Podcasts about dsms

In this episode, we explore some critical dates and understanding of Autism. We will time travel from 1911 to 2024 with a goal of understanding why the sharp increase in Autism diagnosis of late. We review the closeness of schizophrenia and the separation from schizophrenia. In addition, we will review Autism becoming a separate diagnosis in the DSMs from the 1980s and review the closeness of Vaccines and Assessment Standardization that parallels this time. Hopefully, some consideration about the rates of Autism are presented.Top Revenue Business Types- Not good. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry-trends/biggest-industries-by-revenue/Bayh-Dole Act https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap18.htmHow Autism became Autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757918/#bibr56-0952695113484320Eugon Bleuler DEMENTIA PRAECOX OR THE GROUP OF SCHIZOPHRENIAS https://philpapers.org/archive/BLEDPO-2.pdfDr. Catherine Lord https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-spectrum-finding-superpowers-with-autism/id1737499562?i=1000659246090(0:00) Intro, Classifications, Symptoms, Schizophrenia, DSM, Assessments, Vaccines and Bayh-Dole Act(3:21) 1911; Twilight Peaks; Psychoanalysis; Eugon Bleuler; Early Autism(10:37) 1959- Separating from Schizophrenia; Generational Lineage; Visual Imagery; Communication Problems are noticed(14:21) The DSM and the Development of Autism Diagnosis(17:32) Assessments becoming Standardized(20:22) Vaccines and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980; Vaccine Schedule and Centralized Medicine and Revenue(25:06) 1980s-2000 emergence of Diagnosis and Assessments; Rates of Autism and Explainations(30:03) Reviews/Ratings and Contact InfoX https://twitter.com/rps47586Facebook https://www.facebook.com/fromthespectrum.podcastEmail info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

Therapy, friendship, and more?

Part 2 is HERE! Bizzler registration is now open. Checkout our Instagram page and go to our pinned post for more information. The sign up link is below.  https://travefy.com/f/6kw9rqeqbxgqra6uetet6blu7rwgs88a Part 2 00:00:00 Start 00:53:09 Ad Ends. 00:01:30 Recruiting 00:02:28 Selling during COVID 00:07:34 Working referrals 00:13:16 Hitting MORT Level 00:17:15 Does Territory Matter? 00:25:55 Logan Merret selling machine 00:44:30 Why did you leave? 00:58:38 Theory on why DSMs leave 01:02:40 Salary and Commission 01:12:10 The Grind 01:26:16 What do you do now?  01:50:00 Pony Tales --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pony-tales/support

The spiritual energy of a covert narcissist is often described as demonic for valid reasons, as the outcomes of narcissistic behaviour are destructive and malignant in nature. Looking at all the main drivers that motivate a narcissist, 7 spirits of a demonic energy are a constant theme in the narcissist's makeup. A relationship with a covert narcissist is often difficult to describe in terms of the unseen malevolence towards the target. Here we describe in detail those 7 demonic spirits as parts of the whole personality, to better understand the true nature of a narcissist.This information can also assist a person who has dealt with a difficult individual, to come to a decision in relation to their spiritual energy, in reflecting on the 7 spirits mentioned. Coupled with psychology's framework for narcissistic personality disorder and behaviour patterns, aligned with the DSMs criteria for NPD, this information on spiritual motivators may prove beneficial to greater understanding.Coaching Enquiries - narcscon@gmail.com https://youtu.be/xAorLhF1hCkSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/narcon/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Christian embodies everything I love about being a DSM guy, passionate about his car, passionate about the community and surrounded by a group of people who won't let him quit. Christian starts off by filling us in on the setup for his car and the changes that it is currently going through. Christian talks about how he got into DSMs and why he chose the 2g platform for his build. He describes what the car was like when he first picked it up. Christian tells us about the original goals that he laid out for the car as well as the setups that he has gone through on it. He talks about the achievement of making it into the 9s for the first time and the setup that it took to jump that hurdle. Christian outlines his goals for 2024 and the events that he plans to attend. He gives his advice for anyone out there looking to build their 2g to get where he is. Lastly, Christian gives his social media accounts so that people can find and follow him as well as gives thanks to all of those who have helped him out along the way.

This episode kicks off the New Year with something we seem to all be so interested in, right behind belly fat, and that's longevity. Is it just me or is it even 30-somethings now trying to reverse aging? Unpacking all that this is and isn't could be a philosophical episode all on its own. Instead, I'd thought we'd take a look at 4 ways testing your longevity is possible, at home. Now, these tests are not fool-proof. And if you have an old injury or condition, you won't be able to do one or more. Yet, say some of the researchers, that's the reason to pay attention – close attention – to the things you can control! So, knowing is good.  But also.. Please… don't let this discourage you. It's not too late.  An article in Inc. magazine got my attention the other day.  Apparently a 60-year-old startup founder is 3x as likely to found a successful startup as a 30-year-old startup founder and 1.7 times more likely to have it wind up in the top 0.1 percent of all companies.  You can't do that – or anything meaningful – sick, old, tired or with stale ideas.  So whether you're one of our healthpreneurs or not, you're at an advantage if you're truly healthy.  Can you do 20 push ups? Sit and stand (barefoot on the floor unassisted)? Walk between at a minimum of 3.3 mph? and hang from a pull up bar for at least 30 seconds?  You're not only going to live longer but you can run your business (or family, home and organizations you volunteer for) like a boss. The first quarter of 2024 the Flipping 50 Membership is going to focus on benchmarking, improving and retesting. In addition to testing those progress chart tracking we always encourage (measurements, body composition and objective ratings of our daily health) we're targeting these.   Here's how you can start this at home! (or inside our membership? Do this with us the weekend of the 13th and 14th!  Community Member Question: Intermittent Fasting and Exercise Molly asked, “Debra  I have been wanting to incorporate fasting into my health regime.  However with your current recommendations of working out in a fed state I have found it is very difficult to get enough protein and to maintain the fasted state. I read the book Feast Fast Repeat and it goes against a lot of the information you recommend. It's difficult for me to fast for 18 to 20 hours and feel good. Just wondering what your thoughts are on fasting?”  Start earlier. That makes it simple! You don't have “dinner” at dinner time.. You have a last high protein meal at 3 or 4pm.  Fasting has a purpose. Getting off a plateau. You can kickstart with an 18 or 20 hour fast but there is NO reason if you're an active person to do this regularly. Rotate.., 12, 14, 15, 18 ….  Rotating the amount of carbs you have also becomes important. Overall, lower than you've probably had before in your life (remember when you'd have two bagels at a sitting?) But you might toggle between 50 and 100 grams a day. If you always go long fasting, if you also restrict calories when you are in an eating window, and if you never vary carbs and always go low, you will have no metabolic flexibility. For the majority of humans that just won't work. Your body is getting stressed by each of those things and never rewarded and replenished. Just where is that energy to do work and fun stuff going to come from?  If this was your first book? Keep reading. It's good but there are dozens of ways to fast. They include just going lower calorie for 5 days (with higher fat and lower protein), and using bone broth or doing smoothies twice daily. There are so many ways to start. But for intermittent fasting to be the goal then starting to extend your overnight fast is the beginning. Hit 12 hours. Try 13 and 14. See how you do. But don't always do it.  Your week should NOT ever look the same every day or you lose metabolic flexibility. If your goal is to stay active and gain muscle and bone density … tell me in a 20 hour fast how you manage to get micronutrients in. What we all have to do is prioritize. It's not intermittent fasting and exercise. It's intermittent fasting OR exercise. Which do you need most right now and why?  Also relevant: do you have any emotional eating tendencies or a history of eating disorder or diet and binge? If yes, this is a slippery slope for you. (see resources) Testing Your Longevity with 4 Tests PUSHUPS  Can you do 20 pushups? For females this is the goal as estimated based on the male-only study finding 40 pushups for men significantly decreased risk of cardiovascular risk. Further, it was a better indicator than sub-maximal treadmill tests. While VO2 capacity is associated with longevity, assessing VO2 max is limited to those first with access to a lab and those highly motivated to endure the discomfort a true test requires.  Pros: The push up is a test of multiple things including upper body strength as well as core. Overall, it's a functional use of the body. If you can do it horizontally, good form and posture vertically is far more likely.  Cons:  If you're at all compromised, as many are, with ability to stabilize the scapular (shoulder blades) or with shoulder rotator cuff issues, and can't maintain good form head to toe the push up can be injurious at worst or increase poor mechanics at best.  Flip:  I'd much rather that we all could do at least a few pull ups.  WALKING PACE Can you walk a pace between 3-4 mph? It's actually 3.3 that supports bone density, while slower paces don't. So, there's that too.  If you're over 60, the effect of slow vs fast walk (at least 3-4 mph) is even more pronounced in reducing all-cause mortality. Like 53% less. Map out a mile of relatively flat surface. Warm up, test your speed. When returning to retest be sure you do the exact same course.  Pros:  This is directly related to our independence later in life. Being able to walk at a respectable pace (I wouldn't designate this as fast) is a factor of weight and mobility, muscle and joint and metabolic health. Inability to perform this one already indicates a need to buff other areas to compensate.  Cons:  If you're compromised due to a previous injury or a condition in feet, ankles, knees, hips or significantly overweight there is already a limited ability to walk, this test is not a possibility.  Next up for testing your longevity is a challenging one!! So I hope you're warmed up!  SIT RISE TEST  A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology found how well you do the stand to sit to stand test indicates your risk of mortality.  Stand barefoot, cross one leg over the other and lower yourself to a sitting position. Then try to stand back up.  Attempt to do so without touching the floor with your hand, knees, elbows, forearms or sides of your legs.  You begin with 10 points. Subtract half a point each time you use a body part to shift to one side before levering up. Also subtract half a point if you lose balance.  In the study those that scored less than 8 points were twice as likely to die within the following six years. Those that scored less than 5 were three times as likely to die within the following six years.   An increase in your score of any kind reduces your mortality rate by 21%.  Pros:  This requires flexibility, balance, mobility and muscle strength. Any lack of balance, flexibility, strength or being overweight make the test harder. Each of these components is correlated to risk of mortality.  Cons:  Compromise in a joint that limits the performance of this test may not reveal that some level of these functional components are present in other joints and are evidenced in other activities.  You need a tool for testing your longevity with this next test. They aren't costly and some gyms likely also have them.  GRIP STRENGTH  In 2018 the grip strength test was determined to correlate to overall body strength and muscle mass.  Low overall muscle strength (as correlated with grip strength) is a health hazard to all health outcomes except for colon cancer, prostate cancer and lung cancer.  You can buy a dynamometer to test grip or for an easier at home or gym option, hang from a pull up bar. For men 60, and for women 30 seconds is a good target, suggest some researchers. Yet, it's an increase or decrease that you want to watch. A six-pound decrease (as tested on with the hand grip tool – but that may correlate to any reduced time hanging) correlates with 16 percent higher risk of dying from any cause.  To improve grip strength, you don't want to just work on grip strength however. Don't go around the house squeezing tennis balls. That's not really the value of the test. Improve your overall skeletal muscle strength. Other ways to assess total body strength are a one-rep max or estimated 1-rep max by doing a 10-rep max. Grip strength is far less intimidating and less injurious. But make no mistake your bench press, row or pull up, or leg press weight should also be improving.  Are You Built to Last (and Love It?) This small battery of tests are simple ways to assess your function. Every test has limitations. You may not be able to do one or more of them. The best use of them is in addition to outcomes like body fat percent (30% is obese), waist girth (for women, 35 inches significantly increases health risk), amount of muscle mass (in pounds or kilograms) primarily to know if you're gaining, losing or at very least preserving are additional objective measures. You may already be using these without knowing the significance of them.  Flipping 50 Members have access to a Progress tracking both objective and subjective measures of progress. If you're not inside the members area yet with a course, membership, or downloadable freebie, you can start here. https://www.flippingfifty.com/login The point in measuring and interpreting these is realizing the habits you've had to this point got you the results you have at this point. If you wish to change the outcome, you change the habits related to them. An injury or condition may have limited your ability to perform a certain test. This awareness can still be an asset if it highlights the need to strengthen other areas of your health span longevity.  Need support? Join us for a masterclass Jan 10, 2024 https://www.flippingfifty.com/olderandstronger Resources:  Masterclass: https://www.flippingfifty.com/olderandstronger  Membership: https://www.flippingfifty.com/cafe  Smart Scale: https://www.flippingfifty.com/givescale Handgrip:  Power Plate: https://www.flippingfifty.com/powerplate – use code flipping50 for 25% off and free massage gun with purchase References: Araújo CGS, Castro CLB, Franca JFC, Araújo DS. Sitting–rising test: Sex- and age-reference scores derived from 6141 adults. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2020;27(8):888-890. doi:10.1177/2047487319847004 Celis-Morales C A, Welsh P, Lyall D M, Steell L, Petermann F, Anderson J et al. Associations of grip strength with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cancer outcomes and all cause mortality: prospective cohort study of half a million UK Biobank participants  BMJ  2018;  361 :k1651 doi:10.1136/bmj.k1651 de Brito LBB, Ricardo DR, de Araújo DSMS, Ramos PS, Myers J, de Araújo CGS. Ability to sit and rise from the floor as a predictor of all-cause mortality. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2014;21(7):892-898. doi:10.1177/2047487312471759 Stamatakis E, Kelly P, Strain T, et al Self-rated walking pace and all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 50 225 walkers from 11 population British cohorts British Journal of Sports Medicine 2018;52:761-768. Yang J, Christophi CA, Farioli A, et al. Association Between Push-up Exercise Capacity and Future Cardiovascular Events Among Active Adult Men. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(2):e188341. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.8341  

Brandon is like a brother to me, every time I talk to him I feel like I have known him my whole life. Brandon talks about what got him into DSMs in the first place and the crazy story of buying his car and shipping it back to the US with him. He tells us about the original plans for his car and the condition of the car when he bought it. He goes through all the different setups he has had in it over the years and what worked best for him. He talks through the setup that got him into the 9s and the 8s and what those achievements mean to him. Brandon talks about his short term goals for this year and his long term goals that he is shooting for. He gives his advice for all those out there with 1gs who are looking to get higher up our list. He also talks about what events he plans to go to this year and compete at. Finally Brandon drops his social media links and gives thanks to all those who have helped him over the years.

Research from Sales Enablement PRO's State of Sales Enablement Report found that organizations that understand what content engages buyers are 38% less likely to struggle with sales velocity. So, how can you optimize the customer experience to improve buyer engagement through enablement? Shawnna Sumaoang: Hi and welcome to the Win Win Podcast. I'm your host, Shawnna Sumaoang. Join us as we dive into changing trends in the workplace and how to navigate them successfully. Here to discuss this topic is Denise Romero, director of learning and development at Hunter Douglas. Thanks for joining, Denise! I'd love for you to tell us about yourself, your background, and your role. Denise Romero: Thank you for having me. Like you said, my name is Denise Romero. I’m with Hunter Douglas. I’m the director of our learning and development department here. A little bit about myself, I have a degree in organizational development, so I kind of feel like I’m in the right space, which is rare for a lot of folks. How I got my start and my passion truly for what I do goes back in time. I originally set out to be a teacher actually, and I realized at some point that kids were not my cup of tea. I pivoted and I had really good role models. It always intrigued me how they were able to dumb down things and really make it simple for new hires and employees to come in and learn the role. As I progressed and became a leader in the organization, I really gravitated towards that space and how I can look at content, and how I can create an experience for employees. It’s not intimidating. I think we lose sight of that sometimes, especially when we’ve been in an organization for a long time. It’s really driven a lot of my passion through the years is trying to solve content and training and that knowledge and how you have that knowledge transfer. It fascinates me. That’s a little bit about my background here at Hunter Douglas. I’m responsible for a variety of different things, quite honestly, in North America. Internally, we talk about our internal sales team and our customer support team and L&D is responsible for integrating these folks into the business. I like to say that human resources onboards and it’s L&D’s job to integrate them, teach them how to swim, teach them how their role provides value to the greater organization, and then really set them up for success with a solid foundation and give them an opportunity to progress. As they’re an employee here, externally facing, we have an interesting model. We’re a B2B2C. We focus primarily on our dealers who are selling our product. When you think about that the challenge that we’ll probably dig into at some point is that they don’t have to take training for us. They don’t have to really do anything that we’re putting out into the world. We have to be really creative. That starts with our partnership with our sales team because they’re truly guiding our dealers to help them have a successful business and to really market and sell Hunter Douglas products. SS: I love that. I definitely want to dig in. I’d love to start at the beginning before implementing Highspot. What were some of the challenges facing your team that caused you to consider investing in an enablement platform? DR: That’s a great question. Our biggest challenge was the fact that we didn’t have anything. There was no Northstar, there was no true guidance. From my perspective, you had regions throughout North America doing things very differently. It’s almost as if they were operating as their own business unit and their own business. You wouldn’t see consistencies on how products were being talked about, and how content and resources were being shared. A lot of it was being homegrown and there was a lack of governance. What we were looking to solve was how we create a consistent repeatable process. It was really prescriptive. How can our sales team not have to be inefficient and think about all of these things that they would need to build? How can we build it for them and really develop a one-stop shop where they know they can go get this information and we start to cascade that across the entire region through North America? SS: I love that. Since implementation, how have you been able to solve some of the challenges that your team is facing? DR: We really looked at this with a big lens. We started to think about what’s most important to us. How do you create that foundation? That foundation really is our product. We wanted to ensure first and foremost that we had a very prescriptive play and pitches to ensure that there wasn’t confusion. We want our consumers to know that when they’re talking to a dealer they’re being given accurate information and it’s being given with confidence. That’s where we really started from there. We started to tackle, what are some of the initiatives. What are some of the pain points? We built that template out? We also really looked at the user experience within Highspot to ensure that it wasn’t complicated. How can we break the content down into categories that the salesperson can easily look at at a glance and see what they need? What do they need to say? What do they need to do? We then showed those simple things that will help them be successful when they’re talking to their dealer. SS: At the onset, you had mentioned Hunter Douglas has a unique sales cycle, which means that you also have unique ways of leveraging Highspot. Tell us more about this. How do you leverage Highspot to educate your external dealers to effectively sell your products? DR: It’s a unique relationship. As I said, we’re a B2B2C, so our sales team has to think about that from the lens of how they manage an account. How do they educate? How do they inform? How does that information get passed on to our dealers? In our instance, our sales team will take any content that we have developed and built within Highspot, and as I said, we’ve really created consistent templates, no matter what the content is. Whether it’s a pain point, whether it’s a company initiative, whether it’s product information, and we don’t stray from that. That really helps them absorb the information. First and foremost, we teach our district sales managers, DSMs, what they need to know about this thing. It’s really their self-guided learning, and then we start to layer onto that or what we would say, scaffolding. We want them to know, how you talk about this now with your dealer, and what you show them. What do you want them to do? What’s that action that you want them to take? Then they can basically think about it as performance management. Their job is to really identify for the dealer, where are the obstacles, or what the things that you need to do in order for your business to be successful. That gets transferred and cascaded, and there’s not a consistent recipe. I would say in that little bucket, because each dealer is different, and in our world, you can have a dealer that sells all window coverings, or you can have a dealer that sells window covering, paint, and other topics that are home furnishing goods. We really have to be creative in how that information gets cascaded to our dealer for success. SS: For our audience, what role do district sales managers play in enabling dealers through Highspot? And how do you tailor enablement programs to support your district sales managers? DR: That’s also a great question. I’ll go back to what I was saying, but think of it as a recipe. This is what we do when any cook is building or making a dish. There’s a foundation. You have your ingredients, you have your quantity of ingredients, and you have your instructions on how to put that all together. That’s what we’re providing. Where I think the nuance for us is that every dealer is different. We have to tailor some of that content based on their preferences. First and foremost, we do that, but another key element that we do, and we do this yearly, is we think about goal setting for our dealers. We really look at the uniqueness of the business. We create goals in a scorecard. We bring that into Highspot so they understand how to represent themselves to provide that coaching and guidance, and truly being a consultant to our dealer’s business. That's how we’re using Highspot in a different way, compared to more B2C versus the B2B channel that we sit in. SS: For our audience, how is enabling internal sales teams different from enabling external dealers? DR: I think for us, where we found success, we started small. We started with our products, which most people internally know, and that led to success for us because the sales team had trust in the platform from there, we really built off of that. Again, it’s that mindfulness. For us and that adoption success internally, it was about explaining to the sales team that we’ve now made their roles more efficient for them. You don’t have to start from scratch. We’ve taken the thinking out of it for you. You have all of this in one place, which is inclusive of resources, inclusive of guiding, and coaching. We’ve added video recordings so they can do role-playing or watch role-playing. We’ve added audio. They literally have examples. There are so many resources that we’ve been able to really wrap our arms around and put within Highspot the successes that we built the confidence and the trust in the tool. That’s why we continue to have the adoption that we see. SS: Now, across all of the teams that you support through enablement, one of your areas of passion is curating an excellent customer experience, which I can deeply relate to. How do you leverage Highspot to improve the customer experience? DR: Customer experience is important to me. Not only do I sit under the customer experience umbrella, I think just as a consumer, especially in this day and age, we can’t lose sight of how that experience can impact a business and what it really means to not only the end consumer but the business itself. We are very picky in the people we allow to play within Highspot in regards to content design and development. We don’t let more than three people in the tool itself. When we think about a project, we think about an initiative, there’s a sales training manager who takes control of basically herding the cats. Where we build a project plan, we build intent and a charter. I have a content leader who sits within this project plan and thinks about the content and all the necessary tools that need to go into Highspot and then I have a developer and that’s it. We don’t let a lot of people into this and it really creates a consistent experience internally, which is also super important for us externally. How it translates to our dealer and then ultimately the consumer, represents who we are as a brand. We are not skipping a beat in regard to our brand. We start internally and that obviously shows up on the end side of the consumer. We also have tight governance around it. We’re really looking at everything that’s getting put into there. That’s not only from the development standpoint, but it’s through auditing and maintaining. We have made Highspot part of our day-to-day world here. That’s really the secret that I think that we found for us to be successful. SS: I love that. You have seen a lot of success and have engaged customers through Highspot. You have an incredible 95% adoption of pitch capabilities. What are your best practices for leveraging pitching in Highspot to improve buyer engagement? DR: I would say the one word to define that is partnership. We don’t operate on an Island. As soon as there’s new information being added to the sales team, whether it’s from learning and development, or it’s an ask for us to support them, we build everything out and we sit down with the entire sales team and an all-hands on call. We’re meeting them where they are. There’s not a surprise. They understand why we’re doing it, what they need to do with it, and the action they need to take from it. That’s really helped us see our adoption rate skyrocket and ultimately our engagement externally. SS: Fantastic. In terms of metrics, what are you tracking to see the overall impact you’re having on the business through your enablement efforts? DR: We’re really looking at our engagement and our adoption. We look at time spent and we’re also, in the latter part of this year, tracking our region scorecards. Not only at the regional level but at the individuals within those regions. Primarily there, we’re looking at similarities and differences. Do we see consistency regarding key initiatives and time being spent internally to understand what the pitches and plays are and how is that being pushed externally? If there’s a difference, we can socialize that again through our all-hands meeting. We call attention to it. That has been interesting for us to watch because, at the beginning, our adoption rate was key. That was our KPI. We really wanted to build this and watch the adoption. We got there fairly easily. Now it’s trying to figure out what the markers are, and what’s really driving people to gravitate towards one thing or another. Lastly, while we’re not there yet, we really want to start to figure out the impact of sales, whether that’s dollars or units. The reason we haven’t gotten there yet is because of our own internal challenges with Salesforce integration. We believe in 2024 when we turn that on, we are going to have success where we can truly tie back the return on investment to some of these key initiatives from the company. Then, also, pain points that are identified that we can throw our efforts towards to help the sales team be more successful when they’re out speaking with our dealers. SS: I love that and you guys are definitely making your way up the maturity curve very quickly I have to say, so it’s impressive. Last question for you, Denise. What are some of the business results that you’ve seen so far with Highspot and do you have any wins you’d like to share with our audience? DR: We had a great win at the beginning of the year. We rolled out a project called the Federal Tax Credit. What this is, it gives our consumers an opportunity to get a rebate on certain qualifying products. We spent a lot of time not only internally within L&D thinking about the template and thinking about how our DSMs need to educate our dealers, but a partnership was also formed with our product management team. This is the ideal model, in our opinion, where we are the developers and the designers of the content hearing from a company initiative and then partnering in this instance with product management. Ideally, we want to duplicate that across the organization, but these three core functions came together, understood how a DSM has to talk to a dealer that would ultimately impact our consumers. If you think back to our original question, I have no responsibility to our consumers. I’m really only responsible for our dealers and we have seen a huge success. It’s our number one piece of content that is consumed to this day on a regular basis. We’re maintaining it and we’re ensuring that if we see a gap anywhere across the functions that I just identified, we reiterate, we guide, and we tweak the success on the other side for our consumers. We consider it a success. We also consider it the template that we need to keep using as we develop and continue to expand and grow within ourselves as we work on this particular type of enablement. Truly Highspot is the bow that’s helping us create that success. SS: I love hearing that, Denise. Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing with us the unique ways you’re leveraging Highspot at Hunter Douglas. I really appreciate the time. DR: Yeah, of course. Thank you for having me. SS: To our audience, thank you for listening to this episode of the Win Win Podcast. Be sure to tune in next time for more insights on how you can maximize enablement success with Highspot.

