Free Republic

Or just buy an iPhone, which has a flashlight utility built DIRECTLY into iOS. I do love their attempt at FUD by showing iPhones.

Or what the Seahawks did to the Broncos in the SuperBowl!

Not (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night). More seriously, again, measurement of something in no way implies it is the cause of the disorder. Major depressive disorder is diagnosed solely based on observation and self-report (see the DSM V and ICD 11). Most doctors will also screen for other disorders that could have similar effects (e.g., hormone imbalances). If the person has some other physical disorder then the doctor will likely treat that disorder. If the “signs and symptoms” then go away, by definition, the person did not have major depressive disorder.

All that said, a doctor can do whatever tests he or she wants but that doesn’t mean those tests are actually identifying a disorder.

I wasn’t saying that drugs weren’t an effective intervention but rather than an effective intervention doesn’t mean you have identified the root cause of the disorder (e.g., autism - the most effective interventions are those based on behavior analysis but we still have no clear idea on the cause/s of autism).

As for faith, I too am Catholic. Our church teaches behavior resulting from psychiatric disorders can be something different than corruption by sin. That is, if the psychiatric illness precludes the person from understanding the sinfulness of the act and fully consenting to the act, then culpability is greatly diminished (there is a decent discussion here - https://www.osv.com/TheChurch/HumanDignityandSexuality/Article/TabId/658/ArtMID/13696/ArticleID/8366/Responsibility-for-sin.aspx).

Now, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. So if you were simply saying that we should include prayer and spiritual exercises in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, as long as they don’t preclude or interfere with other effective procedures (God has given us the intellect and skills to identify ways, beyond prayer, to help our fellow man and I would argue that they are therefore, in some ways, spiritual gifts from God), I agree wholeheartedly.

Depression is diagnosed by behavior, so by definition, it is not a disorder of altered blood/brain chemistry (we diagnose problem of chemistry by measuring chemistry and diagnose problems of behavior by measuring behavior). Further, there is no scientific evidence that “imbalance in blood chemistry” can be the underlying cause of depression.” Nearly all of the studies on depression take observations of overt behavior (both publicly observable nonverbal behavior and verbal self-reports of feelings, thoughts, etc.) and infer an underlying chemical/neuro-chemical state. The studies that actually measure blood and brain chemistry are done with people who have already been identified as having clinical depression. See the problem here?

There is little doubt that people with clinical depression have altered blood/brain chemistry but to date, no one has shown that those cause depression; rather, people have shown that changes in the environment produce clinical depression and the co-occurring changes in chemistry (which is likely why behavioral interventions are, time and again, found to be the most effective interventions).

Your point is reasonable but misses the underlying point being made by “I Want the USA back,” namely that a treatment can be effective but that doesn’t mean the treatment actually addressed the underlying issue (e.g., some bandages help “treat” wounds but knowing this tells you nothing about what initially caused the wound). In this case, being deficient in a molecule and then replacing, via external intervention, that molecule tells you nothing about what caused the initial deficiency in the molecule.

Mental and emotional preparation - those sure are some fuzzy things to quantify. In every other sport, we focus on equating the one thing we can control - physical exposure to the sport. Again, it is odd that horse racing has chosen not to do this and it leaves many casual observers scratching their heads.

As for the “three-race” requirement, by your logic, having qualifying trials and heats in other racing sports is ludicrous, but yet, everyone seems to agree this is the best way to do it. I don’t understand why there is such resistance and hostility toward bringing horse racing “up to date.” Every other sport aligns financial incentives with winning (you keep winning, you make more money and if you lose, you’re out) but horse racing has aligned the biggest financial incentives in the sport’s biggest races with being the “spoiler.”

If horses must be in all three races and only the “best” advance, please explain to me how this is considered the best form of competition in every other sport but is somehow “not competition” in horse racing. What exactly is anti-competitive about you win, you’re in, you lose/sit-out, you’re out?

When talking about physical requirements, fatigue, etc., one can most certainly compare horse racing to human sports (we are both animals who are bound by our physiology). In all human sports we have found it useful to have all teams, individuals, etc. compete after being exposed to as identical physical requirements as possible (especially when competing for the top prize, championship, etc.)

Given that physical preparation is (likely) the most critical aspect of horse racing, it is odd to me that horse racing has not adapted (as every other sport has) and tried to equate, as closely as possible, the physical state of the horses running for the sport’s top honor.

Horse racing is in decline. It surely won’t attract new fans if, when they watch, all they see is people trying to be the “spoiler.” For example, between 1948 and 1973 (the time between Citation and Secretariat winning the TC), there were 7 years (out of 25) in which a horse won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but lost the Belmont. An almost identical (but slightly elevated) pattern happened in the 25 years following Affirmed winning the TC (9 years with a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont). However, the majority of these happened in the later half (last 8 years) of the 25 year period. In the last 8 years of the 25-year period, there were 5 years (out of 9 - just over 50%) in which a horse won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness and lost the Belmont. For an equal comparison, looking at the 8 years prior to Secretariat winning the TC, there were 4 years (out of 7 - just over 50%) with a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont occurred in this 17 year period, BUT, when that happened in the 1960s and 1970s, the increase in rate of first-two race winners predicted a TC.

