My mental state

[Phang]

"well, the rorschach test results are in: this man DEFINITELY has a frontal lobe."

psychology is the ultimate placebo. it makes people grip and moan so that either they can feel better because they're talking to a qualified doctor, or they have a scapegoat for all their crushing character flaws ("the oedipal complex made me do it, what are you blaming me for?")

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by horn

are you serious ?
like many other fields there are branches, each taking different approaches to a subject or studying topics that other branches of thought would consider completely irrelevent.
mr.wiki has a few thoughts

"Psychology is conducted both scientifically and non-scientifically, but is to a large extent wholly rigorous. Mainstream psychology is based largely on positivism, using quantitative studies and the scientific method to test and disprove hypotheses, often in an experimental context. "

i'm assuming your main problem with psychology is it's supposed reliance on "qualitative" data.
Psychoanalytical models are not the be all and end all of psychology. The only real similarity between humanistic psychology and empirically grounded "positivist" psychology is that they both study the mind. grouping the two together like that is like calling philosophy rubbish because hobbes didn't like cavemen.

i'd also say some psychological findings are more than vaugely useful. Far more so than philosophy.

Oh great to demonstrate to me how wrong I was you've brought in wikipedia and philosophy. Fantastic. My problems with modern psychology are wide and varied. Firstly there's the positivistic aspect, then there's the pretensions towards considering it a science, then there's the point you mentioned, then there's the fact it hasn't organised assassins to kill anyone who agrees in any way whatsoever with evopsych. I'm interested as to precisely which non-banal assertions have been incontrovertibly demonstrated for the whole of the human race though. I was going to continue this post but instead I'm going to go and cook some brownies.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

psychology is the ultimate placebo.

quite.

[Duncan]

to sum up the thread in general:
http://www.autism-biomed.org/autism.jpg

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by horn

are you serious ?
...

"Psychology is conducted both scientifically and non-scientifically, but is to a large extent wholly rigorous. Mainstream psychology is based largely on positivism, using quantitative studies and the scientific method to test and disprove hypotheses, often in an experimental context. "

i'm assuming your main problem with psychology is it's supposed reliance on "qualitative" data.
Psychoanalytical models are not the be all and end all of psychology. The only real similarity between humanistic psychology and empirically grounded "positivist" psychology is that they both study the mind. grouping the two together like that is like calling philosophy rubbish because hobbes didn't like cavemen.
.

This is one of the main problems with modern psychology. In its bid to convince people that it is a 'real science' (whatever that means), large sections of it have adopted a completely bankrupt methodology which reads like a parody of the early 20th century positivist parody of 19th century physics. Although behaviorism is nowhere near as popular as it used to be, my impression is that it still tends to cloud the field to a strong degree.

That's not to say that all psychology is worthless of course, just 90% of it. Theres a chance that some parts of cognitive psychology might prove worthwhile, although I dont think its clear what cogpsych would add to a completed neuroscience.

[Tomkat]

Sorry to flog a dead horse, but when you say you have little to no time for psychology (to JBG and the others who seem to be "against" it), do you mean using it as treatment for things?

I agree for the most part with that.

However, the study of psychology, as in research and trying to find out more about how our brains work, is not useless at all. It is such a far-stretching topic, and a lot of social/abnormal/developmental/cognitive theories that we now take for granted were researched and developed by psychologists.

So using it as a treatment to try to help people, yes it is a "placebo" as Phang said (but is that such a bad thing?). The research side of things, which does fall under the category of psychology, is not useless though.

So sorry if I misinterpreted what you meant (or did I interpret it correctly?) - I can see your point on rereading this thread.

[Nodrog]

How could psychology help us 'understand how our brains work' in a way over and beyond neuroscience?

Lets take a concrete example; a lot of psychologists tend to believe in things called 'mental illnesses' or 'behavioral complexes'. Now, there seem to be 2 options here. Either a) these concepts correspond to real, physical events happening in the brain, in which case the only way to understand them would be via neuroscientifc investigations into our brain structure, or b) mental illnesses have no physical existence and are just things that psychologists have invented in order to explain away deviant behavior and normalise a certain cultural conception of how humans 'should' act. Regardless of whether a) or b) happens to be true, there doesnt seem to be any benefit to studying these things within psychology.

