Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:59 pm

Is the field of social psychology biased against political conservatives? There has been intense debate about this question since an informal poll of over 1,000 attendees at a social psychology meeting in 2011 revealed the group to be overwhelmingly liberal. Formal surveys have produced similar results, showing the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the broader field of psychology is 14-to-1.

Since then, social psychologists have tried to figure out why this imbalance exists. The primary explanation offered is that the field has an anticonservative bias. I have no doubt that this bias exists, but it’s not strong enough to push people who lean conservative out of the field at the rate they appear to be leaving. I believe that a less prominent explanation is more compelling: learning about social psychology can make you more liberal. I know about this possibility because it is exactly what happened to me.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/psychologists-are-known-for-being-liberal-but-is-that-because-they-understand-how-people-think/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Ben Reilly on Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:57 pm

I think there's something to that, and that it's related to why most journalists tend to be liberal as well ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ ).

It meshes with recent research in neuropsychology that suggests that conservatives and liberals take a vastly different approach to their intellectual lives:

In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized.

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

Fields like science and journalism would seem to naturally be more appealing to those who are curious and novelty-seeking.

_________________
"My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style."

-Maya Angelou
avatar
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American People.

Posts : 22714
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 42
Location : Besa Mi Culo, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:30 am

Stop confusing science with psychology.....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:23 am

victorismyhero wrote:Stop confusing science with psychology.....

+100

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:20 am

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

Conclusion

At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder.

In the same way that everyone is a sinner in religion's metaphysical playground, everyone is mentally ill in psychology's long, dark hallway – no one is truly “normal.” This means everyone needs psychological treatment. This means psychologists and psychiatrists are guaranteed lifetime employment, although that must surely be a coincidence rather than a dark motive.

But this avoids a more basic problem with the concept of “normal behavior.” The problem with establishing such a standard, whether one does this directly as religion does, or indirectly as psychology does, is that the activity confronts, and attempts to contradict, something that really is a scientific theory – evolution. In evolution, through the mechanism of natural selection, organisms adapt to the conditions of their environment, and, because the environment keeps changing, there is no particular genotype that can remain viable in the long term.

The scientific evidence for evolution is very strong, and evolution's message is that only flexible and adaptable organisms survive in a world of constant change. Reduced to everyday, individual terms, it means no single behavioral pattern can for all time be branded “correct” or “normal.” This is the core reason religion fails to provide for real human needs (which wasn't its original purpose anyway), and this failing is shared by psychology – they both put forth a fixed behavioral model in a constantly changing world.

why do some people no understand that A Group of Psychologist in not giving an unbiased answer as top if Psychology is a science.


even the scientific American Blog IF he had bothered to READ IT.;
Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:32 am

Yes you need to read Veya not pick and choose points as see what he says overall, what you just did was bad science by picking and choosing points. My view is it crosses over into science. It is not tottally scientific, but it does cross over, so read again and stop practicing bad science yourself by missing the points made. Your article is very old by the way.








Fellow Scientific American blogger Melanie Tannenbaum is flustered by allegations that psychology is not a science and I can see where she is coming from. In this case the stimulus was a piece by Alex Berezow, a microbiologist, who in a short and provocative piece in the LA times argued the case that psychology is not a real science. I think he's right. I also think that he misses the point.

Berezow's definition of science is not off the mark, but it's also incomplete and too narrow. Criticism of psychology's lack of rigor is not new; people have been arguing about wishy-washy speculations in fields like evolutionary psychology and the limitations of fMRI scans for years. The problem is only compounded by any number of gee-whiz popular science books purporting to use evolutionary and other kinds of "psychology" to explain human behavior. Neither is the field's image bolstered by high-profile controversies and sloppy studies which can't be replicated. But it's hardly fair to kill the message for lack of a suitable messenger. The same criticism has also been leveled at other social sciences including economics and sociology and yet the debate in economics does not seem to be as rancorous as that in psychology. At the heart of Berezow's argument is psychology's lack of quantifiability and dearth of accurate terminology. He points out research in fields like happiness where definitions are neither rigid nor objective and data is not quantifiable.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

This is absolutely true. But you know what other fields suffer from a lack of accurate definitions? My own fields, chemistry and drug discovery. For instance there has been a longstanding debate in our field about how you define a "druglike" molecule, that is, a chemical compound most likely to function as a drug. The number of definitions of "druglike" that have sprung up over the years are sufficient to fill a phonebook. The debate will probably continue for a long time. And yet nobody will deny that work on druglike compounds is a science; the fact is that chemists use guidelines for making druglike molecules all the time and they work. In fact why talk about druglike compounds when all of chemistry is sometimes regarded as insufficiently scientific and rigorous by physicists? There are several concepts in chemistry - aromaticity, hydrophobic effects, polarizability, chemical diversity - which succumb to multiple definitions and are not strictly quantifiable. Yet nobody (except perhaps certain physicists) denies that chemistry is a science. The accusation that "softer" fields are less rigorous and scientific than your own is common enough to be captured in this xkcd cartoon, but it's more of an accusation than, well, a quantifiable truth.

Now chemical definitions are still admittedly more accurate and quantifiable than definitions of happiness or satisfaction. But the point is that not everything measurable needs to be quantifiable to the sixth decimal point to call itself scientific. What matters is whether we can come up with consistent and at least semi-quantifiable definitions that are useful enough to make testable predictions. Psychological research is useful not when it's quantifiable but when it says something about human nature that is universal and revealing. A few days ago I watched a new movie about the life of psychologist and political thinker Hannah Arendt and mulled over the "banality of evil" that Arendt made famous. Now the banality of evil is not exactly rigorously quantifiable like the angular momentum of a figure skater, yet few people would deny that Arendt made an enormously valuable contribution to social science. The contribution worked because it was testable and repeatable (in Milgram-style experiments for instance) and true, not because you could accurately measure it with an fMRI machine. Or consider Daniel Kahneman's seminal work in behavioral economics which has led to real insights into decision making and biases; very few people would call what he did unscientific.

