Pipe Smoking Study, It Doesn't Look Good.

[alaskanpiper]

As for "today's psychology" and its "clinical nature", the widespread pharmaceutical treatments, including and especially the mass drugging of children that's been going on for many years now, is one of the absolute worst travesties of so-called medical science that's ever been done legally. The amount of harm it's caused is incalculable, imo.

What you are referring to here is psychiatry, not psychology, and you are absolutely correct. There are a couple of excellent books on the topic by Robert Whittaker "Mad in America" and "Anatomy of an Epidemic." I strongly recommend both of them. Psychology is a very different field.

To your other point, Freud did a lot for the field, and yes, some of his work is still applicable, I didn't mean to write him off entirely. I agree that Jung's work is more interesting and in depth, but also still quite outdated relative to the modern "scientific" approach to psychology.

 

[brian64]

What you are referring to here is psychiatry, not psychology

Understood. But your use of the word "clinical" gave me the impression you may have been mixing the two.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Understood. But your use of the word "clinical" gave me the impression you may have been mixing the two.

Clinical could be applied to either field, it simply means it is based on the observation and treatment of real patients. There are certainly some ways in which the two overlap, but there is no better way to piss of a psychologist than lumping them in with psychiatrists, hahaha. Mostly because of what you mention above. Working with psychiatrists (while there are a few good ones out there) was one of the most frustrating parts of my time working as a psychotherapist.

 

[brian64]

I agree that Jung's work is more interesting and in depth, but also still quite outdated relative to the modern "scientific" approach to psychology.

I'm sure that's true, but (again IMO) it's outdated because the modern approach has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

It goes back to Olkofri's comment about modern science across the board.......its reductionist nature...its fundamentalist materialism view...and its compartmentalization/specialization.

In general, it lacks both a holistic approach and an understanding of the nature of consciousness...which is something far beyond simply brain function.

 

[alaskanpiper]

I'm sure that's true, but (again IMO) it's outdated because the modern approach has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

This is certainly true in some cases. And polarly untrue in others. The field (and particularly the varied approaches in which it is applied from practitioner to practitioner or researcher to researcher) is far too varied to be generalized in such a way. But you are not wrong.

 

[cshubhra]

That’s a good recommendation....I might buy the book, based on your comment

Anyone with interest on how smoking can lead to cancer and how cancer develops, etc. I would highly recommend reading Siddhartha Mukherjee's "The Emperor of all Maladies."

It is a great synopsis of the history of cancer from the beginning of time, reads almost like a novel, and is an excellent facts first educational book that will give a great many people not only a better understanding of how cancer develops, runs its course, and is treated. It also gives a great history on the politics surrounding cancer and an eye opening explanation of what a varied, genius, and downright impressive monster cancer is.

I would recommend it for anyone, but particularly for smokers. I think it will give most people a much better understanding of any risks associated with smoking actually run their course in the human body and provide them with alot more ammunition to make informed decisions. It is also admirably unbiased (although not completely devoid of bias of course), especially for something written by a doctor. It is written in a very outside looking in manner, which is refreshing.

 

[olkofri]

Notice what the E.U. has become? That's the plan.

The European Union is the Soviet Union 2.0.

Much of the reason for the stereotype around the field being what it is stems from the now outdated and largely ignored early roots of the field in the era of psychoanalysts such as Freud and the like,

Actually, no. I quite frankly think that as deluded as Freud and friends were they were more spot on than to-day's psychologists. My big issue with psychology is that, like some of the other liberal arts, it has become the perfect 'scientifical' means to justify and normalise one's ungodly behaviours; verily, it has more to do with justifying poor choices than reaching truth. If it were practiced in a wholistic way, it could do much good, but having been co-opted by some to push their social engineering agendas (what hasn't?) it can no longer be trusted.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Actually, no. I quite frankly think that as deluded as Freud and friends were they were more spot on than to-day's psychologists. My big issue with psychology is that, like some of the other liberal arts, it has become the perfect 'scientifical' means to justify and normalise one's ungodly behaviours; verily, it has more to do with justifying poor choices than reaching truth. If it were practiced in a wholistic way, it could do much good, but having been co-opted by some to push their social engineering agendas (what hasn't?) it can no longer be trusted.