The same applies to 'cognition theories'. Neuroscientists will tells us how (eg) the learning process works, not psychologists.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

How could psychology help us 'understand how our brains work' in a way over and beyond neuroscience?

Lets take a concrete example; a lot of psychologists tend to believe in things called 'mental illnesses' or 'behavioral complexes'. Now, there seem to be 2 options here. Either a) these concepts correspond to real, physical events happening in the brain, in which case the only way to understand them would be via neuroscientifc investigations into our brain structure, or b) mental illnesses have no physical existence and are just things that psychologists have invented in order to explain away deviant behavior and normalise a certain cultural conception of how humans 'should' act. Regardless of whether a) or b) happens to be true, there doesnt seem to be any benefit to studying these things within psychology.

There's a c) - the mind/spirit/soul etc isn't totally related to the body, and so the disease isn't a physical illness. While the effects on the physical body from a mental illness could then be looked at, it might not actualy be examining the root cause

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

There's a c) - the mind/spirit/soul etc isn't totally related to the body, and so the disease isn't a physical illness. While the effects on the physical body from a mental illness could then be looked at, it might not actualy be examining the root cause

In this case you want a priest, not a psychologist.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Lets take a concrete example; a lot of psychologists tend to believe in things called 'mental illnesses' or 'behavioral complexes'.

So you don't believe in 'mental illness'? (I know you didn't say that, but you implied it)

...I see.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Now, there seem to be 2 options here. Either a) these concepts correspond to real, physical events happening in the brain, in which case the only way to understand them would be via neuroscientifc investigations into our brain structure,

So you're now saying that neuroscience and psychology cannot work together? It's either one or the other, and that's that?

...Right.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

b) mental illnesses have no physical existence and are just things that psychologists have invented in order to explain away deviant behavior and normalise a certain cultural conception of how humans 'should' act.

Or that it isn't anything to do with the physical side of things, and it is something much deeper inside the brain. It is possible you know. It isn't just "it must be physical, or it must be made up. There IS NO GREY AREA IT'S JUST BLACK AND WHITE!"

You can't just go "well there's a bump, therefore he must have schizophrenia! If there isn't a bump then of course those crazy crazy psychologist must have just MADE THE DARN THING UP!" dude. It's a little bit more complicated than that.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Regardless of whether a) or b) happens to be true, there doesnt seem to be any benefit to studying these things within psychology.

Right.

So all these studies into how best to deal with people who suffer from mental problems (being a teacher, lets work on that) are worthless.

So those psychologists who check to and talk to some of my pupils are useless? The same psychologists who find out if a kid has aspbergers/ADHD/depression/dispraxia/anger management issues are all useless?

That we should just bring a bunch of neuroscientists in to have a chat with these kids, because they'd do a much better job at it?

Right.

Well thanks for your 2 cents!

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

So you don't believe in 'mental illness'? (I know you didn't say that, but you implied it)

I think the term is too vaguely defined to warrant disbelief. Saying that "mental illnesses dont exist" seems to imply that the term 'mental illness' is somewhat meaningful. I dont really know what kind of evidence could be taken as evidence for mental illnesses existing. I would compare the claim 'mental illnesses dont exist' to the claim 'the number 3 doesnt exist'. It has the potential to mean all sorts of different things.

So you're now saying that neuroscience and psychology cannot work together? It's either one or the other, and that's that?

It depends what you mean by 'psychology'. In as much as psychology is concerned with the scientific study of the 'mind'/brain, I find it difficult to think of specific ways in which psychology could aid neuroscience. Perhaps it could provide a rough approximation for the next 100 years while neuroscience is still in its infancy, but thats about it.

Of course, there are less technical meanings of the term 'psychology' which relate to the study and understanding of human beings in general. But when we talk about 'psychology' in this sense, there doesnt seem to be any reason why an academic psychologist is more qualified to advance theories than someone like Doestoyevsky or Nietzsche.

Or that it isn't anything to do with the physical side of things, and it is something much deeper inside the brain. It is possible you know. It isn't just "it must be physical, or it must be made up.

I dont know what it means for something to be non-physical and 'deep inside the brain.

