DigDugDoug

I had a longer comment prepared but I deleted it because I realized this conversation isn't going to be productive. If you want to make assumptions about my upbringing and ignore that I'm not actually disagreeing with you then there's no real reason to continue and pretend like we're having a discussion. Your heart is in the right place and you seem aware of the relevant statistics in play so I wish you well.

I think you either misunderstood my statement or I did a poor job communicating my points. Either way, it seems clear from your response that the position I was trying to present was not the one that was interpreted. I take some amount of resignation in your assumptions about my upbringing based on a single comment but in general I'm more annoyed that instead of simply focusing on rebutting the points you thought I was making, which you did very effectively, you felt degenerating the discussion into personal attacks was somehow also necessary.

Now then, you're right about access to care. If you felt like I was being dismissive of the idea that someone might lack the available funds to get proper treatment for a mental disorder then I apologize. My statement about the long term wasn't to suggest that the access problem is solved now or that it will be solved within the next few decades which in my mind represent the near term as far as timescales go. I simply meant to imply that, assuming the app continues to show promise and is eventually completed as a functional product, and that similar derivative programs aimed at helping treat different mental illnesses can be developed, the concern after those accomplishments becomes ensuring that they don't dissuade patients from pursuing other more appropriate treatment paths once/if their situations improve to that point. I did not mean this as being the only concern or the primary concern afterwards. It was simply the concern I voiced because it was interesting to me when I thought about it and so I shared it.

I'm making assumptions so I may of course be wrong, but my guess is that the latter part of what I just talked about was what upset you. I didn't mean to imply that patients could simply change their situation and go after a different treatment paths. I simply meant that, in a world where the only consideration is treatment appropriateness, I thought it was worth considering the secondary effects app based treatment could have on patient treatment seeking. I didn't mean this to discredit app based treatments as a viable tool and I see no reason they couldn't work in isolation, synergistically with other treatments, or any other variation of "I'm sure they can work" that might be appropriate to this discussion. That seems to be the other interpretation you made from my post, that I was being dismissive of the app compared to other treatments, and this was not something I realized I was communicating. However, since, as far as I can tell, this was the reason you accused me of being churlish I thought it worth clarifying.

The short answer is that it would depend on the value of any precision loss that occurred and whether or not the shift would disrupt any other systems, be they social or technical, within the company. But with that in mind, there's also the issue of whether or not the money saved would be worth it. It's very possible that S&P simply has enough money to play with that any savings from swapping to an automated solution for media monitoring aren't worth the potential disruption to the company workflow.

I think you're losing your focus on defending your position in the face of the criticism you're receiving. I agree that there are other possible explanations besides "passion" such as men generally displaying more aggressive behavior which could, I'm conjecturing because this is a hypothetical, spill over into not only physical behavior but also conversational behavior. However, without contextualization, aggressive behavior is not the same as damaging behavior which is what you're implying when you bring up bullying. For my part, I agree with the others who don't think your sources support the position you're taking.

That being said, it seems to me that the broader implication of your position is that when men and women participate in group dialogue the meta-game of the dialogue often leans in favor of the male speakers. I'd need to do more research to prove this but in general, if this was your position, I'd be inclined to agree with it based on my own anecdotal experiences. However, this still doesn't establish the hostile intention or implicit sexism that, from my reading of your posts, is presented in your claims.

What makes you think it's potentially irrelevant? Go by any mental health clinic in your city and ask if there are any patients who have conditions that impair either their ability to come in for treatment or their ability to recognize that they need treatment. I agree with the majority of your rebuttal that, at the moment, it's more productive to focus on simply getting this new treatment to a point of reliable functionality. But that doesn't mean that its potential secondary effects on patient treatment outcomes shouldn't also be considered or explored during experimental trials.

I tend to just filter out phrases like that when I'm reading. I agree with your premise but as long as there's government funding involved, in any project that's guaranteed to get attention, someone is going to realize that it's advantageous to kill two birds with one stone by steering the positive press towards their party.

But what's the problem with this doctrine from the perspective of a nation-state actor? I'm being purposely obtuse with the question but I think to some extent the doctrine does make sense. It's too late to convince the world that having nuclear weapons isn't diplomatically advantageous, that cat has been out of the box for awhile. Any risks associated with having nuclear weapons tend to occur prior to their successful development which creates the risk/reward dynamic.

In realist terms, other nations aren't really an American problem until they detract from American interests both material and diplomatic. I'm focusing on the US because that's where your criticism was centered but I'm of the opinion that this philosophy could be applied to any given nation albeit with altered strategic considerations.

It seems like the real danger is the appeal of sacrificing nuanced treatment for convenient treatment. Your comment pointed out that for many people the choice might boil down to a supportive app or nothing. And as you noted, personal change can take years of dedicated person effort.

To me, it seems like the biggest risk in the long term isn't in whether or not people get treated. The article demonstrates that the technology needed to make widely available mental health treatment options is being explored and worked on. The danger in my mind comes afterwards when the technology is performing acceptably but not comprehensively. It seems like at that stage there is a possibility of people not seeking more rigorous/advanced treatment from a professional, once they have the opportunity to do so, because they may already view the app as being good enough and any failures to improve beyond what they've already experienced through the app as personal failures rather than treatment failures.

I see where you're coming from but I think there's also a lot of unacknowledged variables in play here that get glossed over because of a focus on the outcomes such as dead kid vs. live kid. For example, I'm wondering if the same rules and recreation structure that result in a dead city kid result in a dead rural kid. A lot of environmental factors including traffic, neighborhood crime, average physique (in areas where children might often participate in their parent's physical labor), etc. could all create outcomes that are generally more potentially lethal for a child raised in a densely populated metropolitan area than for a child raised in a rural area.