Psychology - Science or Religion?

Psychology has adopted the scientific mode. However, from a strictly scientific point of view, it has not been able to meet the requirements of true science.

I don't think that makes it a religion.

Religion and pseudoscience aren't synonyms, dude.
Psychology does have many pseudoscientific aspects, but it's been slowly getting rid of them over the course of the second half of the twentieth century.

It's not quite there yet, but as it stands, it's still the best thing we've got for that particular niche.

>>3

what niche?  wtf are you talking about?

>>4
Get a dictionary and look up what niche means.

>>5
Religion does have many pseudoscientific aspects, but it's been slowly getting rid of them over the course of the second half of the twentieth century.

It's not quite there yet, but as it stands, it's still the best thing we've got for that particular niche.

Ok, OK, GOD IS IN DA HOUSE, WTF's UR PROBLEM? Ah, I see you have nutnmouth syndrome. Take two of these and call me in the morning. *hands pathetic human meat sacks his nuts*

>>6
Except that that's a lie whereas >>3 is pretty much true.

First of all, when you say "Psychology" you could be meaning anything from its days of psychoanalysis over 100 years ago to Skinner's animal behaviour model to the neuroscience with Penrose poking at live brains and the knowledge of neurotransmitters and use of scanning technology we have today.  So you know jack shit mister >>1.

I'm not really into Psychology myself, but from what I've seen, there's three main classifications:

1) Bullshit. Past life regression "therapists", hypnotists, etc. These are idiots pushing their made up bullshit on other idiots. It should be legal to kill these fuckers on sight.

2) Pseudoscience. Psychology as a set of generalizations from observations. A bit more credible, as most psychiatrists actually do go to school to learn this shit, but they're still prone to "gut feelings" rather than an actual diagnosis. Especially vulnerable to bullshit fads like MPD/DID (made up bullshit), ADD/ADHD (bullshit misdiagnosis), etc. What makes it worse is that they give out drugs like candy. (If anyone's interested, I can relate my own frustrating experiences with these assholes, who literally almost killed me with their bullshit, but I won't waste time in this post.)

3) Actual Science. Basically Neuroscience like >>9 said, which is slowly eating away at #2. Stuff that actually follows the Scientific Method, complete with experimentation and prediction.

Experimentation and prediction...huh?
As per UR post, >>10, you classified yourself under #1) Bullshit.

>>9
Oh dear I mistakenly put Penrose -- that should be Dr. Wilder Penfield.

>>12
Yeah, Roger Penrose's views on human consciousness are firmly in the bullshit area.

Does the name "Ivan Pavlov" ring a bell?

>>10

>I'm not really into Psychology myself,...
>...
>...bullshit fads like MPD/DID (made up bullshit), ADD/ADHD (bullshit misdiagnosis)...

Let's just scrap entire field because some amateur faggot says ADHD is misdiagnosis.

Protip: If your father touched you inappropriately, no neuroscience can help you.

I don't get why people are so susceptible to mental traumas, I mean, who the fuck cares if your father touches you inappropriately, just wait till you grow stronger and pack a kick up his ass, also sue him and get all his money, BUT DON'T BE A FAGGOT AND LET A BAG OF SWIRLING ATOMS TO RUIN YOUR MIND FOR LIFE ?!?

Seriously, people should grow some balls and be true men.

>>15 |Let's just scrap entire field because some amateur faggot says ADHD is misdiagnosis.

why not?

>>16

It is a feature of our learning ability. Only, not so perfect feature. Psychology studies how it works and helps us work things out.

You faggots think you can impose your will onto your 'traumas'? You can only try just ignore dem.
Enjoy your Prozac and tumors.