You can't just go "well there's a bump, therefore he must have schizophrenia! If there isn't a bump then of course those crazy crazy psychologist must have just MADE THE DARN THING UP!" dude. It's a little bit more complicated than that.

And you cant just group a lot of semi-related behaviors together, give it a technical sounding name, and pretend that youve 'discovered' a new kind of illness (as if youre some kind of doctor investigating a new disease by studying its symptoms). OCD and ADD are excellent examples of this - is there any real reason why they should be considered mental illnesses to any greater extent than homosexuality? They are simply behavioral patterns which have been subjectively identified as undesirable.

The problem is largely linguistic. The facts of the matter are that "Subject S performs the following behaviors: X, Y, Z", and we can all agree on this. But to claim that these behaviors are the result of some kind of internal 'illness' (in the same way that my sorethroat is the result of a virus) is at best a speculative physical hypothesis that will be confirmed/refuted neuroscience , and at worst a confused understanding about how language works.

So all these studies into how best to deal with people who suffer from mental problems (being a teacher, lets work on that) are worthless.

This whole terminology is wrong. Different people should be treated in different ways depending on what you want to achieve - if a child seems incapable of learning something then of course he should be treated differently from a child who exhibits normal learning patterns. The problem only arises when you start to say that the poor learner is suffering from some kind of 'complex' rather than just being a poor learner (if being a poor learner is a mental illness, then why isnt being an exceptionally fast learner a mental illness that has positive effects?).

So those psychologists who check to and talk to some of my pupils are useless? The same psychologists who find out if a kid has aspbergers/ADHD/depression/dispraxia/anger management issues are all useless?

See above. If someone has a great deal of experience at working with people who act in a certain way, then enlisting their help to deal with people you know who act in this way seems like a good idea. But the claim that their behavior is a manifestation of some underlying condition/illness/complex can only be a fantasy, or a physical hypothesis.


I can summarise pretty much everything I've said here by saying that mental illnesses should be treated as verbs, not nouns.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont know what it means for something to be non-physical and 'deep inside the brain.

I didn't think you would.

This discussion is pointless, as you're being pretty narrow-minded. You have little to no idea what the difference is between mental-illnesses, and psychological complexes that are more deep-rooted. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of psychology at all, or is it based on stuff you've heard, picked up on forums, and read in wikipedia?

To sit there and say that the behaviour exhibited by children is a fantasy when linked to their upbringing (or similar) is so absurdly naive.

I have a child in one of my classes who doesn't know who his dad is. His brother is a drug dealer and not allowed to contact him. His mother is suicidal. The only person he is remotely close to is his grandmother, and she is incredibly protective. Surprisingly enough, he has a severe form of autism, and doesn't understand praise when you give it to him. Are you telling me that the autism isn't linked at all to his upbringing? That it must be something physical, and that he was born with it? Oh please.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I didn't think you would.

This discussion is pointless, as you're being pretty narrow-minded. You have little to no idea what the difference is between mental-illnesses, and psychological complexes that are more deep-rooted. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of psychology at all, or is it based on stuff you've heard, picked up on forums, and read in wikipedia?

To sit there and say that the behaviour exhibited by children is a fantasy when linked to their upbringing (or similar) is so absurdly naive.

I have a child in one of my classes who doesn't know who his dad is. His brother is a drug dealer and not allowed to contact him. His mother is suicidal. The only person he is remotely close to is his grandmother, and she is incredibly protective. Surprisingly enough, he has a severe form of autism, and doesn't understand praise when you give it to him. Are you telling me that the autism isn't linked at all to his upbringing? That it must be something physical, and that he was born with it? Oh please.

What does saying he has autism add to the description of how he acts and feels? Is this meant to be a casual relationship ("autism causes these behaviors"), an identification ("exhibiting these behaviors is simply what it means to have autism"), or something else? Compare "having spots on your stomach is a symptom of something internal (measles)" with "having no arms is what it means to be an amputee". The first is a scientific hypothesis, the second is a definition. What is 'autism' meant to be?

