![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
We've always had some posts along the lines of "my misery is worse than your misery". This either leads to dozens of posts disagreeing or a loud, embarassed silence. Because, after all, how many of us really know how to measure the suffering of another. Theres the GAF (global assessment of fudge eating isn't it?) but it's rather vague. The DSM could be useful with its 5 out of 7 criteria but they don't clearly give you bonus points for exceeding minimum criteria and they offer no help at all on comparing one disorder to another. I think that we need to give each diagnosis a numerical score, much like the degree of difficulty of a skating leap, which could be multiplied by the number of extra criteria met to give a total score.
In the mean time, to make it easier to know whether you can respond to these claims of suffering superiority I though we could figure out some conversion formulas. So for example, two moderate depressives are entitled to refute one severe depressive.
How about.
2 moderate depressives=1severe depressive.
3 dysthymics=1 obsessive compulsive + 1/2 a generalized anxiety disorder.
2 SADs = 1 Panic Disoder
1 atypical major depressive = - (1 melancholic major depressive)Any others? Math majors solicited to reduce this to its simplest form.
Yes I'm mad.
Jane
Posted by kiddo on February 11, 2002, at 0:41:50
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
Posted by Dinah on February 11, 2002, at 0:57:01
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
Jane,
You are just too funny.
I'm too thick headed with Depakote right now to come up with any additional equivilancy formulas, but I'll sleep on it.
Perhaps IsoM could help you with the math computations before you submit it to the DSM V committee.
Thanks for a good laugh before bed.
Dinah
Posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 2:03:35
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
Jane, I loved it too! Thanks so much.
I just finishing posting a comment in PB Admin about some trying to outdo others in who feels the most pain. :-)I'm not nearly as good at math as Elizabeth in PB & Sid is. They're much better.
Perhaps we can graph our suffering with time on the y-axis - years (or maybe months) being the unit measurement & pain on the x-axis. Or maybe a logrithmic scale instead. Then we could work out formulas using gender (male or female) & age as variables.
Before we know it, Dr. Bob's got another forum going - Psycho-Babble Math! As various members work out complicated calculations & develop new theories, a whole new branch of math is opened up called Neurotransmathematics & Dr. Bob wins the Nobel prize in math instead of medicine!
I collect science cartoons - math ones are the best. One of my favourites show some mathematician adding two huge numbers together on a blackboard while another shakes his head & says "No, George. Adding two numbers together that no one's added before does NOT constitute a new breakthrough in math."
Posted by sid on February 11, 2002, at 10:43:40
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
How interesting !
As an economist, I can tell you that we can only compare one's person welfare (or misery) to this same person's welfare (or misery) under different assumptions (or at a different time!). Making welfare (or misery) comparisons between different people is impossible because we don't even have a unit to measure welfare (or misery). In economics we measure welfare in utility; so we say that 2 utils are better than 1 util, but then 1 util may not represent the same thing for a person and its neighbor. Utility is an ordinal concept, while here we are looking for a cardinal measure.However, sometimes, when cardinality is needed, we try to elicit comparison points by monetarizing welfare (or utility) or misery (disutility).
So we might ask: how much would you willing to pay to get rid of all symptoms and resume a normal life right now? How about in 1 month? And in 3 months? Etc... Of course, the amount stated needs to be realistic and take into account a person's current budget and borrowing capacity. Given that many people with depression are jobless, a realistic willingness-to-pay (WTP) measure would not be very high. But still, comparisons could be made between people's WTPs. And hence between people's eagerness to get rid of their symptoms. That would be a way to compare our misery.
- sid
Posted by Shar on February 11, 2002, at 12:19:10
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table. » jane d, posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 2:03:35
This is a very exciting idea. I like 'neurotransmathematics' a LOT.
I would add these considerations:
--get input from the sufferers; create a scale ranging from Excrement to Ecstasy upon which various symptoms can be rated at different times. ALL symptoms of EVERY diagnosis should be included in the rating so the data yield sort of a standardized score.