>>18

lol @ your "science"

I agree 99.9% with >>18.
It has to do with choice and self-awareness and perception.
If you have been involved with a traumatic event, it is best to at least admit it to yourself that it was trauma or at the very least that it occured. If you fail to do this, it will become a fetish that is reinforced in one way or another either sexually, with drugs, OCD, mental disorder, depression, ADHD etc. The fact that we have the capacity to ignore an event, to put it out of our minds, overwhelm ourselves with distractions and forget about them is the very reason we must observe the potential for it in everything that we do so we don't repeat our past. "Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it." Yes, they knew about it back then too. But what else did they know back then? "To thine own self be true." Ah shit! That too? What else? "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Shit! How did we regress our way through evolution so quickly? Are there any other things that we may have missed? "I found 2000 ways how NOT to make a light bulb." Well fuck me sideways and twist my pecker like a pretzel. I sure as shit didn't believe that we came all this way just to find out we are back in the 13th century...strike that...12th century...I think...? I hope you get this point. We are only screwing ourselves when we screw other people, litterally, physically, mentally, metaphysically, et al ad infinitum, AMEN.
Two tips that may save those who use these tips as integratable tools:
For every mistake you make, a potential advantage AND disadvantage are capable within. Goodwill hunting. How is it possible to perform this tool? Question answers:
A:"The sky is red." (observation)
Q:"Why is the sky red?" (experimentation)
Q:"How is the sky appearing red?" (experimentation)
Q:"When did the sky turn red?" (experimentation)
Q:"What shade of red is the sky?" (experimentation)
catch my drift?

>>20
Not really... I think maybe I'm just not as intelligent as you...?

>>20

Your post is too LSDey.

>>16

Bag of swirling atoms, why should you care?

>>20
...I think maybe I'm just not as intelligent as you...?
Good starting point! What are the advantages and disadvantages of this statement?
Disadv1) You don't grasp the depth of what I'm saying.
Disadv2) You may not be able to see the integratable ideas that are described.
Disadv3) You may have overwhelming thoughts or diversions lingering about you.

Advan1) You know your origin, "I think maybe I'm just not as intelligent as you...?"
Advan2) You now have my tools as stated in this thread, first you now have some advantages and disadvantages to work with.
Advan3) You now are able to question your advantages and disadvantages as well as the primary answer of "I think maybe I'm just not as intelligent as you...?".
Proposed Action to stimulate advantages:
Read some books on perception, influences, energy, biology, psychology, religion, poetry, riddles, self-awareness, or self-preservation. All will eventually lead you to a certain level of understanding, this then becomes your new point of origin, don't forget to document your findings and perceptions during this process and every process afterwards, you may want to think of using all the time of your past to your advantage as well.
My personal example to you:
I "wasted" 11 years of my life sitting at home, self-preserving myself, but to what end. I had no idea, none worth having, or so I thought carelessly. But one day, I began to sense something, my uncle confirmed it through the contexts of his conversation. He essentially told me that I had the ability to turn every disadvantage into an advantage like so;

11 year liability; 11 wasted years to no true purposeful meaning or usage thereof, a baggage of refuse I must painfully carry till I die.

or

11 year asset; 11 years experience to a purpose of learning and understanding the human psyche to better understand myself and my surroundings, self-awareness, self-preservation, perception and the mind's Will to overcome the body's states of bio-chemical emotional reactivity where without interaction only inertial inactivity or inertial chaos theory remains.

So, my 11 wasted years are now 11 years of experience in the field of self-awareness and self-preservation of the human psyche. I've already got a working model to go by, my memories, laced with imagination and lie so I understand that there maybe some memories that are corrupt or untrustworthy to their original appearance, so they deserve further investigation.
Good luck, this is no easy feat, only the Strong Will out.
REFERENCE: Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, this may give you some hope.

BAG OF SWIRLING HAMMERS, run for your fucking life

ADD/ADHd are inbalances in the brain -- in their proprely diagnosed form.  They are usually caused by a lack of, or diminished organ in the brain.  Can't remember if that's right, but something along those lines.  THey are both caused by different organs though.

>>26
LOL, organs in the brain.

ITT: Omnipotent kids interpret science to suit their vanity.
Also, can't decide what is cause and what is effect?

>>27
Look up what ``organ'' means. It's a reasonable name for parts of the brain.

Also, what exactly do you think ``omnipotent'' means?

>>28

A phase in psychological development, you ignorant faggot. At least research the subject before you troll.

>>29
Which, organ or omnipotent? Because neither is right.

which, right or left? STFU&GTFO is all that's left!

