Psychology...Psychiatry?

WW III ANGRY wrote:

the responsibility rests on the parent ultimately. I don't know however if there are "orders" for such scenarios; I'm not aware if there is liability on the doctor either for not prescribing a schizophrenic with antipsychotics then he goes and kills someone. That is something to consider. I do not wish to lift all blame from the psychological industry

That is reasonable but the blame does not necessarily ultimately on the individual in a system that is directly impactual on the upbringing of that individual in the first place. Of course there are situations where the parent is the one that must be punished to prevent further crime, but in this case the reparations of the social-engineering machine requires consideration.

Kind of like your intentions....

of helping out...

and not being a condescending a*hole

But that much comes naturally and so you aren't to be blamed.

Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

WW III ANGRY wrote:

I don't know if that's the case, it is well known of side affects. I don't know anyone ignorant of them.

I think you have a classic case of being surrounded by primarily intellectual people wherein you may know some that are considered by you to not be, but then perhaps you are not familiar with the majority of the population. Have you visited a place like Louisiana? and I don't mean the tourist pretty upped locations, I mean the ghettos and such?

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

The companies do not directly intend to manipulate the masses

Then their intention must be....

to sell happiness and joy in little bottles...

by no manipulation whatsoever...

because money is the last thing on their plate...

Well, I should say "not all companies"
Everybody thinks what they are doing is right, not everybody has a good idea of what is "right"...
Many think they are helping society, they just don't realize that what they are doing is not really helping as much as they would like to think.
They are hiding symptoms which only allow the aspect to get worse over time, not just in a life time but as humanity as a whole ages... We should be attakcing the problem both socially and physically.

No, you're talking about the millions of little worker-bee researchers that get paid bare minimum that work for said companies.

The companies themselves know exactly what they're doing; getting rich.

Poison IV wrote:

Kind of like your intentions....

of helping out...

and not being a condescending a*hole

But that much comes naturally and so you aren't to be blamed.

Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

You could say I am selfish, i just don't limit the idea of "self"...

Abstract wrote:

WW III ANGRY wrote:

I disagree, it is the parents fault. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that their child is taking medications due to a correct diagnosis. The medical profession is not the ultimate authority on our bodies, we are, thus the responsibility lies on the parent. You know better than to trust a doctors diagnosis do you not? If a parent is taking their child to a psych, they should've exhausted all other options and are agreeing that medicine might be what is needed before hand. Diagnoses of ADHD only comes from what information the parents and child provide. If the parents are unable to correct the problem on their own that is when medicine should be prescribed. The parents don't complain about how their child was prescribed Ritalin wrongly, these are all coming from the children, after they grow up, isn't it? With that.. wouldn't that mean the parents did a bad job and left it up to a pill? Again, it is a diagnosable condition is it not, so why should a doctor be ultimately responsible for what the parents and child tell them that falls under the criteria of this diagnosis? IT is bad parenting, if it is fixable by non medicinal ways, regardless of what the psych orders, because the psych goes off what the parents say, and their efforts and abilities.

Are you aware of social-engineering?
It is both entities fault, fault does not lay in one place.
We cannot sit one our high intellectual chairs and expect the ignorant to work out how to get through the maze of bullshit that is created by the pharm companies and all of society. it is important to consider what aspect of society contribute to the ignorance of individuals in the first place. many people do not know that you should not completely trust the doctor, some do but not well enough... many nowadays are lead into thinking that they no better then their doctor indeed because they have seen the commercials that give evidence of how certain symptoms are removable...

The companies do not directly intend to manipulate the masses but they do not fully understand from a social engineering stand point how feeding the crap they do in to society contributes to modes of thought further that will encourage people from young ages to do things.

it is not as fair to say that it is the parents fault because they were brought up on the same shit and social model as others, and by their parents who were brought up by a form of social model.

Sure both are at fault, ultimately I lay the blame on the parents. I know there's plenty of morons out there running around listening to whatever their TV tells them to. I don't grant a pardon on idiocy though, they'd screw themselves no matter what.