In fact one can argue that social scientists tread on dangerous ground when they start trying to make their discipline too accurate; the proliferation of mathematical models of finance that led to disaster on Wall Street are good testaments to what happens when financiers start longing for the rigor of physics. As the particle physicist turned financial modeler Emanuel Derman puts it, "Physicists are trying to discover 3 laws that will explain 99% of the universe; financial modelers should be content with discovering 99 laws that explain 3% of the universe". So is finance a science? The point is that we still know too little about biology and social systems to achieve the kind of quantitative prediction that sciences like physics do (on the other hand, physics - depending on what kind of physicist you are talking to - does not have to deal with emergent phenomena on a routine basis). But that does not mean that everything we say about human nature is completely unquantifiable and useless.

One valuable contribution that Berezow makes is to indicate the criteria that a field of study should satisfy to call itself a science. I think these criteria are incomplete and too rigid, but I think they provide a useful ruler for psychology to examine its own gaps and goals.

Why can we definitively say that (psychology is not a science)? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

I have already talked about the first two criteria and indicated that lack of clear terminology and quantifiability does not automatically consign a field to the bin of pseudoscience. The third criterion is actually interesting and important and it's not completely clear how to get around it. Since human beings are not electrons, it's indeed very hard to do an experiment with them and get the exact same results every single time. But that is why psychology relies heavily on statistics, to determine precisely whether the variability in results are due to chance or whether they reflect a real difference between samples. Admittedly this is a limitation that psychology will always have, but again, that does not mean it will preclude it from ever being useful. That's because as Melanie accurately notes, even fields like particle physics rely heavily on statistics these days. Nobody observed the Higgs boson directly, it was only visible through the agency of complex tests of statistical significance. And yet particle physics has always been regarded as the "purest" science, even by other physicists. Or consider non-linear dynamics where dependence on initial conditions is so extreme that systems like weather and biological populations become completely chaotic after a while. And yet you can apply statistics to these systems, make more or less reliable predictions and call it science. Which brings us to Berezow's last two points. Testability and prediction are indeed two cornerstones of science. I have already indicated that testability can often be accurate enough to be useful. As for prediction, firstly it can lie within a window of applicability. In my own field we routinely predict the activity or lack thereof of novel drug molecules. Sometimes our predictions are 90% successful, sometimes they are 40% successful. Even when they are 40% successful we can get useful data out of them, although it's also clear that they have some way to go before they can be used on a completely quantitative basis. And all this is still science.

But more importantly, prediction is not actually as important to science as Berezow thinks. The physicist David Deutsch has noted that after watching a magician perform a magic trick ten times you would be able to predict what he would do next, but it doesn't mean at all that you have actually understood what the magician is doing. Contrary to popular belief, in science understanding is at least as or more important than prediction. And psychological studies have definitely provided some understanding of how human beings behave under certain circumstances. It has helped us understand questions like: Why do smart people believe weird things? Why do otherwise decent people turn into monsters under certain circumstances (the banality of evil)? What is the basis of the bystander effect in which empathetic people don't come forward to stop a crime? Psychology has provided intriguing clues and explanations in all these areas, even if those explanations are not one-hundred percent reproducible and quantifiable. Is this science? Well, it's not a science like physics, but why should physics be the yardstick for measuring the "sciencyness" of various fields?

At the same time, I agree with Berezow that science cannot be redefined to such an extent that it no longer obeys time-honored criteria like testability and reproducibility; if you gradually start relaxing foundational requirements like hypothesis testing and observation you quickly slide down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie creatures like creationism, the Piltdown Man and astrology. But this was also the case with the beginnings of modern science when data collection was dominant, explanations were few and nobody had any idea what hypothesis testing meant. Yet we call what Linnaeus was doing science, and we call what Brahe was doing science. For crying out loud, even some of the work done by alchemists classifies as science; they did refine processes like distillation and sublimation after all. In my view psychology is in what we might call the Linnaean stage, collecting and classifying data and trying to find the right theory for describing its complexities. To me the acrimonious debates about evolutionary and positive psychology reflect the trial-by-fire that every field goes through in its early days to separate the chaff from the wheat. If you apply a narrow-minded definition of science then it might indeed be hard to call psychology a science. But what matters is whether it's useful. And to me the field certainly seems to have its uses.


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:49 am

LOL
you cant be partly science
Only NON Scientific people think that is even a valid statement.

If you take away the requirement for mathematical evidence and empirical repeatable experimentation WITH MEASURABLE results... You just took ALL THE SCIENCE out of science.

Psychology is No more science than Buddhism is science they BOTH miss the mathematical evidence and empirical repeatable experimentation WITH MEASURABLE results. making them Philosophy

AND Psychology is Anti evolution, because Evolution says there is NO NORMAL everything is dynamic and subject to continual change therefore You cannot have a normal psychological state to being with, Evolution PROVES Psychology to be nothing more than Philosophy suggesting on what 'normal' should be (like Religion)

LOL and Again Copy and pasted from a Psychologist NOT a Scientist and Obviously biased.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 6:56 am

Its like trying to reason with a child.
I shall await Victor to discuss, because you come up very short in such a disusssion. As he would take on board the points made and not ignore them.
I mean its a good thing we have such a field otherwise people mentally insane would be walking around free, but you wish to look down on a valuable field of which I never stated was a science but certainly crosses over into the science field
To claim it is anti evolution is nothing short of hogwash.
As I say I will wiat to discuss with someone who does understand science like Victor and not some immature child



Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:29 pm

I tend to agree that whilst psychology attempts to use scientific methods It is doomed to fail as a science per se, for all the above mentionted reasons and more.