Frank and Oscar join me at the Shootout to talk about their group of passonite Mitsubishi fans and racers based out of Southern California. We talk about the cars and culture in the NLAND DSM crew. We also talk about their cars and how they got into DSMs in the first place. Frank and Oscar go back in time to talk about how NLAND got started and how it grew from a couple of guys to a regional group. They talk about the events and type of racing that they enjoy, the racing scene around them and some of their DSM heros through the years. We talk about the other members of the crew who couldn't make it and why Frank and Oscar travel from the other side of the country to be a part of the Shootout.Find and follow the NLAND crew here:https://www.facebook.com/groups/159400804099918https://www.instagram.com/nland.dsm/

Brent embodies everything I love about DSM people, he is down to earth, he will do everything he can to help a fellow racer and he is undoubtedly passionate about our platform and community. Brent talks about what got him into DSMs in the first place and his long journey with his current car. He tells us about the origins of his car and the condition of the car when he bought it. He goes through all the different setups he has had in it over the years and what worked best for him. He talks through the setup that got him into the 9s and the 8s and what those achievements mean to him. Brent talks about what it is about his car that keeps him motivated to keep going through all the heartbreak and setbacks. Brent talks about his short term goals for this year and his long term goals that he is shooting for. He gives his advice for all those out there with 1gs who are looking to get higher up our list. He also talks about what events he plans to go to this year and compete at. Brent talks about his humbling experience being 34th on the 1g list and what being surrounded by legends in our community means to him. Finally Brent drops his social media links and gives thanks to all those who have helped him over the years.

Scott is an OG who has forever left his legacy impression on our community. Scott's RWD 1g is a car that I think of when I think of what DSMs are capable of. If you have not seen the picture of Scott's 1g doing a HUGE wheelie, hit me up and I will send it to you, it's too good to miss. Unsurprisingly, his RWD 1g has been in every magazine you could imagine. Recently Scott has stepped away from traditional drag racing in favor of drag and drive events. Scott starts off by telling us about the setup in his car that is powerful enough to pull those wheelies off. He tells us why he chose the 1g to begin with and what the car was like when he bought it before he cut it up to make it RWD. He talks a little about the RWD swap for those considering taking on that swap themselves. Scott talks about what his plans are for 2023 and where you can come out and see his mean machine in action. Finally, Scott tells us about his social media links and gives thanks to all those who helped him out along the way.

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.03.17.533015v1?rss=1 Authors: Tao, X., Liu, J., Diaz-Perez, Z., Foley, J. R., Stewart, T. M., Casero, R. A., Zhai, G. Abstract: Tauopathy, including Alzheimer Disease (AD), is characterized by Tau protein accumulation and autophagy dysregulation. Emerging evidence connects polyamine metabolism with the autophagy pathway, however the role of polyamines in Tauopathy remains unclear. In the present study we investigated the role of spermine synthase (SMS) in autophagy regulation and tau protein processing in Drosophila and human cellular models of Tauopathy. Our previous study showed that Drosophila spermine synthase (dSms) deficiency impairs lysosomal function and blocks autophagy flux. Interestingly, partial loss-of-function of SMS in heterozygous dSms flies extends lifespan and improves the climbing performance of flies with human Tau (hTau) overexpression. Mechanistic analysis showed that heterozygous loss-of-function mutation of dSms reduces hTau protein accumulation through enhancing autophagic flux. Measurement of polyamine levels detected a mild elevation of spermidine in flies with heterozygous loss of dSms. SMS knock-down in human neuronal or glial cells also upregulates autophagic flux and reduces Tau protein accumulation. Proteomics analysis of postmortem brain tissue from AD patients showed a significant albeit modest elevation of SMS protein level in AD-relevant brain regions compared to that of control brains consistently across several datasets. Taken together, our study uncovers a correlation between SMS protein level and AD pathogenesis and reveals that SMS reduction upregulates autophagy, promotes Tau clearance, and reduces Tau protein accumulation. These findings provide a new potential therapeutic target of Tauopathy. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Tony has forgotten more about the 4G63 than most of us will ever know. From his 6 second dragster to his ultra reliable 8 second 2g DSM that flips the joke of "unreliable DSM" on it's ear. Tony and I talk about what it was that drew him to DSMs in the first place. We talk about his and his father's amazing 6 second 4G63 powered dragster. We discuss what made them build it in the first place and what the future hold for the car. Tony describes what it's like to cut a sub one second 60 foot. Tony and I talk about what all is involved in a drag and drive event including the behind the scenes of what you don't always see. We talk about Tony's top 10 (on our 2g list) 2g setup and why he chose what he chose to not only propel him into the mid 8s but to do so while driving thousands of miles to and from each track. Tony gives his advice to anyone looking to get into drag and drive events. He and I discuss the future of his current car and the new direction it could potentially be heading. Tony outlines future events that he plans to compete at with both vehicles. He talks about a new project in his life that is far outside the norm of what he is used to. Finally Tony gives thanks to all those who have helped him out over the years.

Brad is a real OG when it comes to DSMs, I have been watching him race since I attended my first Shootout. Brad gives us the rundown on his setup and the setups that he has used to propel him into the top five on our 2g list. Brad explains his motivation for pushing the 2g platform even after all the uphill battles, expensive breakages, long nights of wrenching and wrecks. Brad talks about the future of Mean Green and how he plans to continue to go faster bit by bit. Finally Brad gives us some insight into what events he plans to attend in the future.

Alleine geht es nicht (mehr) – gemeinsam sind wir stärker! Zusammen mit unseren Lösungspartnern nehmen wir euch mit zurück auf die it-sa 2022, Europas führende IT-Security-Fachmesse, und damit zur Home of IT Security. In den nächsten 11 Folgen gibt es unseren speziellen Rückblick zu unserem Messebesuch. Dafür haben wir uns mit den Experten der IT Security und Datenschutz Branche ausgetauscht. Schon mal den Stand eurer Datenschutzdokumente gecheckt? Steht da womöglich NOCH Mai 2018?! Die Deadline der Einführung der DSGVO bzw. das Ende der gesetzten Übergangsfrist. Damit wärt ihr nicht alleine, aber dafür kann man Abhilfe schaffen – Mit einem Datenschutzmanagementsystem, behält man die Orga im Blick und das alles übersichtlich und ohne großen Schulungsaufwand. Da sprechen wir auch gerne immer bei unseren ISO Schmiede – Kunden eine Empfehlung aus. Innovationen und neue Lösungen gibt es nicht nur aus Deutschland, sondern aus der gesamten DACH Region– heute im Gespräch mit Benigna Prochaska, Geschäftsführerin der Intervalid GmbH aus dem schönen Österreich. Unsere 3 Highlights aus diesem Gespräch: Die Vorarbeit auf ein Minimum begrenzen Positiv erledigte Dinge von anderen nutzen – Nicht von Null auf 100! Es gibt viele verschiedene Normen aber die Grundsätze sind dennoch gleich Du fühlst dich angesprochen? Dann sollten wir uns unterhalten: Hier geht es zum kostenfreien Beratungsgespräch: https://connectingmedia.de/kontakt.php

Mark is doing something very few others are doing currently, pushing a manual 1g to some very serious numbers. He gives us the run down on his setup and his off season upgrades to get ever closer to that infamous 7 second mark. He tells us why he chose the 1g and the legend who got him into DSMs. Mark talks about his short and long term goals with his 1g and the status of some of his other Mitsubishis and how they tie into his passion. Finally he talks about the events he wants to attend with his 1g to get back out there.

Therapist and TBTL Friendo Kirk Honda returns to the show for Day 4 of the TBTL Summer Games, in which we finally find out if Luke is ready to “open the doors of perception and get his Lizard King on.”

Therapist and TBTL Friendo Kirk Honda returns to the show for Day 4 of the TBTL Summer Games, in which we finally find out if Luke is ready to “open the doors of perception and get his Lizard King on.”

Therapist and TBTL Friendo Kirk Honda returns to the show for Day 4 of the TBTL Summer Games, in which we finally find out if Luke is ready to “open the doors of perception and get his Lizard King on.”

Jesse and I dive into a world where DSMs can do more than go fast in a straight line. We talk about Jesse's circuit racing DSM build and how his car got to be where it is now, finishing at the top of his class. Jesse talks about his car's progression from a daily driver to a stripped out track car. He also gives advice for anyone who is looking to take their DSM around the bends.

The number of winter-peaking utilities is expected to grow much larger over the next 10–20 years due to electrification of end uses, particularly space heating. Additional winter constraints, like the loss of generation during extreme weather events, can pose similar challenges for the electric grid to meeting winter demand.This discussion with ACEEE's Utility Manager, Michael Specian, will characterize the opportunity for demand-side measures (DSMs) like demand response, energy efficiency, and storage to mitigate winter peaks and constraints. It will cover the state of current and future winter peaks, summarize which DSMs offer the greatest potential for managing high winter demand, and highlight examples of existing North American utility programs that realize winter peak savings through DSMs. It will also provide a regional modeling case study of a highly electrified New England to quantify the extent to which different DSM packages can mitigate winter peak resulting from a polar vortex event.

Today we are talking with Mia Pohtola about her unique and incredible journey to motherhood with her wife, Riikka. After deciding they wanted to start a family, Mia and Riikka embarked on a journey that led them on multiple trips to different countries, various methods of conceiving, and a triumphant story resulting in their family of 4. We also talk about the some of the parental benefits in Finland and how they differ from the United States. Mia is a mother of two girls. She and her wife, Riikka, have been together for 9 years and live in Helsinki, Finland. She is a history enthusiast who is working on her PhD focused on the history of psychiatry & DSMs. Join our Kula village:Join the Kula waitlistFind us on IG: @hello.kulaAre you an expert?  Come work with us!Thanks for listening!