If its the first, do you have any sort of theory about what autism is, and how it can have casual efficiacy in the world? When I say "the flu causes runny noses'" it makes sense to ask for a description in terms of physiological processes how the (physical) flu virus results in a person having a runny nose. The symptoms of the flu are caused by something physical, and its interaction with our bodies. But its not clear how a similar casual chain can be exhibited in order to justify the claim that "autism causes X". Although the sentences "the flu causes runny noses" and "autism causes learning difficulties" have similar surface structure, what is actually being claimed in both cases is radically different.

Is there meant to be something concrete inside the skull that correlates with the highlevel idea of autism, and has casual powers? Do you think that the brains of all people with autism will turn out to have something in common, perhaps some kind of neuronal pattern, which we can isolate and cause 'autism' (in the same way we can isolate something physical and call it 'cancer').


Once we have a neuroscientific theory sufficiently advanced to give us a casual relationship between brain patterns and mental states, there will be no need to take the postulation of 'autism' any more seriously than the idea that these things are being caused by demonic possession.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Surprisingly enough, he has a severe form of autism, .

no he doesn't

autism is a physical condition.

you don't seem to be able to accept that the brain is just an organ.

it's not magical. it's not a soul. it has nothing to do with fairies or trolls or sunbeams.

Accordingly:

1) Neurological scientists are necessary to understand, explore and correct psyiological problems within the brain.
2) Psychiatrists are necessary to understand, explore and correct damage to the brain caused by external factors such as traumatic events.

Psycologists are nothing more than quaks and voyeurs. your faith in them, you continued childlike defence of their 'magical abilities' and let's face it: your continued insistence that no one but you knows anything about psycology, are all patently absurd.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

2) Psychiatrists are necessary to understand, explore and correct damage to the brain caused by external factors such as traumatic events.

Psychiatry also serves the function of prescribing and distributing behavior-altering drugs. While this has the potential to be a great human advance and one I hope becomes more widespread in the future (being able to change things about your behavior/personality which you dislike is a idea), it seems that the field is blighted by its inheritance of the worthless vocabulary of psychology, and tends to see things in terms of people with 'mental illnesses' requiring 'treatment', in a similar way to doctors curing cancer or leukemia. This seems to be the underlying cause of (amongst many other things) the recent ADHD hysteria in America.

So yeah, not only are psychologists generally full of shit, they also have negative effects on real disciplines

[JonnyBGood]

On holidays a friend of mine sold his soul for five dollars. He hasn't* been the same since















*has

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by horn

sorry i had thought the problem you chaps had in relation to psychology was the lack of proof in causation between our mental state and the physical state of the brain.

This is also a major problem with psychology (and is what I was getting at in the autism post above; it literally doesnt make sense to say that autism or any other mental illness causes anything), the neuroscience thing was just an example.

The biology/chemistry comparasion isnt really the same, because biology is casually reducible to chemistry in a way which its unlikely that psychology could reduce to neuroscience. Biology does postulate theoretical entites whose physical existence isnt yet clearly understood (eg genes), but it doesnt need supernaturalism to explain how they have casual effiacy.


edit: The problem isnt really one of mental causation. Even if we were accept free-will in the strong libertarian sense ("consciousness throwing atoms around in the mind"), it still woudlnt be clear how a mental illness was meant to 'cause' anything.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by horn

why ?
because the concept of mental illness is probably just us taking a pattern of behaviour, something that is a product of a certain pattern of neurons and giving it a "name"

Then the problem becomes "what is the criteria for certain behavior patterns warranting the description of 'mental illness'?". Its an inherantly normative clasification - to say that something is an illness or behavioral complex is to suggest that theres something intrinsically wrong with it (this is why we dont call being exceptoinally clever a mental illness - did Einstein have some kind of cognitive disorder?). And if psychologists are just people who get to decide which things are good and bad, its unclear why they are practicing science to any greater degree than moral philosophers (again, what is the argument for homosexuality NOT being a mental disorder? How about liking fat girls? But hey, people who're attractred to underage kids obvously need to see a psychologist!).

The other big problem is that if mental illnesses are just descriptive names for a certain class of behaviors, then the concept has no explanatory function. Lets say I want to call a certain group of behaviors "Nodrogs behavioral complex". What is the point of me doing it? I havent explained anything, not have I exhibited any kind of casual relationship, so why bother? Its like me pointing at the colour red and the colour blue, and saying that I'm going to refer to them both collectively as being called "bled". And if its meant to be the case that these behaviors are classed together because they 'normally occur together in the same people', then this surely means that finding someone who has one of these behaviors without the rest should be treated as evidence against the supposed disorder existing. But this isnt what happens.

that doesn't make it any less real. Surely these patterns of behaviour will affect how you react to new situations, therefore causing certain other behaviours.

