Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

[Jonesboy]

The question is: Do you really think that all psychological conditions are illusory?

Either the answer is yes, or the answer is no.

Quite simple, I'd think.

You don't even have to elaborate on it.

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea.

So ask the Mods what that idea is.
I won't be visiting these posts again, barring drink or drugs.

 

[Twiler]

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea.

So ask the Mods what that idea is.
I won't be visiting these posts again, barring drink or drugs.

No, the post said that they were grouped together because of the similarity of the topics. It seems reasonable to me.

 

[Jonesboy]

No, the post said that they were grouped together because of the similarity of the topics. It seems reasonable to me.

Mod InfoSince all the previous threads started revolving aroung similar strange attractors, they've been merged into one meta-thread. Do not start threads about the Myth of PTSD, Autism and Eugenics, or sadness as a scam.
Posted By:kmortis

 

[Twiler]

You seem to be implying that there's a difference between what I observed and what kmortis said, but I don't see one.

 

[Piggy]

Do not start threads about the Myth of PTSD, Autism and Eugenics, or sadness as a scam.

Here's better advice... if you're going to start threads about those topics, be coherent, provide evidence, and don't create redundant threads.

 

[Kid Eager]

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea.

So ask the Mods what that idea is.
I won't be visiting these posts again, barring drink or drugs.

Petulant much? Admittedly, it is a good ploy to avoid confronting actual evidence...

 

[Jeff Corey]

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea. ...

Thing is, your objections were not skeptical as most of us use the term. They were just spewing out your uninformed opinion about a cluster of topics a bunch of people here cared about and were well imformed about. If you had just listed all your gripes in one post, the evil mods would not have been disturbed.

 

[Dancing David]

I have reported your active bias.

For someone who questions the nature of definitions, it is funny that you would make this post.

Please define in what context you find an active bias, the threads were merged because of the similarity between them.

 

[Dancing David]

blame.

Rather funny illusion that.

 

[Dancing David]

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea.

What evidence do you have that they are 'unagreeable' to the mods, your mind reading talent?

 

[Nosi]

I'm bugging out of this thread. Jonesboy's argument is rage inducing in lack of understanding of the Human brain, a 2 to 3 pound gray organ that much can go wrong with.

 

[Craig4]

This is not my thread. Start a new thread please.

I'll take this response to mean that either there aren't any studies or you aren't aware of them.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It should disturb you that even sadness is pathologised, but it doesnt, because of your belief in psychology.

Psychologists don't pathologize sadness. That's simply a ridiculous claim. Sadness is, in general, considered to be a perfectly normal and appropriate emotional response to certain situations. It's perfectly normal to feel sadness over something like the death from old age of a beloved pet. No competent psychologist is going to tell you that there is something wrong with you if this situation makes you sad. (In fact they might think something was wrong if it didn't make you sad.)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Psychology says that suffering itself is abnormal.

You really don't know anything about psychology.

 

[calebprime]

To be fair, there is some discussion these days about the DSM-V, which allows for treatment of grieving within a few weeks.

From the Utne reader, just because it's convenient:

http://www.utne.com/Mind-Body/When-Grief-Becomes-Mental-Illness.aspx

Specifically, the DSM-V would change our understanding of grief in two important ways. First, the manual introduces a new diagnosis dubbed “complicated grief disorder,” which entails “powerful pining for the deceased, great difficulty moving on, a sense that life is meaningless, and bitterness or anger about the loss” past six months after the death. More controversially, the new version of the DSM will allow depression therapy as early as the first few weeks after experiencing a loss. (Currently, doctors and psychologists must wait until two months have passed since the death.)

my bold.

 

[bikerdruid]

Look at it from my perspective. I've made different skeptical objections to a variety of topics. Because they are all unagreeable to the mods, they are all classed as one idea.

So ask the Mods what that idea is.
I won't be visiting these posts again, barring drink or drugs.

Mod InfoSince all the previous threads started revolving aroung similar strange attractors, they've been merged into one meta-thread. Do not start threads about the Myth of PTSD, Autism and Eugenics, or sadness as a scam.
Posted By:kmortis

do we assume that the second post was made under the influence of drink or drugs?
are alcoholism and addiction also non-existent conditions?