• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • Katrisia@lemm.eetomemes@lemmy.worldThe real oppressors
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    27 days ago

    I hate this joke and I’m going to address it seriously.

    The majority of us sleep and wake at similar hours. If someone feels like sleeping only at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., they are probably not a night person, there might be something wrong (e.g., too much caffeine, major depression). People who naturally feel the need to sleep extremely early or extremely late are rare.

    Now, same bell curve logic, most people have a not-too-early and not-to-late natural clock. ‘Early birds’ and ‘night owls’ are also not the norm. The so-called morning people who naturally wake up at 7:00 a.m. or earlier and sleep early too are not only in the minority but also impacted by all the night lights, night life, “important ceremonies are at night”, etc. As students, many cannot go to sleep early because of homework, practices or activities in the dormitories. We are all affected by unrealistic schedules, especially people in demanding fields (e.g. medical field). This is why we have normalized taking stimulants.

    Lastly, I need to say it, a lot of gamers think they are night people because they like to stay awake playing videogames. That’s not how circadian clocks work. I understand the quiet and freedom of nighttime, but that’s not necessarily our biological preference. When we are adults, we ought to find what our bodies need and provide it because our health (and future quality of life) depends on it. I’m giving this advice because it’s advice I would’ve liked to hear when I was younger.

    Back to the meme, blaming the morning people is, again (we do it in many debates), shifting the blame from capitalism and a culture of “we need to do all the things, at all hours, cities that don’t sleep” to a group of people that’s not the 1%.















  • I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren’t competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.

    Therefore, I’ve encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.

    Also, many psychologists I’ve known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.

    Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<

    If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there’s also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn’t consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that’s a whole new conversation…