--After x months of data collection, one could probably do a meta-analysis to determine whether there are true differences among the suffering levels of different diagnoses. And, if so, what are they?
--Then, someone could work on coming up with an equivalency algorithm designed for the layperson, so he/she can calculate a personal Suffering Index.
--I hypothesize that when all symptoms are taken into consideration for all diagnoses, there will be no significant differences among suffering levels.
This is fun!
Shar> Jane, I loved it too! Thanks so much.
> I just finishing posting a comment in PB Admin about some trying to outdo others in who feels the most pain. :-)
>
> I'm not nearly as good at math as Elizabeth in PB & Sid is. They're much better.
>
> Perhaps we can graph our suffering with time on the y-axis - years (or maybe months) being the unit measurement & pain on the x-axis. Or maybe a logrithmic scale instead. Then we could work out formulas using gender (male or female) & age as variables.
>
> Before we know it, Dr. Bob's got another forum going - Psycho-Babble Math! As various members work out complicated calculations & develop new theories, a whole new branch of math is opened up called Neurotransmathematics & Dr. Bob wins the Nobel prize in math instead of medicine!
>
> I collect science cartoons - math ones are the best. One of my favourites show some mathematician adding two huge numbers together on a blackboard while another shakes his head & says "No, George. Adding two numbers together that no one's added before does NOT constitute a new breakthrough in math."
Posted by Fi on February 11, 2002, at 12:27:52
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
Nice one!!
I like the idea of
> GAF (global assessment of fudge eating<
Tho I'm surprised its not a chocolate eating index!I'm always careful to stress to people who've never had depression that how it is experienced varies a lot between people- you cant make assumptions about it being similar in a way that having flu (say) is.
The one thing that is clear is that its a truly horrible experience, and nothing to do with ordinary monday morning blues..
How about the length of day index? The more months and years a single day seems to get thru the worst?!
But sorry- didnt mean to get more serious!
Hoping for some truly amazing math formulae!
Fi
Posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 12:48:14
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by Shar on February 11, 2002, at 12:19:10
What a wonderful scale, Shar!
---"ranging from Excrement to Ecstasy"-----
And meta-analysis, great idea too.
----"This is fun! Shar"----- It is, isn't it?
When we get better enough to start making jokes about our sickness, we know we're healing.
Makes me think of the expression "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
Posted by sid on February 12, 2002, at 10:17:38
In reply to How much are you WTP to get rid of symptoms? » jane d, posted by sid on February 11, 2002, at 10:43:40
Posted by jane d on February 12, 2002, at 17:02:18
In reply to How much are you WTP to get rid of symptoms? » jane d, posted by sid on February 11, 2002, at 10:43:40
Sid,
Doesn't this model assume that the consumer is a rational decision maker? According to this the depressive with delusions of impoverishment suffers less than the manic on a spending spree but only if that spending spree is devoted to psychiatrists, pretty colored computer generated brain scan representations and packages of expensive drugs from overseas. Anyone spending all their money on funding the start up of the next microsoft can be assumed to be feeling no pain.Hey! Maybe it works after all. But now we have to work out the effects of fluctuating international exchange rates. Any thoughts?
Jane, who took Econ 101 a very long time ago.
Posted by Noa on February 12, 2002, at 18:55:53
In reply to The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by jane d on February 11, 2002, at 0:38:18
LOL--much appreciated amusement. Thanks.
What I want to know is how are we going to decide what shape the table should be for the negotiation between these balanced parties of severes and moderates and milds?
Posted by Noa on February 12, 2002, at 18:58:30
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by Shar on February 11, 2002, at 12:19:10
and don't forget to factor in duration of the symptoms. If I know a particular symptom will last for a finite amount of time, I might be willing to endure it, while if I do not know how long, and potentially, it could last forever, I might be willing to pay a lot to get rid of it.
Posted by Noa on February 12, 2002, at 18:59:46
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table. » Shar, posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 12:48:14
The EXECS Scale for short?
