Psychotic England

[eroticartist]

Strictly,
More statistics. Children this time:



Mike.

[Sam Slater]

I still haven't seen the bit that says "1 in 4 people will be admitted to a mental hospital."

I did -however- see that mental disorders are more common in children that smoke cannabis and 'legal' cigerettes (with cannabis top). Alcohol use was 3rd, but suprisingly a distant third.

There has obviously been a rise in all sorts of mental disorders, and hospital admitions, but I think this is due to better treatment, and better recognition of such disorders by doctors, rather than an epedemic.

[eroticartist]

Sam,



Mike.

[Sam Slater]

Thanks for the link Mike.....

The annual admission rate was 3.2 people per 1000 which is 0.32%. Hardly '1 in 4' Mike. Of that 0.32%, 29% were through depression or anxiety (about 1 in every 1000 or 0.1%)

Ok, 0.32% is an annual figure and the average person lives 75 years which could suggest that there's a 24% chance of being hospitalized due to a mental health problem, during a lifetime, or around '1 in every 4 people', but I'd guess that people who have mental health issues bad enough to be admitted to a hospital are admitted repeatedly.

I know little about mental health as I'm studying physiotherapy at the moment. I do however have a small recollection about mental health patients who have been admitted having a very, very high 'readmission' rate upon leaving a hospital, especially mental health patients who had a history of substance abuse.

The use of drug treatment only masks the problem you see. It's people who recieve good psychiatric care that are the ones who recover permanently, but this -of course- is too expensive.

It's easy to look at admission rates, and conclude things, but they don't tell the whole story. Maybe 75% of those admissions were 'readmissions?' I'd guess I'm not too far off the right track.

[Mysteryman]

"Humans are probably the only animal where the parents don't die after their 'child rearing' years. We're the only animal where grand parents are just as caring to their grand children as they were their own children. In other words, grand parents who evolved strong ties to grand children, contibuted to the group and weren't cast aside to die."

Utter rubbish. Many of the great apes have very structured family groups where grandparents are involved in rearing grand children, even great grandchildren.

They also survive beyond their own child rearing days - as do some whales, most elephants, crocodiles, giant turtles......

[Sam Slater]

Whales, Crocodiles and Giant Turtles do not help raise their grandchildren, and it can be argued that though Elephants group together to defend the group or certain individuals, an old elephant would not guard it's own grandchild from attack, favouring it over another calf of simular age.

I never said that apes don't live in structured groups either, but again, I doubt grandparents play such an important role as grandparents of early humans would have. Not to make the difference between life & death during a hard winter anyway.

The whole point of my thread was to point out that throughout human history, children haven't necessarily spent hours upon hours with their parents which would mean kids growing up with psycholgical problems (which is a point Mike made).

Crocodiles and Turtles were irrelevant to my point, thus my facts about 'reptile life' weren't brought up, and the comparison with Human evolution didn't have to be spot on.

Thanks for the information though, you really added to the thread regarding the discussion on 'Psychotic England'.

[Mysteryman]

Quote "Humans are probably the only animal where the parents don't die after their 'child rearing' years."

Regardless of the topic and the thrust of the thread, I provided you with examples that proved your statement wrong. If you had understood my post and my correct use of punctuation, you would realise that my allusion to those animals (whales, elephants, crocodiles, giant turtles) had nothing to do with their being grandparents and helping to raise the young, just to the fact they live far beyond child rearing age.

As for the great apes as grandparents raising grandchildren, you need to look up information on family groups regarding gorillas, chimpanzees, orang utans and some of the smaller monkeys.

Whilst not contributing directly to the topic I did correct some significant misinformation you offered to back your argument.

[Sam Slater]

I understood your post quite clearly, but I didn't understand why correcting that 1 comment was so important to the topic.

If the topic was specifically about 'group social structures' I could see why it would be of importance. The fact remains that Humans are the only animal whom live within a complex social structure, whereby females live just as long in an 'infertile state' as they do a 'fertile state'. The only reason is to help with the rearing of young. Gorilla females live years after a menopause but don't help with daughters young, and while Lionesses have been shown to help with other group members young, they stay fertile throughout most of their life.

With Humans it's different, and natural selection would only bring this about if there was external pressures on both parents to be away from their children for long enough periods where grandmothers had to help.

I did say 'probably' by the way, as I did have the element of doubt while typing my reply to Mike. It wasn't meant to be taken so literally, as I just wanted to get my idea across about why children left to grandmothers has been done for thousands of generations.

[Mysteryman]

Try swans for life long partnerships even after fecundity.

If you are going to make bald statements which are factually incorrect - whatever the thrust of the topic - watch out, I'll shoot you down in flames - and your latest statement about gorillas is just plainly WRONG.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Try swans for life long partnerships even after fecundity.[/quote]

Swans don't help rear their 'youngs young', nor live in social groups.

[quote]and your latest statement about gorillas is just plainly WRONG.[/quote]

Suck on this:

If you feel 'shooting people down in flames' is more important than adding to the discussion, and it makes you feel important, then it's fine by me.

Try not to do it in a scary voice or anything though........I scare easily.