Poison IV wrote:

Kind of like your intentions....

of helping out...

and not being a condescending a*hole

But that much comes naturally and so you aren't to be blamed.

Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

Who are you referring to, I wonder?

WW III ANGRY wrote:

Poison IV wrote:

Kind of like your intentions....

of helping out...

and not being a condescending a*hole

But that much comes naturally and so you aren't to be blamed.

Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

Who are you referring to, I wonder?

I thought it was me...

Abstract wrote:

WW III ANGRY wrote:

Poison IV wrote:

Kind of like your intentions....

of helping out...

and not being a condescending a*hole

But that much comes naturally and so you aren't to be blamed.

Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

Who are you referring to, I wonder?

I thought it was me...

I meant this part. You think it is you?

and not being a condescending a*hole


Some people are just dry and easily displace themselves...

Yeah that was to Abstract :]]

He's not that bad but I felt like being a bitch to him anyway....


I have my reasons ;p

Poison IV wrote:

Yeah that was to Abstract :]]

He's not that bad but I felt like being a bitch to him anyway....


I have my reasons ;p

I was discussing things in a manner which one could presume was condescending, but that requires the assumption that i think i am actually "better"...
But who defines "better"?

I duno.


I would just describe you as as overly structured. Not very open. You like to think that you can psychoanalyze everyone through experience :]]

Poison IV wrote:

I duno.


I would just describe you as as overly structured. Not very open. You like to think that you can psychoanalyze everyone through experience :]]

You barely know me, and must be ignoring when i say things like "it seems"...or "maybe"

but then on this forum i have been being more declarative as such seems preferred. I do not presume I know anything to be perfectly certain.

People who call themselves Open-minded are often closed to the idea that they might not be open-minded about something.

I do not think I can appropriate psychoanalyze, but I like to try, and improve what ability i might have, by having people show my suggestions wrong.

Abstract wrote:

People who call themselves Open-minded are often closed to the idea that they might not be open-minded about something

As far as I can tell when people say they are openminded they mean that they are willing to spend time with new verbal mental ideas in a discussion. These discussions will never lead to them changing their minds, however. I think people confuse this entertaining - intentional double entendre - ideas for being open.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

People who call themselves Open-minded are often closed to the idea that they might not be open-minded about something

As far as I can tell when people say they are openminded they mean that they are willing to spend time with new verbal mental ideas in a discussion. These discussions will never lead to them changing their minds, however. I think people confuse this entertaining - intentional double entendre - ideas for being open.

I don't see that particularly as being a double entendre... If you were referring to what I said.

Quote :

WWW3: Psychiatry does not have a view that everything has a solution or cure. Everything does have a treatment however, from therapy to emotional support to medicine, that's obvious.

Treatment or cure both are the same thing really.

Quote :

Psychiatry does have flaws in its diagnosis as as the entire medical profession, particularly when the are hard to pinpoint such as psychological issues. People typically come to psychologists and psychiatrists because they have problems,

Because they've been told that they cannot work it through themselves where they are guaranteed that their lives in the hands of others will save them.

Yes I know exactly why people go to psychiatrists. It's a mix of societal convention and weakness.

Modern day therapists, psychiatrists, and counselors have merely supplanted the old role of priests in today's society.

Today's social outcast is the sinner and heretic that needs saving who cannot do it by themselves where only the sweet embracing of divine social conformity will save them from themselves along with those in charge of the assimilation process.

The therapist and psychiatrist comes in demanding that they repent of their sinful individual social natures by joining in the divine socially collective fold or herd shedding their individuality as a matter of public sacrifice.

Quote :

psychiatrists and psychologists don't come to your house telling you you have a problem with how you think, as opposed to what it you're making it seem like here.

Yet a person can be institutionalized against their will........

Psychiatry is like the witchcraft of the state in that the psychiatrist like a witch doctor looks for any signs in individuals of nonconformity to which utterances of the need in creating various potions and concoctions in exorcizing the demons in the minds of people becomes proposed.

Psychiatry, therapy, and counseling then becomes a matter of exorcism.

Abstract wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

In a determinist universe or cosmos, how can personal responsibility and accountability exist?