HOW do these patterns of behaviors affect other behaviors? Again, theres no explanatory power here.

If it based a concept on empirical evidence and then finds out it was slightly wrong or completely wrong surely the theory would simply be changed or just thrown out.

But how could any of it be shown to be wrong? What possible empirical discovery would show that ADD or autism didnt exist? Do you think it was new scientific discoveries that led to things like homosexuality and passive-aggressive disorder being removed from the lists of mental illnesses?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

this is why we dont call being exceptoinally clever a mental illness - did Einstein have some kind of cognitive disorder?

Because he didn't need any help socially/physically/mentally/professionally, doofus.

Also, a lot of very clever people DO have mental disorders (the term "mental illness" is very old-fashioned, and is not used any more). As they aren't deemed needy of help or aid in any form, then they aren't classified as such.

You're getting too strung up on the wording and definition of things. Psychology is more than just labelling things with different names and words.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

And if psychologists are just people who get to decide which things are good and bad,

I'd be extremely interesting to find a psychological article which labels something (be it a disorder or anything) "good" or "bad".

The more you type, the less I think you know about psychology. You've just got it in your head that it's a bunch of semi-professionals who aren't clever enough to be doctors, yet want to play the medical game, giving names to things that they don't fully understand. It's so single-minded.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

But how could any of it be shown to be wrong? What possible empirical discovery would show that ADD or autism didnt exist?

Do you actually know anything about the autism spectrum, or are you just throwing these words about and hoping that it sounds right? Yes you can define autism by observing and analysing someone who displays certain traits and behaviours. It isn't just a big coincidence that these people act very similarly, and their treatment is very similar (but equally effective).





Seriously Nod - I don't mean to get personal. You're an intelligent poster, but you really don't seem to know the first thing about psychology, except for some broad generalistic viewpoints you have made about it.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I'd be extremely interesting to find a psychological article which labels something (be it a disorder or anything) "good" or "bad".

...

Also, a lot of very clever people DO have mental disorders. As they aren't deemed needy of help or aid in any form, then they aren't classified as such.

Dont you see?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by horn

what about string theory and dark matter ?
as johnny said earlier, "You can often know enough about particular aspects of a subject to form an opinion on it which, unless shown to be incorrect, is probably a good idea to take as the "truth".

Yeah but not in cases where what you're talking about cannot be approached empirically. This is why wikipedia is wrong about fallibilism vis-a-vis astrology (oh yes I just used vis-a-vis online, world class).

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I have a child in one of my classes who doesn't know who his dad is. His brother is a drug dealer and not allowed to contact him. His mother is suicidal. The only person he is remotely close to is his grandmother, and she is incredibly protective. Surprisingly enough, he has a severe form of autism, and doesn't understand praise when you give it to him. Are you telling me that the autism isn't linked at all to his upbringing? That it must be something physical, and that he was born with it? Oh please.

Yes.

I am saying that autism, as I understand it, and as everyone else I know understands it, and as the doctors of my neighbours grandchild (who has a 'severe form of autism') understand it is not in any way shape or form related to upbringing, or environment. I am saying that you are born with it.

My neighbours grandchild is 10 years of age. She has been brought up in a loving, stable environment with two parents who love her and give her all the time and attention they can, with four grandparents who, while struggling to understand her, love her and cherish her much as they do their other grandchildren. I have known her since the day she was born. I am in constant close contact with the family. There is absolutely no part of her childhood or her ongoing life which could be used to answer for her condition. Are you implying that her autism is linked in any way to her upbringing.. Oh Please.

I am not coming into this conversation blindly. According to this site 'Presently, there is no known single cause for autism. However, autism is not caused environmentally by a child's upbringing.' I have read several other sources. Nowhere does it claim that autism is in any way related to upbringing, and in fact most literature refutes this statement. In fact the only environmental factors that come into play are those of the womb, none outside it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by horn

my friends mum is a psychologist and she's gorgeous.
end of discussion.

