No Articles This Week: The Lounge Wizard Gets the Flu

The Lounge Wizard is down with the flu this week, so until I’m up to full strength, there will be no posts. Sorry about that.

I’m trying out Tamiflu, which I started to take the night I started to have a high fever and aches. We will see if I can sidestep most of the flu with this magical medication. So far it has brought my fever down from about 102 to almost normal, at 99.6.

But I still feel pretty punk, with an achy body and low energy. We’ll see how tomorrow goes….more later.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Let’s Not Kill Any More Rebecca Riley’s! Debate Over the Use of Psychiatric Drugs for Young Children

 

The New York Times reported that Rebecca Riley, a four year old girl from near Boston, was found dead on the morning of December 13, a victim of an apparent overdose of the psychiatric drugs Seroquel, an antipsychotic drug; Depakote, a powerful anti-seizure medicine used for mood control, and Clonidine, a blood pressure drug often prescribed to calm children. Rebecca had been diagnosed at having bipolar disorder at the age of two! So some overzealous psychiatrist had diagnosed her as been manic depressive at age 2.

Now this is pretty crazy. A child at two is a work in progress, and if is virtually impossible to diagnose anything at that age. The only exceptions are the developmental disorders, such as autism. Probably Rebecca was a difficult child, prone to moodiness and maybe even tantrums. So her parents, with a willing psychiatrist, gave her mind-numbing drugs to calm her, rather than learning better parenting skills. From the article: “A relative of her mother, Carolyn Riley, 32, told the police that Rebecca seemed “sleepy and drugged” most days, according to the charging documents. One preschool teacher said that at about 2 p.m. every day the girl came to life, “as if the medication Rebecca was on was wearing off,” according to the documents.”

This is more than sad, it is pitiful. How many other, nondrug interventions were tried before using medication? Was there parenting training? Was there a home visit, to see how Rebecca and her parents were interacting? The article does not say, but I’m guessing that none of these things were done. There’s an old saying, “Give a young boy a hammer, and everything becomes a nail.” In much the same way, bringing a child to a psychiatrist means that they are likely to get drugs. That’s why the first stop for children, especially young children, should be to a child psychologist, a psychologist who specializes in treating children and their families.

It should also be noted that most psychiatric medications are not and have never been approved for use in young children. There are no studies of using these drugs on toddlers. Although it might be occasionally reasonable to use drugs meant for adults on older teenagers, who are at least biologically similar to adults, it is irresponsible at best to use these drugs with young children.

The problem is that giving kids drugs is too easy. From the New York Times article, “Paraphrasing H. L. Mencken, Dr. Carlson added, ‘Every serious problem has an easy solution that is usually wrong.’” Behavioral problems in children can be very serious, and the behavioral interventions take time and commitment. Learning good parenting techniques, such as the proper use of time-outs and other interventions, takes dedication and a competent psychologist’s help.

As with adults, medications should always be reserved for after all other interventions have failed. And with children, only medications that have been tested on children, and used for years should be tried. If psychiatrists want to prescribe these medications for children, let them first run the research trials required by the FDA to test safety and effectiveness. Let’s not kill anymore Rebecca Riley’s!

PermaLink to article

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Thoughts about Online Dating: Why you should go offline if you want to find a partner!

Scientific American recently had a terrific article about the reality behind online dating, which shows scientifically what psychologists have known for a long time. Online dating doesn’t work very well.

The data is fascinating. The biggest problem is deception. Twenty percent of online daters admit openly to deception, but the real numbers are probably closer to 90% since that’s the number most online daters say fits the other daters online.

Everyone, male and female, adds about 1 inch of height. Everyone is attractive, in a strange sort of Lake Woebegone world, only 1% of online daters say they are less than average attractive. Wow! A world of movie stars and models. If only!

Women lie a lot about their weight. In their 20’s they lower their real weight by an average of five pounds, in their 30’s this “error” goes up to 17 pounds, and in their 40’s they are deceptively reporting their weight as an average of 19 lbs. under their real weight!

Everyone lies about their age. Men will say they are 36 rather than 37-41. Women say they are 29 rather than 30-34. They also like the ages of 35 and 44 rather than their real ages.

All this would be fine if the services worked. But they don’t. There is a terrific White Paper written by Philip Zimbardo, Mark Thompson, and Glenn Hutchinson: CONSUMERS ARE HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT ONLINE DATING.

In it Zimbardo, a former president of the American Psychological Association, concludes about one popular service, “When eHarmony recommends someone as a compatible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you’ll marry this person…. Given that eHarmony delivers about 1.5 matches a month, if you went on a date with all of them, it would take 346 dates and 19 years to reach [a] 50% chance of getting married.”

Other services overpromise and undeliver too. Match.com claims 15 million members, but only 1 million are paying members, which means that only 1 in 15 “member” can even reply to emails. This sets users up for rejection when they contact a user who is not able to respond.

In general, there are probably far fewer Americans than advertised using online dating services, and surveys suggest that less than 25% of them are satisfied.

There is also the “click” problem. This is where singles, thinking there is an infinite supply of available singles, will click away the instant they detect any flaws or problems. And most only allow for one date with potential mates, since why spend time getting to know someone when there is probably someone better over the online horizon.

So, online dating promises deception about appearance, age, income, and other things, and sets you up for disappointment and rejection. And yet it has become the way that many tech-savvy singles use to meet people.

Why? I think it’s because we’ve gotten too timid and afraid of the real world. There are a million opportunities to meet people in the offline world. But it takes a little courage and chutzpah to meet them.

