This is the psychological community for you. They don't treat the problem, they just treat the symptoms and try to modify them, which in certain cases, especially in the psychiatric community is all they can do.
They are also heavily bought into the liberal conceptualization of society and how it should work. Its pure abstraction without any practicality and it advocates for a form of self-experimentation that is more dangerous than any drug.
They are just pushing these people into the meat grinder and not actually treating them as having a mental illness and that is generally part of the larger society, but then again the core of psychological thinking is to make you a "normal" member of society.
I have intimate knowledge of this field. Most psychologists are more scientist than therapist.
They are, however, ruled over (world wide) by the AMA. The AMA is full of kikes. The AMA& the APA jointly decide the content for the DSM (the diagnosis Bible).
Jews got homosexuality removed as a mental illness by lobbying the APA.
How can you consider psychology a proper science, when the classification system is not so exact and when you have an overlap between different psychological disorders and generally a poor clarification of certain psychological disorders, especially personality disorders, which are produced by cultural bias.
I am not trying to argue with you. I am not expert on really anything, but I am interested in your feedback. I don't see how there is a real concrete and empirical object of focus and end goal, which is the essential property of a true science in most case, or the capacity to abstract certain notions and theories from something put in practice.
With behavior its not so easy, because you are talking about a multitude of things working together, such as environment, micro-society/macro-society, and biology, along with disposition and emotional styles. Historically speaking, most of homosexuality, outside of Western Europe would have considered homosexual normal behavior(even the ancient Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans believed this(although I don't consider the Romans to be fully Western European).
Ironically, its only the West these days that openly supports behavior that is not permitted in other societies and cultures(probably because they realize what a huge threat to their societies functioning and because of religious perspectives).
At the base core, homosexuality is a mental illness though, because its a violation of basic natural principles and contradicts the urge to reproduce. Its that simple. There is no need to psychologize it, which is highly dangerous.
Its flat out wrong and not for social and religious reasons even, but because it spreads disease and de-incentivizes reproduction(the scientific approach).
You can't do a science of how mind correlates to behavioral phenomenon without a proper understanding of how the brain works and the complexity of environmental rearing and biology.
Psychologists study the mind and it's relation to behaviour, not "behaviour". It is a science, in that experiments are meant to be reproducible and follow the scientific method. Double blind studies, controls, etc.
Think of the Milgrim Experiments. That's psychology. Experimentation to determine truth.
The problem is that it was the first science to be co-opted by the fucking commie jew fuckers.
The DSM 1-3 classified homosexuality as the mental illness it is.
Behavior in what context though, as modified by thought-mediation, as understood as modified by perception, or as modified by reactive/emotional output/input. It needs to be distinguished. If its thought-mediation its trickier, how do you identify a mental illness through a form of "thought"(I am not talking about thought in the classical sense, but small trigger points and micro-perspective out that shapes general thought and which certain behavioral patterns and traits are triggered).
I bet they will find that a lot of mental illnesses are "thought-triggered," which ties back into environment, society, and sometimes as wild as it sounds biology. You will especially find this in a variety of personality disorders. Mood disorders are a whole different beast.
You can replicate models and reproduce them to come to some general understanding of mood disorders, but until you find the chemical patterns and dynamics that manifest themselves in the specific mood disorders you won't be able to dichotomize and even then doing so will be very hard, because archetypes and differing categories, like Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Hypomania are in fact very hard to find a scientific proof for.
Its generally reducing things to generally well it seems like there is a variation. Well, duh, even in the world of science variation happens within a certain group and pattern of behavior, cognition, and base personality expression. They do apply Occam's razor in a sort of misguided double-edged way, seek generally greater complexity, but in a kind of watered down and over-simplified way. The key is to understand the general pattern and how the individuated cases fit into that general pattern.
Technically, this would not be exactly a scientific approach, but it has scientific grounds and it is hard to replicate/reproduce the model, beyond a mere perceptual and what I consider emergentist perspective, which explains why its not a cold hard science and can never be, except at a kind of rudimentary manner and in an unusual way.