What Can Therapists Say About Celebrities? The ethics of public statements Curt and Katie chat about whether therapists should make public statements and diagnose public figures. This is our first continuing education eligible podcast, discussing the ethics of speaking out about the mental health of people in the public eye. We explore the origins of the Goldwater rule, a group of psychiatrists who purposefully broke it, and how masters level organizations address this concern. We also provide you with some ideas about how you can make this decision for yourself. In this podcast episode we look at the ethics of modern therapists diagnosing public figures For our first continuing education worthy podcast, we wanted to address something that is becoming more and more prevalent in our field: therapists speaking out about the mental health of public figures. What is the Goldwater Rule? The history of the Goldwater Rule The impact of DSM II (and the update to DSM III) The original intention of the rule versus the current interpretation of the Goldwater Rule Fears from the American Psychiatric Association that seems to have driven the development of (and on-going commitment to) this rule How the Goldwater Rule (and Similar Ethical Principles) Have Shifted Over Time Perspective from one of the original framers of the Goldwater Rule Moving from teleological to deontological interpretations How the internet and social media has changed the landscape The American Psychiatric Association expanding their commitment to the Goldwater Rule, stating reasons psychiatrists should not assess The Goldwater “Caveat” or “Principle” versus Goldwater “Rule” or even Goldwater “Doctrine” Beyond diagnosis to restricting any comment on the behavior or mental health of a public figure The stance on this ethic from American Psychological Association and the large Masters Level Organizations (AAMFT, ACA, NASW, and CAMFT, for example) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump – the Public Diagnosis of an American President The group of psychiatrists who pushed back on the Goldwater Rule The Duty to Warn – does it apply here? What are the challenges of accurately diagnosing Trump? Where expertise is helpful (and how the public can water down diagnosis) Current Guidelines for Modern Therapists Whether diagnosis is required for a duty to warn The tactic of putting forward information without drawing conclusions (and why we don't like this strategy) Specific guidance from the professional organizations on what therapists can and cannot do Taking special care in how one decides what they say about an individual in public settings Using one's professional judgement and special care Cautions When Using Your Professional Judgment The potential harm of discussing diagnosis on social media Bias, cultural factors, and other information that could make an inaccurate or harmful diagnosis Mental health stigma and other concerns related to diagnostic language (ICD-10, DSM-V) Speaking outside of your professional expertise Questions to ask yourself before making a public statement Our Generous Sponsor for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide: Buying Time LLC Buying Time is a full team of Virtual Assistants, with a wide variety of skill sets to support your business. From basic admin support, customer service, and email management to marketing and bookkeeping. They've got you covered. Don't know where to start? Check out the systems inventory checklist which helps business owners figure out what they don't want to do anymore and get those delegated asap. You can find that checklist at http://buyingtimellc.com/systems-checklist/ Buying Time's VA's support businesses by managing email communications, CRM or automation systems, website admin and hosting, email marketing, social media, bookkeeping and much more. Their sole purpose is to create the opportunity for you to focus on supporting those you serve while ensuring that your back office runs smoothly. With a full team of VA's it gives the opportunity to hire for one role and get multiple areas of support. There's no reason to be overwhelmed with running your business with this solution available. Book a consultation to see where and how you can get started getting the support you need - https://buyingtimellc.com/book-consultation/ Receive Continuing Education for this Episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Hey modern therapists, we're so excited to offer the opportunity for 1 unit of continuing education for this podcast episode – Therapy Reimagined is bringing you the Modern Therapist Learning Community!  Once you've listened to this episode, to get CE credit you just need to go to moderntherapistcommunity.com/podcourse, register for your free profile, purchase this course, pass the post-test, and complete the evaluation! Once that's all completed - you'll get a CE certificate in your profile or you can download it for your records. For our current list of CE approvals, check out moderntherapistcommunity.com. You can find this course here: What Can Therapists Say About Celebrities? The ethics of public statements - a continuing education podcourse Continuing Education Approvals: When we are airing this podcast episode, we have the following CE approval. Please check back as we add other approval bodies: Continuing Education Information CAMFT CEPA: Therapy Reimagined is approved by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists to sponsor continuing education for LMFTs, LPCCs, LCSWs, and LEPs (CAMFT CEPA provider #132270). Therapy Reimagined maintains responsibility for this program and its content. Courses meet the qualifications for the listed hours of continuing education credit for LMFTs, LCSWs, LPCCs, and/or LEPs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. We are working on additional provider approvals, but solely are able to provide CAMFT CEs at this time. Please check with your licensing body to ensure that they will accept this as an equivalent learning credit. Resources for Modern Therapists mentioned in this Podcast Episode: We've pulled together resources mentioned in this episode and put together some handy-dandy links. Please note that some of the links below may be affiliate links, so if you purchase after clicking below, we may get a little bit of cash in our pockets. We thank you in advance! Fact Magazine The Goldwater Rule (Wikipedia) Debate Article: It is Ethical to Diagnose a Public Figure One has not Personally Examined The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President American Psychiatric Association – statement on Goldwater Rule Dr. Allen Dyer's website Dr. Ben Caldwell, Psychotherapy Notes: Ethically It's Fine to Diagnose Donald Trump For the full references list, please see the course on our learning platform. Relevant Episodes of MTSG Podcast: Therapy with an Audience Therapists Hater and Trolls Therapists Shaming Therapists Off Duty Therapist Who we are: Curt Widhalm, LMFT Curt Widhalm is in private practice in the Los Angeles area. He is a member of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists ethics committee, an Adjunct Professor at Pepperdine University, lecturer in Counseling Laws and Ethics at California State University Northridge, a former Law & Ethics Subject Matter Expert for the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, and former CFO of CAMFT. Learn more at: www.curtwidhalm.com Katie Vernoy, LMFT Katie Vernoy is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, with a Master's degree in Clinical Psychology from California State University, Fullerton and a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and Theater from Occidental College in Los Angeles, California. Katie has always loved leadership and began stepping into management positions soon after gaining her license in 2005. Katie's experience spans many leadership and management roles in the mental health field: program coordinator, director, clinical supervisor, hiring manager, recruiter, and former President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. Now in business for herself, Katie provides therapy, consultation, or business strategy to support leaders, visionaries, and helping professionals in pursuing their mission to help others. Learn more at: www.katievernoy.com A Quick Note: Our opinions are our own. We are only speaking for ourselves – except when we speak for each other, or over each other. We're working on it. Our guests are also only speaking for themselves and have their own opinions. We aren't trying to take their voice, and no one speaks for us either. Mostly because they don't want to, but hey. Stay in Touch with Curt, Katie, and the whole Therapy Reimagined #TherapyMovement: www.mtsgpodcast.com www.therapyreimagined.com www.moderntherapistcommunity.com Patreon Profile Buy Me A Coffee Profile https://www.facebook.com/therapyreimagined/ https://twitter.com/therapymovement https://www.instagram.com/therapyreimagined/ Consultation services with Curt Widhalm or Katie Vernoy: The Fifty-Minute Hour Connect with the Modern Therapist Community: Our Facebook Group – The Modern Therapists Group   Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits: Voice Over by DW McCann https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano http://www.crystalmangano.com/ Transcript for this episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide podcast (Autogenerated): Curt Widhalm 00:00 This episode of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide is sponsored by Buying Time. Katie Vernoy  00:04 Buying Time has a full team of virtual assistants with a wide variety of skill sets to support your business. From basic admin support customer service and email management to marketing and bookkeeping, they've got you covered. Don't know where to start, check out the system's inventory checklist, which helps business owners figure out what they don't want to do anymore and get those delegated ASAP. You can find that checklist at buying time. llc.com forward slash systems stash checklist. Curt Widhalm  00:31 Listen at the end of the episode for more information. Announcer  00:34 You're listening to the modern therapist survival guide where therapists live, breathe, and practice as human beings. To support you as a whole person and a therapist. Here are your hosts, Curt Widhalm and Katie Vernoy. Curt Widhalm  00:49 Hey modern therapists, we're so excited to offer the opportunity for one unit of continuing education for this podcast episode. Once you've listened to this episode, to get CE credit, you just need to go to moderntherapistcommunity.com register for your free profile, purchase this course pass the post test and complete the evaluation. Once that's all completed, you'll get a CE certificate in your profile, or you can download it for your records. For a current list of our CE approvals. Check out moderntherapistcommunity.com   Katie Vernoy  01:22 Once again hop over to moderntherapistcommunity.com for one CE once you've listened. Woo hoo!   Curt Widhalm  01:28 Welcome back modern therapists. This is the Modern Therapist Survival Guide. I'm Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy. And this is our first continuing education eligible podcast and we're gonna go a little bit long format today. Today we're going to be exploring an ethical issue around therapists making public statements. And this is becoming what would seemingly be more and more prevalent as more and more of us have access to things like social media outlets. But the underpinnings of a lot of this debate starts back in the 1960s with little story about Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Now Barry Goldwater was running for president in the 1964 election. And for those of you American history buffs, you probably know, he did not win. And this, this is partially blamed on the way that the Lyndon Johnson campaign framed Barry Goldwater, in response to Fact Magazine presented a special issue that was titled The unconscious of a conservative  a special issue on the mind of Barry Goldwater. This was in response to a play on the words of Barry Goldwater's book the conscience of a conservative so what fact magazine had done is they had sent out a survey to over 12,000, psychiatrists, of whom about 2400 responded, and this was asking these psychiatrist opinions of the mental health status of Senator Barry Goldwater. The results of the survey range a little bit all over the place. About 27% of the overall people responded, said that Mr. Goldwater was mentally fit, 23% said that they didn't know enough to make a judgement, and a whole lot said things like Mr. Goldwater is a megalomaniac, paranoid, grossly psychotic, and some even offered specific diagnoses, including schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.   Katie Vernoy  03:49 Oh, my goodness, that sounds pretty familiar.   Curt Widhalm  03:54 Yeah, this has come up recently, in...   Katie Vernoy  03:58 Just a little. Just a little bit.   Curt Widhalm  04:01 And part of the point of today's episode is where some of this debate has been in the last several years as far as America, how the rules have gotten to where we are, and what this means for us at this point in time. Now, a lot has been said, and we will get into this a little bit later in the episode about some of the more recent publications and recent debates in the field, including books like The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by Therapy Reimagined speaker Bandy X. Lee and some of her colleagues. We will be discussing her later, and kind of where our responses are as a profession and some recommendations at the end of the episode. So, getting back to Barry Goldwater,   Katie Vernoy  04:50 Must we? I'm joking, I'm joking.   Curt Widhalm  04:54 So Goldwater ended up suing fact magazine and the publishers for libel based on this and Goldwater ended up winning this. Now, in the cases, Goldwater was issued $1 as compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitory damages to the publisher of that magazine, Ralph Ginsberg. And this was upheld by United States Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court's denied a petition to review it. So, Goldwater ended up prevailing, but at the time, feeling like they have a little egg on their face of all of these psychiatrists making public statements, the American Psychiatric Association said, this is something where this might erode the trust in our professionals, and therefore our profession. We can't have this. We have a sense of urgency that we need to address this, let's take nine years to make a rule.   Katie Vernoy  06:03 Nine years for a very important role. Well at least, we can't say that they didn't think it out, take time to really consider.   Curt Widhalm  06:11 I point out a little bit of the nine years because what happened at the time is, we were under the guidance of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association's Second edition. Now, this was during a building towards the DSM three, which was going to come out several years later in 1980. But for those of us who weren't practicing back in 1964, and answering questionnaires from Fact Magazine, there was a pretty fundamental difference between the DSM two and the DSM three. And that difference was the DSM two was largely based in psychodynamic and psychoanalytic theory, which led to a lot of conjecture and potential bias in evaluating clients. With the DSM three helps move us towards today's DSMs is created more of behavioral checklist observations. And so what many of these psychiatrist were conjecturing about Mr. Goldwater is assumptions about his upbringing, assumptions about the relationships that he was having, and the underpinnings of wherever they're believed psychosis and megalomania, diagnostics and observations about him would be based out of.   Katie Vernoy  07:40 so it really switched from being based in more of a clinician theoretical orientation to what we know more at this point with the DSM 3, 4, 5, 5TR that's coming out that it moves to more of observable and behavioral criteria. Am I hearing that right?   Curt Widhalm  07:59 You are hearing that absolutely correct. And so what the DSM three allowed is, if somebody's not getting out of bed, that's a feature of depression.   Katie Vernoy  08:12 Yes   Curt Widhalm  08:13 Not based in whatever the DSM two criteria were before. Overall, as far as protecting, you know, diagnostics, making inter-rater diagnostics, a little bit more consistent. This is generally seen as a good thing.   Katie Vernoy  08:29 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  08:31 But some of the debates in the 60s and 70s, and has continued today is in the APA's interpretations of the Goldwater principle - I'm emphasizing principle here at this point  - is that there's some fear that if psychiatrists are making statements about political candidates, that if those candidates win, particularly executive offices within the US federal government, there may be fear that the federal government would reduce the reimbursement rates given to (particularly) psychiatrist for their services, under things like Medicare, and Medicaid.   Katie Vernoy  09:16 So it was -  there was money - money was talking here.   Curt Widhalm  09:19 Well, not necessarily any direct threats that I can find in my research about the setup of this, but there is the potential fear and who knows there may be a president that might punish particular agencies or sectors of the economy, if they are in fact elected. I don't know if that could potentially happen, but that's where the American Psychiatric Association's concerns seem to have been lying.   Katie Vernoy  09:47 And it seems like they may not have been too far off. So what was the original intention of the Goldwater principle then?   Curt Widhalm  09:58 So in some of our Research here and a lot of our conversation here right now so far as some history that is provided by the British Journal of Psychiatry article called "It is ethical to diagnose a public figure one has not personally examined". This is a debate written by John Gartner, Alex Lankford and Eileen O'Brien. Now in this, John Gardner had mentioned some personal communications that he had had with Dr. Allen Dyer, who was the last living member of the original APA ethics committee that drafted the APA Goldwater response in 1974.   Katie Vernoy  10:40 Wow   Curt Widhalm  10:41 This did lead me to looking at some more information that Allen Dyer has written and fortunately, Dr. Dyer has a blog, where he has written about the evolution of the so called Goldwater rule and ethical analysis.   Katie Vernoy  10:58 Can we put that in our show notes?   Curt Widhalm  11:00 We will include links and or references to everything that we can in our show notes. So this is from 2017 from this "Evolution of the so called Goldwater rule and ethical analysis." And from Dr. Dyer, I'm quoting here, "the first thing to appreciate about the so called Goldwater rule is that it is not a rule but rather a principle. The APA's code of ethics is the annotations applicable to psychiatry, of the AMA principle of medical ethics, which explicitly state that the principles are quote, 'not laws, but standards of conduct, which define the essentials of honorable behavior for the physician.' end quote - Much of the current discussion applies rule based legalistic thinking to a matter of professional judgment based on principle. In ethical theory, this would be a category mistake, attempting to transform a teleological end-based approach into a deontological or rule-based approach.   Katie Vernoy  12:07 Okay, ethics nerd, I was trying to follow you there. We've got teleological, and deontological. I think I'm gonna need a little bit of an explanation.   Curt Widhalm  12:18 Okay. So these are two different ways of looking at ethics and keeping this as kind of a shorter conversation because this isn't the point of the episode. But I think it helps to clarify what Dr. Dyer is saying here. Teleological is a type of consequentialist ethics. And what that means is that we need to look at the outcome of an action to determine if it was morally good or not. Whereas a deontological approach would be if there is any chance that an action could cause harm, you should not do that action.   Katie Vernoy  12:59 Okay. So if we're looking at deontological, it would be if something could be harmful, like client's in crisis in your office, need to be hospitalized? Do you drive them to the hospital or not? It sounds like a deontological deontological?   Curt Widhalm  13:18 deontologist,   Katie Vernoy  13:19 A deontologist, which doesn't sound like what it is, if a deontologist would say you should never have a client in your car, you should never drive your client to the hospital, you should never manage your client crisis alone.   Curt Widhalm  13:32 Yes, all of all of those lawyers and all of those insurance agents that would say, you know, oh, you got into an accident with with your client in the car, you are at fault for this. That is a deontological way of thinking.   Katie Vernoy  13:48 Okay, and then the teleological way would be that if you believe that you can be safe, you know this client needs to get to the hospital soon. You know, there's there's no transportation available, and it's going to be hours and hours. And this client is decompensating and needs to get to the hospital, but you have a strong relationship, you feel safe, you put them in your car, you get them over to the hospital, because the end justifies the means?   Curt Widhalm  14:15 Close and I guess maybe the the place of clarifying this is with the correct intent that if you reasonably believe that you could help this client get to the hospital and it was reasonably possible and something were bad to happen along the way - It's kind of more of the Good Samaritan approach that the intentions were correct. The the fallout of it ended up being maybe not ideal, but if there's the potential to cause good and as long as the intentions were good, you can morally judge that as good.   Katie Vernoy  14:53 Okay, but that still is sounding a little bit like the ends justify the means   Curt Widhalm  14:57 You You You are correct here -  In that this is what Dr. Dyer is saying -  this was -  he saying that this was written as a way of saying, use your judgment. Be, you know, predictably well. This, this subcommittee said, this is teleological. This is consequential. Have some professional judgment in doing this.   Katie Vernoy  15:21 Mm hmm.   Curt Widhalm  15:23 And what has happened over the last 40 plus years is it has been interpreted through an entirely different and competing moral viewpoint that everyone seems to be taking as well "just don't do this."   Katie Vernoy  15:38 Yeah. I see the complexity, though. Because if we're looking at maybe not exactly the ends justify the means, but something where we are relying on individual professionals to have a good assessment of their motives, to have a good assessment of what the consequence would be for public diagnosis, for example. Do we feel like we can trust our professionals to make that judgment? That the consequences are sufficiently positive and being able to work in that gray?   Curt Widhalm  16:14 And what Dr. Dyer is saying is that the APA says, No, those individual people can't make that decision.   Katie Vernoy  16:24 So we're looking at people making something very concrete, black and white, that actually has a lot of gray in it, and it's supposed to be professional judgment, not this is good, or this is bad.   Curt Widhalm  16:37 Yes. Now, Dr. Dyer goes on to say the second thing to appreciate is that the Goldwater caveat - called rule and understood by many psychiatrist as an absolute prohibition - is, in fact, embedded in an affirmative obligation of physicians to society, quote, "a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health." I take what Dr. Dyer is saying here, as the intention behind this was that psychiatrists should still be looking at improving the overall communities and public health that they work in, that there's an honor of being a medical professional to serving the greater good of society. And that this Goldwater caveat is that we maybe don't make diagnostics about people without evaluating them. But maybe when we feel that there is a sense of danger to somebody, we can use our professional - and in their case, medical - knowledge to be able to make communications about that.   Katie Vernoy  17:48 I'm not clear that that's what the Goldwater rule is being interpreted as now. Right. I mean, it seems like even saying anything has gotten to be taboo, according to the American Psychiatric Association.   Curt Widhalm  18:03 Oh, wait, there's more.   Katie Vernoy  18:05 Okay, okay. Keep going, keep going.   Curt Widhalm  18:09 Now, we also need to consider what the landscape of 1960s and 1970s world is as far as available information. I grew up in a part of the country at a point in my life, where, with an antenna and good weather, we could get maybe four television stations, the internet did not yet exist. Cell phones were a thing that was only imagined on the Jetsons that   Katie Vernoy  18:40 You and me both buddy, you and me both.   Curt Widhalm  18:43 This was several years after Mr. Goldwater was running for president. So the availability of information back at that time is much different than the landscape that we have today.   Katie Vernoy  18:54 Sure   Curt Widhalm  18:55 You know, I in my pocket normally carry a device that has more computing power than the first spaceships that went to the moon. Now, what I choose to do with it is make memes and send videos of cats to my wife. But I could also go and pull up videos of just about any public figure in a variety of different contexts that would allow for me as a mental health professional to at least say, yeah, what you're doing kind of looks "sus" as the kids who are using the language these days   Katie Vernoy  19:33 It's like "kind of looks what?" - suspect is that what you're saying is like for the old people in the audience, it's suspect that their your, your behavior looks suspect. All right?   Curt Widhalm  19:44 Yes. Now, in the intervening years, this is back to Dr. Dyer's blog, points out that the 2013 version of the principles and annotations preserves the original language of the 1973 version. But the 2015 APA commentary on ethics and practice takes a more administrative and specific tone. It preserves the affirmative ethical principle, better... of improving the community and betterment of public health through education and evidence based science. But says rather than offering opinions about a specific person, as the best means of facilitating public education, in some circumstances, such as academic scholarships, about figures of historical importance, exploration of psychiatric issues, for example, diagnostic conclusions. May be reasonably provided that it has sufficient evidence-base and is subject to peer review and academic scrutiny. It just means that you don't just go out as an individual and say, Here's my opinion. It needs to have a little bit of consensus here. But what the APA ethics committee did, instead, is started to reflect language that psychiatrists should not make any public statements about anybody no matter what. And this was really the beginnings of where the dangerous case of Donald Trump's how authored by Bandy X. Lee and colleagues ended up being a really big part of the debate here over the last now six years. And what the APA was seemingly trying to do is take the voice out of people saying, "hey, trust me, I'm a doctor. I know what I'm saying." And there were several questions and published across, you know, a number of different op eds, some that appeared in places like the New York Times that led to many of the professional organizations coming down more strictly on the emergence of the Goldwater rule. And this is where in March 2017, the American Psychiatric Association released a statement saying the APA remains committed to supporting the Goldwater rule.   Katie Vernoy  22:13 Ah   Curt Widhalm  22:14 And they gave three main points for the rationale of their opinion. Number one, when a psychiatrist comments about the behavior, symptoms, diagnosis, etc, of a public figure without consent, that psychiatrist has violated the principle that psychiatric evaluations be conducted with consent or authorization.   Katie Vernoy  22:35 So we're looking at consent as number one,   Curt Widhalm  22:38 Yes.   Katie Vernoy  22:38 Okay.   Curt Widhalm  22:40 Number two, offering a professional opinion on an individual that a psychiatrist has not examined, is a departure from established methods of examination, which require careful study of medical history, and firsthand examination of the patient. Such behavior compromises both the integrity of the psychiatrist and the profession.   Katie Vernoy  23:03 So that one sounds the most similar to the original intent, which is don't diagnose someone that you've not evaluated.   Curt Widhalm  23:10 Right,   Katie Vernoy  23:10 Right. Okay. And this is saying, don't do that, because it makes us look bad.   Curt Widhalm  23:18 Pretty much,   Katie Vernoy  23:19 Okay.   Curt Widhalm  23:20 And third, when psychiatrists offer medical opinions about an individual they have not examined, they have the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness.   Katie Vernoy  23:29 So we got there's no consent, it makes us look bad, and increases stigma.   Curt Widhalm  23:36 Yes.   Katie Vernoy  23:37 Okay.   Curt Widhalm  23:39 Now, turning this as maybe a question to you. You and I have both listened to a little bit of the news here in the last several years. What have you heard Donald Trump being diagnosed with?   Katie Vernoy  23:56 Malignant narcissism is one. He probably could be diagnosed with ADHD could potentially be diagnosed with psychopathy. I mean, like there's a lot of  - sociopathy, like there's - which I guess is malignant narcissism, but I've heard a lot of different suggestions about what's possible.   Curt Widhalm  24:17 And I've heard some people even suggesting things like dementia on top of that, just to be clear, these are things that Katie and I have heard, we're not actually   Katie Vernoy  24:28 We're not saying they're true. We're not diagnosing in public people!   Curt Widhalm  24:34 One of the op eds in the New York Times pointed out that in order for things like narcissism to be diagnosed, if you look in the DSM and particularly where we are today, the DSM five, that one of the features for diagnostics is that it has to be disturbing to the patient's themselves.   Katie Vernoy  24:58 Hmm.   Curt Widhalm  24:59 And therefore is actually an inaccurate use of a diagnostic, let alone the means to actually arrive there. Now, as I was mentioning earlier, there are lots of ways to get indirect observations of people these days. And maybe this calls into question the diagnosis or the diagnostic criteria of personality disorders where, hey, if one of the features of a personality disorder is that they're not bothered by the fact that they have that particular personality disorder, maybe that needs to be looked at in future DSMs. Maybe we'll talk to somebody someday about that. But in response to the APA reaffirming this   Katie Vernoy  25:47 for the American Psychiatric Association   Curt Widhalm  25:49 The American Psychiatric Association, in response to a op ed, published on New York times.com on March 7 2016, called "Should therapist analyze presidential candidates" on March 14 2016, the then president of the American Psychological Association - so taking this out of the medical realm and potentially a little bit more specific to providers of more traditional therapy - president of the American Psychological Association at the time, Dr. Susan H. McDaniel, wrote response to the article on whether therapists should analyze presidential candidates. And I'll read this in its entirety because it's about three paragraphs. "The American Psychological Association wholeheartedly agrees with Robert Klitzman PhD that neither psychiatrist nor psychologist should offer diagnoses of candidates, or any other living public figure they have never examined. Our association has declined requests from several reporters seeking referrals to psychologists who would make such speculations. Similar to the psychiatrist Goldwater rule, our Code of Ethics exhort psychologists to take precautions that any statements they make to the media are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice. And do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with people in the public eye, including political candidates. When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination adequate to support statements or conclusions. In other words, our ethical codes state that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined."   Katie Vernoy  27:40 So just diagnosis, it sounds like it also is going further into things that might be within the realm of psychology and not diagnosis. It was saying nothing could be in your professional opinion, unless you've done a an evaluation. And then there would be confidentiality issues. So the question that I have is - it just don't talk about public figures at all?   Curt Widhalm  28:06 That seems to be where both of the APAs are going with this language. Now, according to the Wikipedia article on the Goldwater rule, it is a citation needed statement on there. As you know, we're citing our references here. And I wasn't able to substantiate this claim that Dr. McDaniel received a lot of pushback from members of the American Psychological Association about her stance and interpretation of the American Psychological Association direction and intention with this, that apparently, many members of the American Psychological Association felt that this was too specific and restrictive. And that as long as they were framing it within the characteristics of hey, I haven't evaluated this guy, but based on these statements, and these misapplication of following through on his own things, yeah, this one presidential candidate seems to have this diagnosis. But of course, they were eventually talking about the opportunity to say this about Kanye West. Now, I recognize that most of our audience are probably not psychiatrists, and most of our audience are probably not psychologists. And so I want to create kind of some space as far as where do our other professional mental health associations take stances on these kinds of things. And that would be the American Counseling Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists, National Association for Social Workers. And Katie and my participation with the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists,  while a state Organization, they have 30 plus 1000 members, we generally give them a say in national discussions as well. But before we jump to more of these masters levels organizations, Katie, what are you feeling as far as - can we be talking about people publicly?   Katie Vernoy  30:16 So what I'm hearing is that you can, it's pretty clear that you should not diagnose publicly, I think the the folks who wrote The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump would disagree. But most of the time, so far, what you've talked about APA and APA, are saying don't diagnose. It seems like there's an ongoing discussion around whether we can give opinion on behavior. How are the psychiatrists and other folks about how are we analyzing that piece about... Can we talk about people in public?   Curt Widhalm  30:52 So this is going back to that British Journal of Psychiatry. And back to the point made by John Gartner. He says that you don't have to diagnose to warn, in some cases, people may use public figures as a way of educating the public about diagnostic criteria, such as narcissistic personality disorder, for example, and let readers draw their own conclusions: 'Hey, I haven't evaluated this particular candidate. These kinds of behaviors are generally consistent with narcissistic personality disorder. Once again, I haven't evaluated this person, they're not a patient of mine. Make your own conclusions.' I don't necessarily like that as a full, you know, greenlight to go ahead and do this. I think that, as you pointed out at the beginning of the episode, that there's a lot of nuance to this conversation. And as professionals, we have to foresee some of the responsibility of saying, 'I'm not gonna draw the conclusions for you, but I'm drawing the conclusions for you,' is not really good discussion of public health. But what Gartner's argument is, is that in the bottom line is many people may feel the duty to warn, and a duty to warn does not require a multi axial diagnosis. And he uses the example of someone who's bringing a gun to your house, you only need to know that somebody is bringing a gun into your house.   Katie Vernoy  32:29 Yeah,   Curt Widhalm  32:29 A diagnosis is not needed.   Katie Vernoy  32:31 When the question that I heard posed with it, or I read posed within that debate article, is that - Do we need opinions from psychological experts or psychiatric experts at all? Can we just not view it as a public as a general public? Can we not just view behavior and make our own assumptions and psychiatrists or therapists providing that expert opinion does more harm than good and isn't required?   Curt Widhalm  33:05 It's a topic worth diving into, you know, part of where seeing the public really destigmatize mental health in a lot of ways - and we've seen this reflected in our practices and the need for mental health services over the last several years - is the public is a lot more open to talking about the challenges they face. But a lot of people misdiagnose without the robust background of training of how to properly assess people. And, you know, how many people are you going to see on social media that's, you know, complained about, oh, I'm O... I'm so OCD, I need to straighten out the books on my shelf. That's not really a diagnostic of obsessive compulsive disorder and tends to diminish what actual obsessive compulsive disorder is for those who properly have that condition. It's something where leaving this discussion out into the public really allows for things to be watered down in such a way that some of these diagnostics tend to lose all meaning. So to answer your question, I think that it's healthy to have professionals with a background to be able to offer this opinion, it's a matter of how it's done that is potentially there. But so far with the information that we're seeing from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, is that any professional opinion about any public figure seems to be forbidden.   Katie Vernoy  34:41 So we're stuck with the experts being silenced. But then the guidance around how to actually provide expert opinions to the public seems to be a little bit limiting, at least from the two APAs.   Curt Widhalm  34:56 Yes.   Katie Vernoy  34:56 What are the master's level folks saying?   Curt Widhalm  34:59 That is an excellent question and I'm glad that you're bringing it up. Looking at the four codes of the masters level organizations. This was summarized pretty well in September of 2016 on psychotherapynotes.com by Dr. Ben Caldwell. And I'll expand on some of this because some of these things have been updated even since this blog post. But starting with the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy standard 3.11 simply requires that therapists exercise special care when making public their professional recommendations and opinions. There's no prohibition against diagnosing public figures according to AAMFT. Okay, the American Counseling Association as far as within their ethical code Standard C6C, says that counselors speaking with the media base their statements on appropriate counseling literature and practice to ensure that their statements are otherwise consistent with the ACA code of ethics, and to be clear about the nature of their relationship with those receiving the information. National Association of Social Workers - well, they talk about dishonesty and multiple standards. They also require social workers to protect client confidentiality when dealing with the media that standard 1.7K But they don't have any parallels to the Goldwater rule.   Katie Vernoy  36:38 Social workers really have no guidance at all, not very much anyway.   Curt Widhalm  36:43 CAMFT - This has been updated since Dr. Caldwell's blog here, but the CAMFT code of ethics 5.13 Public Statements, marriage and family therapist because of their ability to influence and alter the lives of others exercise caution when making public their professional recommendations, or their professional opinions, through testimony, social media and internet content, or other public statements. CAMFT also goes on to say 5.14 Limits of Professional Opinions, marriage and family therapists do not express professional opinions about an individual's psychological condition, unless they have treated or conducted an examination and assessment of the individual. Or unless they reveal the limits of the information upon which their professional opinions are based, with appropriate cautions as to the effects of such limited information upon their opinions. Now, how do you take this from the 4 master's level organizations?   Katie Vernoy  37:45 I mean, it's a little confusing to me. I think there's certainly caution that we need to take and not do this lightly, not pop off on our podcast, make sure that we're not just giving diagnosis willy nilly that we actually are cautious. Use our training, understand our training. And then also I hear- I think primarily from CAMFT but maybe from somebody other ones - that we need to make sure we put forward the limits that of information that we have, so I've not assessed this person or this is something I've not seen, but my statement is being based on this body of knowledge and this this information that I've been given. So it's a little more guidance, but it still is something where, you know, the rules... Ot just I mean, some of it feels like best judgment, which is a little bit more aligned to the the Goldwater principle. But it's it's still hard to know what's going to be in the best interest of society, of the our professions, of the individuals that are in the spot, the public, public eye that potentially are getting some of this stuff going on. Like it just feels really complex to make a decision around diagnosis or public statements.   Curt Widhalm  39:07 So in April of 2018, the American Counseling Association published an ethics update by Perry C Francis. Credited in counseling today, Perry Francis is a professor of counseling at Eastern Michigan University, and coordinator of the counseling and training clinic and the College of Education clinical suite, member of the American College Counseling Association, and he chaired the ethics revision task force that developed the 2014 ACA code of ethics. And summarizing many parts of the article, he also points to E5 of the ACA code of ethics which says, counselors take special care to provide proper diagnosis mental disorders, and dives into the discussion of what exactly is special care. And, in the description talks about that there's a list of behaviors and characteristics that make up not the entirety of a whole person. The DSM has been accused of being ethnocentric. And it's difficult to apply this to other cultures and contexts. Meanwhile, stakeholders like pharmaceutical companies welcome a growing list of diagnosable disorders and overall cautions that professionals who make real world statements might fail to take into account just the ramifications of what these statements might be saying, not only just to the public, but also to other businesses that work in mental health care. Therefore, as counselors according to Perry Francis, we need to take special care to ensure that any diagnosis is made using the most appropriate assessment techniques, including a well planned clinical interview and the most relevant instruments and tests. Part of taking that special care is taking into account the impact of culture on a client's life, including the fact that a client can live in multiple cultures. Perry Francis concludes this article by saying that the American Counseling Association has released a statement concerning publicly diagnosing the mental state of an individual. And it states in part, when publicly discussing public figures and others, professional counselors should avoid DSM and ICD related terms, especially the words diagnosis and disorder. Counselors should not attach a specific DSM or ICD diagnosis to any individual through messaging or statements in media outlets, or social media. Avoiding public statements that label an individual with a mental disorder is in the best interests of the public. This approach aligns with one of the counseling professions core professional values, as stated in the preamble of the ACA code of ethics, practicing in a competent and ethical manner.   Katie Vernoy  42:14 So that seems pretty clear to diagnosis.   Curt Widhalm  42:17 Yes,   Katie Vernoy  42:17 Right I mean, it's not about behavior. It's not saying this behavior as harmful like that's I mean, APA, both of the APAs seem to say like, Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, like anything you say about a person, a public figure is too much, whereas the at least ACA is now saying, as long as it's not a diagnosis, you're good.   Curt Widhalm  42:38 That seems that seems to be where the stance is here.   Katie Vernoy  42:42 Okay. So that's what the professional associations are saying. I mean, I don't... like I feel like we still need to talk about how someone would make these decisions.   Curt Widhalm  42:55 Well, let's take this out of the research and the publications here so far. Let's talk about, you know, what our observations of the landscape of our field is. You and I both know, hundreds, if not 1000s, of therapists at this point, many of whom were connected to on social media. We have lots of friends who are professionals who talk on podcasts and are connected in the media, some who are on TV shows, providing therapy.   Katie Vernoy  43:29 Yes,   Curt Widhalm  43:30 We see lots of people in these spaces talking about lots of things.   Katie Vernoy  43:34 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  43:34 What do you see?   Katie Vernoy  43:37 I mean, I see folks who are very open and talking about their own concerns. And so they're able to put forward their own mental health journey as an example. I see people talking about treatment between, you know, kind of how people treat each other and, and those types of things. I mean, I think the the treating someone on a TV show that feels like that's a, a demonstration of therapy with, hopefully, appropriate consents. And I don't I mean, besides our foray into having Bandy on the podcast, I've not seen someone, at least directly diagnose someone in public, I've seen people express concern about public figures or about the impact of public figures, but it feels a little bit more behavioral. And so kind of along the, this the second line, which is, you know, these behaviors are of concern, and this is why. But I don't know that I've seen a lot of the folks we know, kind of saying, like this person is a malignant narcissist. Like I don't necessarily see that -  although now that I just said it out loud. I think I probably have seen that as well. How about you? What are you seeing?   Curt Widhalm  44:48 Oh, I know a lot of our listeners are, you know, maybe have the same political ideologies as you and I. Maybe they're not. Maybe they make assumptions that they are. But what I do see is that especially as there becomes more advocacy within communities around a diagnosis - people coming from, for example, ADHD community, doing more to educate people about the things that go along with having ADHD that maybe extra, outside of the things listed within the DSM. Might see this same thing with any number of other diagnostic communities that come together. And what I see is also the inverse of some of these statements. And I particularly remember a time and seeing some discussions around Elon Musk making the claim that he was the first person with Asperger's to host Saturday Night Live. This is   Katie Vernoy  45:59 Yes,   Curt Widhalm  46:00 It's been some time in the past.   Katie Vernoy  46:01 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  46:02 And many people have some opinions about this statement. And a lot of the commentary that I saw was professionals who also self identified - and I don't know, their diagnostic criteria -  of being part of the Autistic community ended up feeling that either or making statements on their own social media that, hey, Elon Musk isn't one of us. Doesn't belong on the spectrum. Now, these are professionals, I don't, you know, remember, and I don't I'm not pulling them up here. But I think it's just as important to caution saying the absence of a diagnosis without evaluating somebody is potentially just as damaging or dangerous as it is that saying somebody is at a certain diagnosis.   Katie Vernoy  46:56 Now that you say that, I think there's also been an impulse, maybe impulse is the wrong word, but there's been some of the you're not, you know, you aren't representative of us, like you talked about whether it's Elon Musk, or an original poster. And then there's also in comments, well, you definitely have this diagnosis, you definitely seem depressed, or you definitely seem X. Like people offering more diagnostic, you know, beyond the like, you should talk to your therapist about this, more of a diagnostic, what you're describing in this 50, you know, 50 word post suggest to me that you must be X diagnosis. And so to me, I think we are a little fast and loose in the more casual public spaces, like social media groups, and those types of things. But I think there is an element of the inverse diagnosis that's interesting. Because I hadn't thought about it that way. Like certainly saying, hey, this person has this diagnosis, that seems pretty clear. But saying this person with a self who self identified doesn't have a diagnosis, how is that harmful but how do you say, what did you think? Why do you think that's harmful?   Curt Widhalm  48:12 We haven't presented somebody with a proper assessment ourselves to publicly comment on what their diagnosis is. If  - We may not know their medical or psychological history it may be and not framing it, within the context of where you're basing that opinion is where these ethics codes are saying that that is unethical behavior. That you may only be making a snap judgment based on, you know, a few clips of a sketch comedy show. You may be incredibly biased based on the types of news outlets that you receive your information from. And particularly, you know, somebody like Elon Musk that doesn't have quite the number of televised appearances that somebody like Donald Trump might, that the limited amount of available information that you have ends up becoming where if they truly do have this diagnosis, you as a professional are making a statement that invalidates their experience. And one of the main principles of all of our codes of ethics is a stance of nonmaleficence not creating harm.   Katie Vernoy  49:33 Yeah. It's interesting because I think it's it's harder, I think, for some of our audience to be like, well, poor Donald Trump, poor Elon Musk, poor billionaires. Right. And I think, in truth, we actually need to pay attention to that because to me, they're, you know, although some people might disagree with me, they're humans too. And they, they could be harmed by the statements that are made. For most of us, I think maybe I'm putting myself too much in that. I think it's easier to, to look at this as a problem, when it's someone who is more traditionally oppressed. You know, if someone who legitimately, whether they claim it or not, has a mental health diagnosis, it doesn't prove them unfit for, for being in a public position, whether it's, you know, a government official or whatever. Like, if we, if we start making the case that they are problematic. Not only are we potentially breaking the Goldwater rule, but we're also potentially increasing stigma, as as the APA said, but we're also potentially harming the ability to have a more diverse representative pool in our legislation. We may be oppressing folks, because we've made this our job to try to protect society from folks who are mentally ill. And that feels really bad. I think the arguments against doing this in a more directed way to public figures. That's where it sits with me as appropriate. Like I, I was celebrating the The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and I and I don't know that I would say like, Hey, that was a bad idea. But I think the precedent concerns me if we then use these types of stratagems to try to get folks either not elected or out of office.   Curt Widhalm  51:37 And bringing this back to earlier in the episode, the dangerous case of Donald Trump's pretty significant portion of that book is the arguments of the needing to step outside of the code of ethics as far as a duty to warn, that does not necessarily focus on the diagnostic criteria, but more so on behaviors that interpersonally end up feeling dangerous to people who have spent their career studying dangerous behaviors.   Katie Vernoy  52:11 Sure, and listening to Bandy speak in our conference, like she was talking about the the problem of violence. And there were specific, very public displays of incitement to violence or violence by Donald Trump that I think was potentially where she based her concern about and her duty to warn.   Curt Widhalm  52:32 And it also comes from a decade's long history of that being her particular area of study and specialty.   Katie Vernoy  52:40 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  52:41 Which is quite a bit different in a number of ways of picking a celebrity and a random page in the DSM and going through some sort of BuzzFeed type evaluation and throwing your opinion out on the internet.   Katie Vernoy  52:59 Which is kind of what the original Goldwater thing was right? It was a magazine reaching out to a whole bunch of psychiatrists who were like, "Yeah, I think he's nuts.   Curt Widhalm  53:11 Pretty much   Katie Vernoy  53:12 It was, I mean, granted, it was a pool of folks. But it sounds like you described it as all over the place. And it wasn't something where they even necessarily individually, were thinking, oh, this is going to be public record. It was more like, oh, in the aggregate, this is kind of fun. I'm anonymously, putting forward my opinion about a candidate I don't like.   Curt Widhalm  53:34 And so this does bring to the overall discussion that making public statements as viewed by any of these professional organizations, does include even your own personal social media.   Katie Vernoy  53:48 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  53:49 And there needs to be the caution. And this is really the emphatic point here. There needs to be the caution of how you're framing these statements. One of my Facebook memories said recently, was about the day that Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. And for listeners of the podcast, I think I've described before I was in a pretty serious bike accident about 10 years ago. And one of my social media posts from Inauguration Day was of the presidential limo driving down the streets of Washington, DC, solely in the bike lane. And my response, I mean, they had all the streets closed down his parade, it was not great. But yeah, my statement was, as a survivor of a pretty traumatic bike accidents, this administration is not off to a good start. Now, you obviously get the humor of this, you know, maybe even you know if you were to read too much into my statements - oh is is that trauma speaking is that, you know, that, and I'm talking about my own, you know, experiences and potential mental health here, but you got the humor out of it knowing me?   Katie Vernoy  55:13 Sure. Yes, I do.   Curt Widhalm  55:15 But it was not about Donald Trump, it was about the administration.   Katie Vernoy  55:19 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  55:20 And there is a crafting that we need to consider in making any of these kinds of statements, we're all going to have opinions about many different people. And that is fine. Your responsibility as a professional is to know that every statement that you make, that goes outside of the very privacy of your own home, which does include things that you put on the internet, can be taken as fact, as a professional who's speaking. And that opens you up to ethical and legal liabilities.   Katie Vernoy  55:57 I think that's really strong. And I think I'd like to get even a little bit more specific on some ideas around this, because to me, there's an element of public figures that we've not talked about yet that I think is important to consider. I know -  and I'm sure you've had this happen too -  that I will meet someone for the first time. And they say, I feel like I know you, I listened to the podcast. And we are small potatoes compared to a President of the United States. I think there's an element to us feeling like we know public figures based on how they present to the public, and the things that they do. And I think the more time you spend in public, the more of your real self shows up, I think we discount that some people play a role, arguably people will have, the more time they spend in public, the more likely they are to show their real self. But there is a version of this where Trump's acting all the time, and it is playing a role in order to get what he wants. And does that suggest, narcissism maybe. But if it's all pretend, can we really diagnose him? You know, and I think with the the limitations of the knowledge that we have, I think we have to be very cautious about what we say. We don't know someone based on a small snippet of social media, or even sometimes, our long videos of their behavior. I think we do need to be cautious of saying, Well, we have enough information, we can make this diagnosis. We have a whole episode or several episodes on people making assumptions on the internet. So we can link to some of those in the show notes as well. And so to me, I think it comes back to what information do I actually have. Making sure I discussed the limits of the information. And then I think the third thing that is really important is what is my intent. And this is, you know - for all the DBT Folks, this is getting into wise mind - and I think for those of us who are advocates, it's determining is this strategic? Is this about trying to win an election? Like it was with the Goldwater stuff? Is it about a duty to warn, because society is going down rapidly and we need to call this out and, and name it, or anything else? Like what is the actual intention? Am I angry? Am I scared? How is that impacting my judgment? I think it's something where if we just speak from a place of seat-of-my-pants, this is what I'm seeing and it's scary. And it's awful, because this person is politically different from me, I think we get very, very in a very, very dangerous territory as a society.   Curt Widhalm  58:52 To conclude all of this - I think you're summarizing it very, very well - is that for many of our professional organizations that we may belong to, at the masters level, there is not a ethical code that necessarily forbids this.   Katie Vernoy  59:11 Yeah   Curt Widhalm  59:12 You need to really be cautious about framing the information upon how you're basing your opinions. And in general, I would stop well short of, you know, leaving the trail of breadcrumbs up to a diagnosis, if you do have personal and professional concerns about somebody who may be out there and expressing this, whether you put it on your social media, or what you think is your personal social media. Most professional organizations are still going to look at that as a professional statement. That you very carefully framed the context of where you're discussing these things from.   Katie Vernoy  59:54 Yeah   Curt Widhalm  59:54 And I think that in several of these articles that we've been citing here - and we willl put the references in our show notes at mtsgpodcast.com - that what has changed since 2016, when this debate really started and why we feel that it's still a relevant discussion today, is that some of these professional organizations have clamped down even harder in the last few years.   Katie Vernoy  1:00:24 Yeah.   Curt Widhalm  1:00:24 And some of the information that's available out there or pops up to the top of your search engines is not necessarily the most up-to-date information. It's important to understand the historical context that where professional organizations are today is not where they started back when the Goldwater principle was first suggested. Some of these articles now we're calling it the Goldwater doctrine, without necessarily putting it into any sort of ethical rigor to move things from a guiding principle to a absolute gag rule. So our recommendation is, for most of you it's not forbidden to make public commentary. But really, really make sure that you frame any sort of statements or exaspirations or social media posts in ways that really frame how you are coming to your conclusion and what your relationship (or lack there of) is to the person that you're talking about. We would love to hear your thoughts on this. You can let us know on our social media or in our Facebook group, the modern therapist group, you can find our Show Notes and references at mtsgpodcast.com. And stay tuned for more information on how to get continuing education for listening to this podcast. Until next time, I'm Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy.   Katie Vernoy  1:02:02 Just a quick reminder, if you'd like one unit of continuing education for listening to this episode, go to moderntherapistcommunity.com purchase this course and pass the post test. A CE certificate will appear in your profile once you've successfully completed the steps.   Curt Widhalm  1:02:17 Once again, that's modern therapist community.com   Katie Vernoy  1:02:21 Thanks again to our sponsor Buying Time   Curt Widhalm  1:02:24 Buying Time's VAs support businesses by managing email communications, CRM or automation systems, website admin and hosting email marketing, social media, bookkeeping and much more. Their sole purpose is to create the opportunity for you to focus on supporting those you serve while ensuring that your back office runs smoothly with a full team of VAs gives the opportunity to hire for one role and get multiple areas of support. There's no reason to be overwhelmed with running your business with this solution available.   Katie Vernoy  1:02:53 book a consultation to see where and how you can get started getting the support you need. That's buyingtimellc.com/book-consultation once again, buyingtimellc.com/book-consultation.   Curt Widhalm  1:03:08 Hey everyone, Curt and Katie here. If you love this longer form content and would like to bring the conversations deeper, please support us on our Patreon. For as little as $2 per month we're able to bring you more content, exclusive offerings and more opportunities to engage in our growing modern therapist community. These contributions help us to expand our offerings for continuing education events and a whole lot more.   Katie Vernoy  1:03:33 If you don't think you can make a monthly contribution no worries we also have a Buy Me a Coffee profile for one time donations. Support us at whatever level that you can today it really helps us out. You can find us at patreon.com/MTSGpodcast or buy me a coffee.com/modern therapist. Thanks everyone.   Announcer  1:03:54 Thank you for listening to the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide. Learn more about who we are and what we do at mtsgpodcast.com. You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter. And please don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss any of our episodes.

