thamsenman

Removed
Dec 14, 2009
992
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Politically or socially or otherwise.

Or do they just try to not be judgemental?

I hear that psychiatry is a very open profession for gay/lesbian folks who are looking for a more tolerant, understanding group of medical collegues.
 

billypilgrim37

Unstuck in Time
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
2,387
115
171
Status
Attending Physician
We wind up being something else entirely, as we are

a) liberal in that most of us believe that people who cannot take care of themselves should have adequate assistance,

b) conservative, in that we believe strongly in personal responsibility, and

c) libertarian, because we like to waste hours arguing with people on the internet.

We go to church less often than colleagues in other specialties, but we go to temple more often than colleagues in other specialties.

Most of us like gay people more than our colleagues in other specialties.

Our male colleagues also wear more sweater vests and elbow patches and beards than colleagues in other specialties.

We probably read more novels and are more likely to have a personal story involving Ira Glass. And we were wearing hipster glasses before everybody else was.

I'm probably the only person in my city under the age of 35 with a subscription to the opera season.

I think that's 98% of what you need to know about psychiatrists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverPsychMD

OldPsychDoc

Senior Curmudgeon
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 2, 2004
6,218
3,778
281
57
Left of Center
Status
Attending Physician
We wind up being something else entirely, as we are

a) liberal in that most of us believe that people who cannot take care of themselves should have adequate assistance,

b) conservative, in that we believe strongly in personal responsibility, and

c) libertarian, because we like to waste hours arguing with people on the internet.

We go to church less often than colleagues in other specialties, but we go to temple more often than colleagues in other specialties.

Most of us like gay people more than our colleagues in other specialties.

Our male colleagues also wear more sweater vests and elbow patches and beards than colleagues in other specialties.

We probably read more novels and are more likely to have a personal story involving Ira Glass. And we were wearing hipster glasses before everybody else was.

I'm probably the only person in my city under the age of 35 with a subscription to the opera season.

I think that's 98% of what you need to know about psychiatrists.
We are definitely NOT a cross section of Sarah Palin's "Real America"! :smuggrin:
 

masterofmonkeys

Angy Old Man
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2008
1,582
255
181
Status
Attending Physician
We are definitely NOT a cross section of Sarah Palin's "Real America"! :smuggrin:
What about libertarian, cowboy hat-wearing, lifetime NRA member, country listening psychiatrists? I swear they exist...
 

Sneezing

Even Bears do it!
10+ Year Member
Jan 27, 2009
598
8
41
Above Center
Status
Resident [Any Field]
What about libertarian, cowboy hat-wearing, lifetime NRA member, country listening psychiatrists? I swear they exist...
I'm thinking of becoming a card holding member of the LP. I've let my NRA membership slide. Crank up that George Strait, Hank, Alabama, and Alan Jackson! I won't wear a cowboy hat ... yet. I believe a person has to earn their hat. Some day when I have my own cattle and ranch I'll wear one. Until then, a trusty hunting ball cap will have to do. :cool:
 

thamsenman

Removed
Dec 14, 2009
992
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Republican, country listening, cowboy boot wearing, NRA psychiatrist-to-be right here.

Being in TX probably explains all that though
are you still gay friendly?

yes/no on the limit test?
 

thamsenman

Removed
Dec 14, 2009
992
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Maybe I am liberal then.....I have no problem with gay rights/marriage/etc.

Limit test?

no limit test, just joking around.

But I love you anyway, cuz you don't mind gays *hug*
 

thamsenman

Removed
Dec 14, 2009
992
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Even in the great state of Mississippi, most psychiatrists are liberal. I am one of the few right-wing, Obama-hating psychiatrists in the state.
Wow, hate. That's a strong emotion to channel, especially for a psychiatrist.
 

st2205

Attending
10+ Year Member
Oct 29, 2006
1,831
1,085
281
Status
Attending Physician
One day I may be a psychiatrist, but as of today, I listen to Limbaugh at lunch.. yes, Limbaugh. I also don't believe in human evolution or global warming.
 
Last edited:

HCE

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 26, 2007
518
1
141
Status
Non-Student
One day I may be a psychiatrist, but as of today, I listen to Limbaugh at lunch.. yes, Limbaugh. I also don't believe in human evolution or global warming.
This will come in useful when you delve deeper into the narcissist personalty.
 

HCE

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 26, 2007
518
1
141
Status
Non-Student
Even in the great state of Mississippi, most psychiatrists are liberal. I am one of the few right-wing, Obama-hating psychiatrists in the state.
you're the psychiatrist, not me...but I believe there is a pill for that...
 