You can replicate broader phenomenon and say well we see this kind of pattern over a spectrum snd therefore we have found a truth, but understanding the various complexities is harder and something science has not made leaps upon as of yet. Trying to fuse it into one integrative system ends up creating issues and is the problem with industrial psychology, which is a catch-all and one-size fits all incorporation of different methodological approaches at the level where it no longer becomes psychology, but a social science.
Psychology straddles that line between science and quasi-legitimate science, but using the classical scientific method is absolutely, absolutely retarded and does not account for individual cases and the non-dichotomized spectrum that exists within psychological dichotomy. Its not that psychology pretends to be a science, but that it stretches things too far and dichotomizes things so much to the point where it no longer is scientific and this in fact is what has allowed politicized and left-wing forces, like the Frankfurt School to inject themselves into the study, the softer side is the Habermus crowd, that sees the core of psychologism as being traced back to some convoluted and indeterministic(anti-evolutionary psychology) perspective, which is part truth, but inherently and subtly a lie, but a lie is carried forward on a kind of Nietszchean model.
You can't replicate things when you fit them into dichotomies in the context psychology does and with the amount of content/knowledge that can be imparted on our understanding of the mind and its correlation to behavior. It is relation as you say, but the correlation part is poorly understood and the current approaches and trends in modern psychology has taken it in some wild directions and so you are going to get a cultural bias in the replications/reproduced models and then a lot of hypothesizing around that model of thought.
I think psychology has got the perceptual element locked down, well mostly, or as good as it can and there are some out there who treat things well by not overdosing with drugs. The main thing is understanding the reactive/emotional aspect and how it fits back into "thought-trigged" behavioral patterns and this might seem easy, but its much harder than people realize and it can be very individualized, yet it fits back into a dichotomy that we can quite our hands around. Example of this is why did classical liberal and even Democratic thinking led to the modern left become like Communists?
We also need to understand how this can modify perception to either give the appearance of a mental illness, more of the personality disorder range, but in the case of liberalism, a definite mood disorder(let's have unchecked sex, rape, and plunder and make that the basic operation for our society, like the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans(Islam is a mental disorder too by the way taking that into account).
Its not "thought-triggered," but rather its socio-environmental and how it can effect basic biological/chemical trigger-points in the brain and is essentially an is issue that fits into own category, its purely behavioral is triggered by the emotive/reactive sphere of the mind, which proves how much free will, socio-environmental forces, and behavioral aptitudes(personality disorder at times too) are tied back into this phenomenon.
I would classify homosexuality and transsexuality as a personality disorder that morphs into a mood disorder. There we go I agree with them, came up with a new category, and then overthrew the whole core of the argument. I hope future psychologists can think of this. It also shows how understanding, not dichotomizing the emotional/reactive sphere of the mind needs to be understood in the context of how behavior works back into modifying the perceptual apparatus of reality and how this affects emotive/reactive dispositions, rather than just saying emotive/reactive is just something that is almost inborn and that it differs significantly from the chemical/brain state, but is some sort of internal extension of mental states that are heavily influenced by the "dichotomies" of "thought-triggered"(which shape the reactive/emotional aspect are tied back into biology/chemistry) and the perceptual apparatus as affected and driven on by behavioral patterns that are not technically considered a form of mental illness, but work themselves into that direction, due to freedom of will indulging itself in social degeneracy and tapping into it.
I think there is probably a racial component at play, but this is sort of common sense and does not really get to what differentiates races at the level of consciousness and cognitive mechanism. Psychology is essentially at best like a study of Virtuvian man's physiognomy and how it ties back into a broader categorization of mental states(I will discount mood disorders), but the real psychological disorders are liberalism, Islam(to varying extents and its less severe than liberalism(more so its original framework), and finally anything LGBT).
