The BBC is about 6 steps behind everyone else again...or perhaps I was just getting ahead of myself, must assume I thought it was already taken as read that CBT can reduce depression...but then I'm a psychology faithful and lack the cynicism I'm sure to gain with age. So, have a read, and I'll research further on CBT and what is actually known about its power to work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20625639
07/12/2012
Does losing Asperger's mean losing children?
I've blogged before about the DSM-5. Due to be published in May 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders remains central to discussion in psychological, medical and political (well maybe not, but it should be) spheres. It's important because subtle changes in how mental disorders are diagnosed can change the lives of children and adults everywhere.
One of the most widely discussed changes is losing the description of 'Asperger's Disorder' from the manual. It was described in the previous edition of the Manual as impairment in social interaction and restricted or stereotyped patterns of behaviour that impair important areas of functioning, without presence of language delay or cognitive development delay. This has been an important area of diagnosis for many people, allowing access to 'Statements' and appropriate treatment and assistance.
But in the last few years, alongside the terms 'autism' and 'Asperger's', the term 'Autistic Spectrum Disorder' has begun to be used. It has become widely accepted that the disorder is a spectrum, with differing cognitive abilities, levels of impairment and characteristics fitting into different areas of the spectrum, united by a triad of impairments. This diagnosis will be in the new DSM and in some ways proves very useful - recognising the degree of coherency across the spectrum, that help is needed for all children who fall on the spectrum however high or low functioning, and the fluidity needed in diagnosis and treatment.
But there are fears that this change in diagnosis will allow children and young people with Asperger's to 'slip through the net'. There are fears it will lead to under (or over) diagnosis. Parents are literally terrified their children will lose the services they really need - just because their cognitive functioning is average or above. This is a political issue and, whether the changes in the DSM-5 are right or wrong, politicians, policy makers, parents and people everywhere need to sit up and listen. Because people with autism may not seem 'typical', but autism is not rare. You may not be able to see Asperger's on someone's face, but Asperger's is not invisible.
Losing Asperger's from the DSM-5 is a bureaucratic change really. It's a consolidation of diagnostic terminology and a modernisation of the way we think about autism. But for some people it means losing their children's support and safety-net. Does losing Asperger's mean losing children?
Read that? Wondered why I keep repeating myself on my blog? Read up and realise, these issues aren't going anywhere: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/12December/Pages/Aspergers-dropped-from-mental-health-manual-DSM-5.aspx
One of the most widely discussed changes is losing the description of 'Asperger's Disorder' from the manual. It was described in the previous edition of the Manual as impairment in social interaction and restricted or stereotyped patterns of behaviour that impair important areas of functioning, without presence of language delay or cognitive development delay. This has been an important area of diagnosis for many people, allowing access to 'Statements' and appropriate treatment and assistance.
But in the last few years, alongside the terms 'autism' and 'Asperger's', the term 'Autistic Spectrum Disorder' has begun to be used. It has become widely accepted that the disorder is a spectrum, with differing cognitive abilities, levels of impairment and characteristics fitting into different areas of the spectrum, united by a triad of impairments. This diagnosis will be in the new DSM and in some ways proves very useful - recognising the degree of coherency across the spectrum, that help is needed for all children who fall on the spectrum however high or low functioning, and the fluidity needed in diagnosis and treatment.
Losing Asperger's from the DSM-5 is a bureaucratic change really. It's a consolidation of diagnostic terminology and a modernisation of the way we think about autism. But for some people it means losing their children's support and safety-net. Does losing Asperger's mean losing children?
Read that? Wondered why I keep repeating myself on my blog? Read up and realise, these issues aren't going anywhere: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/12December/Pages/Aspergers-dropped-from-mental-health-manual-DSM-5.aspx
The DSM controversy continues...
http://www.bps.org.uk/news/dsm5-approved-controversy-continues
more to follow...
more to follow...