Exactly... Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves. No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another. And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

TheJoker wrote:

I think that would be a more effective question here.

If free will and freedom are a delicious illusions much like how the determinists say that they are then there really is no such thing as willing independent choice.

Without free will personal responsibility and accountability means nothing.

Therefore Abstract nothing would be anybody's fault at all as they were already determined to act out the way that they did.

Nothing is anybodies fault so why use it as a reason for thinking that one should not better help themselves rather then self determent by taking the easy way out.

But before one can say free-will does not exist, I would need them to define what is is supposed to be.

But I would think that sense the universe probably never began then nothing was exactly "determined" they are just happening one thing following another... "determined" works in a sense but it implies a beginning and so causes confusion. Really if there is an infinite regress of points of cause in time, what is to say one cause is more important then anything else? in fact is their really such thing as a cause or is "cause" just what we use to define a section of the continuum of action and reaction that is reality?

In other words technically everything is chaotic and free, because nothing was caused, so our will is free...It would seem.

Quote :

Abstract: Exactly... Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves. No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another. And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

Capacity of what? Change in what way or form? Choice does not proceed necessity. Choice is directed by necessity.

Necessities are proceeded by that which determined them to necessitate.

Quote :

No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another.

What does reasoning have to do with anything?

Reason is a slave to desire, emotion, egoism, and pleasure.

Quote :

And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

It all has to do with control.

Kovacs wrote:

WW III ANGRY wrote:

Psychiatry does have flaws in its diagnosis as as the entire medical profession, particularly when the are hard to pinpoint such as psychological issues. People typically come to psychologists and psychiatrists because they have problems, psychiatrists and psychologists don't come to your house telling you you have a problem with how you think, as opposed to what it you're making it seem like here.

Psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies make decisions that become embedded the law and are used by other authorities to judge the beliefs, behavior and personalities of other people. The most pernicious form of this is the way this gets aimed at children via schools and other authorities that have power over children and quite a bit of influence over parents. Psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies are reifying their concepts into rules, guidelines, laws, organizational practice and then more amorphously into the ways we view each other. They wage PR campaigns. some not out in the open - for example through OP ed pages and sponsored articles - that create part of what is considered reality by people. This directly affects their profits - not that all their motives are crass or negative, but nevertheless they moving out into society in a lot of univited and often not consciously noticed ways. And they have the skills and money and power to make these incursions effective.

All with the propped up arm of state and government.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

Abstract: Exactly... Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves. No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another. And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

Capacity of what?

Change in what way or form? [/quote]"Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves" == "Yet it is possible to change." For anything in any form. there is no such thing as true stagnation. no such thing as "absolute zero". If one's thinks change is not possible, that is an excuse to remain weak. Some might like others to think that way.

TheJoker wrote:

Choice does not proceed necessity. Choice is directed by necessity.

No, that is the traditional mode of thought, but if i don't care about dying then it is my choice, and nothing is necessary. Things only become necessary when there is something one wants, a desire. Thus it is desire theat necessitates things. If one desires not to be pained in a way then they must choose to the path that reduces that pain.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another.

What does reasoning have to do with anything?

Reason is a slave to desire, emotion, egoism, and pleasure.

Desire and emotion and egoism and pleasure are all slaves to one's reasoning. people who think otherwise are enslaved by their reasoning to be then held to those strictures. one can choose what the desire if they open their mind. For a time they can be of a state of mind that is directed by the exterior , like a child directed by the parents, while even then they could surpass, yet one can say not knowing is a determined restriction of sorts. But then the mind can become eventually free of that reliance. So in a sense both occur for a time. but continuing to think such is always the case or necessary only holds one back.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

It all has to do with control.

To say "all" is typically an over generalization... often "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". People try to help but end up only harming. If that is the case it would be crucial to see that mentality of those feeding the system so as to then be able to deal with them. Yet i think for the most part there are people that are aware of it all...yet one does not have to deal with them, most often one only needs to deal with the pawns, at least first.

Abstract wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

Abstract: Exactly... Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves. No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another. And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

Capacity of what?

Change in what way or form?

"Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves" == "Yet it is possible to change." For anything in any form. there is no such thing as true stagnation. no such thing as "absolute zero". If one's thinks change is not possible, that is an excuse to remain weak. Some might like others to think that way.

TheJoker wrote:

Choice does not proceed necessity. Choice is directed by necessity.

No, that is the traditional mode of thought, but if i don't care about dying then it is my choice, and nothing is necessary. Things only become necessary when there is something one wants, a desire. Thus it is desire theat necessitates things. If one desires not to be pained in a way then they must choose to the path that reduces that pain.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

No matter what we choose it was determined, but that gives no reason to do one thing over another.

What does reasoning have to do with anything?

Reason is a slave to desire, emotion, egoism, and pleasure.

Desire and emotion and egoism and pleasure are all slaves to one's reasoning. people who think otherwise are enslaved by their reasoning to be then held to those strictures. one can choose what the desire if they open their mind. For a time they can be of a state of mind that is directed by the exterior , like a child directed by the parents, while even then they could surpass, yet one can say not knowing is a determined restriction of sorts. But then the mind can become eventually free of that reliance. So in a sense both occur for a time. but continuing to think such is always the case or necessary only holds one back.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

And yet there seems reason to avoid relying on drugs, as they cause more problems often, they are but a trade, and one needs them and must pay for them and are thus more reliant on the "system".

It all has to do with control.

To say "all" is typically an over generalization... often "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". People try to help but end up only harming. If that is the case it would be crucial to see that mentality of those feeding the system so as to then be able to deal with them. Yet i think for the most part there are people that are aware of it all...yet one does not have to deal with them, most often one only needs to deal with the pawns, at least first.

[/quote]

Quote :

"Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves" == "Yet it is possible to change." For anything in any form. there is no such thing as true stagnation. no such thing as "absolute zero". If one's thinks change is not possible, that is an excuse to remain weak. Some might like others to think that way.

So stagnation doesn't exist? Entropy disagrees with you.

There are some things which are unchanging that are determined constants or eternals that are repetitive.

If you can't understand this with that naive optimism of everything can change than you are lost.

No, not everything can change.

There isn't a transcendental antidote to everything.

Quote :

No, that is the traditional mode of thought, but if i don't care about dying then it is my choice, and nothing is necessary.

We are all determined by our expiriences and the environmental world around us.

You caring about not dying was determined upon you in your mental state of past expiriences which necessitates that sentiment that you were presently feeling.

In the end necessity and determination rules this existence to which the mind tricks itself that it has free will or choice. Some may even say it is a necessity or determined trick of the mind even if it's just purely a delicious illusion.

Quote :

Things only become necessary when there is something one wants, a desire.

The want to relinguish life until you wither away and die is nonetheless still a desire.

Quote :

Thus it is desire theat necessitates things. If one desires not to be pained in a way then they must choose to the path that reduces that pain.

Desire is determined by expirience and also nature.

Expirience and nature of the human mind feeds into each other.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

"Yet we have the capacity to change ourselves" == "Yet it is possible to change." For anything in any form. there is no such thing as true stagnation. no such thing as "absolute zero". If one's thinks change is not possible, that is an excuse to remain weak. Some might like others to think that way.

So stagnation doesn't exist? Entropy disagrees with you.

There are some things which are unchanging that are determined constants or eternals that are repetitive.

If you can't understand this with that naive optimism of everything can change than you are lost.

No, not everything can change.

There isn't a transcendental antidote to everything.

How does entropy disagree with that? Entropy means things must always be transferring 'from a higher state into a lower state'. Thus as one thing dies another thing grows. there is continual change things do not stagnate. Even if one was to presume that is always a matter of loss and degradation that is still a form of continual change.

How can one say something is a determined constant if they have not been around forever to witness it never stopping? It is matter of induction that we have arrived at such, it remains possible that anything can change... But indeed i would think that probably there are many constant. Yet stagnation is not something that exists. Our week human minds may look at something and think it is not changing, but it is indeed still changing. And science itself directly says there is no "absolute zero" which translates to no stagnation. As heat or temperature is measure of the vibration of the particles making up the system considered.