I also would like to include modern psychologists who believe in mental dichotomies and pressuring people into them and politicized/industrial psychology(its highly susceptible to mental illness, so those not pointing outs its dangers and anti-individualistic nature should be considered as having a fixed personality disorder).
Thank you very much for this. I read the whole thing. Also, when I was talking about industrial psychology, I was not talking Organizational Industrial psychology, but my belief is very socio-industrial, which is proven in how many different forms of psychology there are.
It tends to lead it "Balkanizing" things, because how difficult is to get someone to start "thinking" and developing that mentality for a specific job. It can be used to condition them to not necessary perform a quality job but only follow some crappy system of protocols and regulations.
I guess I am a bit of an anarch and this is how society functions and works at a kind of common sensical level, which is understandable and I get it. That is the kind of thing you can make a science of though.
Its more the conditioning element is experience, observation, practice, a little bit of engineering/manipulating, making it more subjective than it would appear in a certain context.
I just don't see how this validates psychological classification. There is always a new way to fix certain things as psychological illnesses when in fact claiming them as mental illnesses can serve as the grounds to justify their existence(not homosexuality, but definitely transsexuality). Transsexuality is worse than a mental illness.
It cannot properly be classified as such and such a classification is a grave insult to those who have legitimate mental disorders. They have shown rapid-onset gender dysphoria is bogus, but what about things like late-onset Gender Dysphoria and Blanchard's classification system for transsexuality. It all seems bogus.
I think things like late-onset Gender Dysphoria are due to a very radically feministic society combined with child abuse and bad rearing(bad "thought" and "micro-aggressor"(I am reinterpreting the meaning that is applied to micro-aggression) influences that push it in that direction. I think Blanchard's typology is an invention based off mental states that exist among certain effected people's when they have reached the stage of no return(they have so engrossed themselves in the ways of transvestism/transsexuality that they feel/perceive themselves as such and it was all pushed and reinforced by behavior/"thought" complexes.
I think it is tied back into a kind of an invented Reichan notion of negative orgiastic and sexual energies can corrupt people many generations down the line in such a manner where combined with the sexual degeneracy and radical feminism of the era it makes people perceive/feel they are transsexual, but once they start thinking about it they get real confused and don't know what to do. I think in this context its all bogus, but as a psychologist what say you?
I disagree with the premise that all ethical systems are subjective, therefore all are bad. Cultural bias can be a good thing and is missing to some extent in our societies.
Ethics become bad when they proscribe solutions that believe that since their are universal value systems that it means first "equal" political rights should be bestowed upon all peoples in a society, without some form of qualifier(ethnicity is included) and that there is an absolute criterion to justify the application of ethics on an international/humanitarian level in the same manner(believer in situational ethics in this situation and a kind of quasi-utilitarianism when it comes to application on this level, with a certain kind of pragmatism balancing things out).
I think there is a certain context of ethics at least on a localized level and even back up to a national/constitutional level where it is subjective.
Christianity probably facilitated, harbored, and allowed ethics to stagnate as it focused more on abstracting ethics in a theological format(the other world) and the fact that morality/piety took greater precedence(morality is essentially, but like intuition its meaningless without some organized system of content inputting back in categories that people can conform to, which is what ethics is essentially about and sometimes social conditions bring about their reform and is essentially what that chronicle is about).
I somewhat agree with Stefan Monolyeaux, but thinks he stretches it and does go after the main flaws(he goes after it all as bad).
Anyways, I was asking for a psychologist such as yourself to lay out how bogus such things as Late-Onset Gender Dysphoria and Autogynephilia are, because the Brown Study only dealt with how social pressures and social media outlets serve as a way of inducing rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria.
view the rest of the comments →
1Iron_Curtain ago
This is the psychological community for you. They don't treat the problem, they just treat the symptoms and try to modify them, which in certain cases, especially in the psychiatric community is all they can do.
They are also heavily bought into the liberal conceptualization of society and how it should work. Its pure abstraction without any practicality and it advocates for a form of self-experimentation that is more dangerous than any drug.