INTRODUCTION:This is the third and final installment in our three part series which has been focusing on the clobber passages from the bible and the general disgusting anti-alphabet community rhetoric that conservatives like to spew forth out of their cockholsters. It's hard when we get rejected for being who are but the Lord says that even if your very father and mother forsake you then the Lord will take you up. Be encouraged my people and let's stop hurting ourselves, especially over what other people have to say. If you have a moment please visit Marcia's blogs and leave comments at PolitialTheologyMatters.com. Let's go! INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to):·       Discussion Of The “Clobber” Passages Used To Bash The LGBTQIA+ Community·       The HYPOCRISY Of Conservative “Christians”·       Focus On Sodom And Gomorrah ·       Suicide Related To Church Abuse·       Diminished Self-Esteem Due To Church Fuckery·       The Foolishness Of Conversion Therapy (Watch Pray Away On Netflix)·       How rape ties in to all of this. ·       Not Letting People Come In Between Us And Our Creator·       How Churches And Pastors Abuse Power·       Why I Extend My Middle Finger To Conservative Judgmental Motherfuckers!!!·       Safe Denominations For LGBTQIA+ Peeps BLOG:·       https://www.politicaltheologymatters.com/stop-clobbering-lgbtqia-people-with-the-bible/  CONNECT WITH MARCIA:Website: https://www.politicaltheologymatters.comFaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/politicaltheologymattersLinkedIn: https://linkedin/marcialedfordTwitter: https://twitter.com/docledfordInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/docledford/ MARCIA'S RECOMMENDATIONS:·       How To Think Theologically: https://amzn.to/3hkvdfN DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS:·       Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)           -https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370           -TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs SDJ MEMBERSHIP OPTIONS (FULL EPISODES):·       $2.99 per month.·       Donate any amount for 30 days of full access.·       $25 per year.https://www.sexdrugsandjesus.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ TRANSCRIPT:[00:00:00] You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right. At the end of the day, my name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world. As we dig into topics that are too risky for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your.[00:00:24] There was nothing on the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.[00:00:34] [00:00:34] De'Vannon: This is the third and final installment in our three part series, which has been focusing on the clobber passages from the Bible and the general disgusting anti alphabet community rhetoric that conservatives like to spew forth out of their cock holsters. It's hard when we get rejected for being who we are.[00:00:52] But the Lord says that even if your father and your mother forsake you, then the Lord himself will take you up. [00:01:00] So be encouraged my people and let's stop hurting ourselves, especially over what other people have to say. If y'all have a moment, please visit Marcia's blogs and leave comments at www.politicaltheologymatters.com[00:01:10] Let's go! All right, Dr. Marsha, welcome back to this show for the third time. There's nothing like a good three way baby. And so,[00:01:35] and so y'all today, we are going to be continuing our series dealing with homosexuality and the Bible, and, um, we're happy to have the good Reverend that bag with us today. She's written a phenomenal blog on her website. Political theology matters that org. And so today we're going to be [00:02:00] focusing on Sodom in the Maura primarily, but we're still going to talk about a couple other things.[00:02:06] So, uh, Marsha, go ahead on and tell us a little bit about your history and your fabulous website, and then we'll get right into it. [00:02:15] Marcia: Well, I sensed to called ordination as a teenager, as a kid. And first I wasn't seeing women at the alter or the pulpit. Uh, so I decided to go into law because I thought that would be a way to be a part of a helping profession.[00:02:34] And I became a civil rights attorney and worked primarily within the LGBTQ community. Uh, back in the day when aids was rearing its ugly head for the first time. And, uh, I represented, uh, lesbian and gay parents who were, uh, in, at risk of losing custody of their children because they were considered to be [00:03:00] morally unfit.[00:03:01] Uh, just because of their sexual orientation. Uh, but over time I became increasingly discouraged or maybe, uh, disappointed because you can't really argue that gospel in court and expect to be successful. Uh, so I finally relented to that call of the holy spirit to become, um, an ordained priest in the Episcopal church.[00:03:29] And that's what I've been doing since. Um, and I, my first, um, full ministry was in the Latino communities of Southwest Detroit, and I became appalled at what I saw as a civil rights attorney. Um, in terms of what we're doing to families by splitting them up with our, uh, our archaic immigration laws. And so I decided to study political theology because it's a beautiful convergence [00:04:00] of my love of the gospel and my love of our constitution.[00:04:04] So I started political theology matters and I write, speak, teach, preach, and help the faithful get equipped for, uh, being faith-based advocates in the public square for greater social justice. [00:04:21] De'Vannon: Well, we can just about close on that note.[00:04:28] Well, put, well put, okay. So like I said earlier, we've done two episodes already covering some of the main, uh, passages that people use to try to be anti LGBT Q. Um, today we're doing another one and we're going to cover a few more. And then later on, uh, March is going to be releasing yet another blog that takes it even further.[00:04:53] So we'll be sure to tune into her website for that. Um, so [00:05:00] let's see. So one, one thing from this blog and this particular blog that we're focusing on is called stop clobbering, the LGBTQ people exclamation mark in. So, um, in there you mentioned that people use biblical texts to tell us that we are broken, that we're less than, that were perverted, that were degenerate, that were abominations, et cetera.[00:05:24] I want you to speak to that. Uh, tell us why you wrote that while you feel that way and how it applies to all seven, because there are seven clobber passages that are primarily used and tell us how this all ties into all of them. [00:05:38] Marcia: Well, sure. Um, The seven passages that are used, uh, co have caused considerable damage.[00:05:47] And they have caused people to take their lives. When people use these passages to clubber or be LGBT people over the head with them, [00:06:00] the spiritual fracture, that many experience can be enough for them to just give up and take their lives. And we have got to stop that for the people who use these passages for the purpose of clobbering us over the head.[00:06:21] Uh, they need to stop it. And so I decided for pride month this year that I was going to do three blogs or four blogs about the seven passages and I grouped them together. Um, I did the two Leviticus passages together. We covered that last week. I did the three vice lists that occur in the epistles of the new Testament.[00:06:51] Um, two are attributed to Paul and one is a pseudo Paul or his school. And we covered those in our first [00:07:00] episode. And today we're going to cover, uh, the one that I think has been the most misused, which is the story of Saturday. And I compare it with another, uh, situation to underscore what ancient hospitality was supposed to be like in judges 19.[00:07:20] So we're going to talk about that one today. And then I have one last blog to go up that covers the seventh collaborative passage, which is about Noah and his sons. And we'll get into that towards the end of the show. But, um, I'll tell you a little story too. When I was in seminary, um, there's a, uh, uh, LGBTQ drop-in center in Detroit and I periodically would go over there, um, and just be a spiritual presence with the kids, because a lot of them had been put out of the house at the behest of their pastors [00:08:00] because they'd come out.[00:08:05] So I was walking up this very steep staircase. And at the top of the staircase at the drop-in center was a big whiteboard that said, how are you feeling today? And in big block letters centered both ways. The word that appeared was abomination.[00:08:30] That's what beating people over the head with a Bible does to them, to their self-esteem, to their sense of self-worth all of this things. And I thought to myself, this is the same shit different decade. This is how I felt 30 years ago. And we have got to stop it. So, and this is a little side story, but, uh, I created a page called the [00:09:00] Lazarus lives project, which is on Facebook and it's open and you can go join there.[00:09:05] And I post positive stuff for our communities, uh, about being faithful members of Christ's holy vineyard, as LGBTQ plus people. And yes, it's possible and you don't have to choose between them. Um, and it's called the Lazarus lifts project because the closet is like a two and Jesus called Lazarus out of the grave.[00:09:35] Uh, and I believe that Jesus calls us out of the closet and out of hiding and being ashamed. So there you go. Now let, so we're going to turn to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you're ready there to Vanna 'cause I go with you? We have, [00:09:59] De'Vannon: we, [00:10:00] we will get, uh, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but I wanted to touch on something about conversion therapy because, um, uh, it just came out on Netflix and I feel like that this ties in to what we're talking about.[00:10:21] Uh, it's called pray away. I haven't seen [00:10:24] Marcia: it yet, but I'm going to watch it. [00:10:26] De'Vannon: It just came out on Netflix. I watched it last night and, um, and, uh,[00:10:34] Because in the blog you write, many of us have suffered damage and even PTSD from conversion therapy to turn a straight and sell. And so I felt like that, that this documentary that, that just dropped with the work that you've just done, you know, or so, you know, on brand. And so in tandem with one another now, um, in, in, in the documentary, you know, one of the main people [00:11:00] who used to run exit is, and exit is, was like the main, I don't know if they are, you know, conversion therapy, shit show, clown show, um, you know, in the country.[00:11:10] And now you got these people who used to lead it, who were on the documentary are still quite gay. And they're like[00:11:20] all the damage. They didn't die. At least they're doing, you know, doing this documentary. But, you know, for years they went around telling everybody. You know, God healed me. He took the gay away and something's wrong with you. You're still gay and other going in, nevermind. We were wrong and we're still gay.[00:11:39] And, and, and, uh, but one of them said that it got to a point because he was married. He had had two sons, but he was like watching gay porn and his wife would catch catches, catch him with his gay porn, uh, and everything. And he was like, it got to a point that he was either [00:12:00] going to have to, you know, leave her and leave the lie he was living or kill himself.[00:12:05] It was, those were his two choices he had come up. And so it made me think about when I got kicked out of Lakewood church and they were trying to do conversion therapy with me in the form of here, read these books and. You know, you know, and go be an usher cause you can't be in the choir around children anymore, you know, you know, until you become on gay.[00:12:29] And one way in the documentary that they were talking about, they would do conversion therapy would be like readings and counseling sessions and things like that. They had group meetings and everything, you know, of people confessing their evil, gay desires. Then they also took away of course, masturbation and basically anything that wasn't this, not a man and a woman at copulating, everything else is the devil, you know, but tell us about the harm of conversion therapy and what [00:13:00] fuckery that is.[00:13:02] Marcia: Well, first of all, um, I have, uh, uh, I, and I don't mean to sound like snobbish about this, but I do think that this is super important. Um, I have a psychology degree from my bachelor's degree. And just on that alone, because I didn't go into that field professionally with say a master's degree or whatever, uh, to become a counselor.[00:13:29] But I could readily understand just from the bachelor work that I did that, uh, counseling people about, um, you know, basic human emotions and activities is a very serious business. That's why we license it. That's why we licensed it because we put people through their paces and they have to study and they have to prepare and they have to take board [00:14:00] examinations, just like lawyers and doctors and architects and accountants.[00:14:08] Um, and there's a reason for that because it needs to be standardized and it needs to be carefully monitored when you start. Uh, trying to counsel people without proper training, you are asking for trouble. And that's what a lot of these churches do. And they hide it under the guise of spiritual formation or, you know, spiritual preparation or whatever.[00:14:37] It's very dangerous, very, very dangerous. I would never want to take that kind of a risk with another human being, trying to counsel them and act professionally with them. If I was not properly trained and people do have post-traumatic stress disorder from conversion therapy, [00:15:00] this is, um, really you can't overstate.[00:15:05] Uh, the point of how dangerous it is to start dabbling. And I say death. And something that you are not prepared to do. And we know that conversion therapy doesn't work because in studying human sexuality, we understand that sexual orientation is an indelible. You can't make straight people gay and you can't make gay people straight.[00:15:34] So why the arrogance and presumption of straight people that, that, you know, trying to change? People's a good thing. That's the other part of this? There's an arrogance that heterosexuality is superior. All this stuff works on an individual who's in this conversion situation, basically telling them that they're worthless.[00:16:00] [00:16:01] Like the fellow that was, you know, ill prepared and being dishonest with himself in the documentary and came to the point where it was either just exit life or leave the life that he had and leave his children.[00:16:19] And, uh, who wants that kind of responsibility. That's, that's one of the questions that I ask. [00:16:28] De'Vannon: And he was also, he was also, sorry, not to cut you off. That guy was also like the spokesperson, the face of the hill exit and exit exited some movement. So that was another burden that he had, he had [00:16:42] Marcia: to. Yeah. I mean, he, I can't imagine too, just living such an incredible lie, you know, your whole, your whole life is.[00:16:56] Yeah. Everything about what you do [00:17:00] and say and how you act. And all of it is a big lie. Why [00:17:05] De'Vannon: do that? Yeah. And then he got, he went to Washington, DC on business. God got tipsy and went to a gay bar. And then of course he was spotted. And then somebody called like a reporter or some shit that was waiting on him when he came outside to take his picture.[00:17:19] Cause he was, he rose to national fame. He was like the spokesperson for Exodus. And now he's in a bar, you know, turning up while the wife and kids are,[00:17:33] Marcia: it's really sad, but you also, you know, if you're going to give it, then you better be ready to get it. If, if you're going to mess en masse with people's lives like that, you've got to come. [00:17:47] De'Vannon: You do. And they said in the documentary, like what you're saying, they, weren't not actually professionally trained to be counseling people on any of this.[00:17:55] And so what they did was they hired people with psychological [00:18:00] psychology degrees, but it's not like you can go to school and learn, you know, get a doctorate in conversion therapy. You can get like a psychology degree then act like you're an expert fondant. And then multiple people will believe you. And so that's what they did to add fire to.[00:18:16] It was, Hey, this person has an acronym was behind their name. So just us religious fanatics over here, though, they were for religious addicts. And so they use that to deceive people even further. Now, these people were going on talk shows, you know, this was huge. And now all of these people are in this documentary saying, oops, Nevermind.[00:18:38] Bye. Right. Right. [00:18:40] Marcia: And the other thing to remember with respect to these psychologists who were willing to be a participant's participants in this, uh, shit show. Okay. Thank you. That's good. Um, and [00:19:00] there's a giant manual called the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental health disorders. The DSM that's what we call it in 1973, homosexuality was removed as a disorder, 1973 in the DSM three.[00:19:21] It has Roman numerals after it by edition. We're at DSM five. It hasn't been put back in. So when psychology licensed psychologists are engaged in this kind of a practice, even though the DSM five does not list this as a disorder, I've got a real issue with that. I've got a real issue with that because the American psychiatric association spends a lot of time on those DSMs.[00:19:54] De'Vannon: They do, um, [00:19:56] Marcia: you know, experts from all over the country, [00:20:00] participate in creating that DSM each edition that comes out. [00:20:05] De'Vannon: That that to me is like malpractice. If you, if somebody in the psychological field goes out of scope of what's in the DSM, because even, even as I, and I'm don't know if you've been really suing somebody for malpractice, if they do something outside of the DSM.[00:20:18] But I think for a lot of it, you can, uh, cause when, even when I was taking my hypnotherapy training, there was stuff in there and the DSM that. You know that as a, as a, as a certified him, the therapist that I have to abide by, you know, I can't just make up my own shit or say, well, the DSM didn't know what it's talking about either.[00:20:38] So I'm just going to do it anyway. You know, work that way. Or as a massage therapist, I can't be like, okay, massage, you know, rules, fuck you. I'm just going to do this, do this other shit over here. It doesn't work that way. [00:20:53] Marcia: That's why, that's why we regulate these professions. That's why we do that. Exactly.[00:20:59] [00:21:00] So it's wrong on so many levels. Uh, and we have to put a stop to it. [00:21:10] De'Vannon: And so some of the fuel that people use to take advantage of people who are mentally weak, you know, and. Are these clobber passages. But you know, when, when I think about it, Marsha, the only reason why I say, like I ever thought there was anything ever wrong with me in the first place was because of what somebody else told me.[00:21:33] It's not like I came to that conclusion by myself and all those people I watched in the video. So many people that I know who have questioned, who they are, hated themselves. Like I used to hate myself and try to become on gay, you know? And I've thought about it recently. I'm like, why the fuck did I ever think that way about myself?[00:21:51] And it was not, it was because of what somebody else said. And I didn't fact check them [00:21:58] Marcia: out. Th [00:22:00] the embedded theology that was put on. Your elders and teachers and church leaders embedded you with this idea [00:22:11] De'Vannon: and some of what they use are these copper passages. And so now we go to Genesis 19 and we talk about Sodom and Gomorrah and, um, And I'll, I can read it since you're going to be expounding.[00:22:27] You're going to be preaching. So I'll be the reader for you in church today. Hallelujah. So, and amen. So Genesis 19 and in the blog, she has like a backdrop of Genesis 18 and everything, but, um, and then she can tell you about that, but I'm just going to read Genesis 19. So it says the two angels came to Sodom in the evening and lot was setting in the gate of Sodom.[00:22:50] When lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, my Lord to turn aside, I pray you to your servants house and spend the night and wash your feet. [00:23:00] Then you may rise up. Erlin go on your way. They said, no, we will spend the night in the street, but he urged them strongly.[00:23:06] They turned, assigned to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread. And they ate the, before they lay down the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man surrounded the house. And they called to lot. Where are the men who came to you tonight?[00:23:22] Bring them out to us that we may know them lot. Went out of the door to the man, shut the door after him and said, I beg you, my brothers do not act so wickedly behold, I have two daughters who you have, who ha who have not known, man, let me bring them out to you and do them as you please only do nothing to these men where they have come under the shelter of my roof, that they say it, stand back and they say, This fellow came to so Jaren and he would play the judge.[00:23:48] Now we will deal worse with you than with them. And they press hard against the man lot and drew near to break the door, but the men put forth their hands and brought light into the house to them and shut the door. And they, the angels [00:24:00] struck with blindness, the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great so that they were themselves groping for the door, preach, preacher,[00:24:18] Marcia: this is a bad example of ancient hospitality.[00:24:25] We can start right there. I don't want to say a couple of things though, about the Bible itself. A lot of times there are folks who will tell you, you know, that the Bible is, um, has no mistakes. No, no. It's in errant. There are no errors. You must believe every single word that comes off the page. Literally this is a fundamentalist view, but it's problematic.[00:24:56] And first of all, it's because the Bible didn't just fall [00:25:00] out of the sky. One day, the Bible was written over centuries. Uh, the new Testament covering the life, uh, death and resurrection of Jesus was not, um, really fully complete until the second or third century after his death.[00:25:26] And there was a lot of argument within the councils about what to include and what not to include. And the old Testament is far older and very complex because not a lot of it was written. Um, at the time things were going on. A lot of it was written after things had happened, like the new Testament, but it spans a longer period of time.[00:25:55] And so we've got to be very careful about that. Um, [00:26:00] and it's important to look within the biblical Canon sometimes at passages that happened right before, or right after a text that we're studying. And that's because as we talked about last time and the time before context is very important, when you get a story, it's usually because something else has already happened that we need to know about and understand.[00:26:27] And then that serves as a building block for stories that come after it. So, uh, Divan and read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which basically is strangers show up lot, takes them in that part of it. He does. Okay. The men find out and they want to, um, have them come, come out and rape them,[00:27:00] [00:27:02] uh, because it was a time of war. Uh, there were always spies. It was a way to gain, uh, physical and emotional power over a rape victim. So this is not what you would call good hospitality. So if we look at the chapter before Abraham and Sarah are visited by angels, And here we get an excellent, a Superbowl example of ancient hospitality.[00:27:38] Um, when you were traveling in those times, first of all, it was hot as could be. And there was no shade out and about away from the cities, it was a lot of desert. Um, and so people got very hot and very thirsty and tired trying to endure that heat. Um, when you [00:28:00] were outside of a city, you were said to be outside of the law.[00:28:04] So that's, uh, you can think of it like being an outlaw. Like you're not protected by any municipality. Like there's no local cops that are going to come and help you if abandoned way lays you and beats you and takes your stuff. So when you came upon a city, it was very important to reciprocate hospitality because everybody would experience some situation where they had to travel.[00:28:31] So you want it to be kind to strangers and take them in and, you know, give them some clean water to wash their feet and have a big drink and something to eat and a place to rest. This was all super, super important in that culture. So these three men come up to Abraham. He doesn't know that they're angels.[00:28:53] Those were where the expression comes, where you're helping angels unaware. Okay. [00:29:00] So they come up and he says, please let me be your servant. He's very, self-effacing he, you know, he says, let me give you a little water for your feet and rest under a tree in the shade. And we'll bring you a morsel of bread and you may refresh yourselves and stay with us over the night and then move on your journey.[00:29:21] All very well done. And then on top of that, he has a calf killed, which is a big deal. They didn't need a lot of meat. Normally it was mostly the proceeds from the animals and the milk, and she's in grain breads and whatnot. So they kill the fatted calf. They put out a spread, they use choice flour. Um, uh, they sat under the tree while they ate and Abraham did not eat with them because he, you know, I think so that they could have more to eat.[00:29:52] He didn't share this meal, even though it was a meal of extravagance. That's really. Amazing [00:30:00] [00:30:00] De'Vannon: what lottery Abraham. He said Abraham, [00:30:03] Marcia: uh, Abraham in the story with the angels lot is the story with Gomorrah, Sodom and Gomorrah. [00:30:13] De'Vannon: Did I, did I mess that up? [00:30:17] Marcia: Okay. No, it's Abraham and Sarah who post the angels and they don't know their angels until later.[00:30:25] And then they say, okay, now we're going to go to Sodom and Gomorrah and see what happens. All right. And we know what happens. It's not good. Um, so this is not a story that condemns same sex interactions. It sounds like it is, but it isn't. And there may have been some tension with lot. Like he was not originally from there.[00:30:55] So he was not, you know, a citizen there and it looked like maybe [00:31:00] he was showing them up by taking them in and you know, that kind of stuff. And that may have wrinkled, uh, the, the citizens of Saddam. [00:31:10] De'Vannon: Do you think that they were all necessarily men? Because I know a lot in the old writings that they don't include women.[00:31:19] It's not that they weren't there, but they thought so little of women, you know, in those traditions know that they don't, they'll say like, you know, all the men gathered, but it doesn't mean that there weren't women too. So do you think that they were women in the streets? I don't think so. [00:31:35] Marcia: Okay. Uh, business was conducted at the gate, you know, lots near the gate, whatnot.[00:31:41] Uh, women did not participate in that. Um, this was a show of force. This was about asserting, uh, physical and military dominance potentially. Okay. So, no, I don't think that women were involved in this one. Um, [00:32:00] so to recap, um, let's compare the hospitality that goes on between the two stories. Okay. So lot w rises to meet the strangers in Sodom, but Abraham ran to them.[00:32:20] So a lot shows less enthusiasm. He, uh, only served unleavened bread, whereas Abraham and Sarah served cakes of choice, flour and freshly prepared before. Uh, lot eight with the angels, but Abraham stood off to the side, uh, presumptively, so the guests would have more to eat. Okay. So just even at the beginning of this, the story is very different and that is important.[00:32:50] Um, let's see. So I mentioned the mob [00:33:00] had been angry with lot who like shows them up in terms of his hospitality by taking in the strangers. Uh, he's a resident alien. He's not even from there and he's, you know, maybe, um, you know, trying to show them up and they don't like that. Um, and then, you know, uh, it was for men, for fathers to do with their daughters.[00:33:26] What they please it's just really that simple. So to calm them down, he offers his Virgin daughters, um, which we have a problem with. Um, I would like to think that, uh, everybody would have had a problem with this, but not necessarily as we'll see in the judge's story in just a minute. Um, so, uh, this threatened male to male rape, uh, is somewhat thwarted because one of the angels [00:34:00] intervenes as lots, trying to reason with them and the, the men are struck blind and lot is jerked back into the house.[00:34:08] They grab him and pull him right back in because he was about probably to get quite the beating. Um, This is this. And it's very differently than the story of the angels that are with Abraham and Sarah. Very, very different. But what happens is, is we talked about this before. This is, uh, a way to read into the text because you don't like homosexuality.[00:34:36] This is about having a pretext or an agenda about, uh, you know, having proof. We call this proof texting, where you try to twist a passage around to prove your point. And that's how this has been used. This is about rape. It really doesn't matter what the genders of the participants are. [00:35:00] This is about, uh, hurting somebody, uh, sexually molesting them, um, possibly, you know, um, killing them in the process.[00:35:12] That's what the story is about. So are we good on that? [00:35:22] De'Vannon: Okay. Now [00:35:25] Marcia: go ahead. And then, uh, if we look at the story, uh, at the city of Gibeah, we have also something very similar and in that instance, uh, not only was raped, threatened. But rape occurred. [00:35:42] De'Vannon: Now we're getting over into the judges [00:35:44] Marcia: and we're moving over into judges.[00:35:45] Do you want to read that one for us? Yep. [00:35:47] De'Vannon: So judges 22, as they were making their hearts and Mary, the whole, the men of the city based the fellows beset the house around about beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house and bringing out the man who came into [00:36:00] your house, that we may know him and the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, no, my brother and do not act so wickedly seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing.[00:36:12] They hold here and my Virgin daughter and his concubine let them. Bring them out now, ravish them and do with them would, seems good to you. But against this man, do not do such sell a vial thing that the men would not listen to him. So the man sees his concubine and put her out to them and they knew her and abused her all night until the morning.[00:36:35] And as the Dawn began, began to break, they let her go. And as morning appear, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was till it was light.[00:36:50] Marcia: Right. And then later she's killed. [00:36:55] De'Vannon: Yeah. I don't worry. I can't remember. She died from the rape or whatever, but I know she didn't. [00:37:00] So she, [00:37:00] Marcia: she ends up dying and her body has cut up. Yeah, so this is terrible. This is a terrible, terrible passage. And the story of Gibeah is not better because the rape ended up being heterosexual rape.[00:37:19] The story is just as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is about rape and a lack of ancient hospitality. And that, that cannot be underscored enough. And you get an example here too, of why it's important to do canonical comparisons, looking at a text in one section and looking at a text and another section that has similar fetch patterns, which is what we just did.[00:37:53] Um, You know, conservative scholars like to argue that, uh, [00:38:00] Sodom and Gomorrah is a cautionary tale about, uh, underscoring homosexuality as a sin. Well, first of all, they didn't even know what that word was that. Okay. That's, uh, an inaccurate, um, anachronistic use of the word, homosexuality plugging it in there, uh, using 19th, 20th and 21st understandings of what homosexuality is into a text that was written thousands of years ago.[00:38:33] Um, sexual orientation was not really understood in the way that we understand it now. So to try to cram that, meaning that interpretation into such an old text, About ancient behaviors that are even older, uh, is really illogical. It doesn't make sense to even try to do it. [00:39:00] Um,[00:39:07] so,[00:39:12] you know, if, if the story is not about rape in Gibeah with the woman, with the concubine, then we would argue that heterosexuality is also a sin. And I really don't think conservatives want to go there, but we, you know, we have to use the sense that God gave us to re recognize what a leap in logic it is.[00:39:33] This is just, uh, a cheap, uh, attempt to try to apply this ancient text to a very different time when there are loving, committed relationships, uh, Linda and I will be together 40 years next year.[00:39:52] Um, devoted to one another. We have built a life together in a home and a family, and we take care of each other's families. [00:40:00] And, um, you know, we, we share a niece and nephew that we lavished with attention. So, uh, it it's apples and oranges. It's really, you know, apples and I dunno, eggplants it's really different, really different.[00:40:18] Um, and of course, if in Gibeah all the men were homosexual, why would they rape a woman?[00:40:31] This is about power. Um, and, uh, you know, uh, conservatives, don't like to hear this, but you can't change your sexual orientation. That doesn't mean there weren't gay people back then. They just didn't know what to call it. They didn't, you know, and their relationships, um, as far as we know are not documented and we, you know, we don't know what was [00:41:00] going on back then.[00:41:03] That's [00:41:05] De'Vannon: my thinking in all of this. And thank you so much for expounding on the word today, preacher. And, uh, my thoughts in all of this is that, you know, in my ministry, in my outreach for it is not to conservative people. I am not called to conservative people. Um, people who are arrogant enough to go through the Bible to try to find out what's wrong with other people can go and fuck themselves in my opinion, uh, because it is there for us to examine ourselves, not other people.[00:41:36] And so, um, Now that doesn't mean that you just go hang around, you know, every Tom, Dick and Harry, but it's one thing to not hang around people out of caution. Hey, that person look shady, or maybe they're a murderer or whatever the fuck the case may be. Or maybe you just don't have a lot in common with them as one thing, you know, in your natural common sense.[00:41:58] Cause you're not going to be friends with [00:42:00] everybody, but it's one thing to just not hang out with people because you don't have a lot in common as opposed to, if you think that there's something wrong with them, according to the Bible. And so, because that to me has this root and arrogance and hypocrisy.[00:42:13] And so I have nothing to say to conservative people other than fuck you. And, um, my message is to the people who have been hurt by the church, you know, kicked out by the church. And that's why I like to do shows like this because, um, I'm trying to talk to people and trying to reach people. Who maybe can be considering suicide, who may be made may feel like they've lost their community because they've been kicked out of their church.[00:42:41] Like I was, who may be confused about who they think they are. Like I once was you may hate themselves. Um, like I once did. And, um, you know, that's who I'm trying to talk to and how you're trying to explain to [00:43:00] people how to go through the Bible and everything like that. You know, that's a, cause a core, core thing to my message is learn how to read it for yourself.[00:43:12] You know, you don't need a preacher. Excuse me. They're great to have, you know, but church, community, all of that as an accessory to your relationship with God, Not the, not, not the end all be all, not what you should hang your relationship off of is what some human told you, because any human being can be wrong.[00:43:33] And the arrogance of, of conservatives people is that they don't think that they can be wrong. They think that the way they think about homosexuality or what they think about anything in the Bible, they feel like it's permanent. And if they dare change and they're somehow compromised their beliefs, but what they forgotten is the fact that they are not God.[00:43:53] And then they also did not write this book. And so, and so they want to be an expert about it and [00:44:00] claim that they absolutely know a hundred percent what it says, and that's not possible because you know, I'm an author, you know, You know, can't nobody say that they're an expert on what's in it, but me, you know, you can have your take on it and what you think, but I wrote it and not you.[00:44:17] And so in the, in the Bible is composed of many authors and yeah, there from a long time ago. And so I don't really feel like any of us can be an expert on somebody else's literary work. You know, we can say what we think we feel, but we can't be so absolute, you know, in our thinking to act like that.[00:44:37] There's no way that we could come up with something wrong. I agree with what you said. I don't think that's the Bible. It has to be completely a hundred percent accurate from cover to cover. It does not even say that it is accurate from cover to cover in there. It does say like in revelation, at the add to, or take away from, but I really have always felt like that that's was specific to that vision [00:45:00] that John had in and God knows conservative people and take away all the damn time.[00:45:06] Whatever's convenient for them, you know? And so, and so, and so the message is consistent. Go to God for yourself, take out the middleman, you know, middlemen, which is pretty much what, you know, preachers who try to put themselves in the place of God, not the ones who are actually loving you and trying to help to coach you.[00:45:28] But the ones who are trying to dominate your thinking and tell you what to think about everything, that's a different story. And sometimes it can be hard to tell the two apart, so you can pray to God for yourself. You don't need to go through a father or a preacher or anything like that. You can ask Jesus for forgiveness directly.[00:45:46] You don't need to go to a, to a human for that. And so, you know, hearing these scriptures and going to go in through it, hopefully people will get the boldness to feel like they can, you know, go through with themselves and just [00:46:00] written just in, in, in anything else, just write, just think about why do you feel bad?[00:46:05] Where did it come from? Who told you, you know, why do you feel bad in the first place? You know, no angel told you that the Lord didn't tell you that people told you that in, you think about where it comes from in this. And so you pass it back to you without one. Well, [00:46:25] Marcia: um, you've raised a really important message here and that is, and people can't see me, but I'm pointing up.[00:46:34] And, um, I don't know if I said this in a previous episode, but it bears repeating. Um, we spend too much time now I'm pointing to the side, allowing others to dictate what our relationship is. Our relationship is with our creator, other, uh, you know, people outside of ourselves, our souls telling us what's.[00:46:57] What about our relationship with [00:47:00] our creator? Who's in whose image we are made versus not letting anything come between that relationship. Now I'm pointing up. It should be a vertical one waste to waste. A vertical two way street in, in determining what our relationship is with our creator. And don't be so concerned about whether what others are saying.[00:47:30] Um, and I think that that is, and if we all did that and just worried, you know, more about our own business and our own behavior, we would all be so much better off. Um, and I think, uh, it's important for us as LGBT people to learn this lesson and stop letting others tell us and presume that the way we are made is less than [00:48:00] stop letting people, you know, letting people tell us that we are less.[00:48:04] But we have to just say, no, we're not going to do that. And I will also say this, most people don't like to change. And if you were raised with an embedded theology, that is anti-gay anti LGBT, for the most part, you will not change unless you have some sort of confrontation that hits you very personally.[00:48:35] Okay. So if you encounter somebody who's really anti-gay, it's probably because nobody close to them has come out yet.[00:48:49] Uh, my dad had a lot of trouble when I came out. And my, my son says that had he not had the confrontation of either accepting [00:49:00] me or losing me, he probably would still be like he was,[00:49:07] but once he was confronted with the idea that all this LGBT stuff applied to his one and only daughter, then he had to take a look at the paradigm he was raised with. And he had to do some deconstructing and think about what this actually means. So, um, when you encounter somebody who's really anti LGBT, here's what I recommend.[00:49:40] If it's just going to turn into a shouting match, don't bother. Uh, you're not going to change their minds, at least not in that conversation. Um, and don't put yourself through it. It's not important. Don't let that person dictate what, you know, your relationship is with your creator. Uh, [00:50:00] and, um, recognize that, you know, they've been taught a certain way and it's very hard to move off of it unless they absolutely have to.[00:50:10] And if they've been raised in a tradition that instills in them, some arrogance for being heterosexual, uh, they're surely not going to change because of a conversation with you or anybody else. It's, it's really the, um, when their paradigm is challenged because they potentially are going to lose somebody.[00:50:30] They love. That's typically how, uh, hearts and thoughts are changed and moved. [00:50:38] De'Vannon: And yet everybody, and that's why. I don't argue with conservative people. I'm not even talk to them. You know, I'm trying to talk to, you know, the people out there who are wondering, and questioning and hurting themselves on open to a different point of view.[00:50:50] I'm not trying to force somebody's mind open. So the only way you can even come to me is if you're, you know, if you, if you were humble enough to be, if you to, you know, that life journey, what can I [00:51:00] discover? What can I learn? I already have it figured out and let me go and try to force other people into what I believe to be true.[00:51:07] And people do your research because remember conservative people and people in general. A lot of times tend to like the disk control or the people, because remember these same conservative people, once we're like all anti miscegenation, which means they didn't even want interracial couples mixing, you know, they were like black and white people, white, Asian people.[00:51:25] We don't want, y'all mixing everything to just be the same race. Then the, now they're like gay people. Don't, y'all, don't do this woman. Don't do this with your body that we detect the trend here. And so then if they want to then go to the Bible and try to justify slavery, anti miscegenation, strictly speaking, you know, if you want to get into not mixing.[00:51:45] Okay. Yeah, the Lord did heal his people not to do that, you know, but you know, we are not Israelites and you know, I'm not going to go down that path, but you know, it's one of those things that, you know, is accepted now. So now you can be [00:52:00] mixed race, even though conservative people once were so against that, but there's a lot of them wanted interracial relationships.[00:52:06] So it was convenient for them to stop pursuing that. Not that people didn't have to fight for the right to do that, you know, also back in the day. Uh, so we just moved forward, you know, we, we in, and so let's go ahead and, um, let's talk about Mr. Um, you know, what's going on over with Noah and then yeah. And then that'll be it for today.[00:52:29] Marcia: This is a strange story. It's from Genesis nine and I'm just going to paraphrase it. So, uh, no. It's after the flood. And, uh, Noah has been blessed with, by God with these vineyards and he makes some wine and he gets drunk. Okay. So first mistake, he gets real drunk and passes out in his tent and he's naked.[00:52:57] Um, uh, and [00:53:00] seeing someone's naked and nakedness can be interpreted as one of two things, you know, just really seeing somebody naked or, um, having sex with them. It's long been, uh, puzzled over this about, you know, did ham, the, one of the three sons see no one naked lay in there, drunk and passed out. Or did he rape his father to, you know, to, um, impose power over him and take, uh, take over his position.[00:53:39] Take over his land and all of that, we don't know, uh, scholars go back and forth. Um, it's a, it's a confusing passage, but because the potential for the ham raping his father, again, there's this conflation of male to male [00:54:00] sex with rape. Uh, and, um, and then saying that, you know, rape is bad, but, and saying that male to male sex is bad or that they're the same.[00:54:14] The only male to male sex that can be had is rape. It's really unclear. And then the other two sons, um, uh, ham goes in the tent, sees his father's nakedness. His brothers are standing at the outside of the tent and says, and he says to them, I just saw our father's nakedness. And so the other two boy. Take a garment and hold corners of it and walk in the tent backwards, looking away from their father.[00:54:46] So they don't see as nakedness and cover him up.[00:54:52] And then Noah wakes up later and realize either that ham has seen him naked or had sex with him, [00:55:00] which I think he would probably know. Uh, and, and he curses Hamm's youngest son Canaan.[00:55:12] So it is a really strange passage. It's very, um, far removed from using it directly to condemn same sex activity. Um, So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because I think it's really not worth it. It, it should not, in my opinion, be included in the clever past, just because we don't even know what happened.[00:55:41] De'Vannon: That's the, um, the sneaky thing about yes. Hate is that it, it can alert in seemingly legitimate places. Now somebody already has a predisposition against [00:56:00] homosexuality. They can read through this ambiguous as the scripture and come out of it with a million reasons why you shouldn't. Be gay, you know, but this is why we cannot let somebody else's understanding prevail over our own that we have to stop looking at preachers.[00:56:23] You know, like they are the absolute authority on things, rather than just giving an opinion, you know, they are not the voice of God. They're just not, you know, people who they made, they have inspired moments, you know, I'll give them that. But to say that everything that flies out of their mouth is coming straight from God, through them, to you as no, no, no, no, no.[00:56:48] Marcia: Hmm. Well, it's very, it's very dangerous. It's very, very dangerous, uh, to do that now and in a congregational structure where there's maybe a loose [00:57:00] affiliation, um, with the governing church, but for the most part, the chief pastor of a congregation. Um, has a lot of power, a lot of power. And we have seen this, um, you know, evidence of these, uh, pastors of these giant mega churches.[00:57:22] And they just implode because there's so much power and they can't handle it because none of us, you know, absolute power corrupts, corrupts. Absolutely. And none of us can handle that when we get so big for our bridges, you know, that we don't have to answer to anybody anymore. Seemingly and it's very dangerous to fall prey to that kind of pastoral leadership.[00:57:52] De'Vannon: Yeah. I've fallen prey to that before and either in a Vic thing about a lot of like megachurches [00:58:00] that I'm not overly fond of is the. Like, like the people at the top don't really know a lot of what's happening sometimes down in the, you know, down to the most finite inner workings, but, you know, you're ultimately responsible for everything that's happening on it.[00:58:18] You're in, you have to put a lot of, um, trust in a whole lot of different people. That's right. Have you got souls at stake? You know, it's not like a regular corporation where the worst thing that can happen, you know, somebody might get, [00:58:35] Marcia: and in the Catholic church too, over the sex abuse scandal, um, you know, so it's, uh, I mean, I didn't mean to say that only congregational structure churches have problems because we certainly have seen, uh, you know, the sex abuse scandal just explode with respect to Roman Catholicism.[00:58:54] Uh, but any time, uh, people are spiritual leaders. [00:59:00] The danger of abusing, uh, followers or abusing power, uh, can become very, very strong, very it's. Um, it's like, um, an aphrodisiac almost, uh, uh, you know, flowing up both sides. Uh, maybe that's not the right word, but it's, um, it's addictive and it's potentially dangerous.[00:59:31] Um, I'm very glad that I am in a structure where I have a Bishop that I answer to. And, you know, we have to be sure that the Bishop knows what we're up to, what's going on. Um, it's very important and that helps keep some of that in check [00:59:49] De'Vannon: that who was in a position to teach. The Bishop, if they get out of hand, you [00:59:56] Marcia: know, we have a presiding Bishop who has also has a big [01:00:00] staff.[01:00:03] So no, I think that we've got some good checks and balances in place, and we have governing boards in our local parishes. We call it congregation of parish. Um, we have what is called the vestry, which is the governing body of the church. And the priest is typically not the signatory on the bank account.[01:00:28] Um, that's up to the, the wardens, the ones who run the vest rate, uh, they're in charge of, uh, lots of different things. So that, that there are checks and balances that are built into our system. And we are governed much like the federal government. We have a house of bishops and a house of deputies, which are the lay people.[01:00:51] Um, who sir, you know, provide the two chambers of the church for does this, your decision-making. And we get together every three years and [01:01:00] create new cannons and do all sorts of [01:01:03] De'Vannon: things. So that's cool. So that sounds like, kind of like community run rather than one person at the top making all the decisions.[01:01:12] Yeah. I've found that at the, uh, university Presbyterian tourist that I have. You know, attended here. Um, you know, it was like that they have what's called a session, which is like a group of people making decisions together, make, bring up budgetary things to the whole congregation. And it's not like that in every church churches that I've been in with, like you just find out what's the decision has been made by somebody on a fucking day and you're expected to go with it.[01:01:36] There is no, what do the people bullshit? They're not interested in that. [01:01:40] Marcia: I think anytime you can, you know, attend a church or a denomination where there the government's is very straightforward and transparent, it's going to be a lot better for everybody. And we have to do training. We have to, uh, periodically do training about, you know, safeguarding our children and [01:02:00] safeguarding, uh, the faithful, you know, uh, this is all very, very important and those structures are not necessarily in place.[01:02:08] If the tradition doesn't have a structure. So those are things to look for also. [01:02:14] De'Vannon: And one thing I'll say this, and I'll let you out of the last word. Um, the one thing that I've, that I've, that I always keep an eye out for, with the churches is if they're transparent about the finances, uh, what's being raised, how much is being raised, who's being paid.[01:02:29] What? And if they're not, if they're not willing to do that, then, you know, go run the other way because that's, they need to be transparent about every fucking thing. There's nothing. Thank you. This should be being done in the corner and look, LGBTQ community, my alphabet mafia, baby. Honey, don't go to no church that that is not a pro LGBTQ a and pro all of the values that you stand for.[01:02:55] Don't give them your money. They don't deserve our money. Do not support organizations [01:03:00] like Chick-Filet and stuff like that that are donating to people who would legislate against us fly. You can go get a burger from somewhere else already and make it yourself, you know, you know how to cook. And so, um, so now let's take the gay dollar from these people.[01:03:15] They don't deserve to have any of our support and do not go to churches that are against you because you're only hurting yourself. Now, finally, [01:03:27] Marcia: yeah. Let me, let me say a couple of things and then I'll, um, um, we'll close. Um,[01:03:39] The Episcopal church is a really safe place for LGBT people. We are very serious about inclusion. We have passed specific resolutions at our general convention that I mentioned that happens every three years. And this is now several years ago, um, that, uh, we [01:04:00] ordain LGBT people. We, we have specific resolutions about that.[01:04:04] We have a singular one for trans people. Um, if you feel like you're ready to go back to church, I think it's a great place for you to start the PC USA Presbyterian church USA. Uh, look for those letters. Uh, they're good to the, um, ELC, a evangelical Lutheran church of America is wonderful. Uh, we're in partnership with the ELC Lutherans, uh, that, that means that I could serve an ELC church and a Lutheran pastor could serve an Episcopal church.[01:04:43] Um, so those are two places for you to, to check. And what you can do is go to the web website and see what is on their website with respect to inclusion. If they say they're, you know, open and [01:05:00] affirming and you don't see anything on there other than just that expression. Then, you know, maybe you need to move on to another one, but the website is a safe way for you to check out what's going on at a particular congregation to figure out if it would be a good fit for you.[01:05:19] Um, I'm an Episcopalian. I, Linda and I chose it together. I came from the American Baptist tradition and she came from Roman, Roman Catholicism, and it has been the perfect blend for us and we love it. And I can't imagine going anywhere else. Um, my Bishop is a lesbian.[01:05:41] We have several LGBT bishops out there in the Episcopal church. So just keep that in mind and don't be afraid to do some homework before you ever stepped foot in any church and make sure that you feel like they are going to be open and affirming and [01:06:00] welcoming with you. Okay. So, um, I'm going to read a part of Psalm 1 39 for everybody.[01:06:14] And I'm going to read it from the St. Helen assaulter. Now I'm an associate of the order of St. Helena. It's a group of Episcopal nuns, and they've written a, uh, uh, the Psalms in gender inclusive language. Interesting. And I highly highly recommend this for our peeps in the LGBTQ community. It's really wonderful.[01:06:45] They spent years working on this and praying it in their daily cycle of Psalms. And 1 39 I think is a song that we all need to know as [01:07:00] LGBT people. Okay. Are you [01:07:03] De'Vannon: ready? [01:07:06] Marcia: Oh, God, you have searched me out and known me, you know, my sitting down and my rising up, you discern my thoughts from afar. You trace your, my journeys and my resting places and are acquainted with all my ways.[01:07:25] Indeed. There is not a word on my lips, but you all God know it all together. You press upon me from behind and before and you lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is so high that I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I climb up to heaven, you are there.[01:07:53] If I make the grave, my bed, you are there. Also, if I take the wings [01:08:00] of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the city, Even there, your hand will lead me in your right hand. Hold me fast. If I say surely the darkness will cover me and the light around me turn tonight. Darkness is not dark to you.[01:08:19] The night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light to you are both alike for you. Yourself covered my inmost parts. You'd knit me together in my mother's womb. I will thank you because I am marvelously made your works are wonderful. And I know it well, my body was not hidden from you while I was being made in secret and woven in the depths of the earth.[01:08:51] Your eyes be held my limbs yet unfinished in the womb. All of them were written in your book. They were fashioned day [01:09:00] by day. When as yet there was none of them. How deep I find your thoughts. Oh God, how great is the sum of them? If I were to count them, they would be more in number than the sand to count them.[01:09:16] All my lifespan would need to be like yours.[01:09:23] Search me out. Oh God. And know my heart. Try me and know my restless thoughts look well, whether there be any wickedness in me and lead me in a way that has everlasting.[01:09:43] De'Vannon: Beautiful. Thank you so much. You're welcome. [01:09:48] So. These three sessions have been such a blessing for me, um, to be able to share what I've [01:10:00] written about these passages that are used to destroy us. And I just want to thank you for the opportunity to, uh, make them more available and to hopefully be a help in a bomb to others.[01:10:16] De'Vannon: Thank you so much for, um, coming on the show to share it and for being transparent with your own experiences in life and not just taking your success and strength and hope and running off with it, but, you know, writing it down for people and speaking it. So thank you.[01:10:37] Thank you all so much for taking time to listen to the sex drugs and Jesus' podcast. It really means everything to me. Look, if you love the show, you can find more information and resources at sex, drugs, and jesus.com or wherever you listen to your pocket. Feel free to reach out to me [01:11:00] directly at DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com and on Twitter and Facebook as well.[01:11:05] My name is De'Vannon and it's been wonderful being your host today and just remember that everything is going to be all right. 