Sep 21, 2009
105
1
0
Status
Medical Student
In general I have found that physicians who work with underserved populations and disabled people (whatever the cause of the disability) tend to have kind hearts and a strong desire to help those less fortunate.

And the few I've met who work with those populations but dislike them are some of the most miserable folks I've ever met. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

michaelrack

All In at the wrong time
10+ Year Member
Dec 22, 2007
3,934
1,073
331
Memphis TN
Status
Attending Physician
In general I have found that physicians in general with underserved populations and disabled people (whatever the cause of the disability) tend to have kind hearts and a strong desire to help those less fortunate.

And the few I've met who work with those populations but dislike them are some of the most miserable folks I've ever met. :rolleyes:
Having a kind heart and a desire to help doesn't mean that a person is liberal. There are many conservatives who are personally generous but want a limited, fiscally-responsible government.
Conservatives, on average, give more to charity than liberals.

I have no problem with the government helping the truely disabled.
 
Sep 21, 2009
105
1
0
Status
Medical Student
You'll notice I didn't say anything about conservative vs. liberal political views. :D
 

masterofmonkeys

Angy Old Man
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2008
1,582
255
181
Status
Attending Physician
In general I have found that physicians who work with underserved populations and disabled people (whatever the cause of the disability) tend to have kind hearts and a strong desire to help those less fortunate.
The desire to help the disabled has driven my entire career path. And I've been personally featured in the National Review three times lol, am a lifetime member of the NRA, and don't vote for Republicans because they are too statist for my tastes.

Personal =/= political. How you personally feel about helping the needy is totally separate from how you feel about the government forcing people to do so.
 

st2205

Attending
10+ Year Member
Oct 29, 2006
1,831
1,085
281
Status
Attending Physician
Personal =/= political. How you personally feel about helping the needy is totally separate from how you feel about the government forcing people to do so.
You mean it's not cute-and-dry, black-and-white? You're telling me that it's possible to want to help people without access to healthcare while opposing the health care bill?
 

Sneezing

Even Bears do it!
10+ Year Member
Jan 27, 2009
598
8
41
Above Center
Status
Resident [Any Field]
You mean it's not cute-and-dry, black-and-white? You're telling me that it's possible to want to help people without access to healthcare while opposing the health care bill?
Absolutely YES. We have options. Everything about government involvement in healthcare is wrong, ineffecient, and the root of nearly all of our current healthcare woes.

I believe in personal responsibility and suffering the consequences of your own idiotic mistakes. I also believe in being a humanitarian and reaching out to my neighbors.

I disagree with Uncle Sam extending one hand to the neighbors while the other is in my pocket. He will keep some of them money himself and choose, who, when, and why my neighbors are helped. I can give MY money out in a far more effecient manner, and choose better than the government who, when, and why my neighbors are helped.

The government is a nameless entity. You recieve a handout from the government you feel no obligation to "pay it back". If you next door neighbor literally helps you out, you see that person often, you will want to "pay it back." There is accountability with smaller organizations, churches, societies, neighbors, etc.

This is the difference. The idea of helping people is a good one. I disagree with how we are going about it.
 

igottaquestion

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 16, 2008
268
2
91
Status
Medical Student
Absolutely YES. We have options. Everything about government involvement in healthcare is wrong, ineffecient, and the root of nearly all of our current healthcare woes.
So which insurance company CEO, lawyer, actuary, or medical biller do you go to to receive your efficient health care?
 

masterofmonkeys

Angy Old Man
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2008
1,582
255
181
Status
Attending Physician
So which insurance company CEO, lawyer, actuary, or medical biller do you go to to receive your efficient health care?
well there's your problem bud. You are not looking outside the status quo.

Anyone ever think that maybe part of the problem is the flawed model of comprehensive health insurance?
 

235750

Guest
10+ Year Member
Dec 5, 2008
636
4
0
Status
Non-Student
One day I may be a psychiatrist, but as of today, I listen to Limbaugh at lunch.. yes, Limbaugh. I also don't believe in human evolution
:eek:

Why'd you add in 'human'? Do you believe in birds or microbes evoluving, just not people?

I think we're past the realm of political differences here...
 

st2205

Attending
10+ Year Member
Oct 29, 2006
1,831
1,085
281
Status
Attending Physician
In short, evolution is a very broad term and encompasses many different things in such that a lot of times it is important to tease things apart and differentiate exactly what it is we're talking about. I emphasize human evolution because while human evolution would be included among other things as a broader definition of 'evolution', the actual definition of evolution does not specifically conclude human evolution.