The biggest flaw is that it tries to define "normal" and THEN tries to describer various pathologies based on deviations from ist own "internal reference of normal.

so basically psychology is an "ology" with a mind like tommy monk.

I mean ..just for a start WTF IS normal?????????????????

Ok so we can all see PLAINLY deviant behaviour...like the psychopath , even when the pathology is at a very low level...or so we think

BUT

is the super agressive highly combatative soldier a hereo or a psycho

if you translated those behaviour traits into the board room is he a super CEO...or a psycho control freak

and if yuo translated those traits into the post of a headmaster...would you want your kids in that school?

og course SOME psyco traits ARE quantifiable and indeed can be predicted both in action and severity from phisological measurements (such as brain scans wher injury or disease has occured) but thats a different matter

the fact that psychology is NOT a science is emphasised by its continued abject failure to accurately asses the fitness for release of severely disturbed persons from the prison system

any true science with that failure rate would be binned to the dark reaches of the internet for the nutters to chew over....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:48 pm

You offer a very poor argument in regards to where mistakes are made in a field that is still learning. Yes mistakes can be made just as they are in science itself. What is the alternative here that no evaluations are done and plenty of unhinged loons are walking within society, not medicated. How about schizophrenia?

It may not come up to the values of scientific testing but it certainly has much correlation and statistical evidence. There have been massive advances in criminology that has helped profile killers, none of which would have been possible. It certainly is a core value in society where without many would suffer problems without help from anything like depression and anxiety which can do lead to death with suicide ,Its very easy to deride a field such as psychology, when you yourself Victor use many of the terminology formed from this field itself. It certainly does cross over into science and one day will be meet the requirements.

You claim failure rate, but is it as you claim. Sorry but you easily dismiss a field which I do not claim to be scientfic but has been very beneficial where science has failed to helped society. So who really is the problem here because in the aspect of science itself what has it done to help many people with the vast amount of personalities and traits within people. All science can do is find forensic evidence in a crime, but can it really provide a reason for a crime?

Deride this valuable method that is and has become invaluable within our society, it certainly is able to fill in many gaps that science has no hope of filling.


Last edited by Cuchulain on Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:56 pm; edited 3 times in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:25 pm

Cuchulain wrote:You offer a very poor argument in regards to where mistakes are made in a field that is still learning. Yes mistakes can be made just as they are in science itself. What is the alternative here that no evaluations are done (yes, and the buggers stay in gaol) and plenty of unhinged loons are walking within society, not medicated. How about schizophrenia?

It may not come up to the values of scientific testing but it certainly has much correlation and statistical evidence. There have been massive advances in criminology that has helped profile killers, none of which would have been possible. It certainly is a core value in society where without many would suffer problems without help from anything like depression and anxiety which can do lead to death with suicide ,Its very easy to deride a field such as psychology, when you yourself Victor use many of the terminology formed from this field itself. It certainly does cross over into science and one day will be meet the requirements.

You claim failure rate, but is it as you claim. Sorry but you easily dismiss a field which I do not claim to be scientfic but has been very beneficial where science has failed to helped society. So who really is the problem here because in the aspect of science itself what has it done to help many people with the vast amount of personalities and traits within people. All science can do is find forensic evidence in a crime, but can it really provide a reason for a crime?

Deride this valuable method that is and has become invaluable within our society, it certainly is able to fill in many gaps that science has no hope of filling.

AND its still fails becasue it cannot define normal (I.E that base line from which to operate)

just like religion, which cannot define evil or good, except in terms of its own internal references

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:44 pm

LOL
sometimes I wonder why you bother with him victor
Razz Razz Razz Razz
Seems to not understand Science doesn't care what he thinks is good or normal.... Unless it is the a statistically norm Rolling Eyes

His whole post is just "this should be science because i want it to be for TOTALLY unscientific reasons."
He is basically little better than a Abrahamist obsessed with the idea everything effect Humans and that's all that matters. When that is Irrelevant it is not a condition of science at all. And Like i have said previously he is clearly treating Science like a religion.


_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:52 pm

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry, they are one of multiple evolutionary deviations that dependent on their success will become more or less common.

It is pretty simple really Science says we are an animals and adapt to our environment (which is why ADHD can in many case be seen as the time lag in adaption to our 'NEW stationary society')
Psychology says we are this in this box and we must force everyone to fit in this box because we arbitrarily define it as normal. it doesn't allow for the fact that every generation SHOULD be slightly different than the one before BECAUSE EVOLUTION every generation has to adapt to a 'world' where we are changing faster than we have every before .

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:06 am


_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:08 am


_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:46 am

victorismyhero wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:You offer a very poor argument in regards to where mistakes are made in a field that is still learning. Yes mistakes can be made just as they are in science itself. What is the alternative here that no evaluations are done (yes, and the buggers stay in gaol) and plenty of unhinged loons are walking within society, not medicated. How about schizophrenia?

It may not come up to the values of scientific testing but it certainly has much correlation and statistical evidence. There have been massive advances in criminology that has helped profile killers, none of which would have been possible. It certainly is a core value in society where without many would suffer problems without help from anything like depression and anxiety which can do lead to death with suicide ,Its very easy to deride a field such as psychology, when you yourself Victor use many of the terminology formed from this field itself. It certainly does cross over into science and one day will be meet the requirements.

You claim failure rate, but is it as you claim. Sorry but you easily dismiss a field which I do not claim to be scientfic but has been very beneficial where science has failed to helped society. So who really is the problem here because in the aspect of science itself what has it done to help many people with the vast amount of personalities and traits within people. All science can do is find forensic evidence in a crime, but can it really provide a reason for a crime?