24/10/2012
Capuchin monkeys reject unfair pay
Thank you bio anth lecture for bringing this gem into my life. Don't be so naive as to say only humans have a concept of ethics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynrRd7Ak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynrRd7Ak
28/09/2012
22/09/2012
21/09/2012
Brain Science
That's more than enough politics for one day, have a healthy dose of brain science to round off the evening :) Scientists at the Allen Institute for brain Science in Seattle have been investigating the 'genetic blueprint' of the human brain, and have found some very interesting findings.
Here is the report on the BBC, to get you warmed up!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19674768
And the press release from the Allen Institute:
http://www.alleninstitute.org/Media/documents/press_releases/2012_0919_PressRelease_Nature_AllenHumanBrainAtlas.html
And while most of this site utterly baffles me (do let me know if you can make any sense of all the genetic stuff) this MRI explorer tool is pretty cool:
http://human.brain-map.org/mri_viewers/data
Here is the report on the BBC, to get you warmed up!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19674768
And the press release from the Allen Institute:
http://www.alleninstitute.org/Media/documents/press_releases/2012_0919_PressRelease_Nature_AllenHumanBrainAtlas.html
And while most of this site utterly baffles me (do let me know if you can make any sense of all the genetic stuff) this MRI explorer tool is pretty cool:
http://human.brain-map.org/mri_viewers/data
Scandal - an excuse for a cuppa?
Scandal: it's everywhere right now.
Sure, as of yet no British paper has actually published the topless photos of our beloved Catherine Middleton, but with all the discussion, front-page spreads and prime-spots on news programmes, we're not exactly giving her gracious privacy. It's a scandal because it brings into question, for the umpteenth time this year, privacy and the nature of the press. It also brings the monarchy back into the spotlight, and raises questions on how we expect them to behave and how they can expect to be treated.
Sure, we don't actually live in or have a say in the governing of America, but with comments such as Republican senate candidate Todd Akin's 'Legimate Rape' and his no-exceptions stance on abortion, the Brits are quick as ever to express horror and disbelief and stir up a scandal from across the Atlantic. With American views on healthcare, prison services and welfare systems differing vastly from the vague consensus in England, almost any political statement rapidly becomes a scandal. This was seen recently in Romney's controversial and famous, secretly filmed '47%' speech in which he accused 47% of the country of making themselves victims and expecting the government to provide healthcare, food and accommodation when they cannot do so for themselves. While the scandal in America lies in the 'writing-off' of 47% of voters, for me at least it is found in the assumption that it is in any way wrong to assume the government will provide basic necessities for its citizens in their time of need. That is a scandal. Are these not human rights?
Sure, no-one really believed for a second the Libdems would actually be in power any time in the forseeable future, let alone scrap tuition fees if they were, but the fact that Nick Clegg was photographed publicly signing a comedy-sized pledge instantly brought the party's integrity into question and was something he should have known he'd regret forever. It somehow manages to be a scandal again now, years on, because Clegg has finally come out and apologised, in typical political fashion, not for breaking the promise but for making a promise it was impossible to keep. Great. Throw a satirical auto-tune youtube video into the mix and let the deputy prime-minister allow it to be released as a charity single, and suddenly the public is oh-so confused as to quite how the Libdems have come out of this particular scandal.
In typical British fashion, scandals become crude cartoons and excuses for gossip over a good old cuppa. They fill our newpapers and newsrooms, they are humanized through comedy programmes and radio shows and now, with the growth of the media-generation, they spread like wild-fire via facebook and twitter. But what makes a piece of news truly scandal worthy? Why do we care quite so much what comes out of an American politician's mouth? What about Kate's topless shots make the story deserving of headline news for weeks after the event when wars are going on? What about Cleggy's video is making thousands, if not millions, of teenagers spread the word regardless of their blossoming political loyalties?
