[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Otep wrote:
Only mildly related- the older I grow, the more I discover myself fulfilling the zodiacal characteristics of being a Libra and being born in the YOT Tiger. Nature? Nurture? Discuss.
Bullshit. Give anyone a list of good characteristics and they’ll believe it represents them.
My brother falls under the Dragon category. I offer this as evidence enough that the entire system is made up.[/quote]
Will the flaws match up too?
It’s ridiculous to think that a moments worth of conscious thought can defeat and ultimately reverse years of negative programming about your self worth that is deeply seated within the subconscious.
Can this consciousness and awareness help? Absolutely, but it takes YEARS and YEARS and YEARS of re-programming your self-image into “worthy.”
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Parents have nothing to do with self-worth. That doesn’t even make sense. No one gives you or teaches you self-worth. It’s instinctual, or should be. As far as I’m concerned, I’m the greatest fucker here.
Doesn’t everyone feel that way?[/quote]
Vic,
I would just like to point out that you have ABSOLUTELY no clue what the fuck you are talking about.
Back on topic.
There were a number of things that SHOULD have happened in this situation that didnt. Things of this sort happened when I was in school and they usually ended very quickly with phones/photos being confiscated, parents being contacted, and suspensions/expulsions being doled out.
The “well if she hadnt sent him…” arguments are along the same lines of “if she hadnt been so attractive walking to her car from her apartment at night, she wouldnt have gotten raped.” The only people I know of who buy into that shit are the guys slipping shit in drinks on Saturday nights. Just because she could have done something to prevent it doesnt make what the dickhead did right or even close to being acceptable.
I dont get this whole thing where objectifying and degrading women somehow makes you a man and while she should have been less trusting with such sensitive things, him violating that trust is in no way her fault and entirely his.
This guy wasnt being a man, he was being a bitch. A man would have sucked it up and dealt with it. A man would have been responsible. A man would have realized that in the long run, fucking with someone to the point of causing permanent emotional damage is not worth the little bit of gratification he got for getting back at his high school girlfriend.
Where Im from, guys who do shit like this usually wound up pulling gravel out of their teeth or getting a good close up look at the end of Dad’s gun collection. This is no different than the guy who rats out his buddy for petty reasons. Trust doesnt get broken, and when it does, bad things should happen.
Im certain that if the girl’s father/cousin/brother/whatever shows up and erases parts of the dude’s bone structure, the rest of you will show an equal lack of sympathy since he probably should have known better, right?
I mean…his actions have consequences just the way hers did and he was really asking for that beating when he circulated nude photos of his ex to a bunch of catty 16 year old bitches. These hypothetical attackers are being men and making a ho pay for fucking with them, at least the way they saw it right?
[quote]Otep wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Otep wrote:
Only mildly related- the older I grow, the more I discover myself fulfilling the zodiacal characteristics of being a Libra and being born in the YOT Tiger. Nature? Nurture? Discuss.
Bullshit. Give anyone a list of good characteristics and they’ll believe it represents them.
My brother falls under the Dragon category. I offer this as evidence enough that the entire system is made up.
Will the flaws match up too?[/quote]
No. Apparently Dragon flaws are worth having.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Parents have nothing to do with self-worth. That doesn’t even make sense. No one gives you or teaches you self-worth. It’s instinctual, or should be. As far as I’m concerned, I’m the greatest fucker here.
Doesn’t everyone feel that way?
Vic,
I would just like to point out that you have ABSOLUTELY no clue what the fuck you are talking about.
Back on topic.
There were a number of things that SHOULD have happened in this situation that didnt. Things of this sort happened when I was in school and they usually ended very quickly with phones/photos being confiscated, parents being contacted, and suspensions/expulsions being doled out.
The “well if she hadnt sent him…” arguments are along the same lines of “if she hadnt been so attractive walking to her car from her apartment at night, she wouldnt have gotten raped.” The only people I know of who buy into that shit are the guys slipping shit in drinks on Saturday nights. Just because she could have done something to prevent it doesnt make what the dickhead did right or even close to being acceptable.
I dont get this whole thing where objectifying and degrading women somehow makes you a man and while she should have been less trusting with such sensitive things, him violating that trust is in no way her fault and entirely his.