Actually, yes. Although maybe not in your specific opinion. Simply citing the most common reason for many of the stereotypes surrounding the field today and making a general statement about where the field is today vs where it was then. Not saying either one is right or wrong, because they are both right and both wrong depending on the client and practitioner.

You are perfectly within your rights to believe what you believe regarding Freud and friends vs today's more scientific approaches. Many practitioners would agree with you. Many would not. This all ties back in to what I have been saying above. The field is extremely varied in the way different modalities are applied to different cases. Success in the field is all about finding the right practitioner and the right modality for the client/patient. Which can be anything from pure psychoanalysis to EMDR or any combination of hundreds of modalities. For some, they will find neither. It is an extremely varied field.

 

[Casual]

Two notable things about this thread:

1. The internet used to be a place where people knew how to disagree without puerile name calling, but it’s rare to find these days. It’s great to see it here, and makes me feel good about pipers.

2. I notice that my favourite poster, mso489, steers well clear of these rocky shoals. I should be so wise.

 

[brian64]

What you are referring to here is psychiatry, not psychology, and you are absolutely correct. There are a couple of excellent books on the topic by Robert Whittaker "Mad in America" and "Anatomy of an Epidemic." I strongly recommend both of them. Psychology is a very different field.

I would be interested to know what percentage of "patients" seeking and undergoing some type of therapy/treatment for "mental health" issues are using pharmaceuticals vs those using only the psychology approach (counseling, or whatever other non-pharmaceutical methods apply).

My perception is that the pharmaceutical approach (psychiatry) is far more pervasive than the psychology approach these days...and generally thought of by most people as the more "scientific" method.

 

[yuda]

I would argue smoking a pipe on occasion keeps me and a number of people who agitate me alive. Still, good science is nice to find in this day and age.

 

[alaskanpiper]

I would be interested to know what percentage of "patients" seeking and undergoing some type of therapy/treatment for "mental health" issues are using pharmaceuticals vs those using only the psychology approach (counseling, or whatever other non-pharmaceutical methods apply).

My perception is that the pharmaceutical approach (psychiatry) is far more pervasive than the psychology approach these days...and generally thought of by most people as the more "scientific" method.

The majority likely end up in a psychiatrists office, mostly because they end up being referred by a primary care provider. Docs almost always refer to docs, and all of them sell drugs. Said drugs also appeal to many people because it is viewed as an "easy fix" and doesn't require the effort and work on the client's part that psychotherapy does. In addition, if you want insurance to cover it, often times it's gotta be a doc (MD). That's just an experienced guess though. I have no idea on percentages.

There are certainly alot that only see a psychiatrist, and plenty that only utilize psychotherapy. Modern "science" tells us that the most effective approach for most patients is a combination of the two. I have seen both great results, and no results, from both. And from the combination. Again, it all depends on the client.

What I will say, again just in my personal experience, I have seen by far more harmful results, from medication without psychotherapy. Although this is also relatively uncommon, drugs have side effects and abuse potential, and always will. Some clients get in a vicious cycle of treating a presenting problem with a drug that generates a side effect that is then treated with another drug, and so on and so forth until they become toxic on a delicious cocktail of the miracles of modern science. But that doc sure is making some coin as a result. Not to mention her lexapro clock on the wall, his abilify notepads, her prozac pens, etc......

Although yes, in general most people would view it as the more scientific approach, because of two letters. MD.

If the topic truly interests you enough, I would again recommend the Robert Whittaker books I mentioned above. He is a little "gung ho" about the issue but they are a very interesting read.

 

[brian64]

If it were practiced in a wholistic way, it could do much good, but having been co-opted by some to push their social engineering agendas (what hasn't?) it can no longer be trusted.