In keeping these definitions distinct, evolution in general is pretty solidified in being supported by all legitimate science and experimentation. I believe this sometimes gets misapplied from being the evidence of evolution to the evidence of human evolution, and largely because of well-established religiopolitical influences that have been around since the initial clash between "religion" and "science". Which, might I add, has been largely eradicated in the minds of many religious populations as their attitudes have become more liberal toward human evolution
 

masterofmonkeys

Angy Old Man
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2008
1,582
255
181
Status
Attending Physician
damn, you mean I wasted years of my life studying human evolution in undergrad and grad school? NOOOOOOO. Better trash that proposal for an evolutionary medicine unit for med students too.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" Theodosius Dhobzansky.

One of the things that makes me laugh about conservatives who run screaming from the concept of evolution is that free market economics is a direct derivation of evolutionary principles and the self-interested individual.
 

st2205

Attending
10+ Year Member
Oct 29, 2006
1,831
1,085
281
Status
Attending Physician
damn, you mean I wasted years of my life studying human evolution in undergrad and grad school? NOOOOOOO. Better trash that proposal for an evolutionary medicine unit for med students too.
I think you may have misunderstood my post.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" Theodosius Dhobzansky.
I find it an excellent scientific model, as many things (the autonomic nervous system, for instance) are truly best understood through that light.

One of the things that makes me laugh about conservatives who run screaming from the concept of evolution is that free market economics is a direct derivation of evolutionary principles and the self-interested individual.
I don't dispute the existence of evolution, but I think my not believing in human evolution would hardly qualify as running screaming from it.
 

masterofmonkeys

Angy Old Man
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2008
1,582
255
181
Status
Attending Physician
You might have to clarify your point then. I'm glad that you do at least recognize the suitability of the evolutionary model for understanding various physiologic processes, that puts you one step ahead of most docs.

But you are specifically arguing that humans were not the result of evolution? Is that correct? Because again, that's what I spent years of my life focused on, and will again when I am not working 80h a week.
 

235750

Guest
10+ Year Member
Dec 5, 2008
636
4
0
Status
Non-Student
the actual definition of evolution does not specifically conclude human evolution.
:confused:

Evolution applies to all life. This is one of the basic, fundamental principles in biology today. I hate break it to you, but yes, our species has evolved. We're not exempt.

Am I really having this conversation? In the 21st century? And to a medical student??

If you've really made it this far and aren't convinced by the orgy of evidence that humans are creatures that have evolve/are constantly evolving, then I doubt we're going to change your mind. I'm just going to walk away from this one

I knew this was bad idea the moment I hit 'reply' :smack:
 

st2205

Attending
10+ Year Member
Oct 29, 2006
1,831
1,085
281
Status
Attending Physician
I think it's important in understanding what exactly I mean by taking a step away from science for a moment and focusing more upon the sociology of the changing views with regard to evolution.

When we get down to it, the crux of the conflict over time regarding evolution really boils down to one main focus: the account in Genesis. Since its conception, the idea of evolution has been a very hotly controversial subject due to the perceived threat to scriptural canon by its plausibility. Due to the young understandings of both science and religion (which I would argue still exists today, on both fronts) the issue of evolution had a false dichotomy surrounding its core, in that evolution and creationism must certainly be mutually exclusive. Needless to say that because of this, there has been, is, and likely always will be, very impassioned beliefs on either side because of the very nature in which people find this to relate to their existence and worldviews.

The controversy of evolution then transcended science as the core of the conflict was more about theism vs. atheism (and unrightfully so). The religious feelings of the day, which also exist today (which I will get to later), felt that to believe in man's descent from another species was to infer infallibility of the canon, which is nothing less than heresy. On the other hand, atheistic proponents now had greater strength in being able to nullify the claims of their theistic opponents, thanks in part to an all-or-nothing mind-set regarding religion in the mind of theists, as well as an all-or-nothing mind-set regarding developing science in the mind of atheists and agnostics.

Then, just as today, opinions on theism are deeply seeded in which side of the line you are on (much as most democrats are liberal and most republicans are conservative), with exceptions, of course. Fortunately, we've come to see over very recent history that the black-and-white thinking regarding the religious implications of evolution has started to fade. The false assumption that the debate was inextricably tied to religious debate has gradually started to leave as society's scientific mind has sharpened by realizing that the existence of human evolution, whether true or not, could neither dismiss nor support any religious or atheistic hypotheses. There has been a great deal of crossing over in such that as religion in various forms has become more liberal in its approach in interpretation of the canon that they will reconcile what they feel science has found with their belief system.

As I mentioned before, evolution is a very broad term that encompasses many different things. Will an environment exert a selective pressure upon the organisms within it, enough to alter that population significantly over time? Of course. I think we've fallen into the trap of having an all-or-nothing approach to evolution insomuch that when it is heard that somebody does not believe in human evolution that the assumption is that they don't believe in natural selection, that they don't believe evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory, or that they don't believe the evolutionary model serves a valuable scientific service.