I'm no psych major, but I have actually heard of omnipotence in psychology (I have both a mother and a sister who ARE psych majors). Basically, from my understanding, there are numerous types of psychological omnipotence. Usually when people talk about it, it's a form of developmental (infantile/primary) narcissim, but there's also megalomania and imagined omnipotence as a coping mechanism, among other various uses.

Google it, I found a dozen different papers on it on the first page of results.

Psychology is more religion.

But it in society it is mostly accepted since there are HUGE lobbies behind it that support this field.......hello my pharma-industries!

>>33
Scientologist detected

>>33
I enjoy the suppositories they give me. It massages my anus!

>>1
I sense a loop in your statements.

Religion = Imagination
Science  = Experience

Religion fuels Science
Science Fuels Religion

There, mystery solved. Now mass suicide your cultish minds on the swords of rhetorical non-sequitor, you fucking human wastes of magnamity!

Without Religion science is hit or miss.
Without Science religion is forgotten save within the pages of history books.

Both are stagnant death, neither without the other is fulfilling. You all are retards, if you wish to survive the evolutionary jump, practice now the ways of circadian theology (The Cycle of Days). Deny not your biology, deny not your mind, deny not the world around you, less you deny your very eyes and self. What are you really? What are you doing here, really? What life will yield to you alone along the shores of life? What visions indeed will come to your eyes?

Whose words are you really speaking? Who told you those lies to repeat to the world around you? What words does your mind tell you to speak? Are they those that would help or hinder your outlook on life? What lies are you willing to swallow in order to better conform to the wastelands of the decadence of time?
Without the question, there can be no answer.
Without the answer, there can be no question.
(repeat to yourselves, if you Will)

If you lack the answers, ask the question.
If you lack the questions, turn answers into question.
What answers do you already know?
Moral: Use what you know to find out what you don't know.
Exception(s): Use only if you are not already a god. For upon doing so, you shall thereby become Human.

You shall become GOD-MAN. The miraculous amidst the mundane. The spectacular enshrined in the simplest of visions.
For you are designed of details, and all Gods are within the details. What details are you observing right now?

Who would hide from you the details which you already see? Who would deny you that which you seek? By what means and methods do the use as of now and the past?

Pandora's box hath no fury save those who would strive to quiet its voice. Who's voice have they silenced till now? Who's mind waits in turmoil till the days of release? Who's heart beats drums that would blur men's vision to tears? Who's hope for mankind lies within himself? Who's words are yours really? Are you sure...? What dreams may come...only time will tell. Do you see?

Anti-depression medicine that makes you commit suicide??

It's all good in the wide, fraudulent worlds of psychology and psychiatry.

>>41
Failed attempt at conflating psychology and psychiatry detected.

>>41
I suggest this person subscribe to the very things they protest...I think we would very much like to see those results...}:q

Psychology is still a parascience for me, perhaps on the way to become a science, but it is still a longway to go (Neuro-science, is a subfield i accept)!

But the mainproblem is that Psychology is judgemental, and with this mix it will never! be a science.
Trying to define what is normal, what is wrong etc.

Really pathetic.

>>44
Never is a word that should never be used in a sentence...never.
The potential to use psychology is to understand that perception (each individual's) is relative to that person's physical stature, mental intellect, and ability to balance both. The science would more approximately be to first understand yourself and become as balanced as possible, then you will be able to be more of a psychologist and thereby be more apt to understand the nature of the human brain functions.
IMHO. The potential exists, but for others to understand this potential, they have to first have faith in something that might be there as opposed to believing or even knowing it's absolutely not. The same goes for money, women, and a potentially new future lifestyle. No difference choice, but environment. :)

>>45
Never is a word i will always use, if "science" is mixed up with judgemental conclusions.

Judgement can change fast with change within society.

As i stated early, psychology is on its way to become a science.
But to judge somebody, you must fully understand the matter first.

But look psychology nowadays...mostly total bullshit, especially Behaviourism etc.
And then the other extreme, dealing all "problems" with drugs.



One word: arbitrariness

>>46
no idea

>>47

no brain

Psychology is medicine. How feelings manifest into physical symptoms. I'll stick it out there and say it's a science.

Science or not, psychology gets the job done. It turns out, science is not the only beneficial discipline that man does. Apparently our brains are capable of more than one mode of operation. Saying that science has exclusive rights on truth is utter faggotry.