Posted by Noa on February 12, 2002, at 19:00:43
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table. » Shar, posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 12:48:14
What about inviting John Nash in as a consultant?
Posted by susan C on February 12, 2002, at 19:42:14
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table., posted by Noa on February 12, 2002, at 19:00:43
what the market will bear....I am facinated by economics and that funny looking guy named Alan Greenspan...I actually watched CSPAN when he gave his speech for two hours and answered questions from the senators....and was very impressed with his ability to never answer a question.
mouse in the cash drawer
Posted by sid on February 12, 2002, at 19:43:59
In reply to The economic model » sid, posted by jane d on February 12, 2002, at 17:02:18
Well Jane, you do remember your economics! Indeed, there's a huge debate between psychologists, who think that people are not rational, and economists, who assume they are.
I must have suffered a great deal, because I am in great debt, I am poor, and I spent a lot of money on therapy, acupuncture, books and meds over the past 7 years. I am better now, so I should expect my income to go up. Also, my health expenses should go down, leaving a lot more overall for paying my debt, making some investment (Microsoft perhaps?) and consumption. I can dream, can't I ?
> Sid,
> Doesn't this model assume that the consumer is a rational decision maker? According to this the depressive with delusions of impoverishment suffers less than the manic on a spending spree but only if that spending spree is devoted to psychiatrists, pretty colored computer generated brain scan representations and packages of expensive drugs from overseas. Anyone spending all their money on funding the start up of the next microsoft can be assumed to be feeling no pain.
>
> Hey! Maybe it works after all. But now we have to work out the effects of fluctuating international exchange rates. Any thoughts?
>
> Jane, who took Econ 101 a very long time ago.
Posted by Ritch on February 13, 2002, at 13:11:43
In reply to Re: The economic model » jane d, posted by sid on February 12, 2002, at 19:43:59
Hi Sid, What's your take on the concept of psychic income (positive and negative)? The first major I declared was Econ after my first Macro class. Micro was where they brought up this concept, but I liked long-term trends and cycles better. Oh, and of course that leads to this other idea-what about economic cycling as it relates to bipolar disorder? Is controlling the money supply something akin to managing a bipolar patient? :-)
> Well Jane, you do remember your economics! Indeed, there's a huge debate between psychologists, who think that people are not rational, and economists, who assume they are.
>
> I must have suffered a great deal, because I am in great debt, I am poor, and I spent a lot of money on therapy, acupuncture, books and meds over the past 7 years. I am better now, so I should expect my income to go up. Also, my health expenses should go down, leaving a lot more overall for paying my debt, making some investment (Microsoft perhaps?) and consumption. I can dream, can't I ?
>
> > Sid,
> > Doesn't this model assume that the consumer is a rational decision maker? According to this the depressive with delusions of impoverishment suffers less than the manic on a spending spree but only if that spending spree is devoted to psychiatrists, pretty colored computer generated brain scan representations and packages of expensive drugs from overseas. Anyone spending all their money on funding the start up of the next microsoft can be assumed to be feeling no pain.
> >
> > Hey! Maybe it works after all. But now we have to work out the effects of fluctuating international exchange rates. Any thoughts?
> >
> > Jane, who took Econ 101 a very long time ago.
Posted by sid on February 13, 2002, at 22:57:12
In reply to Re: The economic model » sid, posted by Ritch on February 13, 2002, at 13:11:43
> Hi Sid, What's your take on the concept of psychic income (positive and negative)? The first major I declared was Econ after my first Macro class. Micro was where they brought up this concept, but I liked long-term trends and cycles better. Oh, and of course that leads to this other idea-what about economic cycling as it relates to bipolar disorder? Is controlling the money supply something akin to managing a bipolar patient? :-)
Can you remind me what psychic income is? I don't recall it. There's a lot I don't recall, basically anything I don't use every week!
About economic cycles and bipolar people, that's a thing to think about... Monetary econ is not my forte though, so I'll have to let others reply to that one. I'm into applied micro and trade.
