancy. Likewise, murder rates and unhealthy lifestyles contribute to our decreased longevity.

THE RICH ARABS STILL COME TO THE US FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE FOR GOOD REASON.

I have always been against the idea of a national health-care plan. I'm starting to reconsider. The current system is SO complex and has SO much special interest, it may have to be completely blown up and rebuilt. (Good luck getting that through congress).

I strongly recommend you go to the following URL and watch "Sick around the world"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

No country has it completely figured out yet. But, some are doing better than others.

Chogster,
I didn't have time to watch it either, but I did anyway. This is a tough one. I'll try to keep it brief, but that may be hard.

On vitamins and minerals;
If you eat a healthy balanced diet (raise hands please)you get all the vitamins and minerals you need. That's SO not the case in many undeveloped countries, as they rarely eat balanced diets. Taking extra water soluble vitamins, i.e. Vit C, will not hurt you, but it will give you expensive urine. Taking extra fat soluble vitamins can be outright dangerous. Vit A is hepatotoxic in high doses. I recall seeing a patient with end stage liver cirrhosis from chronic cod-liver oil (rich in Vit A) ingestion (how someone can get addicted to that is beyond me.)

There is little credible evidence to prove "extra" amounts of vitamins, above what your body really needs, is of any benefit to your health. Selenium supplementation has been associated with decreased prostate cancer. (So has rapid turnover of spermatozoa and it's more fun than taking selenium.)

The problem with "natural supplements" is several fold. (1) They are still chemicals and, therefore, are not easily differentiated from standard pharmaceuticals, many of which come from plants as well. (2) There is VERY lax quality control in the production of many of these drugs. Assays on potency have shown up to a 100 fold difference between brands that supposedly have the same amount of drug in one pill. (3)Taken in excess, drugs like ephedra are dangerous. It's amphetamine. It will give you a boost in energy, but it also may give you a hypertensive crisis or a fatal arrhythmia.

Medicine is science, and like any scientific endeavor, the proof is in the pudding. There are very few credible studies that demonstrate much benefit to "natural supplements." One speaker in the video, Jim Turner, laments that some of these drugs fall victim to "systematic cause and effect mentality" of the pharmaceutical companies and their "huge, expensive studies." That statement is intellectually bankrupt and I don't think I have to point that out. It takes huge expensive studies to achieve the power of analysis necessary to detect a benefit a drug might have on a relatively rare condition. Say for instance, a drug reduces by 50% the incidence of a complication that happens only once in a thousand patients. You will need to enroll thousands and thousands of patients to reach a power of analysis that will approach statistical significance. It takes, on average, almost a billion dollars to get a typical pharmaceutical drug from synthesis to the US market and that's, in part, due to the rigorous process the FDA requires.

On antidepressants;
Eating right, getting enough sleep, regular exercise and playing in the sunshine are as effective as marketed antidepressants. The side effect of "activation" of SSRIs has been understated. Patients with bipolar illness, rather than typical depression, can experience mania or hypomania, with increased anxiety, racing thoughts and insomnia. That's not what a depressed person needs. While not proven, my personal opinion is that this heightened sense of anxiety may play a possible role in the risk of suicide. Please remember, mentally ill people can hide their illness well. Unforeseen suicides are not uncommon and it's easy to pin the blame on a new medicine, or some other unrelated factor.

I told you it would be difficult for me to be brief. I've practiced for 25 years now.
(1) The FDA is NOT suppressing effective therapies.
(2) All drugs, natural supplements included, should undergo systematic randomized prospective studies to assess their efficacy before being labeled as effective (sadly, that's not always the case)
(3) The drug companies are shamelessly pandering to the public and downplaying side-effects. They have been successful in creating a herd mentality in the U.S. of "I don't feel right, I need a drug." Direct advertising to the public should be BANNED.

The irony is, an untreated depressed person is much more a danger to themselves and others than is a successfully treated patient on an SSRI. The FAA denies pilot's license on the basis SSRIs are "mood altering" substances. Again the irony is the mood is supposed to be returned to normal (whatever that means).

People take SSRIs for less serious conditions as well, such as "social phobia". But, I guess people just have to decide if they want to be nervous around people, fly and shoot, or feel comfortable, stay on the ground and hunt with a sharp stick.

By the way, I don't own a firearm either. Wait, I take that back. I have a pellet rifle I use to harass the squirrels that try to demolish my property. I don't have a pilot's license either. The only time I fly is after a few single malts which seems to take care of my social phobia at the same time.