Deride this valuable method that is and has become invaluable within our society, it certainly is able to fill in many gaps that science has no hope of filling.

AND its still fails becasue it cannot define normal (I.E that base line from which to operate)

just like religion, which cannot define evil or good, except in terms of its own internal references


Fair enough mate, but at least I can recognize an unhinge loon when I see one who thinks physchology is anti evolution based on gobbledygook or can read what posters say when they agree its not scientifc.

I mean anti-evolution?

Razz Razz Razz Razz

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:36 am

LOL
you are so dumb
SO there is a 'normal state' and evolution?
just answer yes or no and let the world see your ignorance Smile

the problem didge is you try and act like you are Understand what you parrot when you clearly don't To anyone that does understand it.


_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
you are so dumb
SO there is a 'normal state' and evolution?
just answer yes or no and let the world see your ignorance Smile

the problem didge is you try and act like you are Understand what you parrot when you clearly don't To anyone that does understand it.



PMSL, no you have invented gobbledygook
The field of psychology is not anti-evolution, in fact show me a consensus of scientists who claim such lunacy? I understand far more than you will ever hope to learn by google Veya.
You are inventing a question that has no correlation and have no gone off what victor has said about setting a normal parameter. So I understood what he said, but you certainly did not

In your own time loon?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:50 am

Also it is some scientists in neurology that has claimed links to brain chemistry in ADHD, but maybe you think neurology is not a science Veya?

Razz  Razz  Razz

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:58 am

I guess Veya is still searching Google for a consensus of scientists again which he failed at with ADHD on experts.
This is why I have no time for such an immature child. Claiming it is anti-evolution ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Catch you later loon

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:20 am

Cuchulain wrote:Also it is some scientists in neurology that has claimed links to brain chemistry in ADHD, but maybe you think neurology is not a science Veya?

Razz  Razz  Razz

Neurology is not Psychology
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2011/04/07/neurology-vs-psychiatry/#.VactX_nqU8A
They are opposing disciplines Neurologist are the one saying PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE !!!!!
Why do you argue thing that you have NO knowledge about? You just make a fool of yourself.

Neurology is Chemistry of the brain and Actually Cures diseases
NO it does not link it to ADHD it "links symptoms found in a range of conditions from dyslexia to Sexual Assault to a change in brain chemistry" THAT ALONE make the psychologists definition of 'born with it' wrong.

Psychologist try and Hijack it to say ADHD but that is why WE do not allow that in Australia OR the UK which is why we insist that Diet and home life and investigated BEFORE giving them Mind altering drugs, Which the pathetic Parrot keeps repeating is the only option.. because the American Psychologist association that is funded by A Pharmaceutical company said it... Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect


Psychology is not and never has been a discipline of science that is simply FACT, Psychologist TRY and say they are like science but they fail the REQUIREMENT to be measurable and repeatable.
Please Note All scientists Hate people like you that just keep repeating crap and suggesting any sort of Knowledge is science. Science has a definition Psychology does NOT meet it.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:22 am

Cuchulain wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:LOL
you are so dumb
SO there is a 'normal state' and evolution?
just answer yes or no and let the world see your ignorance Smile

the problem didge is you try and act like you are Understand what you parrot when you clearly don't To anyone that does understand it.



PMSL, no you have invented gobbledygook
The field of psychology is not anti-evolution, in fact show me a consensus of scientists who claim such lunacy? I understand far more than you will ever hope to learn by google Veya.
You are inventing a question that has no correlation and have no gone off what victor has said about setting a normal parameter. So I understood what he said, but you certainly did not

In your own time loon?

Since the advent of DSM-III, the subsequent editions of the DSM have all included a heavy symptom based pathology diagnosis system. Although there have been some attempts to incorporate environmental factors into mental and behavioural diagnostics, many practitioners and scientists believe that the most recent DSM's are misused. The symptom bias makes diagnosing quick and easier allowing for practitioners to increase their clientele because symptoms can be easier to classify and deal with than dealing with life or event histories which have evoked what may be a temporary and normal mental state in reaction to a patients environmental circumstances. Thus, a high rate of false positives will result in resource depletion for patients who may not need such a high level of acute or chronic mental care, as other true positive abnormal individuals. The easy-to-use manual not only has increased the perceived need for more mental health care, stimulating funding for mental health care facilities, but also has had a global impact on marketing strategies. Many pharmaceutical commercial ads list symptoms such as fatigue, depression, or anxiety. However, such symptoms are not necessarily abnormal, and are appropriate responses to such occurrences as the loss of a loved one. The targets of such ads in such cases do not need medication, and can naturally overcome their grief, but with such an advertising strategy pharmaceutical companies can greatly expand their marketing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29


Well that was easy since anyone that reads and thinks and have any knowledge about this beyond what they read in an advert already knows


Last edited by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:26 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:25 am

Before we contiune

What Is Science?

In order to consider whether psychology is a science, we must first define our terms. It is not overarching to say that science is what separates human beings from animals, and, as time goes by and we learn more about our animal neighbors here on Earth, it becomes increasingly clear that science is all that separates humans from animals. We are learning that animals have feelings, passions, and certain rights. What animals do not have is the ability to reason, to rise above feeling.

Science's goal is to create reasonable explanations (theories) to describe reality – theories that rely, not on feelings or passions, but on evidence. Science defines “evidence” in a special way that will seem rather strict to someone only familiar with the legal definition. To science, evidence is gathered and evaluated (and sometimes discarded) according to some rigid rules, rules meant to assure that a scientific theory reflects reality to the best of our ability.