Today, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Since the end of the 25 year period, we are averaging a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont every third year - a rate of 33% compared to a rate of 28% in the period between Citation and Secretariat winning the TC. Combine a lack of seeing the “big championship,” the TC, and the possibility of owners trying to be the “spoiler” (which reeks of selfish interest and lack of loyalty to the sport - loyalty seems to be one of the most important things to fans), and it’s not hard to see why people are becoming disillusioned and disinterested.

Nail on the head, nail...on...the...head.

Just to add for the benefit of others - If these are “completely separate” races, then there should be no official “Triple Crown” title. Since there is, as in every other sport, competition should be structured to support running in all three races that comprise the sequence. The equivalent would be allowing a runner to sit-out until the final race after other runners have done qualifying races. It seems odd to me that horse racing is the only sport to allow this.

If the horses are so used to running, why take them out of the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness? Seems to me some owners are more interested in being the “spoiler” than anything else. That takes a lot of the joy out of watching, especially for casual fans (comes across more like, as Rush Limbaugh says, phony, plastic banana, good time rock and roll).

I’m not quite sure that is it. Every other sport requires “equal” competition nearly from the get-go and once you start in a sequence, you generally have to finish the sequence.

You might be interested in Hank Schlinger’s work on consciousness (http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/hschlin/). Radical behaviorists, generally, agree with you about that “consciousness is not pretty colors on an MRI image of the brain” and have some very interesting interpretations based on principles of behavior.

As far as I know, this is the first study, which is why not much can be made about its conclusions. The problem with this type of research is twofold. First, there are thousands of variables that influence development and it is not clear which of these are critical (see Meaningful Differences by Hart and Risley for a study and discussion on how something as simple as the numbers of words said to a baby has a profound effect on development). Second, to make general claims about things like diet and brain sizes requires a huge sample, both across people and lengths of time (probably generations), particularly because most of our measures of “brain output” (e.g., IQ) are extremely crude (i.e., in reality, there is no such thing as IQ. The only reason IQ exists is because we have a way to measure it. Although it can be useful, it is not a true reflection of brain activity).

Except that gray-matter volumes were larger in some regions for BOTH groups. The difference was which region there was a larger gray-matter volume. Regardless, we have no idea (and the authors admitted as much) if food type was responsible for this difference because this was only a correlational study (ice cream consumption is highly correlated with drowning) and it is the first study to even find this correlation.

Science isn’t about finding something to support a pre-made conclusion (that is rhetoric). Science is about discovering how the natural world works and cause-effect relationships in the natural world. You are free to believe in whatever you would like but you should try not to run around claiming “science proves” what you believe unless it is a well-established fact (in this case, we aren’t even close to established relationship let alone well-established fact).

I’m not trying to be difficult, but we currently THINK it is a neurological disorder (it could be genetic), so we should be careful in talking about what it is and is not. I don’t disagree with your general premise (it is something that exists at a very specific, pervasive level), but I just wanted to point out that we must be cautious in making claims when the question is still unanswered (there are a lot of people in this thread making wild claims that can actually cause damage to a great number of people, so those of is trying get to spread the correct information need to make sure we are speaking with the appropriate level of caution).

Aside from the fact that IQ is a vaganotic measure (i.e., although it is useful, it is not a measure of something that actually exists, so it is highly susceptible to bias) 4 is NOTHING in terms of IQ difference (the standard deviation is 15, so 4 is barely a third of an SD).

Then why did you bring up the gluten-free/casein-free diet as a cure? I’m only responding to you advocating something that, at best, does nothing, and at worst, causes harm. I would rather just discuss the article than have to point-out and refute people pushing useless/dangerous “interventions,” but it’s important to, because lived are affected my this stuff.

The diet is not an alternative. Autism is not a diet/digestive disorder and therefore cannot, by definition, be cured by a diet. Besides, the only empirical data available on the diet are evidence that it has no effect. What people object to is the willful misrepresentation of evidence.

Um, that’s not how science works. Science isn’t based on how many “things “ you have done. It is based on identifying controlling relations (e.g., B occurs when, and only when, A is present). This controlling relation is identified through replication, to rule out idiosyncratic events and biases.

Researchers have been unable to replicate Amen’s results which in science means his results and conclusions are highly suspect.

The “try everything approach” is extremely dangerous. Some of the “interventions” cause extreme pain and some have even caused death. The analogy to treating other medical disorders is erroneous. If a doctor gives you a pill (or whatever) and it doesn’t work, it is likely the doctor made a mis-diagnosis. However, that pill is backed by a TON of scientific evidence that it works for the disorder - you just don ‘t have the disorder. In the case of autism treatments, there is NO evidence that these “interventions” work. In fact, there is a TON of evidence that they actually cause harm (from preventing access to effective treatment to death).