User talk:Takamine45

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

JMH

Hi Takemine, Thank-you for your comments. I note that JMH is currently under editing restrictions on the ADHD pages [1] for edit warring and incivility. Not sure how this helps with the real world damage being done here though.--Vannin (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Taka

Thank you for taking an interest in Wikipedia. It seems that the goal of many psychologies are at odds with the goals of Wikipedia. Are you going to attempt to hide the responses of the Glasgow Coma Scale soon? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

After spending 11 years in University I have many interests. Your efforts to exclude people from a discussion as you do not feel they are qualified is strange. This goes very much against the foundations of Wikipedia. I am also interested in obesity having made more edits here than any other page, even though I am not an endocrinologist. You among many seem to have a WP:COI. The great thing about Wikipedia is it does not matter what you opinion / background. What matters is the sources that reference what you add. Cheers and all the best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults. Read through the comments on the Rorschach test. The same arguments apply. We obviously have different opinions on this topic and we each think the other is unethical, evil and wrong. As this is a matter of policy to have a class of information permanently removed you would need to generate a said policy. Another psychologist tried a while back and failed.

I think it bizarre how the psychologists here seem to consider that they have a monopoly on mental health. And how they do not want to share what they do or what they know with the rest of the health care team. Than claim that this behavior is ethical.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharing information with a "health care team" is different than sharing test contents on wikipedia. But again, your responses never actually get at the initially issues I posed to you. You always respond with some tangential argument that is entirely unfounded if you actually read what was posed to you. As i have stated on several occasions, this is NOT about test "secrecy," this is about maintaining the validity of each particular test. The college board does not release the SAT because if they did, a high score becomes meaningless in evaluating one's aptitude; they are not trying to be secretive for some magical or mystical reason; the same goes with psychologists - we want to measure what are tests were designed to do. If someone becomes familiar with a particular tests, rather than measuring some cognitive function, we are then measuring their familiarity with the test. So stop waving a wand that says we are robbing DocJames and others of their curious pursuits - we are doing this for the good of our patients - we measure their abilities, skills, and deficits to outline effective treatment strategies (like cognitive rehab). Since you've asked me if we should remove the GCS scale content, i'll ask you - do you think it would actually benefit society, for example, if the SAT were put on wikipedia?

As I have said previously their seems to be too very polarized sides. I have tried hard to be polite well all the while being called unethical, a Nazi and baby killer, having legal threats made against me, etc. My views wrt the Rorschach however are supported by the majority of Wikipedians which is what counts since this is Wikipedia. I do understand your concerns of potential harm. I just do not see them as sufficiently valid to justify censorship of this material ( even though some wish to call it something else). I can find this info at Google books as well as at the University I teach at. It is not like Wikipedia is exposing it for the first time. Google made it easily accessible long ago. These pages were viewed by almost no one before these arguments started attracting attention.

The hatred I have received from certain members of the psychological community makes me sad. Much of this behavior has been less than civil and thus less than ethical.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow - psychologists are upset at you because you are harming vulnerable people? How "sad" indeed.Faustian (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

James, none of this is meant as personal, although you seem to have become quite personally involved in some of this. I am sorry you have been saddened by all of this; i do not believe i have been less than civil (and certainly not "hateful"). Do not mistake substantive critiques of your arguments as being personal in nature. One of my difficulties is that you have not addressed some of the more pressing concerns I have brought up. For example, you previously mentioned the Rorschach was specifically important to have the images in the entry due to it's popularity. I find it difficult to accept such an argument with something like the Wisconsin or Rey-O. I asked you this earlier, has a layperson even heard of these instruments. Of course not. In many ways, they really don't even merit a comprehensive entry (you most certainly would not find them in a bound encyclopdia). And just because you can find something on google (and you have to put some effort into even that) doesn't mean that it's okay to put it in wikipedia. I have not personally removed any material, but am against putting many of our test methods and stimuli on because they directly impact our ability to care for our patients. Simple as that. Really. It is. I promise. I can go on and on. And no wikipedia policy comes close to that for me. And i have a hard time imagining the person who does not at least strive to understand this in more detail before behaving in such an assured manner about such issues (at minimum, talk with some of the neuropsychologists at your university about this over a few lunches to maybe gain a personal appreciation for this - maybe even visit their lab/clinic - and yes, they will likely be more than willing to show you around and talk about what it is they do - most thoroughly enjoy doing so).

Was not referring to you directly. Those were just some of the responses I received from psychologists. Yes these test are not historically significant. But that is not the only reason for inclusion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree GCS is not a great analogy. I would not consider myself anti psyc as you have previously stated. I am more of a "show me the evidence". That applies to all of medicine not just psychiatry. Takes knee arthroscopes for instance. A quarter of a million are done a year in the USA. When compared to shame surgery arthroscope came out no better. I thus do not recommend this to my patients with OA. Does that make me anti orthopedic? I read critically in the hope to protect my patients from those who wish to take advantage of them. If I am critical of Xigris because they changed the study protocol half way through that does not make me anti intensivist.

So you want to know why I edit? Because I believe in freedom of information and abhor secrecy in science. This is part of my world view and thankfully one that meshes well with the ethos of Wikipedia. For me to make an exception to this would require exceedingly strong evidence and as we have agreed on the Rorschach page this evidence does not exist. So we must agree to disagree.

I shall ascribe the most noble reasons to your actions and hope that you shall do the same for mine.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WCST and others

Hi there, thanks for getting in touch on my talk page. I'm afraid I don't really feel qualified (or able to spare the time) to weigh in on these pages, but your comment did spur a thought or two. Increasingly I think we as a field all need to take a step back and have a long hard think about whether we should all be using tests like the Wisconsin at all anymore. You only need to look at Nintendo's brain trainer series or other games available online or as facebook apps that use common neuropsychological principles (such as trail-making or stroop) in the form of games. These aren't just available to young whiz-kids anymore, there are whole clinics of Parkinson's patients being given neuro-rehab on the Wii one minute, then being tested by a neuropsychologist the next!

As a profession we have to look at what the internet is doing to knowledge; freeing it whether we like it or not, and adapt. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. From now on if anyone sends me a paper to review featuring common neuropsych tests (that have not been updated in some time) I am going to insist they mention non-naiivete to the tests as a limitation. If I may have a few lines of soapbox I will say that the Rorschach is in my humble opinion a load of twaddle and it's important that the public see how fruitless a test it is so they can be protected against it. Most people who are going to search for WCST are going to be students; patients are unlikely to be told its technical name, especially in advance of testing. Moreover it's the responsibility of every decent neuropsychologist to anticipate patients knowing the test materials and pretending not to (just the other day I saw someone who was surprisingly good at serial sevens...) but the most important thing is the interpretation by an experienced expert, not just an individual test score reported back without context. WP's policies will never please all of the people all of the time; I'm sure the countless individuals and companies with "criticism" sections will attest to that. Sorry not to have a clearer answer, I hope you and your fellow editors find a way to get on to the same page --PaulWicks (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)