The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[bit_pattern]

You assume ignorance whenever someone strays from the righteous path?

If you feel 'good' about being obese, where is the motivation to change?

It's as good as denial. We all know how self destructive denial can be.

When people make statements at complete odds with the conclusions of a very wide body of literature, I assume they are not familiar with said literature - yes.

And if you think that the corollary of saying that stigmatisation of a condition is bad is that the condition itself is in fact good, then I would have to assume further ignorance and advice you again to read more deeply on the topic.

ETA:

Social stigmas used to exist for a wide range of conditions. Take cancer for instance (the Big 'C' - the disease whose name we could not even utter in polite society), it used to be subject to a considerable degree of social stigma. By breaking down that stigma and 'normalising' the disease, as yourself and others have put it, we as a society weren't saying cancer was 'good', we were saying that people who suffered the condition didn't have to feel ashamed by it - because feelings of shame are never useful. As for motivation, people aren't any less motivated to get cancer treated because it has been destigmatised. Quite the opposite. As with obesity, the best motivation for treatment is not dying a premature death. And making someone feel ashamed is probably definitely a really good way to make someone feel as if life isn't worth living so, **** it, why bother with treatment when they can sit at home and get some modicum of satisfaction from an otherwise ****** existence by eating another bag of potato chips.

So unless you have some evidence beyond your feelings that shame is actually a good motivator for achieving anything positive in life, you would have to start questioning whether employing social stigma is doing a lot more harm than good.

 

[cullennz]

That is awesome, but why do I have to pay for some idiot to eat themselves to death pretend obesity is normal?

 

[Shiner]

... Cancer ...

Yet, as we continue to prove and understand how bad it is to stigmatise obesity, and make efforts to implement this rationale, obesity rates continue to increase across the Western world.
It obviously works, right?

You'd be doing yourself a big favor by not assuming ignorance from me.

Look again at the first sentence in my previous post. The 'status quo' is a malleable thing. Just like intellect and science. Obesity wasn't common 100 years ago. How do we know what we 'believe' is not in need of tweaking?

Your cancer analogy falls in the dirt with me. You may as well bring a religious anecdote into the conversation. I've never had any problem with the subject.
It was never stigmatized in a "no sympathy, self inflicted" way, except maybe lung cancer. (Unsympathetic)
It was done in the "they're gunna die, don't look 'em in the eye", kind of way. ( pity)

Its obvious you're not getting my angle, here.

 

[cullennz]

I am still trying to get my head around how teaching people to lose weight automaticly leads to stigma andand vilification.

 

[cullennz]

It is a bit like saying kids in school like I was who are crap at writing should not be helped to get better because I might feel some weird trauma.

Even stupider is they for the most part have a choice

 

[Shiner]

stigma and vilification.

You seem to understand the difference ....

 

[The Atheist]

So, great for your wife, but it really isn't anything we could derive public policy from.

Again, I made no comment that it had any bearing on anyone else - I specifically noted that she's a freak, but the point is that everyone is different.

No incorrect reporting of her food intake either - her chocolate intake alone is well over 150 gm/day every day, usually 200+. The rest is just filling. What we need is to find what stops her gaining weight and sell that.

1. Only 20% of people are going to lose approximately 10% of their body weight and maintain that for more than one year. If people can do this, it does get easier year after year, for these individuals, provide things like free gym memberships and cash incentives to lose weight and maintain weight loss

2. For those that are unable to lose weight or maintain a weight loss, bariatric surgery

3. Prevention, including cash incentives for parents to have their children fall in normal weight categories.

4. In countries with a social health care system, if people fail in the above three categories, then their access to some health care that is directly related to being obese will entail an extra payment.

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I think we are going to lose a generation or two.

I think your last part is the most likely, because all of the others cost money, and I would certainly object to my tax dollars paying.

Taxing fast food, soft drinks etc the way cigarettes are taxed would be the smart option.

 

[The Atheist]

OK, prove it using data NOT from NZ - where it is probable access to fresh produce is cheaper and easier than many other places. I would also say that a peer-reviewed paper from an actual expert in their field is eminently more convincing than your blog - just sayin'.

I can't prove it for another country because I don't know the prices.

There is plenty of data around for other regions. Do you really need me to Google for you?

New York Times

Time

 

[The Atheist]

As much as I hate to contradict your feelpinions on the issue, there is actually a wealth of evidence gathered over decades that shows why stigmatisation is counterproductive to dealing with addictive behaviours:

I repeat: what do you suggest?

Instead of telling us what you think won't work, try posting what you think might.

I'm getting very bored with the constant litany of "stop stigmatising, it doesn't help!!"

So, what does?