Posted by Ritch on February 13, 2002, at 23:56:24
In reply to Re: The economic model » Ritch, posted by sid on February 13, 2002, at 22:57:12
> > Hi Sid, What's your take on the concept of psychic income (positive and negative)? The first major I declared was Econ after my first Macro class. Micro was where they brought up this concept, but I liked long-term trends and cycles better. Oh, and of course that leads to this other idea-what about economic cycling as it relates to bipolar disorder? Is controlling the money supply something akin to managing a bipolar patient? :-)
>
> Can you remind me what psychic income is? I don't recall it. There's a lot I don't recall, basically anything I don't use every week!
>
> About economic cycles and bipolar people, that's a thing to think about... Monetary econ is not my forte though, so I'll have to let others reply to that one. I'm into applied micro and trade.
Oh, psychic income-let me see. *Actual* income equals the sum of material income (physical compensation-money), plus (*or* minus)the psychic income associated with the activities involved with earning the physical(material) rewards. The best analogy is this (and I have been on the butt end of experience here more than once):ASSUMPTION SCENARIOS:
1) You have "picked" a career that you have no significant complaints or stress about-and equally also don't find particularly enlightening or rewarding. You just get your paycheck and go home and you are good at what you do, but don't find much emotional or *psychic* investment or *dis*investment involved with the performance of the tasks required to get your paycheck. So, you have actual income=material reward.
2) You find yourself in a very high-paying career, but it is stressing the hell out of you and you have increased medical problems and you need to see a psychotherapist regularly to keep you from losing the high-paying job, just to keep you from breaking down. So actual income may still be the same as in (1), but the high Material Reward is reduced by all of the hassles associated with your job (I call it getting paid for "headaches").
3) You have a job that pays a relatively small Material Reward, BUT, has an unusually high amount of *fun factor*. YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS JOB. You get a great "kick" out of it despite its low pay. Good example: You teach, and love your job. You are creative and you paint, write, etc., but you get such a "buzz" from the process of working, it *compensates* for the lack of material reward. So you still *end up* with the SAME amount of ACTUAL INCOME as in #1 or #2.
I will have to think more about the macroeconomic cycling before I reply.
Mitch :0
Posted by sid on February 14, 2002, at 10:02:46
In reply to Psychic Income » sid, posted by Ritch on February 13, 2002, at 23:56:24
I see! Econ 101: tradeoffs. Evry decision we take involves tradeoffs, including pour jobs, career plans, etc.
Another example: miners have little schooling but earn a lot of money because they risk their health and life each day in their job.Yup. Thanks. I'm on #3 at this point. Little money, but I enjoy what I do.
- sid
> Oh, psychic income-let me see. *Actual* income equals the sum of material income (physical compensation-money), plus (*or* minus)the psychic income associated with the activities involved with earning the physical(material) rewards. The best analogy is this (and I have been on the butt end of experience here more than once):
>
> ASSUMPTION SCENARIOS:
>
> 1) You have "picked" a career that you have no significant complaints or stress about-and equally also don't find particularly enlightening or rewarding. You just get your paycheck and go home and you are good at what you do, but don't find much emotional or *psychic* investment or *dis*investment involved with the performance of the tasks required to get your paycheck. So, you have actual income=material reward.
>
> 2) You find yourself in a very high-paying career, but it is stressing the hell out of you and you have increased medical problems and you need to see a psychotherapist regularly to keep you from losing the high-paying job, just to keep you from breaking down. So actual income may still be the same as in (1), but the high Material Reward is reduced by all of the hassles associated with your job (I call it getting paid for "headaches").
>
> 3) You have a job that pays a relatively small Material Reward, BUT, has an unusually high amount of *fun factor*. YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS JOB. You get a great "kick" out of it despite its low pay. Good example: You teach, and love your job. You are creative and you paint, write, etc., but you get such a "buzz" from the process of working, it *compensates* for the lack of material reward. So you still *end up* with the SAME amount of ACTUAL INCOME as in #1 or #2.
>
> I will have to think more about the macroeconomic cycling before I reply.
>
> Mitch :0
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.