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

No, that is the traditional mode of thought, but if i don't care about dying then it is my choice, and nothing is necessary.

We are all determined by our expiriences and the environmental world around us.

You caring about not dying was determined upon you in your mental state of past expiriences which necessitates that sentiment that you were presently feeling.

In the end necessity and determination rules this existence to which the mind tricks itself that it has free will or choice. Some may even say it is a necessity or determined trick of the mind even if it's just purely a delicious illusion.

But then if there are an infinite amount of causes in the past what determined anything?

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

Things only become necessary when there is something one wants, a desire.

The want to relinguish life until you wither away and die is nonetheless still a desire.

Why would someone want that?

TheJoker wrote:

Quote :

Thus it is desire theat necessitates things. If one desires not to be pained in a way then they must choose to the path that reduces that pain.

Desire is determined by expirience and also nature.

Expirience and nature of the human mind feeds into each other.

And yet as our minds being an aspect of the continuum of nature they yet make decisions and are as much a contributor to "causation" as anything else.

Abstract wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

People who call themselves Open-minded are often closed to the idea that they might not be open-minded about something

As far as I can tell when people say they are openminded they mean that they are willing to spend time with new verbal mental ideas in a discussion. These discussions will never lead to them changing their minds, however. I think people confuse this entertaining - intentional double entendre - ideas for being open.

I don't see that particularly as being a double entendre... If you were referring to what I said.

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you and extending the point.

Entertaining and idea is to consider it, but I like that the word entertaining means having to do with an activity that is not meant to create changes, but rather is just an in the moment pleasure. And this, it seems to me, is as far as self-proclaimed open minds often seem to go. They play with words and arguments related to the idea. But nothing profound happens and nothing could. They do not really engage.

Kovacs wrote:

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you and extending the point.

Entertaining and idea is to consider it, but I like that the word entertaining means having to do with an activity that is not meant to create changes,

so much so that even though i don't believe that is the case I tend to think others mean such when they say entertaining.

Kovacs wrote:

but rather is just an in the moment pleasure. And this, it seems to me, is as far as self-proclaimed open minds often seem to go. They play with words and arguments related to the idea. But nothing profound happens and nothing could. They do not really engage.

They swim but don't dive...maybe

Abstract wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

but rather is just an in the moment pleasure. And this, it seems to me, is as far as self-proclaimed open minds often seem to go. They play with words and arguments related to the idea. But nothing profound happens and nothing could. They do not really engage.

They swim but don't dive...maybe

That is a solid metaphor.
1) I think people overestimate how deeply ingrained their ideas are and so they think that if they do not openly dismiss an idea and are willing to discuss it, they actually would have the flexibility to notice things like - they aren't as sure of their own logic as their think, their willingness to notice when their mind is jumping over things, their own emotional investment in their current ideas, how different experiences might affect their opinions.
2) I think there is a kind of political correctness in operation. So on a formal level they make the noises of someone who is open, because of intellectual integrity or liberal values - not in the political sense of 'Liberal' - but this is more part of their self image. IOW saying I simply don't believe it from the get go would feel similar to making a racist remark - or not making one depending on what is politically correct for one and the group one is in.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

but rather is just an in the moment pleasure. And this, it seems to me, is as far as self-proclaimed open minds often seem to go. They play with words and arguments related to the idea. But nothing profound happens and nothing could. They do not really engage.

They swim but don't dive...maybe

That is a solid metaphor.
1) I think people overestimate how deeply ingrained their ideas are and so they think that if they do not openly dismiss an idea and are willing to discuss it, they actually would have the flexibility to notice things like - they aren't as sure of their own logic as their think, their willingness to notice when their mind is jumping over things, their own emotional investment in their current ideas, how different experiences might affect their opinions.
2) I think there is a kind of political correctness in operation. So on a formal level they make the noises of someone who is open, because of intellectual integrity or liberal values - not in the political sense of 'Liberal' - but this is more part of their self image. IOW saying I simply don't believe it from the get go would feel similar to making a racist remark - or not making one depending on what is politically correct for one and the group one is in.

Yeah