Ever talk to a vet with PTSD?

Why the hell would I talk to a vet that has PTSD to understand what causes PTSD? That is like asking FDR how Polio caused the break down of tissue. Or how in the US at least every mother is an expert in every disease their kid has.

You are arguing with a red herring, I never said a damn thing, PoMo or not, about mind body,

You are right you never came out and said the words, just got the feeling is all, I apologize if I was mistaken.

nor did I say that psychological depression was not reflected biochemically (nor for that matter biochemical depression psychologically-- I don't even think there is a distinction).

This is what you said before (nothing I redacted changes the meaning)

"Well, it turns out not entirely so. An awful lot of depression is in fact a reaction to life experiences. ... but you can get depressed without any family history ...While to be sure there are folks that spiral into depression for purely biochemical reasons, but in my experience they are a relatively small minority"

Sure looks to me like you are saying that it is possible if not likely to be depressed with out a bio chemical changes.

But very often, as in our vet's case, the depression does not sweep down out of the blue for no reason, nor is an event simply a "trigger," often the event is itself the problem, which drives biochemical imbalances, which, while SSRIs can stabilize, cannot be cured without dealing with how the ongoing trauma is processed.

If an event causes a biochemical change that leads to depression it is a trigger. To use your vet example seeing a buddy get his legs blown off is the trigger or it could be a few months later watching a comedy that triggers the change. The only cure for PTSD is a change back to a "normal" brain chemistry anything else is living with the condition under control. Knowing what the trigger was is good in order for a patient to be more calm in dealing with a situation there by not sending a shit load of catecholamines flying around making the brain go hey wire.

Puh-leeze. Talk about spitting all over serious research that you haven't read! How on earth do you know that the researchers did not account for that? There are multiple studies on the issues, one of the more recent and famous can be found here:

And there is a long line of skeptics to this research even in the field. Maybe it works but I have not been convinced that talk therapy is worth all that much but I am biased against the talkers in the field, personally think the talkers are one step above charporaticers. And find it amazing that the success of treatment seems to exactly follow whenever new drugs are produced.

1) A better way to research this would be to learn a good deal more about as foggy a subject as female sexual dysfunction first, which would mean an in-depth examination of a decent sample of those afflicted. This would take a lot of time, to even begin to learn if there was a real affliction (rather than unequal levels of desire say) there, what some of the co-variances are, life-experience patterns, etc. You know, isolate if it is a physical or social or physiological or whatever problem you are studying. It is rather hard to do a survey on the prevalence of a problem you can't even really define.

How would they know who is afflicted with out doing a survey like this? Use the super secret patriarchy mind reading device? This study was designed how prevalent the condition is not what causes it. That would be a different study if someone wants to fund it.

2) Do I know how they called or so on? Do you? See above re people who denounce others for not reading original research. In any case it doesn't matter.

Not a clue how the questioner was set up except for knowledge that they did not simply jump to the question how often do you get bent over the hood of a car. But, than I was not the one that made a criticism of the methodology on a popular international news source either. The burden is on those that want to discredit the methodology to point to where they went wrong.

Yes, of course I attacked you... For your patronizing tone, word choice notwithstanding. If you don't want to "belittle" try being a little less transparent about it.

Never said I don't want to belittle just don't use loaded terms when there are so many others to use. Why is this feeling like deju vu? Oh that is because I said it already from the response you quoted from, here it is again for you.

"I prefer to belittle those that deserve it as individuals (or small subgroups based on ideology) due to their history of shoddy journalism, their repeated hypocrisies, and the lack of understanding of the topic they are discussing especially when they can pick up a phone and find out the answers."

My patronizing tone just mired that of Kate's tone.