This guy wasnt being a man, he was being a bitch. A man would have sucked it up and dealt with it. A man would have been responsible. A man would have realized that in the long run, fucking with someone to the point of causing permanent emotional damage is not worth the little bit of gratification he got for getting back at his high school girlfriend.
Where Im from, guys who do shit like this usually wound up pulling gravel out of their teeth or getting a good close up look at the end of Dad’s gun collection. This is no different than the guy who rats out his buddy for petty reasons. Trust doesnt get broken, and when it does, bad things should happen.
Im certain that if the girl’s father/cousin/brother/whatever shows up and erases parts of the dude’s bone structure, the rest of you will show an equal lack of sympathy since he probably should have known better, right?
I mean…his actions have consequences just the way hers did and he was really asking for that beating when he circulated nude photos of his ex to a bunch of catty 16 year old bitches. These hypothetical attackers are being men and making a ho pay for fucking with them, at least the way they saw it right?
[/quote]
I’ll just remind you that this is predominantly a philosophical discussion. Whatever science may or may not be involved is largely philosophical in nature, as is the nature of science involving the mind. So absolute statements as to any knowledge are sort of, well, meaningless, due to their subjective nature. Besides, we’ve already decided I’m a higher being. Normal rules no longer apply to me.
No one is objectifying women, nor degrading them, nor saying the guy is entirely devoid of blame, as he’s not. Say the girl did not kill herself, and was simply made fun of for the pictures circulated by the guy. Does he deserve a beating by the appropriate males? I agree he does. But this becomes irrelevant due to the higher indiscretion that is committing suicide. This girl way over-the-fuck-reacted. Did the guy overreact with is pictures? Sure, why not. But the girl went so far above and beyond that the guy’s crimes are minuscule, to say the least.
Anyone who suggests this is moreso the guy’s fault than the girl’s is being nonsensically chivalrous and downright deluded. No one ‘makes’ me kill myself. That is a decision between me and myself.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
No one ‘makes’ me kill myself. That is a decision between me and myself.[/quote]
too bad
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I’ll just remind you that this is predominantly a philosophical discussion. [/quote]
You keep saying this, and you are still wrong. This is a discussion about psychology which is a very real science (however flawed it may be).
I can only guess the people agreeing with what you are writing here are in high school or equally clueless about how environmental influences have a profound effect on who you are as an adult.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
I’ll just remind you that this is predominantly a philosophical discussion.
You keep saying this, and you are still wrong. This is a discussion about psychology which is a very real science (however flawed it may be).
I can only guess the people agreeing with what you are writing here are in high school or equally clueless about how environmental influences have a profound effect on who you are as an adult.
[/quote]
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
I’ll just remind you that this is predominantly a philosophical discussion.
You keep saying this, and you are still wrong. This is a discussion about psychology which is a very real science (however flawed it may be).
I can only guess the people agreeing with what you are writing here are in high school or equally clueless about how environmental influences have a profound effect on who you are as an adult.
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.[/quote]
You don’t know enough about brain chemistry? No shit. What is your educational background while we are on the subject? I can only assume it involves at least some aspect of invasive health care for you to be able to speak out on mental issues to this degree. Obviously you must come in contact clinically with enough random patients to make that judgment…so what is it that you do?
http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/learning_modules/psychology/02.TU.04/?section=14
If you are not willing to educate yourself based on your own desire to believe what you want to believe, what good is this discussion?
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.[/quote]
Personality is an infinitely complex conglomeration of thoughts, experiences, instincts, and urges. The “flaws” in psychology are not flaws, but rather gray areas that science hasnt filled in yet. Psychologists (not psychiatrists, notice) dont claim to know everything (and if they did, they would be out of work) but what they do know for certain directly conflicts with your assertion that people make conscious decisions that ultimately determine their personalities. Im glad that you have been around enough high level researchers in the field of personality to make the assertion that it is “mostly guess work”. Psychologists realize that human personality is influenced by an enormous number of factors and that, while predicting how a person’s personality will develop is practically impossible, identifying the factors that will play into that development is entirely possible.
Your other statements do nothing to indicate to me that you have no experience with psychology beyond maybe an introductory course or some Discovery Channel/TLC documentaries. The fact that you think ADHD and depression are “made up” diseases really goes to show how little you know about what you are talking about. While I will concede that these conditions are over-diagnosed by physicians and exploited by big pharma, they are very real and have very real biological causes within the brain. You even stated in an earlier post that you didnt think either of these conditions had any biological basis. Seriously? Tom Cruise called, he wants his crazy back. You admit now that you lack the knowledge to back up your previous assertions, why should anyone assume that you arent just pulling stuff out of your ass with the rest of your argument too?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
I’ll just remind you that this is predominantly a philosophical discussion.
You keep saying this, and you are still wrong. This is a discussion about psychology which is a very real science (however flawed it may be).
I can only guess the people agreeing with what you are writing here are in high school or equally clueless about how environmental influences have a profound effect on who you are as an adult.
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.
You don’t know enough about brain chemistry? No shit. What is your educational background while we are on the subject? I can only assume it involves at least some aspect of invasive health care for you to be able to speak out on mental issues to this degree. Obviously you must come in contact clinically with enough random patients to make that judgment…so what is it that you do?
http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/learning_modules/psychology/02.TU.04/?section=14
If you are not willing to educate yourself based on your own desire to believe what you want to believe, what good is this discussion?[/quote]
I have no educational background in Psychology, save what I’ve read myself. I assume you and Stronghold both have degrees in Psychology, then? If so, then perhaps you are more qualified to speak than I. If not, then we are on equal ground.
The link you provide does nothing to support your views, or at least supports mine just as well. If depression is biologically dictated, then why don’t 100% of identical twins diagnosed with depression have their identical sibling similarly diagnosed? Especially considering they grow up in similar circumstances? If the formative years are the time when environmental causes have the greatest effect(which is what I gather most here to be saying), and these twins spend their childhoods in the same environment, and in fact have the exact same genetic makeup (and supposed predisposition to depression), then why is is that when one is depressed, half the time, the other is not?
From the link:
‘This disorder appeared to be linked with a specific genetic marker on chromosome 11. However, later research, both within the Amish Community and in other populations, failed to replicate this finding (Kelsoe et al, 1989). This suggests two possibilities: the gene for bipolar disorder may not actually be on chromosome 11, or several genes play a role, only one of which is on chromosome 11. The second possibility is supported by the observation that a gene on the X chromosome has also been implicated in bipolar disorder (Nemeroff, 1998).’
'It is not exactly known, however, how these neurotransmitters affect depression. One theory suggests that low levels of both neurotransmitters can lead to depression, another theory states that low levels of either neurotransmitter can lead to depression. Yet another theory suggests that it is the balance between these neurotransmitters and their relationship to other neurotransmitters that contributes to depression (Barlow et al, 1999).
It may be that hormones such as cortisol are also implicated in depression. These hormones are regulated by neurotransmitters. Recent research indicates that the relationship between hormones and neurotransmitters needs to be examined in order to understand the contribution of both to depression (Ladd et al, ‘96).’
These excepts both suggest that there is nothing conclusive to be had in terms of biological causes of depression. At the very least it seems that not nearly enough is known to say there is in fact any biological trigger. The psychological explanations are equally weak. The symptoms they list are simply derivations of the emotional effects, and there is nothing to suggest any or all of the symptoms couldn’t be easily created by oneself in one’s own mind.
Symptoms:
Emotional symptoms: Feeling intensely unhappy, guilty, finds little or no enjoyment in anything.
Cognitive symptoms: Frequent negative views of self, faulty attribution of blame (blame themselves), low self-esteem and irrational hopelessness.
Motivational symptoms: Lack of drive, initiative, determination and difficulty in making decisions.
Somatic symptoms: Disturbed appetite, weight and sleep, loss of energy, restlessness.
This is all the same shit.
I’m more than willing to educate myself, only it seems everything I read in the less concrete areas of psychology, the more it is well-worded guesswork. You’ve provided me with nothing concrete.
What about the psychologists that would look at you, X, and say ‘bigorexia’, or ‘insecurity’ or ‘compensation’? No doubt you’d say that’s bullshit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can only guess the people agreeing with what you are writing here are in high school or equally clueless about how environmental influences have a profound effect on who you are as an adult.
[/quote]
Yes, but some of us don’t get all bent out of shape and emotional about someone committing suicide. There are worse ways to die.
And now there is more room for me. Yay, me!
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.
Personality is an infinitely complex conglomeration of thoughts, experiences, instincts, and urges. The “flaws” in psychology are not flaws, but rather gray areas that science hasnt filled in yet. Psychologists (not psychiatrists, notice) dont claim to know everything (and if they did, they would be out of work) but what they do know for certain directly conflicts with your assertion that people make conscious decisions that ultimately determine their personalities. Im glad that you have been around enough high level researchers in the field of personality to make the assertion that it is “mostly guess work”. Psychologists realize that human personality is influenced by an enormous number of factors and that, while predicting how a person’s personality will develop is practically impossible, identifying the factors that will play into that development is entirely possible.
Your other statements do nothing to indicate to me that you have no experience with psychology beyond maybe an introductory course or some Discovery Channel/TLC documentaries. The fact that you think ADHD and depression are “made up” diseases really goes to show how little you know about what you are talking about. While I will concede that these conditions are over-diagnosed by physicians and exploited by big pharma, they are very real and have very real biological causes within the brain. You even stated in an earlier post that you didnt think either of these conditions had any biological basis. Seriously? Tom Cruise called, he wants his crazy back. You admit now that you lack the knowledge to back up your previous assertions, why should anyone assume that you arent just pulling stuff out of your ass with the rest of your argument too?
[/quote]
Personality is infinitely complex, and therefore impossible to understand. They know nothing for certain. It’s the nature of these ‘gray areas’. I never said a person’s personality is entirely consciously decided, only that a small facet was, as in, THEIR OPINION OF THEMSELF. I decide what I think of myself, at least. Some people’s opinions of themselves fluctuate day by day. It’s their choice what they think of themselves at any given moment. While this may be influenced by external factors, the ultimate decision is one’s own. If the factors that influence personality can be identified, there’s no way to know how one will choose to interpret and implement the influence. That is an individual decision.
If medical conditions can be over-diagnosed and exploited by pharmacy companies(many of which finance research and education) then who’s to say what is real and what is fabrication? If you can make up a little you can make up a lot. If you are a doctor or student, then you can only know what others have told or taught you. If these sources are tainted, your knowledge is likewise tainted.
You confuse education with knowledge. One often has little to do with the other.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Cherry picking
[/quote]
Give me about 5 months and I will have a degree in this.
These diseases are far more complex than most people realize. Just as personality has an enormous number of variables present, so does personality disorder. We KNOW that some genetic factors are involved. We KNOW that some biochemical factors are involved. We KNOW that some social factors are involved. The human mind, however, is far too complex to make the same definitive predictions that can be made in other fields of medicine (ie, this virus induces this sickness with these symptoms).
The fact that the mind is too complex to make accurate predictions, however, does not discredit entirely the fact that we do know that these factors have a role. If things were as simple as your position on the matter, then there wouldnt be such wide ranging variability in human personality.
As for your comment about “bigorexia”…the issues that many have with that “syndrome” stem from the fact that it is over-simplified and far too general…much like the assertions that you are making in this thread. That is an entirely different discussion though and bears little relevance to this thread.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Cherry picking
Give me about 5 months and I will have a degree in this.
These diseases are far more complex than most people realize. Just as personality has an enormous number of variables present, so does personality disorder. We KNOW that some genetic factors are involved. We KNOW that some biochemical factors are involved. We KNOW that some social factors are involved. The human mind, however, is far too complex to make the same definitive predictions that can be made in other fields of medicine (ie, this virus induces this sickness with these symptoms).
The fact that the mind is too complex to make accurate predictions, however, does not discredit entirely the fact that we do know that these factors have a role. If things were as simple as your position on the matter, then there wouldnt be such wide ranging variability in human personality.
As for your comment about “bigorexia”…the issues that many have with that “syndrome” stem from the fact that it is over-simplified and far too general…much like the assertions that you are making in this thread. That is an entirely different discussion though and bears little relevance to this thread.[/quote]
So you’re saying ‘We know some things have an effect, but we don’t know what things, exactly, we don’t know what that effect is, or how it contributes to the condition, and we can’t use any of this information to predict anything.’
So you’re like a weatherman, then?
I thought science wasn’t science unless it could accurately predict future outcomes. Isn’t that the entire point?