The real world offers some real advantages. In the real world, you get to see people and there is no deception in terms of appearance (other than good lighting or makeup or elevator shoes). Age you can evaluate by appearance and personality you can quickly ascertain. Let me give you some suggestions for how to meet people in the real world.

Women, start by getting over your fear of flirting. Men are eager to approach you and talk with you, you just have to show them with smiles and eye contact that they won’t be rejected if they do. If you see a guy you think is cute, smile at him. Go up to him and ask him any question, it doesn’t matter. Start a conversation with him. This could be in a café, bar, restaurant, or bookstore. It doesn’t matter. If he is interested he will talk with you, and if you hit it off, he may ask you for your phone number. But if he is timid, he may chicken out, so if you like him, don’t let him get away. Suggest that you exchange cell phone numbers or email addresses so you can “get a cup of coffee sometime.” This will overcome the fear of most men, and if he demurs, then it’s probably because he is either not interested or not available. (You might want to look him in the eye, and ask him point blank, “do you have a girlfriend or a wife?”)

Men, you too must get over your fear of flirting and rejection. Start by talking to women more. Talk in line at the post office, at your favorite café, in the store, at work, etc. Learn how to make women laugh, that’s the thing most women like in a man. And don’t be afraid to ask a woman for her phone number or email address. What’s the worst thing that will happen? She might say no. Big deal!

If you really want to make it easy, start by looking around your workplace for attractive potential partners. Or join a biking or hiking club, and get to know its members. The main thing is to get out of your apartment or house, and go places where people hang out, and start to talk with them, flirt with them, and get comfortable asking them to coffee, drinks, lunch, or dinner. The offline world is full of exciting, attractive people, all you have to do is put down your mouse, close your laptop computer, and go out into the real world!

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Mild Depression, A Mild Problem?

 

More from Peter Cramer’s book Against Depression, which I heartily recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about depression.

We talked about the full blown diagnosis of depression. For a diagnosis of major depression you need 5 or more symptoms for at least 2 weeks. What if a patient has only 2 or 3 symptoms for 2 weeks? Is that a problem?

First of all these mild depressions can be the precursor or follow-up to major depression. So they are important for that reason.

But even if there is no major depression, mild depression looks like major depression. Mild depression runs in families where major depression is prevalent. Low level depression causes disability, absenteeism, more medical visits.

Another type of mild depression is dysthymia. Dysthymia means being sad at least 50% of the time, for 2 years or more. And dysthymia is not the same as unhappiness. Dysthymics suffer the same relentless internal stress, the hopelessness, sadness, and low self-esteem of the depressed. The fact that they may function well, or eat and sleep well, is of small comfort to them.

The problem with dysthymia and mild depression is that medications may be less effective with these conditions, and some types of psychotherapy, more effective. Although no one exactly knows, the general consensus is that dysthymia is less responsive to antidepressants than is major depression. But it may be more responsive to cognitive behavioral therapy.

In summary, even mild depression has serious impacts on people. Mild depression can be effectively treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, and responds well to it.


Copyright 2006 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

The Natural History of Depression

I’m still reading Peter Cramer’s book Against Depression, which is his follow-up to Listening to Prozac, his groundbreaking book about depression and Prozac. This is a fascinating book, as good as Listening to Prozac. I continue to be impressed by his scholarship and ability to pull interesting research together. If you have any interest at all in learning more about depression, I would strongly recommend this book, which is a philosophical and scientific exploration of depression.

What is the natural history of depression? That is, what happens later in life if you get depressed now? Do you recover, or do you have more depressions?

We have good data on this issue from some studies funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. These studies followed depressed patients over many years. The findings are astounding, at least to me.

They show that if you are diagnosed as being depressed today, there is a 20 percent chance you will still be depressed 2 years later, and a 7 percent chance you will still be depressed ten years later, and a 6 percent chance you will be depressed 15 years later!

Even if you recovered, your probability of relapse is high. In these studies, most patients had subsequent depressions: 40 percent at two years, 60 percent at five years, 75 percent at ten years, and 87 percent at 15 years.

And with each episode of depression the prognosis worsens. After the second episode of depression, the 2 year recurrence rate soars to 75 percent!

One likely explanation for this effect is called kindling. The kindling model was first developed to explain how epilepsy works. In epilepsy, each seizure you have makes you more likely to have more seizures. This is because the seizure damages the brain.

We now think that each major depression may alter the brain as well. Particularly it may cause a shrinking of cells in several important areas of the brain. One of these is the hippocampus, which governs the formation of short term memory. Another is the prefrontal cortex, which has many functions in reasoning.

And how many patients got treatment? Only 3 percent of the patients who were diagnosed with depression had ever received even a single one month trial of anti-depressant medication! This is shameful in a country that claims to have good health care.

So what do we learn from these studies?

  1. Depression is a chronic disease, and relapse is very high.
  2. Each relapse makes you more susceptible to future depressions. Each depression erodes the resilience of the brain.
  3. A small but substantial percentage of depressed patients remain depressed for years on end.
  4. Prevention of initial depressions, early treatment of major depression, and prevention of future depressions can change the natural history of depression, and prevent a lifetime of depression.


The other important thing to realize about these studies is that they only looked at major depression. That is, at depression with many serious symptoms. Later studies that have looked at milder versions of depression have found that even mild depressions predict future major depressions. A future post will talk about minor depression, or dysthymia.

Copyright 2006 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions