4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI am referring to Phenomenology in qualitative research
Hey, I'm not the one who doesn't know the difference between qualitative and quantitative.
"Generally, in the qualitative context, phenomenology is a method that "aims to get 'to the things themselves' through creating written descriptions of personal experience as the source of all claims to knowledge" (Conklin, 2007, p. 276).
.....................................
As Moustakas said, “What appears in consciousness is an absolute reality while what appears to the world is a product of learning”
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(science)
Originally posted by Thequ1ck"Qualitative Research" is an oxymoron.
I am referring to Phenomenology in qualitative research
"Generally, in the qualitative context, phenomenology is a method that "aims to get 'to the things themselves' through creating written descriptions of personal experience as the source of all claims to knowledge" (Conklin, 2007, p. 276).
.....................................
As Moustakas said, “ ...[text shortened]... world is a product of learning”
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(science)
When you say qualitatively you mean like how does hamburger A taste compared to hamburger B.
Quantitative Research is that which attempts to pin down some attribute or physical phenomenon to an actual number, like my research has found a 20 % increase in the effectiveness of our antibacterial cream, or some such.
We now know our high friction tires used for drag racers have a 13% increase in friction compared to our competitors.
Qualitative: We tested our watches for accuracy and found them to be better than our competitors. (No numbers to report, it's just an ad scam)
The people we interviewed all said Mike Googoo's hair cream caused more hair growth than Viagra cream. (They really interviewed 3 people). That is qualitative. Can you get that now?
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseOh I get it.
"Qualitative Research" is an oxymoron.
When you say qualitatively you mean like how does hamburger A taste compared to hamburger B.
Quantitative Research is that which attempts to pin down some attribute or physical phenomenon to an actual number, like my research has found a 20 % increase in the effectiveness of our antibacterial cream, or some such. Viagra cream. (They really interviewed 3 people). That is qualitative. Can you get that now?
Quantitative research shows that putting patients in an induced coma lessened psychotic behavior by 90% with only a 5% rise in morbidity over a survey of 5000 patients. You can't have a purely quantitative approach in psychiatry.
"Qualitative researchers typically rely on the following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant Observation, Field Notes, Reflexive Journals, Structured Interview, Semi-structured Interview, Unstructured Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials."
I think it's fair to say that psychiatry is a combination of qualitative analysis mixed with quantitatively tested drugs.
"Throughout the 1990s, the concept of a passive observer/researcher was rejected, and qualitative research became more participatory and activist-oriented. Also, during this time, researchers began to use mixed-method approaches, indicating a shift in thinking of qualitative and quantitative methods as intrinsically incompatible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research
I say mixing a qualitative analysis with a quantitatively assessed drug gives mixed results and is thereby invalid.
1 edit
"Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and approximately 1.2% of Americans (3.2 million) have the disorder."
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8805
"An estimated 26 percent of Americans ages 18 and older - about one in four (or over 57.7 million) adults - suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year."
and finally, one for your quantitative research book.
"More than 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder".
http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthcare_services/mental_health/mental_health_about/about_mental_health/mental_health_statistics/Pages/index.aspx
What does that mean exactly? That 10% should have jumped or that it was understandable that they did??
10% of people who commit suicide, in the eyes of psychiatry, are mentally fit. Statistics show...
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
"Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and approximately 1.2% of Americans (3.2 million) have the disorder."
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8805
"An estimated 26 percent of Americans ages 18 and older - about one in four (or over 57.7 million) adults - suffers from a diagnosable mental dis people who commit suicide, in the eyes of psychiatry, are mentally fit. Statistics show...
10% of people who commit suicide, in the eyes of psychiatry, are mentally fit. Statistics show
No. The quote: "More than 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental disorder" (my emphasis) does not imply this.
The operative word here is diagnosable. Why would psychiatrists necessarily generally assume that all mental disorders are diagnosable? I am sure that many if not most don't.
Isn't it possible for somebody with an undiagnosable mental disorder to commit suicide?
That is not to imply that all suicides are necessarily caused by mental disorders -even somebody with no particular mental disorder whether diagnosable or not may still have his breaking point.
4 edits
Originally posted by humyWell that's a pretty shoddy hit-rate if you ask me.10% of people who commit suicide, in the eyes of psychiatry, are mentally fit. Statistics show
No. The quote: "More than 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a [b]diagnosable mental disorder" (my emphasis) does not imply this.
The operative word here is diagnosable. Why would psychiatrists necessarily generally assume tha no particular mental disorder whether diagnosable or not may still have his breaking point.[/b]
Suicide is pretty much the only 'truth' that psychiatry is equipped to deal with and instead they just kinda look at each other and shrug 'seems legit' they say.