How strict are science's rules of evidence? Well, let's first compare science to law. The legal definition of evidence is (as one example) a set of observations that appear to associate a particular person with a particular event. Typically, legal proceedings begin with an investigation meant to collect evidence, followed by a trial that establishes whether that evidence meets a criterion – “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings, and “according to the preponderance of evidence” in civil proceedings (in the US). This, by the way, is why O. J. Simpson was found innocent in criminal court, but found guilty in a subsequent civil proceeding – using the same evidence, he wasn't guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but he was guilty “according to the preponderance of evidence.”

What Is Psychology?

Psychology has as its aim the understanding of human behavior, and as a secondary goal, the treatment of behaviors deemed abnormal. Almost immediately upon the formation of the field, efforts were made to place psychological studies on a scientific basis. Early psychological studies were conducted by Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig, Germany. One of his students, G. Stanley Hall, then went on to establish the first American psychological laboratory at Johns Hopkins University.

Then, in 1900, Sigmund Freud introduced psychoanalytical theory in his book “The Interpretation of Dreams.” This was the first ultimately large-scale effort to apply psychological knowledge to the problem of treatment or therapy.

Human psychology and the related fields of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy achieved their greatest acceptance and popularity in the 1950s, at which time they were publicly perceived as sciences. But this was never true, and it is not true today – human psychology has never risen to the status of a science, for several reasons:

continue at http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:07 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Also it is some scientists in neurology that has claimed links to brain chemistry in ADHD, but maybe you think neurology is not a science Veya?

Razz  Razz  Razz

Neurology is not Psychology
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2011/04/07/neurology-vs-psychiatry/#.VactX_nqU8A
They are opposing disciplines Neurologist are the one saying PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE !!!!!
Why do you argue thing that you have NO knowledge about? You just make a fool of yourself.

Neurology is Chemistry of the brain and Actually Cures diseases
NO it does not link it to ADHD it "links symptoms found in a range of conditions from dyslexia to Sexual Assault to a change in brain chemistry" THAT ALONE make the psychologists definition of 'born with it' wrong.

Psychologist try and Hijack it to say ADHD but that is why WE do not allow that in Australia OR the UK which is why we insist that Diet and home life and investigated BEFORE giving them Mind altering drugs, Which the pathetic Parrot keeps repeating is the only option.. because the American Psychologist association that is funded by A Pharmaceutical company said it... Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect


Psychology is not and never has been a discipline of science that is simply FACT, Psychologist TRY and say they are like science but they fail the REQUIREMENT to be measurable and repeatable.
Please Note All scientists Hate people like you that just keep repeating crap and suggesting any sort of Knowledge is science. Science has a definition Psychology does NOT meet it.  


 



 




PMSL, so you made a claim based off neurologists thicko ha ha ha ha to evolution earlier on brain chemicals..
So yes I know neurology is not psychology,how to catch out a google poster ha ha

Epic fail

Hence why you are treated with the contempt you deserve, such extremist left wing idiots are a danger onto society and we understand why you are so anti psychology is because you should be locked up and sectioned under the mental health act.

So no concensus of scientists who agree with you its anti-evolution then?

 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:14 am

Just to remind posters what Veya said:

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry,

Talk about the funniest gobbldygook

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:35 am

Moron read a source
if you think it is gobbldygook that is a failure on your behalf
As pretty easy to follow,
Evolution is a state of Variance, change and adaption. 'Normal' is a Defined constant state that implies any deviation is wrong. The 2 concepts are clearly contradictory. so again Didge
Which exists? is it evolution or a Normal Psychological state?


_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:40 am

Your second last post doesn't even make sense
Are you drunk?

YES i believe Neurologist that are scientist NOT Psychologist that are Not.
Neurologists Clearly state that as multiple environmental factors can create the same set of symptoms it is NOT something you are born with. it is due to change in brain chemistry by external stimuli, and can be treated with external stimuli and does NOT require manipulation of brain chemistry through consuming chemicals..


Again the problem is YOU are so uneducated on this topic that you don't actually have a point. You do not understand the intricacies of the debate and it is pretty pointless as You clearly DO NOT know the difference between a neurologist and a psychologist.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:46 am

veya_victaous wrote:Moron read a source
if you think it is gobbldygook that is a failure on your behalf
As pretty easy to follow,
Evolution is a state of Variance, change and adaption. 'Normal' is a Defined constant state that implies any deviation is wrong. The 2 concepts are clearly contradictory. so again Didge
Which exists? is it evolution or a Normal Psychological state?


More hilarious poor assertions.
So now you are going off again normal, so you are saying that cancer or COPD is now not wrong and is not a daner to humans?
Your whole concept is flawed before it even starts, because many people suffer conditions brought on by things they deo themselves like smoking and drinking, each of which are not normal acts for humans to do but introduced. So your hypoethisis falls apart before it even starts as it fails to factor in what is not normal.
Please go away child and learn some real science. So deviation can br wrong when it is self induced.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:48 am

Cuchulain wrote:Just to remind posters what Veya said:

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry,

Talk about the funniest gobbldygook

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry, they are one of multiple evolutionary deviations that dependent on their success will become more or less common.

So you just read half a sentence Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect
There is NO NORMAL for the concept of 'normal' to exist then evolution is inactive, if evolution is constant then there is no normal as everything is in constant change, Normal being a fixed state Can NOT EXIST.


SO Neurologist say each brain is unique there is No normal state, there is multiple Variances of the Human brain.
thus it is an attribute as a disease makes something abnormal and abnormal is the state in differentiation from normal of which there is not one

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:48 am

veya_victaous wrote:Your second last post doesn't even make sense
Are you drunk?

