Tendenziell eher ein gutes Zeichen OP. Das heißt sie will dir nur ein Angebot machen, wenn du am Ende wirklich etwas davon hast.

Schlechten Therapeut:innen geht es nur darum, dass du einmal die Woche da sitzt und jedes Quartal einmal deine Krankenkassenkarte scannen lässt. Denen ist es egal, deine Zeit (und Psychotherapieanspruch!) zu verschwenden. Klingt bei der nicht so.

Und Gründe für das Nachdenken könnte es dutzende geben - vielleicht hat sie gerade schon viele ähnliche Fälle, vielleicht empfehlen sich Methoden die sie nicht gerne anwendet, vielleicht kennt sie jemanden aus deinem Lebensumfeld, vielleicht fühlt sie sich fachlich unsicher weil sie in der Ausbildung bei genau dem Seminar zu deinem Thema gepennt hat, vielleicht ist sie sich unsicher über deine Offenheit/Therapiemotivation, vielleicht berührt es auch was in ihrer eigenen Biografie… oder der Grund könnte komplett banal sein, das Zeitfenster in dem du kannst ist bisher immer ihre Kaffepause gewesen, du kannst nur spät nachmittags und da nimmt ihre Konzentration immer ab, mit deiner Krankenkasse hat sie gerade Stress wegen jemand anderem, für dein Thema hat sie gerade keine Tests mehr vorrätig… so viele Möglichkeiten.

Ich würde abwarten und es, so gut wie möglich, nicht persönlich nehmen. Wenn keine Therapie zustande kommt, frag sie ob sie dir jemanden empfehlen kann.

Weil für die innere Uhr das Aufstehen bei Tageslicht vs. Dunkelheit viel relevanter ist als die Länge der hellen Feierabende. (Und die sind im Winter eh dunkel, selbst unter Sommerzeit.)

Wissenschaftlich ist das auch nicht umstritten. Kannst gern selbst suchen (zum Beispiel mit dem Begriff “permanent daylight saving time” auf Google Scholar, hier z.B. ein Studienergebnis von 2022). Erfahrungsgemäß sind Menschen ihre persönlichen Erlebnisse oder Anekdoten, wie deine aus Spanien, am Ende ja meistens wichtiger, insofern rechne ich eher nicht damit, hier jetzt großartig Meinungen ändern zu können, finde aber wichtig es immer wieder mal zu platzieren. Könnte ja z.B. gut sein, dass es für dich in Spanien noch andere Faktoren fürs Wohlbefinden gab - zum Beispiel die Tatsache, dass du im sommerlich südlichen Spanien warst und es eh wärmer und heller hattest. Wissenschaftlich spricht das meiste für die dauerhafte Normalzeit, und nicht für Sommerzeit. Und das ist zumindest ne Perspektive, die man berücksichtigen sollte.

Sommerzeit im Winter würde dieses Problem nicht nur verschlimmern, sondern die psychisch anstrengende Zeit im Jahr auch deutlich verlängern. Du würdest noch früher im Jahr im Dunkeln starten und erst später wieder mit Tageslicht aufwachen können, und im tiefsten Winter müsstest du gefühlt mitten in der Nacht aufwachen.

Dunklere, längere Winter wären der Haupteffekt der dauerhaften Sommerzeit, und eben nicht ein bisschen mehr Sommer-Feeling im Winter, was viele fälschlicherweise zu hoffen scheinen.

And it can mean building something with them and then talking about how they are. I work closely together with OTs who do exactly that.

And it already exists, called occupational therapy or ergotherapy.

Dogs, no! Only Seagulls!

That wouldn’t be a problem at all if we had better science journalism. Every psychologist knows that “a study showed” means nothing. Consensus over several repeated studies is how we approximate the truth.

The psychological methodology is absolutely fine as long as you know it’s limitations and how to correctly apply it. In my experience that’s not a problem within the field, but since a lot of people think psychology = common sense, and most people think they excel at that, a lot of laypeople overconfidently interpret scientific resultst which leads a ton of errors.

The replication crisis is mainly a problem of our publications (the journals, how impact factors are calculated, how peer review is done) and the economic reality of academia (namely how your livelihood depends on the publications!), not the methodology. The methods would be perfectly usable for valid replication studies - including falsification of bs results that are currently published en masse in pop science magazines.

HawlSera is generalising feminists, while at the same time critizising them for generalising.

Sorry, thats just not a perspective that deserves to be respected. It deserves to be corrected and criticized.

You seem to have left the conversation about the topic at hand altogether if the only thing you’re willing to talk about is her background.

Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?

Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.

The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.

But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.

I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.

Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.

Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!

I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.

Or at least develop a decent recurring character and relationship. As it stands this will be the second instance of blatant queerbating in Doctor Who. Gatwa deserves better - we all do!

I will be so damn disappointed if they end his run without revisiting the Rogue storyline. The doctor has never given up on someone like that - never. Let alone someone he cared about.

All feminists?

Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.

And what does that have to do with feminism?

All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.

And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.

…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.

you will need it eventually for its actual meaning.

Yeah, that time is now and this is what we need it for.

The next time to use it would be retrospectively, when historians try to explain how democracy died in Germany again.

It reinforces the idea for men not to bother getting help in the first place - you’re a man, they won’t take you seriously anyway, they will call you weak, don’t ask for help, just give up. That’s the inner logic of clinical depression and the comic supports it.

And it’s a really dangerous thing to imply because it could keep men further from the available support systems. It’s discouraging. I’m not questioning weather those things could have been said by someone, but it kinda seems like the author took some horrible TERF talking points and went “I guess it will be the same in mental health”.

The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians.

What fossil lobby or conservative politician is currently saying “okay guys you can have renewables, but then we will have to cut back on nuclear”? That’s the opposite of what conservatives are saying.

You are repeating a talking point that’s being spread around to distract from the fact that it is financially rewarding for the fossil lobby to postpone the transition away from them to sustainable energy sources as far as possible, which is exactly what will happen if we drain resources from renewables towards nuclear. And acting like our resources aren’t in some way limited is nothing but wishful thinking.

While you wait for the next nuclear power plant, the fossil fuel lobby is raking in record profits for decades to come.

Invest the money into renewables instead. And every bit of money you think you can get from “just raising the taxes a little” or “printing it” - invest that too. Everything else is a waste of time and resources.

We can do both.

If you have a set amount of money and resources to invest renewables are almost exclusively the better choice. Investing in nuclear instead means it will take even longer for us to wean off fossiles. That’s why it’s so useful for the oil lobby to support nuclear.