Your psychology sounds much more like fortune-telling than actual science.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.
Personality is an infinitely complex conglomeration of thoughts, experiences, instincts, and urges. The “flaws” in psychology are not flaws, but rather gray areas that science hasnt filled in yet. Psychologists (not psychiatrists, notice) dont claim to know everything (and if they did, they would be out of work) but what they do know for certain directly conflicts with your assertion that people make conscious decisions that ultimately determine their personalities. Im glad that you have been around enough high level researchers in the field of personality to make the assertion that it is “mostly guess work”. Psychologists realize that human personality is influenced by an enormous number of factors and that, while predicting how a person’s personality will develop is practically impossible, identifying the factors that will play into that development is entirely possible.
Your other statements do nothing to indicate to me that you have no experience with psychology beyond maybe an introductory course or some Discovery Channel/TLC documentaries. The fact that you think ADHD and depression are “made up” diseases really goes to show how little you know about what you are talking about. While I will concede that these conditions are over-diagnosed by physicians and exploited by big pharma, they are very real and have very real biological causes within the brain. You even stated in an earlier post that you didnt think either of these conditions had any biological basis. Seriously? Tom Cruise called, he wants his crazy back. You admit now that you lack the knowledge to back up your previous assertions, why should anyone assume that you arent just pulling stuff out of your ass with the rest of your argument too?
Personality is infinitely complex, and therefore impossible to understand. They know nothing for certain. It’s the nature of these ‘gray areas’. I never said a person’s personality is entirely consciously decided, only that a small facet was, as in, THEIR OPINION OF THEMSELF. I decide what I think of myself, at least. Some people’s opinions of themselves fluctuate day by day. It’s their choice what they think of themselves at any given moment. While this may be influenced by external factors, the ultimate decision is one’s own. If the factors that influence personality can be identified, there’s no way to know how one will choose to interpret and implement the influence. That is an individual decision.
If medical conditions can be over-diagnosed and exploited by pharmacy companies(many of which finance research and education) then who’s to say what is real and what is fabrication? If you can make up a little you can make up a lot. If you are a doctor or student, then you can only know what others have told or taught you. If these sources are tainted, your knowledge is likewise tainted.
You confuse education with knowledge. One often has little to do with the other.
[/quote]
And once again, you are assuming that an individual’s opinion of themselves is something they determine on their own, when in fact, it has more to do with environmental feedback than any sort of personal decision. Interpretation plays a role, but in the end, overwhelmingly negative feedback (such as being followed around school being taunted and degraded) will undoubtedly have SOME degree of negative impact.
It is not so much that the sources are tainted, but rather that certain doctors have been acting outside of the science in diagnosing and prescribing pharmaceutical treatment.
Please, however, explain to me how the possibility of the science being tainted lends ANY sort of credibility to the argument of an anonymous forum dweller who admits to having little to zero KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE in these matters. Experience does not make solid science. What you interpret as being influenced only by personal decision has nothing to do with what goes on in another person’s mind because personality is infinitely complex.
You confuse qualified and unqualified. You are the latter. Knowledge and experience are not the same, but you are deficient in both and should refrain from making such definitive statements about these matters until you do.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s not text messages fault, or cell phones, or anyone else. It’s a dumb girl being with a shitty guy. That normally equals bad things for somebody.[/quote]
In the immortal words of Nikki Sixx:
CHICKS = TROUBLE
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
I normally just go “meh” and close these kinds of articles…
I don’t know why this one hit so hard
maybe its cause its the mother’s description of finding her daughter just hanging… sooo fucked[/quote]
That is right. This girl took the pictures. She was stupid to think they would never be between anybody else but her and her boyfriend. Then she gets all pissy when he sends them to others and people tease her. Then she commits the ultimate act of selfishness by killing herself and doubles the selfishness by doing it where her mother or other family members might find her and have to clean the mess up.
This girl was a selfish little bi-Atch; I only feel sorry for her parents; except they did create the little miscreant so they have their part too.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
The flaws in psychology make it questionable enough that, to a great extent, philosophy is involved. I’ll grant I don’t know enough about brain chemistry to entirely refute the idea of depression, but study of personality and how it is influenced is greatly guesswork. Can you provide any conclusive information to the contrary? Everything I’ve seen has been, for lack of a better term, half-assed.