IT-Servicemanagement (ITSM) ist vielen, die in der IT arbeiten, vermutlich ein Begriff. Alle außerhalb von IT-Abteilungen genießen im besten Fall die Vorteile, die ein implementiertes ITSM mit sich bringt, ohne sich aber mit Details beschäftigen zu müssen. In dieser Themenfolge sprechen wir mit unserem Gast Robert Sieber über Schnittmengen und Unterschiede zwischen ITSM, einem Datenschutz-Managementsysteme (DSMS) und einem Informationssicherheits-Managementsystem (ISMS). Daher sprechen Heiko Gossen und Markus Zechel mit Robert Sieber nicht nur darüber, was IT Servicemanagement ist, für wen das etwas ist, sondern auch über die Fragen, wo man als Datenschutzbeauftragter oder Informationssicherheitsbeauftragter von einem funktionierenden ITSM profitiert. Hier spielt vor allem eine gemeinsame Datenbasis eine wichtige Rolle, aber auch auf der Prozessebene gibt es viele Schnittstellen und Synergien. Robert ist ein Experte für das Thema ITSM, hat sich aber auch schon oft und viel mit den Synergien mit anderen Managementthemen beschäftigt. Er betreibt die Seite https://different-thinking.de, wo man auch seinen „IT-Management Podcast – für den Servicenerd in Dir“-Podcast findet.