They are just pushing these people into the meat grinder and not actually treating them as having a mental illness and that is generally part of the larger society, but then again the core of psychological thinking is to make you a "normal" member of society.
elitch2 ago
Okay, you're wrong, buddy.
I have intimate knowledge of this field. Most psychologists are more scientist than therapist.
They are, however, ruled over (world wide) by the AMA. The AMA is full of kikes. The AMA& the APA jointly decide the content for the DSM (the diagnosis Bible).
Jews got homosexuality removed as a mental illness by lobbying the APA.
Lobbying in science should not be a thing.
1Iron_Curtain ago
How can you consider psychology a proper science, when the classification system is not so exact and when you have an overlap between different psychological disorders and generally a poor clarification of certain psychological disorders, especially personality disorders, which are produced by cultural bias.
I am not trying to argue with you. I am not expert on really anything, but I am interested in your feedback. I don't see how there is a real concrete and empirical object of focus and end goal, which is the essential property of a true science in most case, or the capacity to abstract certain notions and theories from something put in practice.
With behavior its not so easy, because you are talking about a multitude of things working together, such as environment, micro-society/macro-society, and biology, along with disposition and emotional styles. Historically speaking, most of homosexuality, outside of Western Europe would have considered homosexual normal behavior(even the ancient Greeks and to a lesser extent the Romans believed this(although I don't consider the Romans to be fully Western European).
Ironically, its only the West these days that openly supports behavior that is not permitted in other societies and cultures(probably because they realize what a huge threat to their societies functioning and because of religious perspectives).
At the base core, homosexuality is a mental illness though, because its a violation of basic natural principles and contradicts the urge to reproduce. Its that simple. There is no need to psychologize it, which is highly dangerous.
Its flat out wrong and not for social and religious reasons even, but because it spreads disease and de-incentivizes reproduction(the scientific approach).
You can't do a science of how mind correlates to behavioral phenomenon without a proper understanding of how the brain works and the complexity of environmental rearing and biology.
elitch2 ago
Psychologists study the mind and it's relation to behaviour, not "behaviour". It is a science, in that experiments are meant to be reproducible and follow the scientific method. Double blind studies, controls, etc.
Think of the Milgrim Experiments. That's psychology. Experimentation to determine truth.
The problem is that it was the first science to be co-opted by the fucking commie jew fuckers.
The DSM 1-3 classified homosexuality as the mental illness it is.
1Iron_Curtain ago
Behavior in what context though, as modified by thought-mediation, as understood as modified by perception, or as modified by reactive/emotional output/input. It needs to be distinguished. If its thought-mediation its trickier, how do you identify a mental illness through a form of "thought"(I am not talking about thought in the classical sense, but small trigger points and micro-perspective out that shapes general thought and which certain behavioral patterns and traits are triggered).
I bet they will find that a lot of mental illnesses are "thought-triggered," which ties back into environment, society, and sometimes as wild as it sounds biology. You will especially find this in a variety of personality disorders. Mood disorders are a whole different beast.
You can replicate models and reproduce them to come to some general understanding of mood disorders, but until you find the chemical patterns and dynamics that manifest themselves in the specific mood disorders you won't be able to dichotomize and even then doing so will be very hard, because archetypes and differing categories, like Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Hypomania are in fact very hard to find a scientific proof for.
Its generally reducing things to generally well it seems like there is a variation. Well, duh, even in the world of science variation happens within a certain group and pattern of behavior, cognition, and base personality expression. They do apply Occam's razor in a sort of misguided double-edged way, seek generally greater complexity, but in a kind of watered down and over-simplified way. The key is to understand the general pattern and how the individuated cases fit into that general pattern.
Technically, this would not be exactly a scientific approach, but it has scientific grounds and it is hard to replicate/reproduce the model, beyond a mere perceptual and what I consider emergentist perspective, which explains why its not a cold hard science and can never be, except at a kind of rudimentary manner and in an unusual way.
