Shrink Validity Is Shrinking

first_img(Visited 33 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Should you trust the diagnosis of a psychiatrist?  If it helps, individuals are free to choose.  Behind the scenes, however, there are severe, deep-seated debates about whether professional shrinks understand disorders, let alone diagnose them properly.In New Scientist, James Davies reported about protests at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) annual meeting.  Some protestors feel that psychiatry is “not even wrong”; psychiatrists don’t know what they are doing, and sometimes end up abusing patients:The demonstration aimed to highlight the harm the protesters believe psychiatry is perpetrating in the name of healing. One concern is that while psychiatric medications are more widely prescribed than almost any drugs in history, they often don’t work well and have debilitating side effects. Psychiatry also professes to respect human rights, while regularly treating people against their will. Finally, psychiatry keeps expanding its list of disorders without solid scientific justification.That list includes major changes with each new edition of the psychiatry “bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  Edition V is coming out, loaded with new maladies that were never diagnosed before, and altering the description of other disorders – changes that can have major effects on prescriptions, insurance policies and scientific “explanations” for various behaviors.Davies said that some psychiatrists who filed past the protestors acknowledged that they had some legitimate concerns.In another article on New Scientist, “Trials highlight worrying flaws in psychiatry ‘bible’,” Peter Aldhous focused on flaws in tests that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness.  “While for some diagnoses reliability was good, others yielded scores little better than chance,” he said.  Some of the worst results concerned some of the most common diagnoses:The conditions with questionable reliability include subtly altered descriptions of two of the most common diagnoses in psychiatry: major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. That has opened a can of worms, leaving some mental health professionals wondering about the reliability of even established psychiatric diagnoses.The final wording of DSM-5, scheduled for publication in May 2013, will have profound effects on people’s lives. The manual not only helps determine who is given psychoactive drugs, but in the US may determine whether treatment is covered by health insurance. Some diagnoses are even used to justify holding people indefinitely in secure mental hospitals.There are others that Aldhous worried about: diagnoses of autism, and an alleged precursor of schizophrenia dubbed “attenuated psychosis syndrome.”  Psychiatrists use a value called kappa that is supposed to measure the “the consensus between different doctors assessing the same patient, with 1 corresponding to perfect diagnostic agreement, and 0 meaning concordance could just be due to chance.”  Unfortunately, chance could not be ruled out as a hypothesis for some of the most common disorders.  For instance, regarding attenuated psychosis syndrome, “While field trials gave a kappa of 0.46, the variability was so large that Darrel Regier, APA’s head of research, told the meeting that the result was “uninterpretable”.One theory escape mechanism for the questionable reliability of “major depressive disorder” and “generalized anxiety disorder” diagnoses was to suggest that depression and anxiety are like the “fevers” of a deeper mental disorder whose symptoms can mask a variety of conditions.  Aldhous did not seem impressed; “if depression and anxiety can’t be reliably diagnosed, many patients will wonder how many more disorders stand on similarly shaky ground.”For more on problems with the DSM, see the 2/17/2010 and 4/21/2011 entries.Psychiatrist: “Our new textbook indicates that your delusions of grandeur were misdiagnosed.  In other words, you’re cured.”Patient:  “Some cure!  I used to be Napoleon.  Now I’m nobody!”Psychiatry is a pseudoscience acting like a religion (i.e., telling people their problem and the solution), but masquerading as a science with big words and lots of money.  Since it is a pseudoscience, we can have a little fun with it by imagining a world in which the Darwin skeptics have the money and the power.  Like them (e.g., 2/27/2010), we can use scientific jargon to diagnose our foes as mentally ill. We could publish our manual in the DSM, Darwinian Symptoms of Madness.Suppose, for instance, we were to diagnose Richard Dawkins with “Design denial disorder” (DDD) with symptoms including (1) obsessive acts of self-persuasion that what one is observing was not designed, but evolved; (2) incessant repetition of Dobzhansky’s proverb that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; (3) willingness to believe in intelligent design when it comes to aliens seeding life on Earth, but only if the aliens evolved by natural selection; (4) a compulsion to persuade others that there is no God by making money selling books, and (5) an illogical preference to live in a theistic country while promoting atheism.  With the right consensus, we could probably obtain high kappa values to prove our etiology is valid and our diagnosis reliable.  We might even get insurance companies to cover prescription drugs aimed at curing DDD.  Anyone protesting our actions we could diagnose with “DDD co-dependent syndrome” (DDD-CDS), and drug them, too.  Remember, we have the power and the self-serving science to back it up.We would never do such a thing, of course, since we believe in compassionate persuasion and intellectual integrity.  We would never wish to manipulate power by imitating psychiatry’s flawed methods and Darwinian “survival of the fittest” ethics.  We would wish to be transparent and consistent about our belief that “mental illness” is an oxymoron, believing instead that people’s behavioral problems are caused by either sin or physical flaws such as brain damage.  But our imaginary power play is certainly a conceivable thought experiment.  It turns the tables on what some Darwinians actually do: calling their critics insane.The evolutionists’ bible is Darwin’s Origin of Species, with its evolutionary tree of life, and the shrinks’ bible is the DSM-V, with its man-made judgments of what constitutes normal and abnormal behavior.  These ‘bibles’ have their genesis in the flawed assumption that human brains were not designed, but evolved.  The authentic trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil are known by their fruits (02/28/2010).last_img read more

How did Jon Scheve average over $4 2018 corn?

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Jon Scheve, Superior Feed Ingredients, LLCOn 4/23/19, when the corn board was in free-fall, I priced my remaining 2018 crop on futures. I didn’t set a cash price, and instead I was waiting for a higher basis. I received $3.61 against July futures on the remaining 54% of my ’18 crop I still had unpriced.Why sell futures now?There were several reasons.I was concerned with how much corn prices had fallen already.It was apparent to the market there was too much U.S. and global corn supply.I’m only 10% sold for my 2019 corn and have no 2020 sales.The risk of African swine fever appearing in the U.S. is always present.There is unknown trade risk with China or even if NAFTA 2.0 gets signed.On 4/23/19 forecasts indicated that most of the Corn Belt would have a 15-day window of good weather to plant.So, in order to minimize my risk if the market doesn’t go higher, I sold. I hope this sale was the wrong decision, because that means I’ll have higher prices to sell my ’19 and ’20 corn. Currently, ’19 and ’20 prices aren’t at profitable levels.What’s your final ’18 futures price?When I combine my previous futures sales on the 46% of my crop that I have rolled to the July contract to collect market carry, and the options premium I’ve been collecting to this point, my final 2018 futures average price is $4.01 against July futures.What about basis?These trades did not have basis set on them. Since farmers weren’t selling when price levels dropped and because many were going to go to the field to plant, I thought there was a good chance for better basis. Today’s basis levels in my area are better than on 4/23, so I’m pleased with this decision so far.Hindsight is always 20/20I sold my remaining 2017 crop last August at $3.60. In hindsight, had I sold all of my remaining 2018 crop on the same day, I could have rolled those sales to this July and collected 40 cents of market carry. In hindsight, that would have been the better decision than waiting for a rally that ultimately never came. Still, while less ideal than collecting market carry, I did manage to pick up some extra premium selling calls and straddles on my unpriced corn over the past few months, which has been a consolation prize to help with my over all average price.It’s hard to know yet if selling futures at these levels was the right decision. But, with what I know today, including having 90% of my ’19 crop unpriced, I’m comfortable with my risk management decision. It was time to move on and focus on next year.Please email [email protected] with any questions or to learn more. Jon grew up raising corn and soybeans on a farm near Beatrice, NE. Upon graduation from The University of Nebraska in Lincoln, he became a grain merchandiser and has been trading corn, soybeans and other grains for the last 18 years, building relationships with end-users in the process. After successfully marketing his father’s grain and getting his MBA, 10 years ago he started helping farmer clients market their grain based upon his principals of farmer education, reducing risk, understanding storage potential and using basis strategy to maximize individual farm operation profits. A big believer in farmer education of futures trading, Jon writes a weekly commentary to farmers interested in learning more and growing their farm operations.Trading of futures, options, swaps and other derivatives is risky and is not suitable for all persons. All of these investment products are leveraged, and you can lose more than your initial deposit. Each investment product is offered only to and from jurisdictions where solicitation and sale are lawful, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in such jurisdiction. The information provided here should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent research before making your investment decisions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC is merely providing this information for your general information and the information does not take into account any particular individual’s investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. All investors should obtain advice based on their unique situation before making any investment decision. The contents of this communication and any attachments are for informational purposes only and under no circumstances should they be construed as an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation to buy or sell any future, option, swap or other derivative. The sources for the information and any opinions in this communication are believed to be reliable, but Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information or opinions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC and its principals and employees may take positions different from any positions described in this communication. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results.last_img read more

Leadership and Two Types of Growth

first_img Free Webinar Series! Create a culture of value creation. Signup for this free webinar! In three, short, power-packed webinars, you will learn what you need to do to create a culture of value creators who create and win new opportunities. Download Now Leaders are responsible for envisioning the future and executing the plan to make that future a reality. This is growth: current state, new results, better future state. Leaders manage two types of growth.Company GrowthThe leader is responsible for the growth of their company. They’re responsible for things like revenue growth, profit growth, increased market share, and the growth of new capabilities. This is true whether you are the CEO, COO, CFO, CSO, department head, manager, shift supervisor, or team leader.This type of growth as a responsibility is expected of leaders. But the second kind of growth is the catalyst for the first type of growth. And often it isn’t given the same attention as the first.Individual GrowthThe growth of a company is accelerated when the leader focuses on the second, equally important type of growth: the growth of the individuals that the leader is responsible for leading.In order for a company to grow, the individuals within that company also need to grow. They need to grow by adopting new beliefs of what is possible, new beliefs of what is necessary, and new ideas about who they are. Einstein said it this way, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”The individuals inside the company also need to grow by gaining new capabilities, new competencies, and new skill sets. The greater the capabilities and skill, the more easily and more certain you produce new results.Leaders spend a lot of time and energy working on the first type of growth, the growth of the company’s results and financial metrics. Great leaders invest time in the second type of growth, the growth of the individuals that produce the first type of results, knowing that this is the fastest, surest way to produce those results.last_img read more