YES i believe Neurologist that are scientist NOT Psychologist that are Not.
Neurologists Clearly state that as multiple environmental factors can create the same set of symptoms it is NOT something you are born with. it is due to change in brain chemistry by external stimuli, and can be treated with external stimuli and does NOT require manipulation of brain chemistry through consuming chemicals..


Again the problem is YOU are so uneducated on this topic that you don't actually have a point. You do not understand the intricacies of the debate and it is pretty pointless as You clearly DO NOT know the difference between a neurologist and a psychologist.

You offer any opinion as to your reasons which says it all, being as ADHD is not fully understood you again make assertions which have no founding and your evidence on all of this is a claim to things you never did but your mother. I was the one that stated that neurology is a science and it is backing up what pshychology has been saying on many claims.
So please actually go to schooland get an education because looking up google is not a claim to understanding something

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:50 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Just to remind posters what Veya said:

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry,

Talk about the funniest gobbldygook

It is anti evolution because according to evolution ADHD and the like are not diseases they are attributes, the person was born with that brain chemistry, they are one of multiple evolutionary deviations that dependent on their success will become more or less common.

So you just read half a sentence Suspect Suspect Suspect Suspect
There is NO NORMAL for the concept of 'normal' to exist then evolution is inactive, if evolution is constant then there is no normal as everything is in constant change, Normal being a fixed state Can NOT EXIST.


SO Neurologist say each brain is unique there is No normal state, there is multiple Variances of the Human brain.
thus it is an attribute as a disease makes something abnormal and abnormal is the state in differentiation from normal of which there is not one


Yet more gobbldygook, itgets funnier by the minuet, as where does physchology state all is normal?
They make stances based off correlation and statsistics..
This is why your whole view falls apart and why you are a complete idiot.

Again show me a concensus of scientists that agree physchology is anti-evolutuon?

In your own time

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:52 am

Cuchulain wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Moron read a source
if you think it is gobbldygook that is a failure on your behalf
As pretty easy to follow,
Evolution is a state of Variance, change and adaption. 'Normal' is a Defined constant state that implies any deviation is wrong. The 2 concepts are clearly contradictory. so again Didge
Which exists? is it evolution or a Normal Psychological state?


More hilarious poor assertions.
So now you are going off again normal, so you are saying that cancer or COPD is now not wrong and is not a daner to humans?
Your whole concept is flawed before it even starts, because many people suffer conditions brought on by things they deo themselves like smoking and drinking, each of which are not normal acts for humans to do but introduced. So your hypoethisis falls apart before it even starts as it fails to factor in what is not normal.
Please go away child and learn some real science. So deviation can br wrong when it is self induced.


holy fuck you are dumb

I cant didge, If i keep reading your post i am going to0 ban you for stupidity.

What does cancer which is measurable and repeatable have to do with Psychology?

And No... that bolded part is So NOT science, As in that statement would not even be allowed in any Scientific argument.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:55 am

A threat to ban me now based off no rule broken because you are losing a debate.

I suggest you resign with immediate effect as seen you have just proved you are incapable of being able to be a fair Admin.

I shall await your resignation..

Never claimed cancer has anything to do with pshychology, the point of cancer was to show your hypoethsis was utterly flawed based off deviation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:58 am

Well I have to go to work, but whatmore evidence do you need to see in regards to the left that they wish to censur posters because of disagreements by threatening to ban them.

As seen you are clearly not fit for purpose as an admin allowing a debate that is heated to think you can ban people because they disagree with you. That has all the hallmarks of communist authoritarianism.

Byee

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:16 am

LOL
first you have to show that a skynet supporter is actually LW and
2


Also are you able to post yes see i can control myself unlike some people that continuously post crap. But I swear You are the first person that has gotten me to log off because I could not handle the level of Fractal wrongness they post Rolling Eyes

So count that as a achievement

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:23 am

I do not have to do anything
As seen yesterday you abused your position as Admin when losing the debate you threatened to ban me. Which is typical of the extreme left who try to censor any views to that disagree with them. I suggest you actually go away and get an education because as seen you come up woefully short on actually understanding anything. You think being able to google makes you an expert. It does not, its time you recognized your limitations which as seen are very limited.

I mean look at the amount of giffs of pictures you need to use because you do not have the intelligence to post anything witty yourself/ Crawl away you pathetic immature child, you got roasted as you do often in debates.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:24 am

And Banning you would be like arresting a person for telling them there is a magic sky giant that watches everything they do....
Only in a better place will that happen Cool Cool Cool Cool
Fucking Dumb asses, The thing that pisses me off the most is that you claim to believe in science yet know less about ti than HF new about the bible.
This thread reads EXACTLY like the threads where VOD and HF get their faith torn apart because of their ignorance of what they claim to believe. Exactly like Didge and all the shit he claims that anyone with a brain can see is only the result of stupidity and cowardice

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:26 am

AND its still fails becasue it cannot define normal (I.E that base line from which to operate)

just like religion, which cannot define evil or good, except in terms of its own internal references

Quote Victor the only other comment that Clearly agrees with me
You don't even know why you are fundamentally wrong

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:29 am

Actually I thought about about what Victor said  and he is wrong, based on something else he is debating on benefits I cam up with the following:

You said psychology cannot define normal.
I think you look at people scientifically which denies you the ability to have normality.
You know I respect you loads Victor and see you as a teacher, but you asked whether a disabled person is supposed to do their washing, including bedding. What you never asked is if that actually want to be able to do their own washing and bedding, with at least allowing them to try. I see your reasoning which is one of wanting to ensure that people who are less able, have every need that they require and I would 100% agree with you. But it denies many of them what they truly desire, to be treated as normal. Yes they need help, but you place a view that is based on some who cannot help themselves, and not on those who want to learn to be able to help themselves and not have others do this for them.
We must always seek to protect those more vulnerable, but we must also help them achieve what many of them want. Their own independence. You project the plight of those with disabilities from the wrong angle, based mainly on those who will never have this independence. On that we should always seek to protect, but that is a given. What is not is new territory, actually striving to help people believe they lives are not over but they can strive for more, no matter that they have a disability.