Datenschutzmanagement (DSM) war in unserem Podcast schon häufiger ein Thema. In dieser Folge bespricht Heiko Gossen das Thema aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mit dem erfahrenen betrieblichen Datenschutzbeauftragten Dr. Falk Böhm. Er ist nicht nur promovierter Jurist und seit über 10 Jahren im Datenschutz tätig, er hat vor allem in großen Unternehmen (u.a.Kabel Deutschland, Vodafone) sich um die Implementierung der notwendigen Prozesse und der Definition der Datenschutzziele gekümmert. Daher geht es heute um verschiedene praktische Fragen rund um das Thema Datenschutzmanagement: Weshalb ist DSM überhaupt ein Thema im Unternehmen? Was unterscheidet Datenschutz-Management von einem Datenschutz-Managementsystem (DSMS)? Wie ist das Verhältnis zwischen (effektivem oder reifem) Datenschutz-Management und Datenschutz-Compliance? Wie sinnvoll ist die Implementierung eines übergeordneten DSMS in heterogenen Unternehmen/Konzernen (bspw. Mischkonzern)? Was sind die Unterschiede zwischen einem Datenschutzmanagement und einem Informationssicherheitsmanagement? Was sind die Gemeinsamkeiten, wo liegen aber wichtige Abgrenzungsmerkmale? Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es, Datenschutz-Management zu implementieren? Wie strukturiert man DSM? Wie startet man die Implementierung eines Datenschutz-Managementsystems? Zum Schluss gibt uns Falk Böhm noch wichtige Key-Learnings aus seiner persönlichen Praxis mit den Weg.