 

[bit_pattern]

I can't prove it for another country because I don't know the prices.

Yet you claim you can disprove data from another country with your blog? Go figure...

 

[bit_pattern]

Yet, as we continue to prove and understand how bad it is to stigmatise obesity, and make efforts to implement this rationale, obesity rates continue to increase across the Western world.
It obviously works, right?

Massive logical fallacy here. Saying that stigmatisation is counterproductive to people treating their problem is not the same thing as saying destigmatisation will magically make the problem disappear.

At any rate, where is your evidence that obesity HAS been destigmatised? I would proffer that the attitudes expressed in this thread are living examples that the social stigma still very much exists

You'd be doing yourself a big favor by not assuming ignorance from me.

And you'd be doing yourself a massive favour to argue the evidence and not your feelings. This is a critical thinking forum.

Look again at the first sentence in my previous post. The 'status quo' is a malleable thing. Just like intellect and science. Obesity wasn't common 100 years ago. How do we know what we 'believe' is not in need of tweaking?

Isn't that what I am arguing? That the belief that if "fatties" just stopped being so "stupid" and "lazy" then obesity would cease to be a problem? And I use the quotation marks with careful intent here, they are all comments that have been made in this thread over the previous 24 hours.

Your cancer analogy falls in the dirt with me. You may as well bring a religious anecdote into the conversation. I've never had any problem with the subject.
It was never stigmatized in a "no sympathy, self inflicted" way, except maybe lung cancer. (Unsympathetic)
It was done in the "they're gunna die, don't look 'em in the eye", kind of way. ( pity)

OK, well let's drop the analogy then - your criticisms of it are valid. Let's get back to the evidence instead. What evidence can you provide that shows engendering feelings of shame in a person is a useful motivating agent?

Its obvious you're not getting my angle, here.

The only "angle" I see is you making assumptions that aren't evidence based.

 

[bit_pattern]

I repeat: what do you suggest?

Instead of telling us what you think won't work, try posting what you think might.

I'm getting very bored with the constant litany of "stop stigmatising, it doesn't help!!"

So, what does?

For starters, I'm not the one making a claim here - I'm responding to the claim that shaming a person is a useful motivator. All I am doing is providing the evidence (this is still a critical thinking forum, after all) that the notion of stigmatising an individual is in fact counterproductive.

As for the rest of it, I'm not particularly well versed in public health policy. I do know a little bit about the stigmatisation of addictive behaviours - a good starting point is behavioural therapy that, as well as treating the behaviour itself, also focuses rebuilding a sense of self worth so that an individual is motivated to change their life. As always, I would say the first thing is to move away from your feelings and personal prejudices and look at what the relevant literature says on the topic. For example, 30 seconds on Google Scholar led me to this paper, which for brevity's sake I won't copy and paste into this reply. But contains extensive discussion around obesity intervention in the conclusion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866597/

You can find quite a lot of public health research into effective obesity intervention if you prepared to take the time to read:

http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/01/08/heapro.dan041.short

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=obesity+stigma+intervention&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

Better yet. If you disagree with the conclusion that stigmatisation is counterproductive then, instead of expressing your "boredom" with the direction the discussion has taken, how about you provide evidence to the contrary? I'd be fascinated to see evidence that making an individual feel ashamed is useful to them seeking help for their condition. Please, I am all ears.

 

[marplots]

For starters, I'm not the one making a claim here - I'm responding to the claim that shaming a person is a useful motivator. All I am doing is providing the evidence (this is still a critical thinking forum, after all) that the notion of stigmatising an individual is in fact counterproductive.

And yet, "shaming" influences my behavior every day. I'm not particularly keen on personal hygiene, but you can be sure I shower and shave before going into public. I'm an atheist, but I don't swear in church. I could drive more aggressively than I do, but I don't want people to think I'm a jerk.

The difference is whether or not "shaming" has an escape - whether I can alter my behavior to mitigate it. If I cannot - as in something like race - then it's pointless. If I can, as in obesity, then it might.

As for the rest of it, I'm not particularly well versed in public health policy. I do know a little bit about the stigmatisation of addictive behaviours - a good starting point is behavioural therapy that, as well as treating the behaviour itself, also focuses rebuilding a sense of self worth so that an individual is motivated to change their life.

But why change if things are proceeding fine? That's the disconnect I'm reading. The idea that criticism is "shaming," coupled with a recognition there really is a problem. How about, instead of calling it "shaming," we just call it "telling the truth?"

 

[bit_pattern]

And yet, "shaming" influences my behavior every day. I'm not particularly keen on personal hygiene, but you can be sure I shower and shave before going into public. I'm an atheist, but I don't swear in church. I could drive more aggressively than I do, but I don't want people to think I'm a jerk.

The difference is whether or not "shaming" has an escape - whether I can alter my behavior to mitigate it. If I cannot - as in something like race - then it's pointless. If I can, as in obesity, then it might.

Well, it might in your hypothetical construct. However, as has been cited on a number of occasions now, there is a considerable body of evidence showing that it doesn't and is in fact counterproductive. Now, maybe the body of evidence I am drawing on is flawed. Maybe there is a body of evidence that shows shaming and stigmatisation are very effective methods of obesity intervention. In which case the onus is on you guys to profer that evidence. Once again, your feelings don't actually count for evidence. Which has been my point all along.

But why change if things are proceeding fine? That's the disconnect I'm reading. The idea that criticism is "shaming," coupled with a recognition there really is a problem. How about, instead of calling it "shaming," we just call it "telling the truth?"

You can call it whatever you want but until you can provide the evidence that it's not I'm going to continue to argue that it is counterproductive. I would, however, take issue with the notion that your feelings are "the truth" - I am wholly unconvinced that obesity is merely a matter of personal agency and that there are significant structural issues around the obesogenic environment we as a society have constructed. Until we start factoring those issues into our public health policy decision making then blaming and shaming individuals isn't going to achieve anything.

 

[marplots]

Well, it might in your hypothetical construct. However, as has been cited on a number of occasions now, there is a considerable body of evidence showing that it doesn't and is in fact counterproductive. Now, maybe the body of evidence I am drawing on is flawed. Maybe there is a body of evidence that shows shaming and stigmatisation are very effective methods of obesity intervention. In which case the onus is on you guys to profer that evidence. Once again, your feelings don't actually count for evidence. Which has been my point all along.

I think it is flawed, not just the research, but the way you are constructing the argument. I only read the first study you posted, and it wasn't so much a study as a summation of ideas in a sociology context. There was no actual data presented, no blinding or even a good definition of what "stigmatizing" was supposed to mean. The conclusion was that it might be "psychologically harmful" and not help in weight loss, doesn't tell us anything anyhow, unless we are involved in treating the obese. I also found comparisons to AIDS and tuberculosis particularly off, but I understand that obesity is being presented as a disease condition - something which itself has a built-in bias.

You can call it whatever you want but until you can provide the evidence that it's not I'm going to continue to argue that it is counterproductive. I would, however, take issue with the notion that your feelings are "the truth" - I am wholly unconvinced that obesity is merely a matter of personal agency and that there are significant structural issues around the obesogenic environment we as a society have constructed. Until we start factoring those issues into our public health policy decision making then blaming and shaming individuals isn't going to achieve anything.

Blaming and shaming are being misconstrued. They aren't meant to "achieve" anything at all. They are an expression of disgust at a condition that is allowed to fester, an emotional reaction to the apparent state of affairs. If the notion of an "obesogenic" society is valid, then surely a willingness to reject the status quo would also be part of that. Imagine the difference if a restaurant refused to serve someone because they didn't want to contribute to an ongoing weight problem.

We do not blame people for getting sick. We do blame people for pursuing and accepting their sickness, refusing to cure it, and then claiming they are disabled because of it. We also don't serve alcohol to people who are already drunk, nor encourage addicts to take drugs.

 

[cullennz]

Isnt the very fact you are labelling someone Disabled stigmatising someone?

 

[The Atheist]

For starters, I'm not the one making a claim here - I'm responding to the claim that shaming a person is a useful motivator.

Nice strawman. At no stage have I made any claim in that regard.

My position from the start has been consistent - if someone is obese, I don't care but I object strenuously to it being made my problem.

Since the entire post is related to stigmatisation and that has nothing to do with me, I think we're done. Your links have nothing not already covered.

You haven't tried to come up with any solutions other than knocking down a strawman nobody has espoused.

Fine by me.

 

[The Atheist]

Isnt the very fact you are labelling someone Disabled stigmatising someone?

Yeah, but they get benefits so that kind of stigmatisation is fine, I presume.

 

[cullennz]

Fair point. Stigma cancellation due to touchy feely giving treats

 

[Shiner]

Massive logical fallacy here. Saying that stigmatisation is counterproductive to people treating their problem is not the same thing as saying destigmatisation will magically make the problem disappear.

It's only a logical fallacy if you think I made a conclusion. I didn't.

Cullennz seems to be able to tell the difference between stigmatize and villify.

You seem to want them to mean the same thing.

The only "angle" I see is you making assumptions that aren't evidence based.

You see what you want to see.

I don't think I've made any "claims" in this thread. Certainly not the ones you think.

Mostly, I'm JAQ.