Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Comments by Aerial Ballet

Showing 2 of 2 comments.

  • Wow! A lot of good posts here. A lot better than some of the tripe I read in Medscape Psychiatry today [just a particularly bad article there along with a bad set of commentary]. STUPIDIFICATION. I LIKE that angle. Whether this “replaces” other similar angles might only be determined by testing it more. It has “punch,” but by NO means an empty punch nor simple semantic wrangling IMHO. Most of the commenters here seem articulate, reasoned, & bright. Error here and error there, but that is the value of reasonably civil discourse as we see here when carried out by non-stupid people. It is self-correcting if such writers will allow it. All in all though, the points being made here are the same old same old and THAT is a problem. One person praised Dr. K. for this editorial but opined that it won’t get far BECAUSE it is so apt – that (implied) truth tends to get suppressed. This very view seems to be in line with Dr. K’s point. The other thing, above others, which stood out to me is the way Dr. K chose to use the word “stupid.” I think the focus on “stupid” may help us break through the shield of dismissal of our same old same old (valid) criticism of psychiatry. The meat of Dr. K’s editorial, however, seems to have gotten a bit confused as “Slaying the Dragon” seemed to suggest, leaving “Slay” to tilt against windmills a bit. Rather than ask Dr. K to write more, nearly any commenter here could take up that task. If his piece is a true indication, Dr. K. is not the best WRITER here. He MAY be brilliantly the BOLDEST though in writing on “stupidification.” I think we should pick up THAT pen and write with it. Yes? No? THANK YOU, Dr.Kelmemson.

  • What my eye casually caught of this article lead me to believe I would have shared many of the author’s opinions. Once I realized it was in reliance on a single other paper which itself seemed presented as a “scientific study” with a sample size of only nine, I lost all interest. There is no reason to berate the present author but I’d respectfully recommend he seek some academic consultation about article presentation. Commit to a certain threshold of citations and as well, make sure the cited studies are “good” ones before “making it look” scientific. In the alternative, if you have something of value to write about, do so – just don’t ride that edge. There are too many forces in the world today which make it difficult for people to understand what science is and isn’t. Don’t be one of them. Good topic though.