Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?
Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 252 (289525)
02-22-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Larni
02-22-2006 6:38 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Larni, posted 02-22-2006 6:38 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 10:49 AM Murphy has replied
 Message 183 by nator, posted 02-22-2006 11:29 AM Murphy has not replied
 Message 199 by Larni, posted 02-23-2006 4:18 AM Murphy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 252 (289527)
02-22-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Murphy
02-22-2006 10:44 AM


Re: The problem identified?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 10:44 AM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 11:37 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 252 (289537)
02-22-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Murphy
02-22-2006 10:44 AM


Re: The problem identified?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 10:44 AM Murphy has not replied

  
Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 252 (289539)
02-22-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
02-22-2006 10:49 AM


Re: The problem identified?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 10:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2006 11:41 AM Murphy has replied
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 12:07 PM Murphy has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 185 of 252 (289540)
02-22-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Murphy
02-22-2006 11:37 AM


Re: The problem identified?
Begging your pardon,but 2 + 2 = 11

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 11:37 AM Murphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 2:58 PM ramoss has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 186 of 252 (289547)
02-22-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Murphy
02-22-2006 11:37 AM


Re: The problem identified?
Read my question and read the statement that it questioned.
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?
The concept of 2+2=4 will always be correct.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 11:37 AM Murphy has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 252 (289586)
02-22-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
02-21-2006 9:42 AM


what we find attractive
Right. And those traits appeal to you because they connote a facility towards parenting. An intelligent parent is able to respond better to threats; a good looking parent is likely healthy and fit and lacks disease; and a sweet parent is not likely to abuse or harm their children.
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.
Why do you think you need those characteristics in a mate - and not, say, ugliness, denseness, or a sour disposition - to be happy in the first place? Random chance?
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 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-22-2006 01:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 9:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 3:11 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Murphy
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 252 (289591)
02-22-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ramoss
02-22-2006 11:41 AM


Re: The problem identified?
Must be one of them thar psychologists!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ramoss, posted 02-22-2006 11:41 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 02-22-2006 3:24 PM Murphy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 189 of 252 (289594)
02-22-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by robinrohan
02-22-2006 2:45 PM


Re: what we find attractive
Here all this time I was concerned about these potential children, whereas I thought it was all about my pleasures.
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?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 2:45 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 4:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 252 (289598)
02-22-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
02-22-2006 3:11 PM


Re: what we find attractive
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 02-22-2006 3:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 3:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 223 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 10:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 252 (289600)
02-22-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Murphy
02-22-2006 2:58 PM


Re: The problem identified?
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 is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Murphy, posted 02-22-2006 2:58 PM Murphy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 192 of 252 (289601)
02-22-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
02-22-2006 3:16 PM


Re: what we find attractive
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 193 of 252 (289604)
02-22-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
02-22-2006 3:16 PM


Re: what we find attractive
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.
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 02-22-2006 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 8:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 252 (289607)
02-22-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
02-22-2006 3:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2006 4:26 PM robinrohan has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 195 of 252 (289612)
02-22-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by robinrohan
02-22-2006 4:02 PM


Re: what we find attractive
Oh, so that's why I like those pale-skinned girls: they're not likely to get skin cancer.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 4:02 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 02-22-2006 11:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024