Datenschutzmanagement (DSM) war in unserem Podcast schon häufiger ein Thema. In dieser Folge bespricht Heiko Gossen das Thema aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mit dem erfahrenen betrieblichen Datenschutzbeauftragten Dr. Falk Böhm. Er ist nicht nur promovierter Jurist und seit über 10 Jahren im Datenschutz tätig, er hat vor allem in großen Unternehmen (u.a.Kabel Deutschland, Vodafone) sich um die Implementierung der notwendigen Prozesse und der Definition der Datenschutzziele gekümmert. Daher geht es heute um verschiedene praktische Fragen rund um das Thema Datenschutzmanagement: Weshalb ist DSM überhaupt ein Thema im Unternehmen? Was unterscheidet Datenschutz-Management von einem Datenschutz-Managementsystem (DSMS)? Wie ist das Verhältnis zwischen (effektivem oder reifem) Datenschutz-Management und Datenschutz-Compliance? Wie sinnvoll ist die Implementierung eines übergeordneten DSMS in heterogenen Unternehmen/Konzernen (bspw. Mischkonzern)? Was sind die Unterschiede zwischen einem Datenschutzmanagement und einem Informationssicherheitsmanagement? Was sind die Gemeinsamkeiten, wo liegen aber wichtige Abgrenzungsmerkmale? Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es, Datenschutz-Management zu implementieren? Wie strukturiert man DSM? Wie startet man die Implementierung eines Datenschutz-Managementsystems? Zum Schluss gibt uns Falk Böhm noch wichtige Key-Learnings aus seiner persönlichen Praxis mit den Weg.

Datenschutzmanagement (DSM) war in unserem Podcast schon häufiger ein Thema. In dieser Folge bespricht Heiko Gossen das Thema aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mit dem erfahrenen betrieblichen Datenschutzbeauftragten Dr. Falk Böhm. Er ist nicht nur promovierter Jurist und seit über 10 Jahren im Datenschutz tätig, er hat vor allem in großen Unternehmen (u.a.Kabel Deutschland, Vodafone) sich um die Implementierung der notwendigen Prozesse und der Definition der Datenschutzziele gekümmert. Daher geht es heute um verschiedene praktische Fragen rund um das Thema Datenschutzmanagement: Weshalb ist DSM überhaupt ein Thema im Unternehmen? Was unterscheidet Datenschutz-Management von einem Datenschutz-Managementsystem (DSMS)? Wie ist das Verhältnis zwischen (effektivem oder reifem) Datenschutz-Management und Datenschutz-Compliance? Wie sinnvoll ist die Implementierung eines übergeordneten DSMS in heterogenen Unternehmen/Konzernen (bspw. Mischkonzern)? Was sind die Unterschiede zwischen einem Datenschutzmanagement und einem Informationssicherheitsmanagement? Was sind die Gemeinsamkeiten, wo liegen aber wichtige Abgrenzungsmerkmale? Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es, Datenschutz-Management zu implementieren? Wie strukturiert man DSM? Wie startet man die Implementierung eines Datenschutz-Managementsystems? Zum Schluss gibt uns Falk Böhm noch wichtige Key-Learnings aus seiner persönlichen Praxis mit den Weg.

Everybody experienced trauma at some point in his life. And this trauma would, most of the time, hold you back instead of pushing you forward. Everybody faces this struggle of handling trauma - you end up losing trust in yourself or in others, not moving on and thinking you deserve the trauma you got and it's only you who goes through it. What we sometimes don't realize is, we are not alone in this situation. Once you listen to other people's stories, you'll realize you're not the only one experiencing trauma. And this will help you to better handle your own and even help other people who go through it. That's why the perfect journey to listen to now is in this episode with Isis Brianna Woods. She had to deal with trauma at a young age but she was able to use her story to help other people and turned her purpose into profit by becoming an entrepreneur. Isis transitioned from a kindergarten teacher to a successful entrepreneur in less than 8 months by selling Lightroom presets as a side hustle. Now, she's a Digital Guru helping others use social media platforms to effectively monetize their brands and create digital products that sell. Here's what you missed: *Inventory of your past life* * "...every time I really got to talk to parents and I talked about their divorce and parents would tell you the tea most of them got divorced over something that had to do with money..." (02:48) * "How could I trust myself to make decisions? If I was the same person who put myself in situations for that to happen too..." (03:37) * "…there's a lot of decisions that she had to make that were tough because. We didn't have the money...a lot of it has come down to the fact of the lack there, of, of money." (04:18) * "But I have realized when I have the finances and when families have the finances, they fight through a lot more things." (04:55) This ain't my final destination * "I would say I was doing fine. Um, and then I really, I found Lord again on my own." (08:27) * "... the feeling of safety that came over me just to say it. And I was like, yeah, me too. That's all I said. And I burst out crying and the whole room was like, what's happening? We're hugging. Um, and I, but in that moment, I just felt empowered" (09:09) * " in that moment I realized just the power of support and I knew I've always been that person. Like when something. Feels good to me. I want to give it to somebody else." (09:46) * "... I'm going to get my book and I'm going to be a New York Times best seller, and I'm going to help so many people. Um, and that did not happen. The book is not written. I don't know if that's something I want to do anymore, but I'm glad that it brought me to Instagram. " (10:28) Jumping into entrepreneurship * "... but I feel like it's so disrespectful to God when he gives you something that you don't use it. " (11:51) * " I was blessed enough to have two people in my life who were entrepreneurs and who are I say work" (13:47) * "...if it won't kill you. And what's the worst that can happen?" (14:44) * "You work more because you pour more energy into it. " (15:12) * "I don't think it was a big jump for me because I am such a planner... So for me to go on entrepreneurship, I had a, what I would consider a pretty nice cushion to do whatever I want it to do." (15:29) * " Like everybody's so used to sticking to the status quo and we'll have a job take sick days when you're not sick. And the principal's looking down on us, like, I know y'all were on vacation and I was just like, I don't need this. I mean, I want to enjoy my life."17:28) * "And it wasn't until somebody deemed me, cause I was just sending them to people for free. And so my ideal to me and said, how much are your presets?" (18:57) * "...it's $25 if you want one of them. And then if you want me to make a custom package for you, like one just for you, it'll be a hundred for three. And she paid me a hundred dollars" (19:26) * "I stepped back from creating them and I put out a course to teach people how to make it themselves. " (19:43) The coaching chose me * "So I will say I did not choose coaching. Coaching chose me" (22:09) * "And I started to realize a lot of people were again, deeming me asking me questions because I was sharing publicly my success." (23:23) * "And I was like fine at the time. I wasn't thinking about selling my value. I was thinking about literally the time of it." (24:54) * "Like I just felt like I had this anointing, this gift over me, but I didn't really know the worst" (25:54) Scaling up to a masterclass * "I went into coaching and from there it turned into, again, my laziness kicked in after those few months and I started to do masterclasses." (26:31) * "I put on my story, you know, the eye emojis, Richard, like looking, sorry, dropped the eye emojis in the DSMs. If you want to know how to grow your Instagram, or you wanna know how to sell on Instagram. " (27:31) * " And sometimes I know that you can do like maybe a membership gives pop in and wants to wait. You can do like a, just drop a class or something in that gave birth to my membership. Brown group is a whirl" (29:29) * "But also in this next season, I really want to get back to how it was when I was doing those presets where it was 80% passive income." (29:59) Figuring out the structure you want * " if you're first thinking about getting started, just say, Hey, I'm thinking about putting on X, Y or Z. Would you be interested before you even create the course?" (30:41) * "Of course I said, I want to go fully into courses and no, I feel like there is a point to that. I have seen where you do exhaust your current audience with the products that you have is so as are necessary. I just never gave myself that time to exhaust them." (32:36) Back it up with your portfolio * "I would say my main team, I have people who come and go like I have a go-to graphic designer when I'm doing like flyers for conferences and things like that." (34:35) * "If there's nothing else you do, please have your Instagram be searchable." (35:18) * "And so I go on Instagram and I was like, let me just type a personality copywriter. And the first night it was personality driven copywriter. " (36:23) * "if my business were thriving, why would anyone want to work with me as a business coach? If you, if your, even your captions don't sound good, I need you to have at least some kind of portfolio on your work too, for me to see that too, you know, that's my thing." (37:48) A main and a side * "I feel like it takes a platform to grow a platform." (39:01) * "So I always say have a main and a side" (39:47) * "But if they don't come correct, it might be a no. If the energy's not good, but stay persistent with it.” (40:20) Repackaged concepts * "I'm a huge reader. I am a stickler for having a morning routine and a night routine." (40:48) * "And I just, so you know, for anybody who's like me, who likes to be all over the place. I get my books on audible. Physical and digital..." (41:36) * "I want to say this because there's a lot of good stuff to steal nerd. I realize a lot of books repeat the same stuff, read a lot. You realize that everybody learned from each other. " (42:26) * "...you know, a lot of people will pay more for the same thing. Just packaged in a different way" (42:55) * "And that was the first time I realized me and people really would just, they won't, they will pay for access. And just to hear you say it in a way that makes sense to them..." (43:21) Mute everybody * "...And that was the first time I realized me and people really would just, they won't, they will pay for access. And just to hear you say it in a way that makes sense to them." (45:04) * " One, because it's so easy to doubt yourself. Yeah. And compare," (45:29) * "I just felt like it's easy to want to replicate things too" (46:05) * "And stop looking to the left and the right. Get help when you need it. Stop waiting on help. Struggling too long for no reason. " (46:55) * "And I think if anybody can understand that the power and building a team, it builds something one that's bigger than you, but it also allows other people to have a hope and a dream that they feel like can come a reality because you set the foundation" (49:47) Everything about you is right * "…really leaning into the same things that you feel like are keeping you from where you want to be, or the same things are going to get you there." (50:46) * " I stopped trying to change those things, those were the exact things that propelled me forward." (51:42) * "That is so powerful because when you understand that he made no mistakes, I mean, everything about you is right. And everything about you is supposed to be used and, and just sitting in that just feels so good and so beautiful, but it also allows you to celebrate people more." (52:13) *Quotes and Advice from our host and guest:* * "... but the person that I have a cape is the person who realize that when used correctly money can really change some things." - Isis, (05:18) * "your experiences creates your expertise." - Casanova, (06:20) * " that the guy gave me something in my heart that somebody needs it because I don't feel like he just gives us something just for us." - Isis, (12:15) * "when you are operating in your gifts and your calling and your purpose, I promise you things just flow." - Isis (28:53) * "because you might come across somebody that feels like they have the gems, but they don't have it themselves." - Casanova, (37:12) * "I think it is definitely the power of building a team and understanding that there's a leverage, uh, that can be had" - Casanova, (48:51) * "...sitting in what God gave you an understanding is perfect, how it is and understanding how everybody else is, is perfect, how they are, and we all meshed together. And it's not about you" - Isis, (53:25) *Books, Mentions, and Links:* Isis Brianna Woods ( https://www.isisbreanna.com/ ) * Twitter ( https://twitter.com/isisbreanna ) * Instagram ( http://www.instagram.com/isisbreanna ) * Pinterest ( https://www.pinterest.com.mx/TheDigitalSalesGuru/ ) * Russell Brunson ( https://www.russellbrunson.com/hi ) * Stu Mclaren ( https://stu.me/start ) * 22 Immutable Laws of Branding and Marketing ( https://www.amazon.com/22-Immutable-Laws-Branding/dp/0060007737 ) * The Power of Now ( https://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577314808 ) * A Year of Positive Thinking ( https://www.amazon.com/Year-Positive-Thinking-Inspiration-Courage/dp/1641522410 ) * Hustle Harder, Hustle Smarter by 50 Cent ( https://www.amazon.com/Hustle-Harder-Smarter-Curtis-Jackson/dp/006295380X ) * Rocket Fuel by Gino Wickman ( https://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Fuel-Essential-Combination-Business/dp/1942952317 ) * Jay Z ( https://www.forbes.com/profile/jay-z/?sh=1247cfea59cf ) * Nicky Saunders ( https://www.instagram.com/thisisnickys/?hl=en ) * Marry Woodard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Lasker )

Datenschutzmanagement (DSM) war in unserem Podcast schon häufiger ein Thema. In dieser Folge bespricht Heiko Gossen das Thema aus verschiedenen Perspektiven mit dem erfahrenen betrieblichen Datenschutzbeauftragten Dr. Falk Böhm. Er ist nicht nur promovierter Jurist und seit über 10 Jahren im Datenschutz tätig, er hat vor allem in großen Unternehmen (u.a.Kabel Deutschland, Vodafone) sich um die Implementierung der notwendigen Prozesse und der Definition der Datenschutzziele gekümmert. Daher geht es heute um verschiedene praktische Fragen rund um das Thema Datenschutzmanagement: Weshalb ist DSM überhaupt ein Thema im Unternehmen? Was unterscheidet Datenschutz-Management von einem Datenschutz-Managementsystem (DSMS)? Wie ist das Verhältnis zwischen (effektivem oder reifem) Datenschutz-Management und Datenschutz-Compliance? Wie sinnvoll ist die Implementierung eines übergeordneten DSMS in heterogenen Unternehmen/Konzernen (bspw. Mischkonzern)? Was sind die Unterschiede zwischen einem Datenschutzmanagement und einem Informationssicherheitsmanagement? Was sind die Gemeinsamkeiten, wo liegen aber wichtige Abgrenzungsmerkmale? Welche Möglichkeiten gibt es, Datenschutz-Management zu implementieren? Wie strukturiert man DSM? Wie startet man die Implementierung eines Datenschutz-Managementsystems? Zum Schluss gibt uns Falk Böhm noch wichtige Key-Learnings aus seiner persönlichen Praxis mit den Weg.