I don't feel evolutionary theory (again, regarding human evolution) has been held to the same standards of scientific rigor in accepting its specific conclusions. Any good scientist knows the limitations of their studies and is cautious in making broad generalizations about their findings. Most biomedical research comes from animal research, yet despite the amazing progresses made we still understand the limitations with an animal model in making generalized conclusions about human populations. Even with human subjects we still exhibit caution in making conclusions about larger populations based upon a sample population. There are many things that are fascinating about conducting research that takes much skill in being able to interpret and analyze results. I remember, as I'm sure many of you can probably relate, before having any experience with research methodology how impressionable (I use this term relatively) I could be to drawing poor conclusions from a small amount of data (not necessarily referring to science, per se) but as you continue to learn more about a given field, or about variables and confounds, you gain a much greater appreciation for being able to not rush to conclusion, though the conclusion may 'seem to make sense' or be 'common sense' to a lay population. I have a very difficult time with this because of how human evolutionary theory has been inherited in scientific culture due to what I believe was a political hijacking of a young science.

I can't remember who said it, but the quote is something along the lines of 'smart people hold opinions that they developed before they were smart'. I feel that before science really started to refine itself that it had already accepted human evolution as hard fact, and thus it was never initially scrutinized the way new theories today would be. As such, any institution of learning you will enter has you start from the assumption that the evolutionary model is in fact a reality and that to disbelieve it or offer alternatives is scientific heresy (sounds much similar to the religious zealots rejecting evolution). From this notion, everything is then viewed from this lens. As a brief example, I have a neuroscience book that is showing the dermatomal chart but says (with an accompanying illustration) "The organization of the dermatomes is best revealed when one bends over to stand on both hands and feet. This organization presumably reflects our distant quadripedal ancestry." I will admit that this is a very small detail and acknowledge that they're not using this as 'proof', but the point I am trying to illustrate is that this philosophy has become so dogmatic that it's actually distracting from objective observation. What the significance of the dermatomal pattern being representing hunched over means, I haven't a clue. Perhaps that neural development is related to a creature's mature stationary stance, so that the nerves will be oriented parallel to gravity?

I don't mind people believing in human evolution, nor am I opposed to it. My personal reasons for not believing in human evolution have little to do with religion, as it's certainly not opposing or challenging to what I know to be true. My problem lies with the assumption that since one does not believe in human evolution that they must not be a thinker, which I think is a horribly false notion. When people are shocked that I could have learned so much without believing in human evolution, it's as if I'm denying miles of evidence that unequivocally states that evolution is the only way that man was derived and that science has proved that there is absolutely no room for exception or error.

But you are specifically arguing that humans were not the result of evolution?
No. I'm arguing that while there may be evidence to suggest it, that it is not a foregone conclusion that eliminates all other possibilities.

Is that correct? Because again, that's what I spent years of my life focused on, and will again when I am not working 80h a week.
I cannot simply acquiesce because you have spent years focusing on it anymore than you would submit to any of my knowledge that I have gained in other avenues, if that is what you are suggesting.
 
Last edited:

astral

suck my dick!
Apr 2, 2010
41
0
0
Status
Medical Student
This will come in useful when you delve deeper into the narcissist personalty.
and the personality of obese drug addicts?
 

carlosc1dbz

10+ Year Member
Jan 29, 2007
306
21
251
Southern California
Status
Attending Physician
Humans are not the result of evolution. I feel very strongly about this. The way I see it, a species cannot evolve any more than the selective pressures it is put under by its environment allow it to. The fact that our brain is so highly developed and we have such complex level of thinking allowing us speech and creativity is not in line with the theory of evolution. If we had simply evolved like animals have, our brains would of stopped a long time ago because we dont need and cannot achieve extra perks in evolution.

I know some of you might argue that language and creativity help us survive, and yes that is true, but all other animals in the world are doing just fine without languages (assuming you dont count animal noises). Something is different about humans, that is for sure.
 

Suenya

Hail Eris
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2008
529
13
101
Status
Non-Student
Maybe you and I disagree about how to interpret what's environmental vs internal to species, but sexual selection can easily promote novel traits that are not otherwise adaptive compared to environmental pressure.

There are also nonadaptive mutations that can spread without providing survival or reproductive benefit by chance. I'm not sure if you'd consider it evolution, but it's another way species develop without selective pressures being a guiding force.

I know this is rude, and I mean no offense (and it's unrelated to your views on human evolution, as you wouldn't be the first doc I've met who thinks similarly), but your status says medical student. Are you one? It's the tons of threads you started that makes me wonder mainly.