I assume you're related to her somehow.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

Yes.

I am saying that autism, as I understand it, and as everyone else I know understands it, and as the doctors of my neighbours grandchild (who has a 'severe form of autism') understand it is not in any way shape or form related to upbringing, or environment. I am saying that you are born with it.

excellent

I said that too: see?

Originally Posted by yahwe

no he doesn't

autism is a physical condition.

you don't seem to be able to accept that the brain is just an organ.

it always reassures me if i find that you and i are in agreement.

of course i expect tomkat will ignore your post the way he ignored mine.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its an inherantly normative clasification

Any attempt at classification is emic. I think you're assuming too much when you attempt to transform 'science' from arbitrary human meaning into a sacred epistemology. I can use your argument for just about debunking anything, including physics, medicine, biology, whatever.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by s|k

Any attempt at classification is emic. I think you're assuming too much when you attempt to transform 'science' from arbitrary human meaning into a sacred epistemology. I can use your argument for just about debunking anything, including physics, medicine, biology, whatever.

but then you are mad aren't you. so you could probably fly from your point of view

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

but then you are mad aren't you. so you could probably fly from your point of view

I had the sensibility to find this funny, in fact I laughed out loud.

[lokken]

you're all crazy.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

Yes.

I am saying that autism, as I understand it, and as everyone else I know understands it, and as the doctors of my neighbours grandchild (who has a 'severe form of autism') understand it is not in any way shape or form related to upbringing, or environment. I am saying that you are born with it.

(etc)

Sorry, my post was probably misunderstood. I should have said it isn't solely autism isn't caused solely by physical factors. There is usually ("usually" being the perogative - your friend's child is one of these exceptions) some form of distress early on in the child's development.

The nhautism site is interesting, but I'm not so sure about this "Autism is only caused by physical factors, no environmental". In the schools I've been in (which I'm willing to admit is only a few) where I've seen the SEN (Special Educational Needs) register, the autistic statemented children usually have some form of complicated background, usually at home.

Sure, the two could be completely unrelated. But it does seem to me that there is some sort of a link.

We're going off at a bit of a tangent now, into the old nature vs nurture debate.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

of course i expect tomkat will ignore your post the way he ignored mine.

Many apologies for ignoring your post - my reply would be similar to the one to Sarina.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In the schools I've been in (which I'm willing to admit is only a few) where I've seen the SEN (Special Educational Needs) register, the autistic statemented children usually have some form of complicated background, usually at home.

Sure, the two could be completely unrelated. But it does seem to me that there is some sort of a link.

Maybe it's because they're autistic!







PS Analogies are shit horn, don't use them in areas like this.

[JonnyBGood]

If beauty was of objective value then it wouldn't be an end in itself.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Maybe it's because they're autistic!

damn you for beating me to it.

young tom's not proving to sharp on this one is he?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Maybe it's because they're autistic!

I suppose in some cases it doesn't help things.

I can't see how having an autistic brother or sister would make you violent, end up in jail, or deal drugs (etcetera) though...

[JonnyBGood]

Really? Lack of attention perhaps?

[Tomkat]

Hypothetical situations sure are a whole bag of funhappyjoy.

That's all we're doing here. Talking about hypothetical situations.

None of us know, or are qualified to declare, what the cause or effect is for situations or individuals.

[dda]

Originally Posted by s|k

I have my self-respect, which I'm not willing to destroy for the sake of attention.

Oops! Too late.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Hypothetical situations sure are a whole bag of funhappyjoy.

That's all we're doing here. Talking about hypothetical situations.

None of us know, or are qualified to declare, what the cause or effect is for situations or individuals.

and neither are the psycologists.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by horn

because it's not a constant state ?

Constancy is for idiots.

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Hypothetical situations sure are a whole bag of funhappyjoy.

That's all we're doing here. Talking about hypothetical situations.

None of us know, or are qualified to declare, what the cause or effect is for situations or individuals.

I look into their souls and judge them.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by horn

so what did you mean then you smelly drunk

If you can explain why you like something beyond "because I like it" it's only a means to something else.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and neither are the psycologists.

No, but they have null and alternate hypotheses for their results and findings. We're all talking about things we haven't done any research on.