BECOME A PRODUCER! http://www.patreon.com/themidnighttrainpodcast   Find The Midnight Train Podcast: www.themidnighttrainpodcast.com www.facebook.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.twitter.com/themidnighttrainpc www.instagram.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.discord.com/themidnighttrainpodcast www.tiktok.com/themidnighttrainp   And wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.   Subscribe to our official YouTube channel: OUR YOUTUBE   Tonight we are doing something a little different. We are not going anywhere creepy. We aren't talking about UFOs, cryptids, or ghosts. You may have noticed our love of unsolved murders and true crime as well. Well, tonight we are looking at one of the most revolutionary tools used in diagnosing those criminals. We are talking about the DSM. This is going to be a little nerdy, but definitely interesting.   What is the DSM 5?   The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) is the product of more than 10 years of effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research.   DSM 1   The DSM 1 was released by the American psychiatric association in 1952. It contained 60 recognized disorders and was very different from the current DSM. The objective of DSM I was to create a single nomenclature for psychopathology. Three separate diagnostic systems were in use, none of which matched systems used by hospitals for reporting purposes: Standard Nomenclature of Disease, (1942 revision) War Department Technical Bulletin (Medical 203), 1943 (US Navy) Veteran's Administration (modified version of Medical 203) rooted in Adolf Meyer's psychobiology: all disorders considered to be reactions to stress (e.g., depressive reaction)   psychoanalytic (i.e., Fruedian) which was constructed by sending questionnaires to 10% of APA members, 46% of whom responded.   Final approval obtained from vote of full APA membership   There were three broad classes of psychopathology:   organic brain syndromes (e.g., Korsakoff's syndrome, epilepsy)   functional disorders (e.g., depression, schizophrenia)   mental deficiency (mental retardation [now called intellectual disability])   one childhood disorder, adjustment reaction of childhood/adolescence.   The structure and conceptual framework were the same as in Medical 203, and many passages of text were identical. The APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. In 1956, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker performed a study comparing the happiness and well-adjusted nature of self-identified homosexual men with heterosexual men and found no difference. Her study stunned the medical community and made her a heroine to many gay men and lesbians, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality by Irving Bieber and other authors, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was influential in the medical profession. Unfortunately homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974. DSM was criticized for its reliability and validity. The major limitation of the DSM was that the concept had not been scientifically tested. Also, all of the disorders listed were considered to be reactions to events occurring in an individual’s environment. Another problem was that there really was no distinction between abnormal and normal behavior. Despite this, it gained acceptance.   DSM 2   This second edition was released in 1969 by the APA. This edition featured a jump to 182 disorders. There were few changes in either process or philosophy (still psychoanalytic)   For the first time, international treaty dictated that the DSM and International Classification of Diseases (version 8; World Health Organization, 1966) be compatible.   Another primary objective was to improve communication among psychiatrists. Major psychiatric classes were expanded from 3 to 11 and several child and adolescent disorders added. They were: group delinquent reaction, hyperkinetic reaction, overanxious reaction, runaway reaction, unsocialized aggressive reaction, withdrawing reaction. The term "reaction" was dropped, but the term "neurosis" was retained. Both the DSM-I and the DSM-II reflected the predominant psychodynamic psychiatry,[24] although both manuals also included biological perspectives and concepts from Kraepelin's system of classification. Symptoms were not specified in detail for specific disorders. Many were seen as reflections of broad underlying conflicts or maladaptive reactions to life problems that were rooted in a distinction between neurosis and psychosis (roughly, anxiety/depression broadly in touch with reality, as opposed to hallucinations or delusions disconnected from reality). The idea that personality disorders did not involve emotional distress was discarded. There was still a disconnect between many doctors on whether the DSM was a reliable diagnostic tool. Robert Spitzer and Joseph L. Fleiss found that different practitioners using the DSM-II rarely agreed when diagnosing patients with similar problems. In reviewing previous studies of eighteen major diagnostic categories, Spitzer and Fleiss concluded that "there are no diagnostic categories for which reliability is uniformly high. Reliability appears to be only satisfactory for three categories: mental deficiency, organic brain syndrome (but not its subtypes), and alcoholism. The level of reliability is no better than fair for psychosis and schizophrenia and is poor for the remaining categories".   DSM 2: 7TH PRINTING   Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder following protests by gay rights activists at the 1974 annual convention of the APA in San Francisco   This landmark event illustrates several important points about conceptualization and diagnosis of mental illness:   diagnostic systems such as the DSM, which are constructed by social institutions, reflect social values   Psychiatry and related disciplines reinforce prevailing social values, which can lead to stigmatization, with considerable potential for negative effects on mental health.   As a social institution, the APA is not indifferent to socio political influence.   DSM 3   The DSM 3 was released in 1980 and showed a radical shift in philosophy from earlier versions.  It contained 265 disorders. Available (albeit limited) research weighted heavily for the first time. It was designed to be descriptive and atheoretical in order to appeal to professionals across theoretical orientations (e.g., social workers, psychologists) instead of just psychiatrists. Psychoanalytic paradigm was supplanted by the 'biological psychiatry' perspective. A major objective was to make psychiatry more scientific, bringing it into mainstream medicine. There was a pretty big problem though. There were low inter-rater agreements in psychiatric diagnosis, the major dependent variable in psychiatry. The US-UK Cross National Diagnostic Project revealed much higher rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in NY and much higher rates of mood disorder diagnoses in London, despite nearly identical symptoms among psychiatric admissions. A meta analysis by Spitzer and Fleiss (1974) revealed the following kappa (κ) statistics for major psychiatric disorders:   depression: .41   mania: .33   anxiety: .45   schizophrenia: .57   alcoholism: .71   In general κs greater than .6 are unacceptable, so basically what this is saying is that these numbers are too high and there's too much disagreement in diagnosis. Low agreement was attributed to two sources, criterion variance and information variance.   criterion variance is when  diagnosticians are using different criteria when rendering diagnoses. Information variance is when diagnosticians are obtaining different information when interviewing patients. Both of these things led to major breakthroughs in diagnosis techniques but we're getting nerdy and scientific enough, and frankly we don't have the time… Just know they were important! The DSM-III also introduced multi-axial classification:   Axis I: clinical disorders, and conditions that need clinical attention (e.g., schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder)   Axis II: personality disorders and mental retardation (e.g., antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, autism spectrum disorder)   Axis III: general medical conditions (e.g., hypothyroidism, Huntington's disease)   Axis IV: psychosocial and environmental problems (e.g., homelessness, child abuse)   Axis V: global assessment of functioning scale (0-100)   DSM 3-R   The revision of the DSM 3 was released in 1987. It added a few more disorders bringing the number to 292.  The explicit goal was to revise diagnostic criteria that were inconsistent, unclear, or were contradicted by subsequent research.   It eliminated most exclusion criteria, thereby doing away with implementing diagnostic hierarchies, which simplify diagnosis.   pre- DSM-III-R:   organic brain syndrome (i.e., illness attributable to CNS disease, brain trauma, etc.); if absent, then   schizophrenia; if absent, then   mood disorders; if absent, then   personality disorders   Eliminating diagnostic hierarchies resulted in a major increase in prevalence of disorders, and on rates of comorbidity.   DSM 4   The DSM 4 was released in 1994. The DSM 4 contained 365 disorders. A new version was needed to be compatible with the ICD 10. It is more data driven than any previous version. Some of the things done to collect now data were as follows: 13 work groups, populated with experts in each domain (e.g., anxiety disorders, eating disorders, mood disorders, multi-axial issues, etc.)   review papers commissioned   12 multisite field trials to collect new data with 5-10 sites per field trial with 70 total sites involving 6000 participants   workgroups were to use data from the field trials to "compare alternative options and to study the possible impact of suggested changes"    McArthur foundation funding for re-analysis of existing datasets   publication of a multivolume DSM Sourcebook   Side note: looking into different sources, the number of disorders and diagnosis in each edition vary from source to source. For example three different sources list the the amount of disorders for the DSM 4 at 297, 365, and 410 respectively. If you've been listening and say this point are like: these idiots can't even get the number right… Well we're doing our best goddammit, and as we like to say, Blame the internet!.    Ok back to it   DSM 4 TR   A text revision of DSM-IV, titled DSM-IV-TR, was published in 2000. The diagnostic categories were unchanged as were the diagnostic criteria for all but 9 diagnoses. The majority of the text was unchanged; however, the text of two disorders, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified and Asperger's disorder, had significant and/or multiple changes made. The definition of pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified was changed back to what it was in DSM-III-R and the text for Asperger's disorder was practically entirely rewritten. Most other changes were to the associated features sections of diagnoses that contained additional information such as lab findings, demographic information, prevalence, course. Also, some diagnostic codes were changed to maintain consistency with ICD-9-CM .    Ok so that covers the first four editions and their revisions. And yes, for those of you who knows your DSMs, there is much more to editions 3 and 4 that we didn't go into. We are aware of this. But for the sake of time and sanity we did it the way we felt best… So back off.   That brings us to the present edition, the one that had piqued Jons interest so much, the DSM 5.    Turns it the joke may be on Jon as big changes were anticipated but few were implemented.  A similar revision process to that used for DSM IV was used including:   11 expensive field trails at medical/academic sites to assess "...reliability, feasibility, and clinical utility of select revisions"    19 expert work/study groups   re-analyses of large datasets   Here are done of the major highlights:   autism spectrum disorder (ASD) subsumes what were autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and PDD NOS   ADHD placed in the neurodevelopmental disorders category (with intellectual developmental disorder, ASD, specific LDs, motor disorders, etc.)   a schizophrenia spectrum is now recognized   disruptive mood dysregulation disorder added to depressive disorders   several new obsessive compulsive disorders added (e.g., hoarding, skin-picking, substance-induced)   gender dysphoria added   gambling disorder added to the the substance-related and addictive disorders chapter   ALMOST NO CHANGES TO THE PERSONALITY DISORDERS!    Multi-axial classification that characterized the DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-IV-TR was abandoned.    The DSM spawned the five factor model, or FFM. The FFM came about as an idea that it could be used to describe and understand the official personality disorder (PD) constructs from the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manuals. The FFM while spawned from the DSM is not exactly the same thing they are often confused and many think they are the same thing. The five factor model (FFM) is based on five personality factors, often referred to by the acronym OCEAN for Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism.   They are measured on continua, whereby an individual may be highly extraverted, low in extraversion (introverted) or somewhere between these two extremes.  It enables the analysis of human personality based on observations carried out from clinical practices. Psychologist Lewis Goldberg referred to these as the ‘Big Five’ factors of personality, and developed the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) - an inventory of descriptive statements relating to each trait. Within each factor, a set of individual traits relate to more specific aspects of personality.   FIVE FACTORS AT A GLANCE:   Openness to Experience The openness to experience dimension of personality is characterised by a willingness to try new activities. Openness to experience is often associated with intelligence when measuring personality factors.   Individuals who score highly on verbal/crystallized intelligence measures have been found to also report being more open to experience.   CONSCIENTIOUSNESS:   People who are conscientious are more aware of their actions and the consequences of their behavior than people who are unconscientious. They feel a sense of responsibility towards others and are generally careful to carry out the duties assigned to them.Conscientious individuals like to keep a tidy environment and are well-organized. They are keen to maintain good timekeeping. People with high conscientious levels also exhibit more goal-oriented behavior. Low levels of conscientiousness are reflected in less motivated behavior. Unconscientious individuals are less concerned by tidiness and punctuality. Unconscientious people tend to engage in more impulsive behavior. They will act on a last-minute whim rather than considering the consequences of their choices. Research suggests that both environmental factors and heritability may influence conscientiousness.   EXTRAVERSION:   Extraversion is characterised by outgoing, socially confident behavior. Extraverts are sociable, talkative and often forward in social situations. They enjoy being the center of a group and will often seek the attention of others.This personality trait is measured on an introversion-extraversion continuum. Individuals who fit in the middle of the two traits are described as ambiverts. Introverts are people with low levels of extraversion, display contrasting behavior. They are quieter and often feel shy around other people. They may feel intimidated being in large groups such as parties, and will often try to avoid demanding social gatherings.    AGREEABLENESS:   Individuals who score highly on agreeableness measures are friendly and co-operative. Often considered more likeable by their peers and colleagues, agreeable people are trusting of others and are more altruistic, willing to help others during times of need. Their ability to work with others means that they often work well as members of a team. Individuals who are disagreeable score lower on this dimension of personality. They are less concerned with pleasing other people and making friends. Disagreeable individuals are more suspicious of other people’s intentions and are less charitable. As with some of the other ‘Big Five’ personality factors, our agreeableness levels are fluid throughout our lives, tending to increase as we grow older.   Neuroticism This personality dimension is measured on a continuum ranging from emotional stability to emotional instability, or neuroticism. People with high neuroticism scores are often persistent worriers. They are more fearful and often feel anxious, over-thinking their problems and exaggerating their significance. Rather than seeing the positive in a situation, they may dwell on its negative aspects.People with low neuroticism scores are less preoccupied by these negative concerns. They are able to remain more calm in response to stressful situations, and view problems in proportion to their importance. As a result, they tend to worry about such problems to a lesser extent. A person’s neuroticism can have repercussions in terms of their relationship with others. A study found that people in relationships were less happy than other couples if their partner scored highly on the personality trait.   These 5 major traits contain facets, and within these facets are the 18 items that experts link with psychopathy.    We started with the DSM 5 which led us to the FFM, which brings us to psychos. There were so many damn case studies and legal papers from law students, this shit was hard to research past the basic explanations. As for both being used in legal settings that is an even more gigantic pile of stinky shit to wade through. There were at least 6 pages worth of google his about the misuses of both in diagnosing criminals for court cases. A good amount of the misuses were dealing with trying to use the dsm 5 and the FFM as proof for an insanity plea. Not necessarily a misuse, but it seems that even when these are used to help determine personality and/or mental illness, even these are rarely convincing enough to actually grant an insanity ruling. The FFM can help determine a person's personality and possibly if they are a psychopath, but even being a psychopath won't automatically guarantee any kind of insanity defence. The DSM 5 can help identify any mental disorders, but mental disorders alone don't call for an automatic insanity defence. Even put together, personality profile and any underlying mental disorders, they are not necessarily a recipe insanity. Successful insanity defenses are rare. While rates vary from state to state, on average 0.85 percent actually raises the insanity defense nationwide. Interestingly, states with higher rates of insanity defenses tend to have lower success rates for insanity defenses; the percentage of all defendants found NGRI is fairly constant, at around 0.26 percent.   Another reason that it is hard to use the dsm5 in insanity defences is the factor of the many differing opinions on how the dsm5 is applied. We saw earlier in the episode that there was a large amount of different diagnosis on patients that had the same symptoms.    After all this we then looked into the DSM as it pertains to profiling as Jon had mentioned. It turns out profilers don't really use the dsm 5 to help them. Which maybe they should,  seeing as how profilers are right only around 66%, they could probably use all the help they can get. Some, however, believe by using the dsm 5 you can find the common mental illness of serial killers and use that to help determine a profile. Speaking of mental illness, let's look at the top three mental illnesses most commonly found in serial killers. First up schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels and behaves. Symptoms range from hallucinations and delusions to emotional flatness and catatonia. It is one of the most common mental disorders diagnosed among criminals, especially serial killers. David Berkowitz, Richard Chase, James holmes, and Ed Vein all had schizophrenia. Next up, Borderline Personality Disorder.  Characterized by impulsive behaviors, intense mood swings, feelings of low self-worth and problems in interpersonal relationships, borderline personality disorder seems more common among female criminals. Jeffrey Dahmer, Kristin H Gilbert, and Aileen Wuornos were all found to have borderline personality. Antisocial Personality Disorder is the third major illness. Known in the past as “psychopathy,” this mental disorder is characterized by a total lack of remorse and disregard of the feelings of others. People with APD may lie, act out violently, or break the law. While it’s reported that APD only affects 0.6% of the population, it may affect up to 47% of male inmates and 21% of female inmates. It’s also been diagnosed among three of the most ruthless serial killers. So we know that we just said that it was formerly known as psychopathy but turn out they may be two distinct things. There's actually pushback from both sides that there are traits of each that are distinct from the other. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy were all diagnosed with antisocial Personality Disorder. These determinations of the diagnoses were carried out using the dsm5 guidelines for determining illnesses. So while it may not be used in profiling so to speak, you can use it to gather information to help see the traits of other people like the one they are looking for.   The DSM has been a valuable tool for mental health development and treatment. Every mental health professional uses the DSM in his or her own way. Some practitioners rigidly stick to the manual, developing treatment plans for each client based solely on the book's diagnoses. Others use the DSM as a guideline—a tool to help them conceptualize cases while focusing on each client's unique set of circumstances.    Despite its flaws, the DSM is uniquely helpful for several reasons.   Standardization Beyond billing and coding, standardization provides a number of important benefits to the clinician and the client. Standardization of diagnoses helps ensure that clients receive appropriate, helpful treatment regardless of location, social class, or ability to pay. It provides a concrete assessment of issues and helps therapists develop specific goals of therapy, as well as assess the effectiveness of treatment.4   Research Guidance In addition, the DSM helps guide research in the mental health field. The diagnostic checklists help ensure that different groups of researchers are studying the same disorder—although this may be more theoretical than practical, as so many disorders have such widely varying symptoms. Therapeutic Guidance For the mental health professional, the DSM eliminates a lot of guesswork. Proper diagnosis and treatment of mental illness remains an art, but the DSM diagnostic criteria serve as a sort of map.   In the age of brief therapy, a clinician may see a specific client only a handful of times, which may not be long enough to delve fully into the client's background and issues. Using the diagnostic criteria contained in the DSM, the therapist can develop a quick frame of reference, which is then refined during individual sessions.   No tool is perfect, and the DSM is no exception. Being aware of its drawbacks is important for both patients and therapists. Oversimplification The latest round of criticism echoes a long running debate on the nature of mental health. Many critics of the DSM see it as an oversimplification of the vast continuum of human behavior.6 Some worry that by reducing complex problems to labels and numbers, the scientific community risks losing track of the unique human element.   Misdiagnoses and Over-Diagnoses Possible risks include misdiagnosis or even over-diagnosis, in which vast groups of people are labeled as having a disorder simply because their behavior does not always line up with the current ideal.7 Childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common example. Shifts in terminology and diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV coincided with a massive upturn in the number of children on Ritalin or other medications.   Labeling and Stigmatization Other risks involve the possibility of stigmatization. Although mental health disorders are not viewed in the negative light that they once were, specific disorders can be perceived as labels. Some therapists take great care to avoid attaching labels to their clients. But for a variety of reasons, a specific diagnosis may be required.   While doing the research, many many many boring ass theses were read trying to give Jon what he wanted as far as the link between the DSMs and serial killers and such. The thing is, there isn't much and what's out there is basically just the same stuff over and over. The biggest link you'll find between the dsm and serial killers is the use of the dsm in diagnosing psychopathy and sociopathy in a majority of the cases. One cool thing we found was that at one point, psychologists were asked to look into the personality and mental well being of Ted Bundy. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this interest in Bundy is the fact that he was able to function and even flourish in his career and personal life, while carrying out and evading arrest for a longstanding series of brutal rapes and murders. Seventy-three psychologists from APA Division 42 recently took the opportunity to participate in a study concerned with the personality structure of Ted Bundy. The psychologists were provided a brief one and a half page vignette compiled from historical sources and reference materials. The psychologists were then asked to describe Bundy in terms of the American Psychiatric Association s personality disorder nomenclature. This means using the DSM for their evaluations of his mental disorders.The most commonly diagnosed personality disorder was antisocial, which was endorsed by almost 96% of the sample. In fact, nearly 80% of the respondents described Bundy as a prototypic case of antisocial personality disorder. Considering the history of brutal rapes and violent murders perpetrated by Bundy, this diagnosis is not particularly surprising. However, it is also worth noting that nearly 95% of the sample also saw Bundy as meeting sufficient criteria to be given the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. Over 50% of the psychologists also viewed Bundy as being above the diagnostic threshold for the borderline and schizoid diagnoses. This variety of personality disorder diagnoses offered by the members of Division 42 certainly supports the complex nature of Bundy s personality. As a comparison the psychologists were also asked to describe Bundy using the FFM system. Of course, the most notable aspect of Bundy s FFM profile was the consistently low ratings on all six facets of antagonism, indicating that the clinicians saw him as manipulative, deceitful, mistrustful, arrogant and callous. However, consistent with the reports of Bundy s success in political endeavors, the clinicians also rated him highly in the domain of extraversion, describing him as assertive, active, and thrill-seeking although also extremely low in the extraversion facet of warmth. Bundy was described as being particularly low on all the facets of neuroticism, with the exception of angry hostility. This indicates that he was seen as relatively free from experiencing negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and selfconsciousness, but also as having great difficulty controlling his anger. Perhaps the most noteworthy finding from the FFM ratings was his generally high ratings on the domain of conscientiousness. In contrast with the impulsive, undercontrolled behavior that one would typically expect from an antisocial criminal, Bundy was described as being , orderly, achievement oriented and deliberate. Perhaps it was his characteristic style of careful planning and deliberate execution that enabled Bundy to avoid capture and arrest for so many years. The reasons for this evaluation was to determine which system was more useful for clinicians when looking for a diagnosis, working with patients, and being able to relay the information to the average person not familiar with all of the psychology jargon. They also used this as a study for what they may have needed to change from the DSM 4 to the dsm 5. The cool part was that they were able to dig into the mind of a killer and show the use of both the dsm and ffm models.   So look at know that this was more of a nerd out episode. Hopefully you find it interesting. Getting into the mind of criminals to determine what drives them is important for future dishonoring and treatment research. The DSM and ffm are critical tools used to help do this. The DSM is pretty much the exclusive tool used by psychologists to diagnose mental disorders and come up with treatment plans.    Another question that is being explored using the dsm is whether serial killers, repeat violent offenders, serial rapists and the like, can be rehabilitated. There are many studies in the world using the DSM 5 and other tools trying to determine if there are visible treatment options to use for this purpose. The big question here is, who would want to take the risk on rehabbing a serial killer, then putting their name on a piece of paper saying that person is ok to rejoin society, and theeeeen have that person revert back to their old habit of you know…. Killing people. There are plenty of people out there doing research on this topic. It was hard to find any solid answers as of now, but hopefully there will be more information soon.    We would also like to take a moment to say a couple things about this research. Most of the research was hampered but the fact that most of the good papers written on the subjects we discussed you actually have to pay to read. There many good papers with much good info that we could not access due to that fact. We wanted a DSM episode as we are both very interested in the minds of killers and criminals and the dsm and the FFM are the major tools in diagnosing the personalities and mental disorders of these killers and criminals. We know this wasn't our usual type of episode but sometimes we like to get nerdy and this one of those times. Hopefully you guys entity getting nerdy with us.   https://screenrant.com/great-binge-worthy-serial-killer-movies-based-on-real-murderers-ranked-imdb/    

Precious and Aiden practice their interviewing skills in the heartwrenching and emotional podcast showcasing their perseverance in the face of adversity.

Wer ein ISMS oder ein DSMS aufbauen will, braucht auch das Werkzeug und die Software dazu. Wie schon beim Thema IT erwähnt, ist die beste Lösung immer individuell – und die Entscheidung liegt beim jeweiligen Unternehmen. Bevor du ein professionelles ISMS oder DSMS aufbaust, frag dich: Was genau brauche ich? Was will ich erreichen? Wofür genau will ich ein bestimmtes Tool einsetzen? Je klarer solche Fragen im Vorfeld beantwortet werden, desto reibungsloser läuft die Umsetzung und desto besser läuft die Zusammenarbeit zwischen allen Beteiligten – ISB, DSB, den Mit- gliedern des IDTs und allen Kollegen im eigenen Unternehmen. Keine Angst vor neuer Software und Tools, insbesondere für das Projektmanagement. Jeder braucht ein wenig Zeit, um mit neuen Programmen warm zu werden. Du wirst schnell feststellen, wie sehr sie dir die Arbeit erleichtern und wie enorm sie dabei helfen, den Überblick zu behalten.

Brad's back lol, and not in an echo. We did the Mini Melee and then drove our DSMs, then we talked some Rally car updates. Oh and Andrew drops an F-bomb. Please Rate, review and subscribe to the podcast on your favorite listening platform.Comments, Questions, complaints; email us at autoofftopic@gmail.com"Z/28" by Z/28 is our title music. Listen to Z/28 at https://nobodyridesforfree.bandcamp.com/album/z28 and like them on FB at https://www.facebook.com/nobodyridesforfreeKeep your cars analog and Aim for the Roses! 

Welcome back for your second helping of CAMcast!  Casey Barrett and Mason Moore, and their dogs Prima and Rusty, hung out in the basement with Mike, Dave, and Zack and talked about all sorts of things: how DSMs brought them together, super sketchy off road racing, how Casey came to work at Ian Lacy Racing, drifting a solid axle Subaru, and a lot more! We've got a Patreon, and you should really become a Patron and help us keep making awesome content for you! Find us on social media, and be sure to subscribe to the CAMcast podcast, our YouTube channel, and on Patreon! Patreon Twitter Instagram Facebook The CAMcast on Apple Podcasts The CAMcast on Google Play The CAMcast on Spotify YouTube CAMautoSwag *Article, Photos, Videos, and Audio clips are copyright of CAMautoMag.Com and their respective owners

DSMs... one of the big cars of the early 2000s import scene, Matt finds out what it's like to drive one that has been built very well.  In addition we talk about tackling projects without a proper budget, automatic seatbelts, middle men, mexican interior work, fuel filters the new Ford GT and Larry Kosilla's ever evolving 964. Oh... and Matt's Mustang is done.

Psycomedia Episode 87 – Review of 2013 Part II – Ironic Mammaries http://archive.org/download/PsycomediaEpisode87-ReviewOf2013PartIi-IronicMammaries/Psycomedia87.mp3 Sources: http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/your-at-glance-guide-to-psychology-in.html http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/your-at-glance-guide-to-psychology-in_23.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22007007 http://mindhacks.com/2013/02/24/what-will-the-billion-dollar-brain-projects-do/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23863544 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/getting-in-a-tangle-over-men-and-womens-brain-wiring/ Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer: http://www.myspace.com/derwanderercomp The eponymous ironic mammaries: The closeness of the well-spread distributions of men and women: A timeline of DSMs and D&Ds: 1952 DSM-I 1968 DSM-II 1974 DSM-II-7 1974 D&D […]

Dr Roma Chilengi, Head of Clinical Trials at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kilifi, Kenya discusses clinical trial data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs). This introduction starts with a definition of a DSMB and discusses their roles and when they are required. DSMS constitutions, charters and considerations for under developed settings are also discussed.

Dr Roma Chilengi, Head of Clinical Trials at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kilifi, Kenya discusses clinical trial data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs). This introduction starts with a definition of a DSMB and discusses their roles and when they are required. DSMS constitutions, charters and considerations for under developed settings are also discussed.

Guest: Juha Pekka-Tolvanen Host: Daniel Steinberg Every application domain has its own language. It has vocabulary, rules, and constraints. Historically, we have written software by implementing these vocabulary terms, rules, and constraints in a "high-level language" such as C++ or Java, or using a modeling language such as UML. What gets Juha Pekka-Tolvanen of MetaCase out of bed every morning is a desire to improve in a fundamental way the productivity of software developers. He draws inspiration from studies that show it possible to achieve 500% to 1000% improvements -- not just in the speed of development, but also in the quality of the software produced. At ooPSLA, Pekka-Tolvanen will lead the The 7th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, along with Jeffrey Gray (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Matti Rossi (Helsinki School of Economics), and Jonathan Sprinkle (University of California, Berkeley). This workshop will share community experience using domain-specific modeling for software development. Among the topics of the workshop are experience reports from industry and academia, the creation of metamodel-based languages, novel approaches for code generation from domain-specific models, issues in supporting and maintaining systems built with DSMs, and tool support. Papers range from typical information technology domains to hard-core scientific areas such as nuclear physics and the simulation of chemical processes. In this podcast, Juha joins Daniel Steinberg of DimSumThinking to talk about the process and benefits of creating domain-specific models, the results of last year's workshop, and what is in store for this year's workshop.

Guest: Juha Pekka-Tolvanen Host: Daniel Steinberg Every application domain has its own language. It has vocabulary, rules, and constraints. Historically, we have written software by implementing these vocabulary terms, rules, and constraints in a "high-level language" such as C++ or Java, or using a modeling language such as UML. What gets Juha Pekka-Tolvanen of MetaCase out of bed every morning is a desire to improve in a fundamental way the productivity of software developers. He draws inspiration from studies that show it possible to achieve 500% to 1000% improvements -- not just in the speed of development, but also in the quality of the software produced. At ooPSLA, Pekka-Tolvanen will lead the The 7th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, along with Jeffrey Gray (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Matti Rossi (Helsinki School of Economics), and Jonathan Sprinkle (University of California, Berkeley). This workshop will share community experience using domain-specific modeling for software development. Among the topics of the workshop are experience reports from industry and academia, the creation of metamodel-based languages, novel approaches for code generation from domain-specific models, issues in supporting and maintaining systems built with DSMs, and tool support. Papers range from typical information technology domains to hard-core scientific areas such as nuclear physics and the simulation of chemical processes. In this podcast, Juha joins Daniel Steinberg of DimSumThinking to talk about the process and benefits of creating domain-specific models, the results of last year's workshop, and what is in store for this year's workshop.