Is it that these scandals bring something light-hearted to our big scary world? Is it that we enjoy have a giggle while internally philosophising about the underlying issues? Is it just a human hunger for naked pictures and politicians making fools of themselves? Perhaps it's all of the above. Perhaps it's that we're psychologically proven (see the TED video of Sophie Scott somewhere on this very blog) to be united in laughter. Or perhaps it's just that in an anything but clear cut political world, where no-one keeps their promises and no-one is held accountable, we crave a scandal so we can actually feel we have an opinion that matters, a say in the future, and a real understanding of our complicated hierarchical society.
Sure, as of yet no British paper has actually published the topless photos of our beloved Catherine Middleton, but with all the discussion, front-page spreads and prime-spots on news programmes, we're not exactly giving her gracious privacy. It's a scandal because it brings into question, for the umpteenth time this year, privacy and the nature of the press. It also brings the monarchy back into the spotlight, and raises questions on how we expect them to behave and how they can expect to be treated.Sure, we don't actually live in or have a say in the governing of America, but with comments such as Republican senate candidate Todd Akin's 'Legimate Rape' and his no-exceptions stance on abortion, the Brits are quick as ever to express horror and disbelief and stir up a scandal from across the Atlantic. With American views on healthcare, prison services and welfare systems differing vastly from the vague consensus in England, almost any political statement rapidly becomes a scandal. This was seen recently in Romney's controversial and famous, secretly filmed '47%' speech in which he accused 47% of the country of making themselves victims and expecting the government to provide healthcare, food and accommodation when they cannot do so for themselves. While the scandal in America lies in the 'writing-off' of 47% of voters, for me at least it is found in the assumption that it is in any way wrong to assume the government will provide basic necessities for its citizens in their time of need. That is a scandal. Are these not human rights?
Sure, no-one really believed for a second the Libdems would actually be in power any time in the forseeable future, let alone scrap tuition fees if they were, but the fact that Nick Clegg was photographed publicly signing a comedy-sized pledge instantly brought the party's integrity into question and was something he should have known he'd regret forever. It somehow manages to be a scandal again now, years on, because Clegg has finally come out and apologised, in typical political fashion, not for breaking the promise but for making a promise it was impossible to keep. Great. Throw a satirical auto-tune youtube video into the mix and let the deputy prime-minister allow it to be released as a charity single, and suddenly the public is oh-so confused as to quite how the Libdems have come out of this particular scandal.In typical British fashion, scandals become crude cartoons and excuses for gossip over a good old cuppa. They fill our newpapers and newsrooms, they are humanized through comedy programmes and radio shows and now, with the growth of the media-generation, they spread like wild-fire via facebook and twitter. But what makes a piece of news truly scandal worthy? Why do we care quite so much what comes out of an American politician's mouth? What about Kate's topless shots make the story deserving of headline news for weeks after the event when wars are going on? What about Cleggy's video is making thousands, if not millions, of teenagers spread the word regardless of their blossoming political loyalties?
Is it that these scandals bring something light-hearted to our big scary world? Is it that we enjoy have a giggle while internally philosophising about the underlying issues? Is it just a human hunger for naked pictures and politicians making fools of themselves? Perhaps it's all of the above. Perhaps it's that we're psychologically proven (see the TED video of Sophie Scott somewhere on this very blog) to be united in laughter. Or perhaps it's just that in an anything but clear cut political world, where no-one keeps their promises and no-one is held accountable, we crave a scandal so we can actually feel we have an opinion that matters, a say in the future, and a real understanding of our complicated hierarchical society.
The Lucifer Effect - Prof Zimbardo
P.s I bet your copy won't be signed by the great Zimbardo himself :D
14/09/2012
Psychologist - Comes in Waves
What’s behind the name?
Literally, Psychologist means ‘one who studies the soul’, we think of it as a scary word in our harsh-sounding, Germanic language, but it actually means something really beautiful. I also like that it is ambiguous as to whether it’s me studying my own soul, or yours, or you studying my soul, or me asking you to study your own. It’s like a big impossible object that goes around and around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)