What Are You Doing Right Now? (183 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
You continue to misrepresent me. I have always said Kobe could be a rapist. What I also stressed, and for some reason you refuse to understand this, is that a victim accusing a multimillion dollar athlete of rape might have an actual, very real financial intrest in doing so. So yes, I do think people should investigate such a case before labelling Kobe a rapist. You disagreed, which is fine. But our justice system, luckily, does not.
So what does it consist of? Because it sure as fuck doesn't make a strong impression in court. Especially not because every psychologist / psychiatrist can flat out say the opposite of what the so called other expert was saying just minutes before.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...personality-disorder-big-changes-in-the-dsm-5
This is a problem. Do you understand that?
So what does it consist of? Because it sure as fuck doesn't make a strong impression in court. Especially not because every psychologist / psychiatrist can flat out say the opposite of what the so called other expert was saying just minutes before.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...personality-disorder-big-changes-in-the-dsm-5
This is a problem. Do you understand that?
More anecdotal evidence from your little court world. Scepticism is great, but please try to enlighten yourself in regards to psychology.
Your link clearly makes a case for a science called psychology. I bet you don't even understand the criterias.
- - - Updated - - -
I bet sexually abused girls are just assholes. Getting raped by a grown up man during your childhood can hardly affect your mind.
And those first 1000 days in ones life that are so important according to developmental psychology. That is just a hoax.
Actually both of our professions are frauds.
Your link clearly makes a case for a science called psychology. I bet you don't even understand the criterias.
- - - Updated - - -
I bet sexually abused girls are just assholes. Getting raped by a grown up man during your childhood can hardly affect your mind.
And those first 1000 days in ones life that are so important according to developmental psychology. That is just a hoax.
Actually both of our professions are frauds.
The big issue I have with psychology is that so many things change so fast. Look at the DSM manual. It just doesn't manage to be consistent for a period of a couple of decades. And then there's the psychiatrists themselves. They can give completely opposite opinions on the same person, sometimes even using the same evidence to 'prove' that opinion.
If a person is a schizophrenic, we know something is wrong. Virtually all psychiatrists will agree he is a schizophrenic. We know this person can't really do anything about it either. We'll give him drugs that, at the very least, suppress some of the symptoms.
When someone has narcissistic tendencies, he might have NPD or he might have BPD or fuck, he might even be a sociopath. Or, some guy will come in for the prosecution and say there's really nothing wrong with him at all. All I know is I do not see consistent diagnoses and I see that the manual providing the tools for the diagnoses also changes.
So please excuse me for not having much faith.
- - - Updated - - -
It's funny you think I don't understand science, because you're not even intelligent enough to understand presumed innocent.
I never said sexually abused girls can't have mental health issues. That doesn't come remotely close to what I said. I said I don't have much faith in the field of psychology. Acknowledging that a girl was raped and is now struggling with this, is something else from diagnosied her as a patient with borderline personality disorder. I hope you can still see the difference.
I am also not convinced by the way you're making this argument at all. You just shout that you want me to accept your pseudoscience as fact, probably because this pseudoscience is your job. Well, that is not going to happen.
If a person is a schizophrenic, we know something is wrong. Virtually all psychiatrists will agree he is a schizophrenic. We know this person can't really do anything about it either. We'll give him drugs that, at the very least, suppress some of the symptoms.
When someone has narcissistic tendencies, he might have NPD or he might have BPD or fuck, he might even be a sociopath. Or, some guy will come in for the prosecution and say there's really nothing wrong with him at all. All I know is I do not see consistent diagnoses and I see that the manual providing the tools for the diagnoses also changes.
So please excuse me for not having much faith.
- - - Updated - - -
It's funny you think I don't understand science, because you're not even intelligent enough to understand presumed innocent.
I never said sexually abused girls can't have mental health issues. That doesn't come remotely close to what I said. I said I don't have much faith in the field of psychology. Acknowledging that a girl was raped and is now struggling with this, is something else from diagnosied her as a patient with borderline personality disorder. I hope you can still see the difference.
I am also not convinced by the way you're making this argument at all. You just shout that you want me to accept your pseudoscience as fact, probably because this pseudoscience is your job. Well, that is not going to happen.
Nope. I simply don't understand why you have the need to call psychology a pseudoscience as a layman. It's absurd.
To call psychology a pseudoscience at least have the decency to critique it's scientific methods, research methods etc., you don't do this. Instead you have a personal aversion towards diagnoses this aversion then becomes a general criticism of psychology all funded in your feelings and beliefs. You are no better than a religious fella.
To call psychology a pseudoscience at least have the decency to critique it's scientific methods, research methods etc., you don't do this. Instead you have a personal aversion towards diagnoses this aversion then becomes a general criticism of psychology all funded in your feelings and beliefs. You are no better than a religious fella.
It would probably be more fair to say that some aspects are pseudoscience.
Which I stick with. I don't think bpd or npd is a reliable diagnosis at all. They don't really say much about what is wrong with the person either (though they sure as fuck say a lot).
If we're talking about addiction or bipolar or schizophrenia.. That is something else entirely.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk
Which I stick with. I don't think bpd or npd is a reliable diagnosis at all. They don't really say much about what is wrong with the person either (though they sure as fuck say a lot).
If we're talking about addiction or bipolar or schizophrenia.. That is something else entirely.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk
So does life. Nowadays everything changes fast, people are different and have tons of problems, starting from prenatal age to teens, and it all differs. Technology change and so does people who invent the same. There are so many factors and things that people in old age didn't have to face and you gotta take that into account. Humans are way too complex, our brain is literally fascinating and has way too big depth to understand it without discovering new problems. In medicine you know what you deal with unless it's a new killing disease, you know what's kiilling poeple. Over here you don't know much and you gotta find the solution. It takes ages and tons of people to gather the experience needed to solve new issues (which get increased weekly). In America, they do things the wrong way, as they put an individual in a certain group and say: hey, you have that. Period. But it's never like that. It's always: you have that, and that, and that, because that, that and that. Europe deals better with it imo. But, then again, gotta give huge amounts of credit to Americans because they helped so much with psychosomatic issues.
I have no background in psychology but i have known people with borderline personality and bipolar diagnoses. And while it may not be immediately apparent (particularly with bpd) i do get the impression that i am talking with someone who is sick.
Bpd is not just extreme narcissim. I know plenty of spoiled rich girls whove been pampered their entire lives and are now struggling to navigate the adult word.
Bpd is not that. It is a whole nother animal and i would stay away from anyone (or at least dont have sex with or date) who exhibits that type of behavior. They are a human blackhole
Bpd is not just extreme narcissim. I know plenty of spoiled rich girls whove been pampered their entire lives and are now struggling to navigate the adult word.
Bpd is not that. It is a whole nother animal and i would stay away from anyone (or at least dont have sex with or date) who exhibits that type of behavior. They are a human blackhole
The two are not mutually exclusive. Moreover the debate at hand is whether psychology is a science or not and imo it's no debate at all it clearly isn't by any stretch of the imagination. @Seven hit the nail in the head when describing the difference between cancer which is visible, sometimes to the naked eye and say a mental condition based solely on how someone can or can't describe emotionally. So one your symptom assessment is not reliable. Second, and more problematic, is how psychology tries to explain said symptoms with nothing more than superficial philosophical takes on humanity. As a matter of fact philosophy is more scientific than psychology heck one can argue even religion is.