'ya, if I were in his/her shoes, I'd blow my own head off too'.
I put forward the proposition that psychiatry is not only scientifically unsound, but it is also run by a bunch of less than sane groups.
I move that any and all psychiatric remarks are moved to the religious forum where they have a greater common.
We're not talking about a small slice of the pie here either. 1 in 4 Americans are too stigmatized to seek help. 1 in 4. You know why? Because a bunch of jumped up quacks will just throw a load of debilitating pills down their throat to fix the problem.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Well that's a pretty shoddy hit-rate if you ask me.
Suicide is pretty much the only 'truth' that psychiatry is equipped to deal with and instead they just kinda look at each other and shrug 'seems legit' they say.
'ya, if I were in his/her shoes, I'd blow my own head off too'.
I put forward the proposition that psychiatry is not only scientifically ...[text shortened]... l psychiatric remarks are moved to the religious forum where they have a greater common.
Bunch of shrinks look at each other and shrug 'seems legit'
what? Do you think that it is plausible they would think/say this? Surely not.
It would be reasonable to assume that somebody that shoots themselves in the mouth probably has a serious mental/emotional problem.
Somebody is trapped in a burning skyscraper and the only way out is out the window from a great height.
He faces a terrible choice; either stay put and wait to burn to death in terrible agony or jump out the window to his death from a great height -either way he dies and he knows it.
If he chooses to commit suicide by jumping out the window, I am sure most psychiatrists would not think that was caused by a mental disorder nor would they think/say 'seems legit'.
2 edits
Originally posted by humyYes, I think it's not only plausible but is happening around us as we speak.Bunch of shrinks look at each other and shrug 'seems legit'
what? Do you think that it is plausible they would think/say this? Surely not.
It would be reasonable to assume that somebody that shoots themselves in the mouth probably has a serious mental/emotional problem.
Somebody is trapped in a burning skyscraper and the only way out is o ...[text shortened]... would not think that was caused by a mental disorder nor would they think/say 'seems legit'.
A choice between a certain, sustained, lingering death and a hop out the window does not fairly represent the 10% of suicides that are left unaccounted for.
4 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI don't know what would make you think that.
Yes, I think it's not only plausible but is happening around us as we speak.
People are mis-diagnosed all the time. It seems that even when psychiatrists are presented with the dirty, smelling, rotting recompense of their own diatribe, they don't recognize it. It seems to me that to all intents and purposes that they don't know that their s*** stinks.
I used to work in a home for people with learning difficulties and behavioural problems and all the psychiatrists I know there that dealt with the ones with behavioural problems were intelligent and showed a lot of common sense. I saw no evidence or hint of possible misdiagnosed nor ill-treatment. They cared for them just as much as their key care workers one of which was me.
1 edit
Originally posted by humySorry, I edited the last post.
I don't know what would make you think that.
I used to work in a home for people with learning difficulties and behavioural problems and all the psychiatrists I know there that dealt with the ones with behavioural problems were intelligent and showed a lot of common sense. I saw no evidence or hint of possible misdiagnosed nor ill-treatment.
Behavioral problems are usually associated with ADHD and/or Dyslexia. How much of an effort did you see towards 'fixing' these problems and how much of an effort did you see towards 'masking' these problems. Be honest.
My point is that psychiatry is typically aligned with socio-typical standards and that those standards through the machinations of science are too slow to respond to actual environment. More so, science has no mechanism in place for introspection.
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Sorry, I edited the last post.
Behavioral problems are usually associated with ADHD and/or Dyslexia. How much of an effort did you see towards 'fixing' these problems and how much of an effort did you see towards 'masking' these problems. Be honest.
Behavioral problems are usually associated with ADHD and/or Dyslexia.
Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of dyslexics don't have behavioural problems -just hope you know that.
How much of an effort did you see towards 'fixing' these problems
plenty. Although sadly there are huge limitations of what can be done in most cases due to the fact there is no cure for many of the causes of mental problems but they do whatever they can so I don't see how they could be criticised for that.
and how much of an effort did you see towards 'masking' these problems.
don’t be daft. Not only did I see no evidence of them masking the problems but why would they do that? How would it be in their interest to mask problems?
If they masked all the problems, they would be doing themselves out of a job! If anything, it would be in their interest to exaggerate the patients problems in order to give themselves more employment with them although I saw no evidence of them doing that either.
7 edits
Originally posted by humyBehavioral problems are usually associated with ADHD and/or Dyslexia.
Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of dyslexics don't have behavioural problems -just hope you know that.How much of an effort did you see towards 'fixing' these problems
plenty. Although sadly there are huge limitations of what can be done in mo themselves more employment with them although I saw no evidence of them doing that either.
Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of dyslexics don't have behavioural problems -just hope you know that.
Incidentally, the majority of prison inmates DO have dyslexia. Just so long as we're clear on that point.
Although sadly there are huge limitations of what can be done in most cases
Your statement above is accurate. There isn't much that can be done. The scientific methodology in place is antiquated, clumsy and impossible to uphold within the statements of its own doctrines.
As a direct consequence millions of people are made to suffer.
6 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIncidentally, the overwhelming majority of dyslexics don't have behavioural problems -just hope you know that.
Incidentally, the majority of prison inmates DO have dyslexia. Just so long as we're clear on that point.Although sadly there are huge limitations of what can be done in most cases
Your statement above is ents of its own doctrines.
As a direct consequence millions of people are made to suffer.
Incidentally, the majority of prison inmates DO have dyslexia. Just so long as we're clear on that point.
yes, and it isn't the dyslexia that is the direct cause but rather the unemployment that often comes with dyslexia because dyslexia makes it harder to get good jobs. There is no evidence that dyslexia in people with high-ranking jobs such as senior science researchers etc increases the likelihood of them having criminal behaviour. Implying that dyslexia causes crime because of a large proportion of inmates are dyslexic is like implying being black causes crime because of a large proportion of inmates are black. Just so long as we're clear on that point.
The scientific methodology in place is antiquated, clumsy and impossible to uphold within the statements of its own doctrines.
have you got any evidence that any of this is generally the case? ( "antiquated, clumsy..." )
Can you give/list just a few specific examples of these "statements" you are referring to above?
As a direct consequence millions of people are made to suffer
Without psychiatry, how would you propose that we stop/reduce suffering from mental illness?
Isn’t psychiatry the only hope for many/most of them?
How would those mentally ill people NOT suffer from their mental illness if psychiatry was absent?
Society needs psychiatry.
8 edits
Originally posted by humy
Incidentally, the majority of prison inmates DO have dyslexia. Just so long as we're clear on that point.
yes, and it isn't the dyslexia that is the direct cause but rather the unemployment that often comes with dyslexia because dyslexia makes it harder to get good jobs. There is no evidence that dyslexia in people with high-ranking jobs su T suffer from their mental illness if psychiatry was absent?
Society needs psychiatry.
yes, and it isn't the dyslexia that is the direct cause but rather the unemployment that often comes with dyslexia
Agree Totally. Although I will say the people I've met with dyslexia do tend to have more developed practical skills. Might just be chance.
Can you give/list just a few specific examples of these "statements" you are referring to above?
Sure, here's one.
You should not report using a scale of results beyond the means of the measuring apparatus.
In this case we are reporting results on peoples mental health without referencing it to up-to-date sociological context.
Isn’t psychiatry the only hope for many/most of them?
Psychiatry is almost unique amongst the medical fields in-so-much as it has undergone drastic evolution during it's lifespan.
It went from moral to legal to social issues. As a social issue, psychiatry is faced with all the rigmarol and delay of any other
medicinal treatment might face. However, psychiatry is hugely dependent upon environment and needs to be able to adapt
to environment almost immediately to remain legitimate.
"In 1973, psychologist David Rosenhan published the Rosenhan experiment, a study questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.[59] The study arranged for eight individuals with no history of psychopathology to attempt admission into psychiatric hospitals. The individuals included a graduate student, psychologists, an artist, a housewife, and two physicians, including one psychiatrist. All eight individuals were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
...The study concluded that individuals without mental disorders were indistinguishable from those suffering from mental disorders"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry
I try not to be a complainer and hope to bring a solution as well as a question to the table.
My theory is how the majority of schizophrenia diagnosis are made for males between the ages of 23-28.
I don't believe this is a coincidence as this, historically, is the age of maturity for humans and would represent
the most challenging of times. I believe schizophrenia to be part of an elaborate 'coping mechanism'.
As such, I would say how an alternative to drug administration would be the inclusion of a diagnosed individual within a community who
are able to provide an environment amenable to the mindset of the individual.
How such a society should exist and be peripheral to mainstream society.
Such a society should be enabled to an extent which allows simple and un-stigmatized
transition between social groups and recognized as a humanistic feature rather
than a disease.
The ability of the brain to self-administer endorphin's I believe is a throw-back
from our more primitive days. This mechanism should be addressed as such
and given a sociological context upon which to build and address itself.
This alternative, although not representing a cure, would allow us to report
serious and mild metal debilitation's and provide an up-to-date, contextual
reporting mechanism.