AU Blogspot

              Thanks to Paul Goyette for permission to use this Photo.

I just finished reading Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, which is coming out towards the end of August. The book summarizes, in very accessible terms, thirty years of work by John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago and his colleagues.

It’s initially hard to get past the title. William Patrick, John’s coauthor, relates how a friend reading an early manuscript found the word “loneliness” to be disturbing, even more so than “rape,” “murder,” or “death.” This reaction fits perfectly with the major theme of the book–we humans are a very social bunch, and being cut off from other people, as in solitary confinement, might be the very worst punishment of all.

What I especially liked about the book is the constant, seamless integration of what we call “perspectives” in psychology, harkening back to William James. In other words, the neuroscience, social psychology, and cognitive science is all woven together so that you get the big picture. In other writing, John has compared psychology to a symphony, with the different perspectives contributing to the whole of our understanding just as the score, musicians, instruments, and conductor join together to produce fantastic music. He and William have definitely succeeded in bringing this integration to the study of loneliness. Given the all-too-frequent Balkanization of psychology into little subdomains, this approach is refreshing and informative.

Like William’s friend, I found myself feeling sad at times while reading the book. I don’t consider myself a lonely person, as I am blessed by having a close family and good friends. But I know a lot of lonely people, and reading the various case studies brought these people to mind in a vivid way. The sad mood lifted, however, when John would throw in some of his modest and self-deprecating humor, as in his description of his trip to “Grenada.” Enough said. You need to read the book to find out the rest. (more…)

 
Are we on this again?

“Study doubts the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs.”  Or, even better, as per The Independent: “Antidepressant drugs don’t work– official study.“

I don’t know what passes for official nowadays.  The data is the exact same data that has existed for 30 years.  Yes, these authors are acting like they FOIA-ed the second Zapruder film, but let me assure you it’s the same old data.  These authors did the exact same study in 2002.  So have twenty other groups.  This is not new. 

But it is news.  The question is why.

I have a side question.  Why is it that when an article says something works, people are suspicious of bias, but when an article says something doesn’t work, everyone thinks it’s objective science?   IT’S ALL BIAS.  

People are completely missing the point of this paper and all the other recent re-investigations, the true social and clinical consequences of them.  For example: they’re saying antidepressants are no good.  Ok.  What do you think doctors are going to use  instead?  Psychoanalysis?  Nothing?  They’re going to prescribe antipsychotics.  Are you listening to me?  I’m not even saying this is clinically wrong to do, but do you not see the setup?  Abre los ojos, man. (more…)