You said psychology cannot define normal. I think you fail to understand, that the definition is that we are all treated as normal. No matter what we look or act like. The definition is to be treated as normal no matter who you are. If you are not treated as normal there is a reason is there not? Whether it be a crime or something we wish to shun away from us. That is what we truly define as abnormal. So we all strive to be seen as normal. Normality does not need anything to describe it, only that others treat us as normal. We can set a standard for what is normal, by treating others as normal. It you do something to hurt someone who is normal, then your actions would be abnormal, as you are not treating them as normal. Thus only those who commit abnormal acts would be criminal acts. I think I have found your definition you say cannot be defined.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:38 am

veya_victaous wrote:And Banning you would be like arresting a person for telling them there is a magic sky giant that watches everything they do....
Only in a better place will that happen Cool Cool Cool Cool
Fucking Dumb asses, The thing that pisses me off the most is that you claim to believe in science yet know less about ti than HF new about the bible.
This thread reads EXACTLY like the threads where VOD and HF get their faith torn apart because of their ignorance of what they claim to believe. Exactly like Didge and all the shit he claims that anyone with a brain can see is only the result of stupidity and cowardice


No as seen you are an ignorant fuckwit with about as much intelligence as Tommy, the pair of you can only ever google and not think for yourself. You lost the plot because you were losing the debate there is no other explanation you can have to threatening bannng someone. Vod and HF know more about science than you do and we remember thet you wish one of them dead before when you disagreed with them which shows up what a vile creature that you are Veya. Your claim to know science is as bad as your racial hatred of the English and aboriginal Australians, the later of which you think you can deny them self determination based on your own warped view of how they should lead their lives. The day you say anything intelligent I have no doubt the earth will stop spinning on its axis

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:19 am

Umm this is clearly a threat where you not only lost, Never even were close to being right.
Your fractional wrongness is amazing
and you are Super Racist based entirely on laughable pathetic ignorance.


and now Victor is wrong too because he is using the definition of science, OK Loony tunes what ever you think.

So you know your reason is exactly the same as saying "Evolution is just a theory", words in science has special meanings. So you don't even speak science jargon and expect to understand or be able to make a meaningful comment ? that is pretty naive

a canonical, normal, or standard form of a mathematical object is a standard way of presenting that object as a mathematical expression. The distinction between "canonical" and "normal" forms varies by subfield. In most fields, a canonical form specifies a unique representation for every object, while a normal form simply specifies its form, without the requirement of uniqueness.

The canonical form of a positive integer in decimal representation is a finite sequence of digits that does not begin with zero.

More generally, for a class of objects on which an equivalence relation (which can differ from standard notions of equality, for instance by considering different forms of equal objects to be nonequivalent) is defined, a canonical form consists in the choice of a specific object in each class. For example, row echelon form and Jordan normal form are canonical forms for matrices.

So YES thanks for proving my and victors point that you Do even understand the language Science uses to describe the universe.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:32 am

As seen I was able to define what was claimed was notable to be defined and you offer nothing to counter that and then you come out with yet more left wing extremist drivel of racism, when it is you that denies self determination to aboriginals because you think they should live as you live and not how they want to live. You cannot use science to define normality within humans, as seen it falls short and falls apart because it cannot factor in humanity itself, which is again why your view falls short and why science falls short of understanding much of the human thinking

I suggest you go away and come back with an answer to my point instead of wasting my time with your ignorance. I respect Victors views, but do not attempt to piggy back off his intelligence because as seen you have very little.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by veya_victaous on Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:48 am

how to know didge lost? he completely changes the topic to his ignorant race hate.

Fuckwit racist thinks aboriginals wear roo skins and throw spears at each other .





_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 15932
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:51 am

Oh dear Veya resorts to infantile pictures because he has no answer to the points made. Of course nowhere have I made any assertions to aboriginals other than they be given self determination which Veya wishes to deny them because he is a racist as seen, He wishes to deny people their culture based off his own warped beliefs. Enforcing his own beliefs onto them.

How sad is that.

Never mind am off to work and will leave the cry baby to sit and sulk lol

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:30 pm

[quote="Cuchulain"]Actually I thought about about what Victor said  and he is wrong, based on something else he is debating on benefits I cam up with the following:

You said psychology cannot define normal.
I think you look at people scientifically which denies you the ability to have normality.
You know I respect you loads Victor and see you as a teacher, but you asked whether a disabled person is supposed to do their washing, including bedding. What you never asked is if that actually want to be able to do their own washing and bedding, with at least allowing them to try. I see your reasoning which is one of wanting to ensure that people who are less able, have every need that they require and I would 100% agree with you. But it denies many of them what they truly desire, to be treated as normal. Yes they need help, but you place a view that is based on some who cannot help themselves, and not on those who want to learn to be able to help themselves and not have others do this for them.
We must always seek to protect those more vulnerable, but we must also help them achieve what many of them want. Their own independence. You project the plight of those with disabilities from the wrong angle, based mainly on those who will never have this independence. On that we should always seek to protect, but that is a given. What is not is new territory, actually striving to help people believe they lives are not over but they can strive for more, no matter that they have a disability.

Wrong didge, I think the problem is you are somewhat missing the point, of course IF a disable person wishes to do their washing for themselves then great ...let em, I'm NOT suggesting we should wrap them in cotton wool. HOWEVER in my opinion and experience if a disabled person was ONCE...EVER found to be doing that and then at a future date found it too much, thta very fact that they had tried WOULD be held against them by those who decide on financial aid for the disabled...

