Posted by Shar on February 11, 2002, at 12:19:10
In reply to Re: The Mental Illness Suffering Conversion Table. » jane d, posted by IsoM on February 11, 2002, at 2:03:35
This is a very exciting idea. I like 'neurotransmathematics' a LOT.
I would add these considerations:
--get input from the sufferers; create a scale ranging from Excrement to Ecstasy upon which various symptoms can be rated at different times. ALL symptoms of EVERY diagnosis should be included in the rating so the data yield sort of a standardized score.
--After x months of data collection, one could probably do a meta-analysis to determine whether there are true differences among the suffering levels of different diagnoses. And, if so, what are they?
--Then, someone could work on coming up with an equivalency algorithm designed for the layperson, so he/she can calculate a personal Suffering Index.
--I hypothesize that when all symptoms are taken into consideration for all diagnoses, there will be no significant differences among suffering levels.
This is fun!
Shar> Jane, I loved it too! Thanks so much.
> I just finishing posting a comment in PB Admin about some trying to outdo others in who feels the most pain. :-)
>
> I'm not nearly as good at math as Elizabeth in PB & Sid is. They're much better.
>
> Perhaps we can graph our suffering with time on the y-axis - years (or maybe months) being the unit measurement & pain on the x-axis. Or maybe a logrithmic scale instead. Then we could work out formulas using gender (male or female) & age as variables.
>
> Before we know it, Dr. Bob's got another forum going - Psycho-Babble Math! As various members work out complicated calculations & develop new theories, a whole new branch of math is opened up called Neurotransmathematics & Dr. Bob wins the Nobel prize in math instead of medicine!
>
> I collect science cartoons - math ones are the best. One of my favourites show some mathematician adding two huge numbers together on a blackboard while another shakes his head & says "No, George. Adding two numbers together that no one's added before does NOT constitute a new breakthrough in math."
poster:Shar
thread:18064
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020202/msgs/18090.html