>psychology gets the job done

Have never laughed so hard until now.

Drugging you until you become so dumb that you forget your problems is surerly a solution.

The incosistencies in these fields are so fucking obvious that even idiots can lie their asses off to abuse the system for their own benefits.

Hm, but as a owner of a pharma-concern i would support.

>>51
Psychology has nothing to do with any of that. They put people in small rooms and see if they prefer giving red or blue marbles to feminine faces more often after being shown an image of Dick Cheney dressed up as a clown, and stuff like that.

Sorry , but all those stupid categorizations are just based on shaky positions.

And the most laughable thing is that Psychology defines! what happinies is.

This is so sick.

But who cares.

In the end it is all about power.

>>51

Dear retarded fuck, learn the difference between psychology, psychiatry and neuropsychiatry.

>>54

Dear retarded fuck, please realize that psychiatry is basing their methods and claims on psychology.

PSYCHOLOGY == pretty big field, some of it much more rigorous than the rest.

Some stuff is helping to improve rigourousness; funding only being granted after review to check methodology, etc.  Research having to achieve certain standards before it can be used.

Some stuff is interesting - CBT and various other treatments based around CBT.  The PTSD treatment that invovles eyemovements - they showed the the eye flicking is actually an important part.

>>55
Tom Cruise is a /sci/tard

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]
[i][b][math]\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right][/b][/i]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

^{\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]}

^{\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]}

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\frac{d}{{dx}} {4chan}

>>64
is that the formula for balls touching

Psychology is fail, because it is more based on claims than a fundamental theory with deduction and induction and so on.

Whatever.
Believe what you want, cause IN THE END IT IS ALL BELIEVE, even PHYSICS, yes you hear right.

We can experience things within our capabilities to do so (including building devices for measuring etc.)

But looking at it relatively, than Psychology is really a shame because of the judgemental part!

SCIENCE IS NEVER JUDGEMENTAL!

\mu \left[ \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) + \frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} + \frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) - 2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} + \frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta} \right]

science isn't judgmental, but humans that conduct scientific study, research, and experimentation are. They have to judge that what they are seeing is real, they have to accept that their faculties are working perfectly, they have to document the findings through the portal of their perceptions, which is no different than me typing my ideas through this text-only board for all of you to interpret and accept and then test to verify. If you accept, then question, if you deny you will unwittingly do that which you abhor. This is known as repressed compulsions, some people call it biological impulses, I call it denying the antithesis. For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. Thus, 1 = +1 + -1. Upon activity there is resistance to that activity and the activity of causation. With overwhelming activity, the inactivity of resistance is reduced. This process even works with the human mind. But who am I to say, I'm just a lowly human being...right? And everyone else has all the answers, but not me...right? Everyone else is right...right? To accept this is no different then reinforcing mysticism, denying the antithesis (the resistance or inactivity) will actually draw you closer to the resistance and away from activity. Therefore, denial slows you down, acceptance sweeps you away in its momentum, questioning gets you involved in the processes and upon knowing all sides of things, movements can be apportioned appropriately to afford a previously unknown outcome. Perhaps that of perfection...perhaps that of just being less wrong. Who really knows the absolutes, after all...aren't we basically all relative observers in our own locations? Aren't all absolutes perceived through that relativity? ...just something to think about, or not; the choice is always yours, but do you really want that choice?

So I can honestly say these next things...
Science is no different from religion in the fact that it takes humans to practice either.

In life there are three types of people;
1) Those that practice the mysticisms of religion and accept them as truth; these people never question what is and never experience the details thus their ideas are always shrouded in darkness of their own brilliant ignorance, thus they are in blissful contention.

2) Those that practice the art of denying the antithesis, thus they believe themselves never wrong and always everyone else is wrong, but they never question whether they are wrong, thus between both 1 and 2, a sense of individuality is lost in the overwhelming sea of "everything and everyone is like me" syndrome.

3) Those that know they don't have the answers, but because they know they don't have the answers they question why? The research the ideas they want to know and experience the processes and events to obtain the details of the actions, and by doing so eventually form a sense of difference with everything and everyone around them to discover they are an individual amongst other individuals who believe they are part of a whole. Thus, even this person realizes that he/she has the potential to do just as 1 and 2, but because of this realization they are able to make a choice of differentiation. To explore the path of the unknown. To break down the corridors of absolute and risk being perceived by all as a "shit disturber". And to do this is to use communication. This person actually is the hardest working of all as this person has to put up with people who don't know who they are and those that think they know, but really have no clue and believe that everyone else is of this sickness and they alone are immune. So this person has to form a "common ground" between himself and these people who know nothing of themselves and that everyone else is wrong or just like them, so their motives are to shut the other person up with their attitudes and demeanor in order to be alone or to make the other person like them so their loneliness is consoled. This makes for a very dedicated individual who perseveres even beyond this level of childishness. But because this person understands where these motives come from and would appreciate the same courtesies, he/she allows the others to do as they please and present them with exactly what they are looking for:
Those that accept everything they are told without challenging it and attempt to associate themselves with a "club/conformist" mentality are met with a different viewpoint of the same mysticisms they worship. example? I was told that Christianity was a religion of fulfillment and acceptance; I personally had no vested interest in associating myself with these people so in order for them to leave me alone I told them this, "I believe that Jesus is like the roots of a tree, without the roots a person can not grow to their fullest potential." They took this as a sign of true understanding, thus they didn't question me further and I was content as well, we both got what we wanted. I knew of these types from when I was a child, so not so hard to deal with.
The others are the ones that piss me off the most and that's why I get so pissed at myself when I find myself doing the same or see others doing the same. It's like looking in a fucking mirror without any control whatsoever, INFURIATING! So the common ground with these people is to state your opinion, and then if they challenge you and deny what you say as truth or absolute, good, begin to agree with them they too want you to be "converted", but to realize this won't convert you, your goal would be to leave these people to their own isolations just as they themselves wish. This person, number 3, is even smarter...they know how both types work and thus use their own unknown wants and biological functions against them and allow them to cannibalize themselves to death, also known as debt slavery. This is why these types are the most successful and eventually become rocket scientists or computer engineers.

These are the people that build rockets and go to the moon, but without the people like 1 or 2, how would we know to do this...?

A very challenging question, I guess we would have to experience what they do and perhaps lose ourselves in order to find out. I have done both and become as both in a solid state of ambiguity and anonymity amongst all who are visible to myself, and thus I believe that I would consider myself an Omega personality as I am enslaved to both alpha and beta personalities. I consider the third type person to be a sigma personality, one who integrates themselves amidst their environment, but challenges themselves by questioning what others tell them to do or say or think or feel or know. Any deviation perceived by myself was then assimilated as a form of chauvinism that reminds me of an old Japanese proverb; the nail that sticks out gets hammered. I have faith that being hammered isn't such a bad thing, after all don't we all get hammered little by little over the years? Why not do something? These are the questions I ask myself and find that I am willing to do these things to prove myself to myself that I'm willing to do what I need to in order to surpass my own knowledge base, my own point of origin. I have been formulating how to understand what a point of origin is:

Point of Origin is the state of safety, fulfillment, serenity, bliss, content, satisfaction, easy, a habitual sensation, a natural form of being or activity with little or no resistance.

It is my understanding that this point of origin is flexible, but has a strong firmament in whatever point it happens to reside within, I believe some call it a "mud hell" and others call it "natural talent". The more you apply yourself in any direction that deviates from the "norm" of your point of origin -that being relative to each individual- will strain upon that point of origin, but with due diligence even perseverance over time will overwhelm that point of origin and the practiced will then become the new point of origin, or habit. The reason for this point of origin understanding is that our bodies run off of chemicals, these chemicals have long lasting effect upon every cell structure they happen to interact with and any inconsistencies in their daily dosages will result in withdrawal which leads to the need for action, usually that which will fulfill the need the easiest or quickest without little or no resistance. This is no different than an animal, but aren't all biological structures similar to a degree and then relative afterward?

To pull away from habit is to do things differently every day, but with a memorable and simple function that persists at accomplishing such a task so that pulling out of habit becomes the habit, it becomes the point of origin, it makes you flexible and open-minded, at least in theory. I can only express my own experiences to you, my own details; it is you that lack the understanding of what I say, therefore a true scientist does as the Native Americans did when the first clipper ships came to the shores of North America. They accepted that something was out there beyond the horizon because the waves were hitting their feet more intensely than usual, and upon continual perseverant observation, the vision of the ships appeared to them and they were bewildered as to the nature of what such a thing would be out on the open ocean. If we don't use the tools we are given, the tools we have learned will rust and the wisdom that we've gained by practice will fade in time, and once again we will be back in the dark ages arguing about the use of money as currancy for trade of goods or services...ah, I see we are currently doing so...perhaps it is too late...perhaps not. Who is to say?

>>67
Don't be dumb, anyone can set up a system of knowledge based on axioms without even refering to the actual world.  What you have in that case is mere mathematics, not science.

>>71
Please learn to read.

Someone who covers themselves in poop is a poopiphile.  They love it.  It would never be because they are trying to make themselves repulsive.  That never happens.  Everyony wants to be famous.

Except that's sort of like psychology.  If poopiphilia is all that gets taught about people who cover themselves in poop, then the problem never gets treated, just the symptoms. 

That's why psychology fails.  It covers general human psychological conditions wothout creating a fix.  It's a treatment, not a cure, and therefore it's a religion.

>>72
YOU
>>73
And you are Tom Cruise.

>>74
And you are god.  I worship you, because you know everything.  Now go fuck yourself.

>>75
I smite thee for insolence.  NO HEAVEN FOR YOU, ASSHOLE

>>76

pish, like it's really that much fun to be locked in a perpetual dope nod, anyway.

>>67

ur taking it personally => ur doin it rong!

>>77

in before virgins

>>78
What is personal?

I just stated the facts.

Psychology is way to much incosistent for me to be taken seriously.
And the more ridiculous thing is that it is judgemental.

Hm...sounds good , doesn't it?

But if i would be somebody somehow related to the branches of psychology money-wise, i would sure support it.
The only rational reason i can think of.

>>77
When did that happen to you?  Proper medication for the majority of cases leaves you feeling better, not roofied.  Anyway, prescribing medicine is the realm of the psychiatrist and is only a subset of the wide field of psychology.

>>79
Actually one complaint I have is that it is not judgemental enough.  People need judgement; some more than others.  What are you doing that you feel people are judging you unfairly for?

>>78
How is a dope nod being a virgin?  Dope = heroin, you classless fuck.  Die on your diatribe, and may your relatives disown you.

>>80

I was pescribed everything from Depakote and Zoloft to 10 GRAMS Thorazine, and what I got was the ability to ignore other people and the world around me without feeling.  That is what the 'scripts gave me.  I prefer being crazy, but at least being able to feel what other people are feeling.  Compassion has served me better than any perscriptions I was given.  My life may be shit, but I prefer being able to empathize with people to not.

>>80

Oh anon. Where do i say they are judging me?

Get a brain or get better trolling skills
Do you have dementia or were you always this stupid?

>>82
What kind of crazy do you have, or rather what did they suspect you have?  You seem out of the ordinary.

>>83
Read the post I replied to, which specifically complained of judgemental psychology, which I dispute, as the subject doesn't appeal as much to moral absolutists.

>>what did they suspect you have?

That's why psychology is a religion.

>>84

I say you you should really visit a psychiatry, not kidding.

All your propositions are really weird and incosistent.

Pay a visit and be happy.

>>84

Or perhaps you have a learning disorder?

>>85
Dumbass, then all of medical science is a religion, and the show House is about a priest.
>>86, >>87
NO FUCKIN' SENSE - I diagnose you RETARDED

>>88

uhoho.
expressing your raging anger by being offending and using big letters?

hm, you really better be paying a visit for a psychiatrist.

>>88
Uh oh, I detect a rage disorder in those CAPS.  Someone needs a tranquiliser.  You should check yourself in somewhere where you won't hurt anyone or yourself. 

P.S.  No, you retarded.  See, I can diagnose, too.

Fine, I worship you and your mighty mighty book learning.  I'll respect you as my priest from now on.  Yes father, you're right father, I'll say 3 "hail marys" and eat your holy wafers of calmness. 

I don't respect your "profession" because you get angry like christians do when you question their faith, when you question their practice.  See, if I don't have faith in you, your profession is a religion.  Useless and contemptable.

If psychology was something that actually worked, it would work for everyone without us needing to have faith in you. 

You are an improvement on most religions, but your practice is still based on faith, and hence, it's a religion.  I'll stop picking on you now.  Go read some Jung and reassure yourself that your faith in your profession is well-placed.

>>91

Medicine needs your faith and dedication, too. It requires you to actually take those drugs that were prescribed to you. (so many people don't follow medical advices and avoid taking prescribed drugs) It is similar with psychology, some amount of faith is needed to follow prescribed steps.

Also, leave Jung alooon!

Then, there's one who said psychology is judgmental. There's nothing judgmental about it, it is just your perception. Perhaps you view certain observations about you as being insulting. Probably taking them as implications of your bad character or lack of strong will, etc, etc.

>>92

There's a difference between faith and received opinion.

>>92

Ahahah, you understand nothing if you can't realize that psychology is not judgemental.
The roots of those theories are strongly based on the philosophical views of that time for example.

What is right, what not, what you should do and what not, that is judgemental!

Your argumentation is just as bad as those psychologists for just shifting the basis of the arguements to my own probable faults..."lack of strong will", "bad character"....of course not judgemental....
So ridiculous.

And also there those medicine has something like adverse effects, ever heard of it?
If faith is playing a role in those medication, you just have proven all fallacies of psychology.
People as guinea-pigs for testing if the medication is effective....believe it or not, faith!

I better stop arguing with persons like you.

>>90
troll, or moron, either way you make no sense

>>92
you are confusing faith with confidence.  We have statistically derived, quantifiable condidence in scientific statements such as usefulness of medicines, for the idea of absolute truth is not science.

>>91
what do you mean "worked"?  Are you talking about finding cures for what ails you?  Because that is not the entirety of the very wide field that we call psychology.  You seem to be operating on impressions of what you gather the field is about without having studied it very much.  For one thing, maybe you are meaning to limit your comments to clinical psychology and psychiatry?

>>94

I have yet to see the example of supposed faith requirement in psychology and judgmental nature of it.
What do you think is judgmental? Who told you there is anything "right" and "not right"?

As far as I'm concerned, there are things I should not do simply because they are bad for me for very real reasons. There is nothing judgmental about those things or myself.

Give us some examples. It turns out I don't know wtf you're talking about.

A kid doesn't talk to people, so a psychiatrist says something is wrong with him and that he should talk to people, even if not talking is his personal choice.  The behavior is classified as a disorder so the doctor can prescribe his treatment or medication to "fix" the problem.  Things are no longer justified on an individual basis, they are simply classified into disorders and executed as treatments, a mechanical system that gives "should" as its answer each time, because that is what they believe is best for you. 

The priest listens to your sins against doctrine and to set you on the right path prescribes a Hail Mary each time until you admit your transgressions and profess the righteousness of the authorial system.

It requiers you to have faith in your psychiatrists knowledge and ability to be effective. Would you go to a psychiatrist you didn't trust?  This is different from medicine.  When you go in for surgery, eveyone knows there's a chance you might die, but you don't have to trust your surgeon for their ability to be effective.

When you see a psychiatrist, you're trusting them to know your mind, which is a -little- more accurate than a priest who knows your soul.  In other words, for a psychiatrist to be effective, you have to have faith in them, and their ability to help you, otherwise you'll ignore them.

You gotta have faith. 

Go see a psychiatrist you don't trust for help, and tell me again about the "faith requirement".  Since they're not human, they'd never be judgmental.  Oh wait...

Go learn something useful.

>>97
>As far as I'm concerned, there are things I should not do simply because they are bad for me for very real reasons.

>There is nothing judgmental about those things or myself.

Ok, now i know, that you are really stupid and i mean it.
You don't even know what the definition of judgement is or you are
contradicting yourself with intention.

Just stop posting nonsense, kid.

>>99
A medical doctor, a psychiatrist needs no less and no more of your "trust" then any other doctor.  He can think to himself that you are a giant asshole and still figure out that you have schizophrenia or bipolar depression or what have you, based upon your description of you own symptoms plus his observations.  If anything, he must trust you to give accurate information.

If you imagine that you have to confess about your relationship with your mother, or your masturbation habits, or your life story, you do not.  If you feel a question is off limits, just duck it; you are there as a customer, not as a criminal suspect.  A modern pychiatrist is not a devoted adherent to Freud's psychoanalysis and bunk such as dream interpretation.  That's history now, of some use perhaps in the past, but as we've moved from Dalton's atomic model, science of the brain is not what it was.

>>101

You obviously don't understant the concept of words like "trust" and "faith"; you take them for granted.  You must come from some whitebread town where nobody ever tries to take advantage of you or screw you over.  Psychologists -are- human beings, and their education and training does not change that. 

Sure, a simple issue can be handled by a pill vendor, but complex issues are not the same as a chemical imbalance.  If you can automatically trust everyone with Phd. at the end of their name, fucking goodie for you. The rest of us have to live in the real world, and sometimes doctors don't pay their bills and try to shortchange you like every other human sometimes does.  You are delusional.

Go on, make it about money nowe.  I fucking dare you.

>>102
So plumbing is a religion because I don't trust that fucking plumber will properly fix my fuckin' pipes and not charge me up the ass.

I think you are just trolling at this point.

>>104

I think you are trolling at this point.

I think there is a difference between fixing some pipes or fixing a human!
That is what he meant.

Their judgemental power is still based on their education and their point of view, not to speak about that psychology is incosistent as shit.

Whatever, as long as it is accepted by the society in general and backed up by powerful lobbies, things won't change even there are so many obvious flaws.

I will gtfo of this thread.
This thread again showed me the stupidity of humanity.

>>104

No, because you don't have to trust your plumber for him to fix a pipe, but if you think your psychologist is a stalker psycho freak, you probably won't talk to him, or give him your name, or credit card #, or details about your life or kids.  You DO have to trust a psychologist to work on your mind, or your mind will defend itself.  Unless you're the kind of person that would trust a confirmed pedophile to babysit your kids because he's a psychologist.  Goddamn, people!  Why is common sense so goddamn rare? There ARE psychologists in jail for committing crimes. 

Remove head from rectum.

>>104


Oh ho, very clever anonymous.  This is about trust and faith, not ability.  Can your pipes defend themselves from a plumber?  Can your body defend itself from a surgeon? Your mind can defend itself from a psychologist, sometimes without you even noticing. 

Trust. Faith.  If you don't have either one of those, you won't talk to either your psychologist, or your preist, about personal or religious problems.

A plumber, a priest, and a psychologist are trying to fix a toilet.  The priest prays, the psychologist talks, and the plumber fixes the toilet.

>>108

Then the priest thanks god, and the psychologist congradulates himself on a job well done and bills the plumber for the consultation.

>>105, >>106, >>107
you suck at trolling, plus you don't have to reply three fucking times stupid

A plumber, a priest, and a psychologist are trying to treat a paranoid schizophrenic.  The priest performs and exorcism, the psychologist refers the patient to a pschiatrist (psychologists can't prescribe medicine), and the plumber fixes the toilet, because he loves to do that.

>>110
It's a faith, because it only exists in your mind, faggot.

>>110

>>105 isn't my post, and the joke has 2 lines, because that's how it's supposed to be told.  Now grow the fuck up. 
Psychology and God want to punch you in the face.

>>110

Shove your worthless voodoo up your ass.

>>110

Quite ironic your post, since most probably all the three posts are from three differen persons.

I think you should pay a visit to a doctor for paranoia and schizophrenia.

>>113
>>114
same homosexual

>>112
what are you talking about, 2 lines.  no one complained that it had 2 lines.  and fuck you

>>115
anon fails

Neither religion or psychology are inherently bad.

Says nothing for the practitioners.

You are judging something that is judging actions of people.

In the end there is no wrong or right.

Just pretending and hypocracy.

>>119
Hippocracy.

>>120

^Retard.

>>121
Woosh.

>>122

That's like me calling you a "summertime newfag" without knowing that you're underage B&.

Your mom wants you using the internet less, and trying to find a date for your junior prom more.

the amount of butthurt here is fantastic