The system is broken, cruel despotic and worse than useless, functionally not fit for purpose, as I alluded to in the report I posted those animals that work in the centers DELIGHT in causing suffering and miserytheu have no sense of honour and NO compassion.

My comment was pasted from a guardianship principle....we should pay those benefits (graded fairly according to severity of disability) REGARDLESS as to wheter by a determined (and in some cases almost superhuman) effort the perso CAN do the washing

the test should MERELY be is it reasonable to expect the "average person" with this disability to do so...

further more extending a benefit should not depend on whether or not the interviewer got his rocks off the night before...

AND if a person previously trying to cope finds they cannot there should be no barrier to increased benefit, and certainly no undue form filling and delays.

for instance AT PRESENT DLA is paid "for extra help" REGARDLESS of whether the person actually "buys in that extra help or not"   THAT is the fair and proper way to do it
it allows someone who feels they need the extra help to "hire someone to do (the washing) whateverl, OR it allows the person to do it themselves if they want to and then if that tires them out get someone to go shopping for them..OR buy a buggy to ease going shopping....

what I am trying to guard against are the idiots who say "oh well that super fit, trained and well hard ex squaddie had both legs blown off and HE does his own washing so YOU old lady, who lost a leg to circulatory problems can damn well get on with it (which is the R/W perspective)  and yes we have seen it (or at least similar) and this is where psychology becomes a tool for the rogue, a bogus science that is secure from refutation purely BECAUSE it ISNT a science.....Psychology would claim that the determination to do something like the washing is "all in the mind" and that simply becasue that super hero can do it so can everyone....because psychology claims.....the super hero will be its "normal" for the argument



You said psychology cannot define normal. I think you fail to understand, that the definition is that we are all treated as normal.

and as I said in the last line above that is exactly why psychology is a disaster when applied to things like this.....

It calls the super hero "normal" (rather than exceptional) and expects everyone else to be "normal" too therby providing fuel for the R/W hatred of the disabled.

we are NOT all "normal"  psychologically, you can even see THAT on here...look how easy it was for me to break Phil look how easy it was to break HF.....
and so on...
and the converse is true..

just what constitutes normality anyhow...

I mean some folks take a huge "insult" (like having a family member harmed, or a pet even)

some of these forgive

some want "justice"

and others want vengence

and some...well just lets say that your worst nightmares would seem a good place to be.......

which of those 4 is "normal" ?









No matter what we look or act like. The definition is to be treated as normal no matter who you are. If you are not treated as normal there is a reason is there not? Whether it be a crime or something we wish to shun away from us. That is what we truly define as abnormal. So we all strive to be seen as normal. Normality does not need anything to describe it, only that others treat us as normal. We can set a standard for what is normal, by treating others as normal. It you do something to hurt someone who is normal, then your actions would be abnormal, as you are not treating them as normal. Thus only those who commit abnormal acts would be criminal acts. I think I have found your definition you say cannot be defined.[

This didge...is a circular argument and as such doesnt hold water

you say the definition is to be treated as normal, no matter who we are ...and yet we are all different... you invoke "crime" what is a crime? to the extreme R/w er gay is a crime...

to the extreme L/W murder is not the fault of the murderer but the fault of anything and everything else.....

so then what you are saying is that everyone is normal, but that some people ar less normal..ie abnormal because they do abnormal things, the definition of which is decided by those who ARE normal???????????

so what happens when the lunatics DO take over the assylum? (think ISIS)


/quote]


Last edited by victorismyhero on Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:40 pm

You just answered your own question Victor.
What is normal.
There is no reason naturally to treat anyone abnormally.
It takes outside influences whether it be crime or beliefs.
Normality is naturally inbound within us, we set this precedent in how we view everyone else.
Treating others as how you would treat yourself is natural. Tthe vast majority of us do not want to suffer pain or feel pain.
The fact is you claim to say what is normal, how on earth can you decide?
Its more how we treat people as normal more than what we reason is normal. Normal is a state of the mind, one that science has no hope of answering.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:44 pm

sorry didge ..I did an edit to add something (and colour)

please re read Laughing

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:50 pm

victorismyhero wrote:sorry didge ..I did an edit to add something (and colour)

please re read Laughing

Sorry bud but to throw in circular argument does not hold sway.
It does not matter who holds the standard of normality.
What matters is to allow normality for people to decide.
What you offer for the disabled is one of holding the white flag Victor.
One of no inseniive or goal.
You still have not disproved my concept, about treating people with normality. You know there is no reason not to.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:00 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:sorry didge ..I did an edit to add something (and colour)

please re read Laughing

Sorry bud but to throw in circular argument does not hold sway.
It does not matter who holds the standard of normality.
so you would consider ISIS as a valid "normality" ????


What matters is to allow normality for people to decide.
What you offer for the disabled is one of holding the white flag Victor.
not really, what i want is "guardianship" one that does not hold all disabled people to some nutters definition of "normal" as is trying to be done...
the "super hero is NOT "normal" he is exceptional.....
the woman who lost a leg to circulatory disease and finds coping with physical tasks like washing by hand very difficult or impossible is not "weak" and deserving to be held to the superheros standard, she is nearer normal (i.e representative of the larger group)..Fine if she WANTS to then by all means why not, BUT dont use THAT as a case to argue that she should get less in support....becasue one day she might NOT cope ...then what?????


then of course we have that MONSTER of psychology, the pseudo scientific equivalent of the evangelical "throw away your crutch miracle"
known as "cognitive behaviour therapy"
beloved of cheating insurance firms and greedy grasping diabled hating politicos


One of no inseniive or goal.
You still have not disproved my concept, about treating people with normality. You know there is no reason not to.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum