User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 132

  1. #81
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahbob View Post
    The problem with the lack of empiricism in psychology is that it is all structured around the ideal form of behavior that the upper class expects of subordinates which is in no way an example of actual or likely biological disorder.
    Can you support the highlighted generalization, or elaborate on what you see as the "'lack of empiricism" in psychology? The literature is replete with direct observations and even experiments that would satisfy most people's definitions of empirical, even if they might find fault with the methodology or conclusions drawn in some cases.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard, Thalassa liked this post

  2. #82
    Senior Member blahblahbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    So in reality, you just have a personal dislike for how the world is structured, and therefore exaggerate and heavily dramatize what you see around you (which is wrong to begin with) and deem the entire field as wrong because you must be right. Dat logic. It's impressive!

    That is flat irrational in every which way. Based off what I have seen of other posts of yours, you have an extremely warped picture of the world and are in no position to judge something like this.
    I have a problem with people who appoint themselves all high and mighty authorities on normal vs. abnormal and then assume a throne without any empirical basis for their claims and begin issuing edicts.

    For example, for decades homosexuality was a disorder according to the APA. Now it's not, cause: no reason. Why was it a disorder before? No reason.

    S&M sexuality was a disorder, now it's not, cause: no reason. Why was it a disorder before? Because it seems abnormal to attempt to damage that with which you are procreating and therefore decrease the viability of offspring? Or no particular reason?


    To me it sounds like you're projecting what the APA does... "I don't like x, y, z behavior, therefore it is an illness... look for evidence... no evidence... still it's a disorder cause I don't like it!"

  3. #83
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahbob View Post
    I have a problem with people who appoint themselves all high and mighty authorities on normal vs. abnormal and then assume a throne without any empirical basis for their claims and begin issuing edicts.

    For example, for decades homosexuality was a disorder according to the APA. Now it's not, cause: no reason. Why was it a disorder before? No reason.

    S&M sexuality was a disorder, now it's not, cause: no reason. Why was it a disorder before? Because it seems abnormal to attempt to damage that with which you are procreating and therefore decrease the viability of offspring? Or no particular reason?


    To me it sounds like you're projecting what the APA does... "I don't like x, y, z behavior, therefore it is an illness... look for evidence... no evidence... still it's a disorder cause I don't like it!"
    As I said, no field is perfect. As new information, data, research (clinical) comes in they adjust things accordingly. This is why a new DSM is published every 10-15 years, to update and reflect what we now know.

    Ok. So how on earth are we supposed to put people in authority then? People don't appoint themselves. They get promoted just like they would in any organization.

    You're also putting words in my mouth. I have said noting like that. You're the one that's saying you don't like something and projecting, and that is not what the APA does. It's a complete lie. I do not decide what belongs in the DSM or not. I may have opinions towards one particular disorder or not (and in general I don't). However, if it's regarded as important enough to be included, then there must have been rational basis behind it. The DSM-V was HEAVILY discussed, debated, and edited before it was published. It was actually in the news several times a few years back because of it. The APA sought to make sure it has come to as good of a consensus as it can, and make it as good as it can be.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #84
    Senior Member blahblahbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    As I said, no field is perfect. As new information, data, research (clinical) comes in they adjust things accordingly. This is why a new DSM is published every 10-15 years, to update and reflect what we now know.

    Ok. So how on earth are we supposed to put people in authority then? People don't appoint themselves. They get promoted just like they would in any organization.

    You're also putting words in my mouth. I have said noting like that. You're the one that's saying you don't like something and projecting. I do not decide what belongs in the DSM or not. I may have opinions towards one particular disorder or not (and in general I don't). However, if it's regarded as important enough to be included, then there must have been rational basis behind it. The DSM-V was HEAVILY discussed, debated, and edited before it was published. It was actually in the news several times a few years back because of it. The APA sought to make sure it has come to as good of a consensus as it can, and make it as good as it can be.
    When did I say there wasn't a rational basis behind including things in the DSM? The USSR had a rational basis for including "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia" in their definitions of disorders. They had a nice little checklist for it too - just like you'd find in the DSM. Of course, the USSR's rationale had nothing to do with psychological health.

  5. #85
    Senior Member blahblahbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    As I said, no field is perfect. As new information, data, research (clinical) comes in they adjust things accordingly. This is why a new DSM is published every 10-15 years, to update and reflect what we now know.

    Ok. So how on earth are we supposed to put people in authority then? People don't appoint themselves. They get promoted just like they would in any organization.

    You're also putting words in my mouth. I have said noting like that. You're the one that's saying you don't like something and projecting, and that is not what the APA does. It's a complete lie. I do not decide what belongs in the DSM or not. I may have opinions towards one particular disorder or not (and in general I don't). However, if it's regarded as important enough to be included, then there must have been rational basis behind it. The DSM-V was HEAVILY discussed, debated, and edited before it was published. It was actually in the news several times a few years back because of it. The APA sought to make sure it has come to as good of a consensus as it can, and make it as good as it can be.
    You're right, however, I am being hyperbolic. I certainly believe there are totally legitimate mental illnesses, but I also see how easy it is to pathologize normal behavior and/or generally dehumanize society by attempting to sanitize human differences and interpersonal relationships for the benefit of the system. It really depends on the disorder and the situation whether it is being misused or not. I can certainly think of instances where psychology both can, has been, and is being misused as a form of control over dissenting ideas/viewpoints and/or attempting to cover the tracks of nefarious elements.

    One example I would cite is the alleged schizophrenia of John Nash who made several reports of being gaslighted and then fled the country. To this day, he has never actually renounced his claims - only made asides like "I was not thinking how I should have been" or "I failed to take into account everything I should have." He still states he has never hallucinated anything. Regardless, we have "inspirational" stories portraying him as a genius schizophrenic that couldn't be further from the truth of his story.

  6. #86
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahbob View Post
    When did I say there wasn't a rational basis behind including things in the DSM? The USSR had a rational basis for including "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia" in their definitions of disorders. They had a nice little checklist for it too - just like you'd find in the DSM. Of course, the USSR's rationale had nothing to do with psychological health.

    You're right, however, I am being hyperbolic. I certainly believe there are totally legitimate mental illnesses, but I also see how easy it is to pathologize normal behavior and/or generally dehumanize society by attempting to sanitize human differences and interpersonal relationships for the benefit of the system. It really depends on the disorder and the situation whether it is being misused or not. I can certainly think of instances where psychology both can, has been, and is being misused as a form of control over dissenting ideas/viewpoints and/or attempting to cover the tracks of nefarious elements.

    One example I would cite is the alleged schizophrenia of John Nash who made several reports of being gaslighted and then fled the country. To this day, he has never actually renounced his claims - only made asides like "I was not thinking how I should have been" or "I failed to take into account everything I should have." He still states he has never hallucinated anything. Regardless, we have "inspirational" stories portraying him as a genius schizophrenic that couldn't be further from the truth of his story.
    Again, this comes back to you demonizing something because you personally don't like it, and you're not the one that gets to decide what is normal human behavior or not. If you're going to discuss something, being hyperbolic is going to result in people pushing you back harder, not taking you seriously, or finding you to be irrational. It does no good. It's fine to take issue with small parts of something when there are problems (and I agree there are). However, taking that and using to make broad stroke statements is wrong, which is why I called this out.

    I do not care to get into the case of John Nash because I do not know enough about him or his story to say what occurred. Nevertheless, schizophrenia is one of the three (the other two being schizoaffective, and bipolar), major/serious mental disorders, and no one is going to refute that. We do however need to keep investigating new ways to treat it. Somewhat recently there was a very nice TED talk on this that highlights different approaches towards schizophrenia.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  7. #87
    Senior Member blahblahbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Again, this comes back to you demonizing something because you personally don't like it, and you're not the one that gets to decide what is normal human behavior or not. If you're going to discuss something, being hyperbolic is going to result in people pushing you back harder, not taking you seriously, or finding you to be irrational. It does no good. It's fine to take issue with small parts of something when there are problems (and I agree there are). However, taking that and using to make broad stroke statements is wrong, which is why I called this out.

    I do not care to get into the case of John Nash because I do not know enough about him or his story to say what occurred. Nevertheless, schizophrenia is one of the three (the other two being schizoaffective, and bipolar), major/serious mental disorders, and no one is going to refute that. We do however need to keep investigating new ways to treat it. Somewhat recently there was a very nice TED talk on this that highlights different approaches towards schizophrenia.
    No, it has nothing to do with me personally disliking it and everything to do with the fact that it is being politically abused.

  8. #88
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahbob View Post
    No, it has nothing to do with me personally disliking it and everything to do with the fact that it is being politically abused.
    You really could have fooled me, and you have YET AGAIN missed the entire point of what I am saying: labeling something as entirely invalid and not to be considered due to a small part of the organization maybe doing questionable things is NOT a rational, sound, or fair reason to write it off. You can not paint it with a broad stroke brush.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  9. #89
    Senior Member blahblahbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    You really could have fooled me, and you have YET AGAIN missed the entire point of what I am saying: labeling something as entirely invalid and not to be considered due to a small part of the organization maybe doing questionable things is NOT a rational, sound, or fair reason to write it off. You can not paint it with a broad stroke brush.
    That also does not dismiss the fact that it is, fundamentally, only quasi-empirical and rests completely on an appeal to authority fallacy. It may be otherwise functional in some regards, but it is regarded by many as a thoroughly proved hard science which is, in fact, fraud. I like the MBTI typology, I believe it is an adequate classification system which, nevertheless, doesn't take into account the true spectrum of human behavior and can never adequately describe any one individual. Similarly, I believe schizophrenia is a real disease as I've met and read the writings of people with actual schizophrenia. I've also read the writings of people who have been said to be schizophrenic and been skeptical.

    For many years the East German Stasi practiced a form of "no-touch torture" called "Zersetzung" which involved gaslighting, slander, libel, stalking, women and men posing as romantic interests, and a number of other techniques designed to deliberately destroy an individual's life. Barring the knowledge of this practice, any person who claimed to be victim to this could easily be dismissed as having a mental disorder, furthering the gaslighting effect that the victim of the communist regimes torture had on the target. The CIA also extensively experimented with no-touch torture methods and it still is not illegal in the United States and I doubt most of the E.U..

    This is one of the many problems of failing to live up to the rigorous standards of evidence based medicine. By asserting that all disorders can be diagnosed symptomatically, both a wide range of actual disorders and non-disorders can become classified under the same diagnosis. Because the DSM presents itself as more empirical than it actually is, it is of greater risk for this than internal medicine. If I have HIV, there are empirical tests that can confirm that to me. If I have schizophrenia, there isn't a single empirical test to confirm that - it is purely a subjective analysis of a set of apparent behaviors by the attending psychiatrist. These behaviors might be the same disorder that is present in a majority of schizophrenia patients or it could be a completely different disorder which manifests the same symptoms or it could be, as in the case of zersetzung, no disorder at all, but merely an accurate description of actual events which are misinterpreted according to a set rubric of behavioral disorders.

    The problem with the APA is not that it says some disorders exist, but that it pretends to have as concrete a grasp on them as medical science does on physiological malfunctions. If the APA wanted to have more of my trust, they would be more open about how subjective psychological analysis actually is and how the disorders are not cut and dry and well understood - but merely subjective analysis of undesirable behavioral traits common to multiple individuals. However, it is not in the APA's interest to be open with how subjective their science actually is in a world that wants quick fixes to any particular problem which arises.

    My distrust of the entire psychological establishment rests on its lack of empiricism and its appeals to authority. That doesn't mean I believe all psychology is useless. When they combine their tendency to overstate the solidness of their science with malevolent violations of the Nuremberg Code, however, it ensures I will not contribute to their organization in any way, financially or otherwise.

    I guess I misstated how I felt about it: I hate deception, particularly dogmatic deception... I see the lack of solid empiricism in psychology combined with a rigorous belief that it is as solid as medical science as deception... therefore I have strong personal feelings about that.

  10. #90
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    61%

    Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life.

Similar Threads

  1. Height/How tall are you?
    By niffer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 360
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 02:44 PM
  2. How old are you?
    By Economica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 10:38 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 07:50 AM
  4. How religious are you?
    By Economica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-19-2007, 01:01 PM
  5. How gullible are you?
    By Sahara in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 08-06-2007, 10:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO