When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?

Are you trying to say that when some psychologist makes a diagnosis that all other psychologists would make the same diagnosis?

Are you saying that we don't know something unless we have 100% agreement on it? That because we don't know everything, we know nothing?

quote:

---

Are you trying to say that when some psychologist makes a diagnosis that all other psychologists would make the same diagnosis?

---

Something that most people not involved in the sciences don't realize is that Psychology is a VERY large field and that clinical Psychologists (i.e. therapists) are but one type of Psychologist.My husband, for example is a recent PhD in Psychology, but he has no background at all in clinical. His concentration was in Neuropsychology, Cognition, and Perception. He is currently doing research on the congnition of learning.So, he does science, just like any other scientist.AND, clinical Psychologists (therapists), unless they are ALSO trained as scientists, probably do not do science.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 11:30 AM

That's not what I said. Read my question and read the statement that it questioned.People tend to think that they have the answer and ignore the reality that they only know part of the answer. 2 is part of the answer to 7 X 3= , but it's only close to the answer and pretending it is right doesn't make it right.The concept of 2+2=4 will always be correct. Psychologist's opinions won't.

Begging your pardon,but 2 + 2 = 11

I did. Since there was absolutely no relationship between your question and the statement that prompted it, I presumed you wouldn't mind if I did the same thing to you.Are you going to answer the question, or not? Fascinating, but irrelevant. Science is not a form of mathematics; moreover, the statements of mathematics are only true because they're assumed to be true.

I had no idea I was so unselfish. Here all this time I was concerned about these potential children, whereas I thought it was all about my pleasures. I suppose you are suggesting that what we think is physically attractive is just that which looks "healthy." However, there might be some pale, anemic women with long black hair that I most certainly would find attractive, despite the fact they aren't that healthy and probably would not be very good at childbearing or rearing. Too lethargic they are--but nonetheless attractive.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-22-2006 01:50 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-22-2006 01:56 PM

Must be one of them thar psychologists!!!

Again you're trying to draw this as some kind of dichotomy. It's both - you find some things pleasurable in the first place because they connote advantageous genetic traits you should be interested in.Why does food taste so good when you're hungry? Why is eating a satisfying meal such a pleasurable experience? Surely you don't question that a considerable part of that is your body rewarding your consciousness for doing something your body needed to have happen; is it really so surprising to you that sex, another function the body mandates, would operate in a similar fashion?I simply can't understand your incredulity at learning this. Did you really think that human attraction was a function entirely of free will? Why do so many married people look like their spouses? Did you think that happened by coincidence? Do you know that they are actually anemic? My guess is that you would find actual poor health sort of a turn-off. Most people looking to score don't go to hospitals. There's a difference between being pale and having a pallor. One is an indication that one has not been out in the sun a lot - an indicator that they're not going to die of skin cancer, perhaps - and the other is a genuine indicator of disease. My guess is that you would find one attractive and one less so. Unless your idea of a hot saturday night is to cruse the chemotherapy wards.

Um, aren't we all attracted to food or quantities of food that isn't good for us? How do you explain this? I mean FAT is delicious, and so are CARBS, but we're SUPPOSED to eat lean protein and veggies instead. They're OK, and I do like them but I'd rather eat chips and dip or very heavily sauced fatty foods and stuff full of sugar and so on.

Something that most people not involved in the sciences don't realize is that Psychology is a VERY large field and that clinical Psychologists (i.e. therapists) are but one type of Psychologist.My husband, for example is a recent PhD in Psychology, but he has no background at all in clinical. His concentration was in Neuropsychology, Cognition, and Perception. He is currently doing research on the congnition of learning.So, he does science, just like any other scientist.AND, clinical Psychologists (therapists), unless they are ALSO trained as scientists, probably do not do science.

quote:

---

Um, aren't we all attracted to food or quantities of food that isn't good for us?

---

No.

quote:

---

How do you explain this? I mean FAT is delicious, and so are CARBS, but we're SUPPOSED to eat lean protein and veggies instead.

---

Way, way, way back in the day ("caveman" days, IOW), long before agriculture, long before we kept animals for food, it was quite the job getting enough calories to survive, sustain offspring, and fight off disease.The fondness for fat and sweet things was selected for in our evolution as these tend to be calori-dense foods, which are very valuable when food is hard to get.Salt, too, was difficult to get enough of, and since sodium is crucial for the function of the heart, a fondness for saltiness was also selected for.There was selection for the tendency to eat beyond the point of hunger being satisfied because getting a windfall of food wasn't at all guaranteed; it wasn't known if there was going to be drought, or disease, so better pack on the stored calories now in case of future famine.Lastly, many plant-based poisons are bitter in flavor, so selection for a great sensitivity for, and strong dislike of, bitter flavors occurred as well.

quote:

---

They're OK, and I do like them but I'd rather eat chips and dip or very heavily sauced fatty foods and stuff full of sugar and so on.

---

The reason these foods are considered "bad" now is because our environment has changed, in a blink of an eye evolutionarily-speaking, to make getting all sorts of food incredibly easy.This is a textbook-perfect example of natural selection and how a beneficial or detrimental a trait is is entirely dependent upon the environmental conditions.In fact, we see great obesity levels in current populations of certain American Indians who survived for tens of thousands of years farming in extremely dry conditions. Those individuals, ver those many thousands of years, who couldn't survive during the leaner times simply didn't get to pass on their genes.The people with those genes no longer do physical labor every day and eat mainly corn and beans. They are much more sedentary and eat frybread and other calorie-dense foods. They are at a disadvantage because they have what has become known as "thrifty genes".This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 03:45 PM

No, you're supposed to eat all those things. A diet devoid of fats or carbohydrate will kill you.The reason that you see negative health effects for eating "what the body wants" is because, for the first time in 40,000 years, people like you and I (about 1% of the Earth population) get enough to eat.That has rarely been the case throughout human evolution. It's rarely the case now, for that matter. Your body demands carbs and fats and other things that it isn't healthy to have too much of because it doesn't expect to ever eat again. Your body's nutritional program has evolved under a situation where not eating again anytime soon was a realistic possibility.Humans, in general, will find their appetite increased simply by a greater avaliability of food. You tend to feel hungry enough to eat what is put in front of you because your body doesn't rely on being able to eat again. Of course. If you were going to eat a meal, and then not be able to rely on ever eating another meal again, you'd want to have eaten the fatty, carbo-loaded stuff because that's the stuff that's going to keep you from starving the longest.Your body's nutritional goal is not a long and healthy life. It's to be able to maintain the functions you need to survive and reproduce for as long as possible absent reliable nutritional intake.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2006 03:52 PM

Oh, so that's why I like those pale-skinned girls: they're not likely to get skin cancer. I always wondered about that.

Are you pale yourself, perhaps of Northern European ancestry? Pale skin connotes an ethnicity close to your own, thus reinforcing your own genetics in your offspring by crossing your genes with similar genes.Or are you of more darker skin? Latin perhaps, or even African? Pale skin would indicate "exotic" genes which you may be attracted to perhaps to offset a historically small gene pool in your ancestors.Or, you're just all up into pale chicks. I've never said that wasn't possible. It might very well be that there's no organic basis for this particular preference.But to suggest that there's no organic basis for any preference isn't something that you can support in light of the evidence.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2006 04:27 PM