You can replicate broader phenomenon and say well we see this kind of pattern over a spectrum snd therefore we have found a truth, but understanding the various complexities is harder and something science has not made leaps upon as of yet. Trying to fuse it into one integrative system ends up creating issues and is the problem with industrial psychology, which is a catch-all and one-size fits all incorporation of different methodological approaches at the level where it no longer becomes psychology, but a social science.
Psychology straddles that line between science and quasi-legitimate science, but using the classical scientific method is absolutely, absolutely retarded and does not account for individual cases and the non-dichotomized spectrum that exists within psychological dichotomy. Its not that psychology pretends to be a science, but that it stretches things too far and dichotomizes things so much to the point where it no longer is scientific and this in fact is what has allowed politicized and left-wing forces, like the Frankfurt School to inject themselves into the study, the softer side is the Habermus crowd, that sees the core of psychologism as being traced back to some convoluted and indeterministic(anti-evolutionary psychology) perspective, which is part truth, but inherently and subtly a lie, but a lie is carried forward on a kind of Nietszchean model.
You can't replicate things when you fit them into dichotomies in the context psychology does and with the amount of content/knowledge that can be imparted on our understanding of the mind and its correlation to behavior. It is relation as you say, but the correlation part is poorly understood and the current approaches and trends in modern psychology has taken it in some wild directions and so you are going to get a cultural bias in the replications/reproduced models and then a lot of hypothesizing around that model of thought.
I think psychology has got the perceptual element locked down, well mostly, or as good as it can and there are some out there who treat things well by not overdosing with drugs. The main thing is understanding the reactive/emotional aspect and how it fits back into "thought-trigged" behavioral patterns and this might seem easy, but its much harder than people realize and it can be very individualized, yet it fits back into a dichotomy that we can quite our hands around. Example of this is why did classical liberal and even Democratic thinking led to the modern left become like Communists?
We also need to understand how this can modify perception to either give the appearance of a mental illness, more of the personality disorder range, but in the case of liberalism, a definite mood disorder(let's have unchecked sex, rape, and plunder and make that the basic operation for our society, like the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans(Islam is a mental disorder too by the way taking that into account).
Its not "thought-triggered," but rather its socio-environmental and how it can effect basic biological/chemical trigger-points in the brain and is essentially an is issue that fits into own category, its purely behavioral is triggered by the emotive/reactive sphere of the mind, which proves how much free will, socio-environmental forces, and behavioral aptitudes(personality disorder at times too) are tied back into this phenomenon.
I would classify homosexuality and transsexuality as a personality disorder that morphs into a mood disorder. There we go I agree with them, came up with a new category, and then overthrew the whole core of the argument. I hope future psychologists can think of this. It also shows how understanding, not dichotomizing the emotional/reactive sphere of the mind needs to be understood in the context of how behavior works back into modifying the perceptual apparatus of reality and how this affects emotive/reactive dispositions, rather than just saying emotive/reactive is just something that is almost inborn and that it differs significantly from the chemical/brain state, but is some sort of internal extension of mental states that are heavily influenced by the "dichotomies" of "thought-triggered"(which shape the reactive/emotional aspect are tied back into biology/chemistry) and the perceptual apparatus as affected and driven on by behavioral patterns that are not technically considered a form of mental illness, but work themselves into that direction, due to freedom of will indulging itself in social degeneracy and tapping into it.
I think there is probably a racial component at play, but this is sort of common sense and does not really get to what differentiates races at the level of consciousness and cognitive mechanism. Psychology is essentially at best like a study of Virtuvian man's physiognomy and how it ties back into a broader categorization of mental states(I will discount mood disorders), but the real psychological disorders are liberalism, Islam(to varying extents and its less severe than liberalism(more so its original framework), and finally anything LGBT).