Personality is an infinitely complex conglomeration of thoughts, experiences, instincts, and urges. The “flaws” in psychology are not flaws, but rather gray areas that science hasnt filled in yet. Psychologists (not psychiatrists, notice) dont claim to know everything (and if they did, they would be out of work) but what they do know for certain directly conflicts with your assertion that people make conscious decisions that ultimately determine their personalities. Im glad that you have been around enough high level researchers in the field of personality to make the assertion that it is “mostly guess work”. Psychologists realize that human personality is influenced by an enormous number of factors and that, while predicting how a person’s personality will develop is practically impossible, identifying the factors that will play into that development is entirely possible.
Your other statements do nothing to indicate to me that you have no experience with psychology beyond maybe an introductory course or some Discovery Channel/TLC documentaries. The fact that you think ADHD and depression are “made up” diseases really goes to show how little you know about what you are talking about. While I will concede that these conditions are over-diagnosed by physicians and exploited by big pharma, they are very real and have very real biological causes within the brain. You even stated in an earlier post that you didnt think either of these conditions had any biological basis. Seriously? Tom Cruise called, he wants his crazy back. You admit now that you lack the knowledge to back up your previous assertions, why should anyone assume that you arent just pulling stuff out of your ass with the rest of your argument too?
Personality is infinitely complex, and therefore impossible to understand. They know nothing for certain. It’s the nature of these ‘gray areas’. I never said a person’s personality is entirely consciously decided, only that a small facet was, as in, THEIR OPINION OF THEMSELF. I decide what I think of myself, at least. Some people’s opinions of themselves fluctuate day by day. It’s their choice what they think of themselves at any given moment. While this may be influenced by external factors, the ultimate decision is one’s own. If the factors that influence personality can be identified, there’s no way to know how one will choose to interpret and implement the influence. That is an individual decision.
If medical conditions can be over-diagnosed and exploited by pharmacy companies(many of which finance research and education) then who’s to say what is real and what is fabrication? If you can make up a little you can make up a lot. If you are a doctor or student, then you can only know what others have told or taught you. If these sources are tainted, your knowledge is likewise tainted.
You confuse education with knowledge. One often has little to do with the other.
And once again, you are assuming that an individual’s opinion of themselves is something they determine on their own, when in fact, it has more to do with environmental feedback than any sort of personal decision. Interpretation plays a role, but in the end, overwhelmingly negative feedback (such as being followed around school being taunted and degraded) will undoubtedly have SOME degree of negative impact.
It is not so much that the sources are tainted, but rather that certain doctors have been acting outside of the science in diagnosing and prescribing pharmaceutical treatment.
Please, however, explain to me how the possibility of the science being tainted lends ANY sort of credibility to the argument of an anonymous forum dweller who admits to having little to zero KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE in these matters. Experience does not make solid science. What you interpret as being influenced only by personal decision has nothing to do with what goes on in another person’s mind because personality is infinitely complex.
You confuse qualified and unqualified. You are the latter. Knowledge and experience are not the same, but you are deficient in both and should refrain from making such definitive statements about these matters until you do.
[/quote]
No doubt there will be some degree of negative impact when there is constant exposure to a negative stimulus, for a time, but that negative impact can be made into a positive one, through personal choice. The skinny kid that gets made fun of and beaten up at school feels like shit about it (negative impact), so he goes home and lifts weights and gets big and strong and self-confident(positive through personal choice). ULTIMATELY, it’s the interpretation of the stimulus that matters. The kid could also go home and choose to kill himself, but the stimulus does not dictate any specific reaction in and of itself.
Naturally, if the science is tainted, than the one with the greater exposure (and belief in) that science will have what may be more faulty knowledge and false views than one with little or no exposure to said science. In this sense, my opinion may be just as valid as your fact. If your qualifications are based on misguided principles, than being ‘unqualified’ makes one more ‘qualified’. (I’m not saying this is the case here, but rather speaking in the abstract)
I think we both agree that personality is infinitely complex. If this is so, than both your and my thoughts on the matter are bullshit. Neither of us possesses the faculties to understand that which is infinitely complex. What we are left with is simply what we choose to believe.