Many people, including myself, have lost much trust in the "scientific establishment" in general due to so much obvious co-opting...and in a number of instances outright fraud, which has been well documented, particularly as it relates to the whole CO2/climate change barrel of horseshit.

To be fair, there have been many credible, honest scientists that have spoken out against the corruption of modern science for social/political purposes, but their voices are usually not allowed to be heard in the mass-media-corporate-cartel that the vast majority of people get their information from.

The average person these days it seems will swallow without question anything proceeding from the mouth of someone sanctioned by the mass-media who is wearing a white lab coat...which is the holy robe of our modern high-priests.

 

[brian64]

Eisenhower warned specifically of all of this in his farewell speech:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Digital History

 

[alaskanpiper]

That Eisenhower quote is absolutely excellent.

 

[warren]

"so I guess you'll have to ask yourself what it "provides". "

Easy answer, laughs. No one is going to change positions on a subject but, the pontification, inane assertions, and other malarky is thoroughly entertaining.

I like the thread, this and the many similar, because often a poster will make a totally unsupportable, often asinine assertion. I enjoy poking holes, seeking citations for the unsupportable, and so forth. It is a great way to spend a rainy, cold afternoon. It's aerobics for the mind! Certainly nothing more serious than that.

 

[brian64]

Good answer Warren!

But the entire modern world for the most part operates on inane, unsupportable assertions and other malarky dished out by the "authorities".

So I would say some amateurs on here doing the same is more forgivable.

EDIT:
I consider the search for truth to be primarily a process of elimination.

It usually seems much easier to identify what is not true than what is. Especially if you don't have subpoena power.

 

[alaskanpiper]

I am in it for the exchange of ideas, not to change anyone's mind. And of course, the discussion in and of itself is entertaining and engaging.

It usually seems much easier to identify what is not true than what is

Should be the scientist's number one goal. To disprove their own hypothesis. Disproving one's theory or hypothesis should be viewed as a scientific success. A process of elimination, as you say. When something cannot be disproven, then we can consider that it might be a finding of significance.

Unfortunately much of today's self serving science sets out with the opposite goal.

 

[olkofri]

The scientific establishment for the last 150 years:



For guys who pharisaically claim, proclaim, and maintain to be 'free thinkers' and completely free of 'superstition', they do a lot of obeisance to the work of their hands gods of their own making.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

I wouldn't call RYO "going to extremes" but you are absolutely right! They will do this to satisfy their addiction (my initial point). And younger people will see them doing it. Which means younger people will want to try it. And they will. And then they will begin Rolling their own. And younger people will see them doing it......and cigarettes will continue to exist.

Making it slightly more difficult to prepare could reduce the smoking population somewhat, you may be right about that, we'll never know. But it will never come close to outweighing the power of influence people have on their younger peers, and the curious brain. Nor will it ever come close to outweighing addiction. RYO instead of a pack of filters is simply nowehere near enough of a change to make any significant impact on the existence of cigarettes and cigarette use.

Young people enjoy things that are difficult to obtain (let alone simply prepare) on a daily basis (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, etc.) and they will continue to do so indefinitely, especially when their elder peers do so and enjoy it, whether it is RYO or a pack of filters. This has far more of an impact on the continuation of use than availability.

As far as your statement on "if cigarettes had never been invented" I'll follow that up with a statement with equal significance, scientific merit, and pertinence: Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

So when you replace all the cigarette addicts with moderate Pipesmokers what do the children do?

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that addiction is an absolute conclusion of exposure to tobacco.
It boggles the mind that so many people here would defend that assumption so fervently, probably out of a motivation of guilt and self pity, that you’re unable to enjoy something responsibly and project your lack of self control onto everyone else.

Rest assured, many have succeeded where you have failed.

This success is the culture that needs to be promoted for Pipes to exist in the future, not the taboo that Nicotine is an undefeatable all controlling monster.

There is a correct path for the healthy existence of Tobacco in society, people just need to be made aware of correct consumption instead of treating the whole subject as taboo.