I also would like to include modern psychologists who believe in mental dichotomies and pressuring people into them and politicized/industrial psychology(its highly susceptible to mental illness, so those not pointing outs its dangers and anti-individualistic nature should be considered as having a fixed personality disorder).
elitch2 ago
https://www.verywellmind.com/types-of-psychologists-and-what-they-do-2795627
1Iron_Curtain ago
Thank you very much for this. I read the whole thing. Also, when I was talking about industrial psychology, I was not talking Organizational Industrial psychology, but my belief is very socio-industrial, which is proven in how many different forms of psychology there are.
It tends to lead it "Balkanizing" things, because how difficult is to get someone to start "thinking" and developing that mentality for a specific job. It can be used to condition them to not necessary perform a quality job but only follow some crappy system of protocols and regulations.
I guess I am a bit of an anarch and this is how society functions and works at a kind of common sensical level, which is understandable and I get it. That is the kind of thing you can make a science of though.
Its more the conditioning element is experience, observation, practice, a little bit of engineering/manipulating, making it more subjective than it would appear in a certain context.
I just don't see how this validates psychological classification. There is always a new way to fix certain things as psychological illnesses when in fact claiming them as mental illnesses can serve as the grounds to justify their existence(not homosexuality, but definitely transsexuality). Transsexuality is worse than a mental illness.
It cannot properly be classified as such and such a classification is a grave insult to those who have legitimate mental disorders. They have shown rapid-onset gender dysphoria is bogus, but what about things like late-onset Gender Dysphoria and Blanchard's classification system for transsexuality. It all seems bogus.
I think things like late-onset Gender Dysphoria are due to a very radically feministic society combined with child abuse and bad rearing(bad "thought" and "micro-aggressor"(I am reinterpreting the meaning that is applied to micro-aggression) influences that push it in that direction. I think Blanchard's typology is an invention based off mental states that exist among certain effected people's when they have reached the stage of no return(they have so engrossed themselves in the ways of transvestism/transsexuality that they feel/perceive themselves as such and it was all pushed and reinforced by behavior/"thought" complexes.
I think it is tied back into a kind of an invented Reichan notion of negative orgiastic and sexual energies can corrupt people many generations down the line in such a manner where combined with the sexual degeneracy and radical feminism of the era it makes people perceive/feel they are transsexual, but once they start thinking about it they get real confused and don't know what to do. I think in this context its all bogus, but as a psychologist what say you?
elitch2 ago
https://invidio.us/search?q=universally+prefered+behaviour
The gender dysphoria thing is a very dangerous fad.
See the recently suppressed Brown study.
1Iron_Curtain ago
I disagree with the premise that all ethical systems are subjective, therefore all are bad. Cultural bias can be a good thing and is missing to some extent in our societies.
Ethics become bad when they proscribe solutions that believe that since their are universal value systems that it means first "equal" political rights should be bestowed upon all peoples in a society, without some form of qualifier(ethnicity is included) and that there is an absolute criterion to justify the application of ethics on an international/humanitarian level in the same manner(believer in situational ethics in this situation and a kind of quasi-utilitarianism when it comes to application on this level, with a certain kind of pragmatism balancing things out).
I think there is a certain context of ethics at least on a localized level and even back up to a national/constitutional level where it is subjective.
Christianity probably facilitated, harbored, and allowed ethics to stagnate as it focused more on abstracting ethics in a theological format(the other world) and the fact that morality/piety took greater precedence(morality is essentially, but like intuition its meaningless without some organized system of content inputting back in categories that people can conform to, which is what ethics is essentially about and sometimes social conditions bring about their reform and is essentially what that chronicle is about).
I somewhat agree with Stefan Monolyeaux, but thinks he stretches it and does go after the main flaws(he goes after it all as bad).
Anyways, I was asking for a psychologist such as yourself to lay out how bogus such things as Late-Onset Gender Dysphoria and Autogynephilia are, because the Brown Study only dealt with how social pressures and social media outlets serve as a way of inducing rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria.