Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

Drachasor said:
I was engaged to a girl once who had PTSD from being in a very abusive relationship. Explain how what you say applies here.

It seems you don't really comprehend how psychiatric disorders are considered and defined. It isn't about "you aren't normal." Psychiatrists and psychologists are some of the most understanding and accepting people I've ever met. They see a HUGE variety of the human populace and the vast majority of that variety is perfectly fine. It is a problem when it prevents you from functioning in everyday life.

The person that is used to not wearing clothes isn't a problem. It's the person who CANNOT wear clothes and will become violent if you try to get him to put something on even after they understand why clothes are worn.
Click to expand...

What is "everyday life" if not a consensus?

Can you help me?
I'm not violent, but I don't understand why clothes are worn when they clearly aren't needed.

It seems insane to me.

Hopefully, i won't need to be drugged and incarcerated for my rational outlook.

As per "becoming violent", I think you're on to something.

The only time I was locked up, it was because I rejected violence.
(Vietnam war; late 60's; refused to kill people.)

This temporary 'insanity' cost me many years and lots of money.

pity is, I'm not rehabilitated, in the least.

I'm still hell-bent about not killing strangers in distant countries just because some authoritative dick commands it.

So,

Why don't you take your clothes off and run around your neighbor hood?

Are you a psychopath?
 
I addressed the hell out of your point.

double yawn back at you.

I call b.s.
 
quarky said:
I addressed the hell out of your point.

double yawn back at you.

I call b.s.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You equated not wanting to fight in Vietnam with a mental disorder. Psychology doesn't consider not wanting to kill a mental disorder, so your whole argument there has no meaning.

At best your casual reference to clothing was the only thing that remotely got anywhere, but apparently you think psychopathy (which is a VERY specific thing) is somehow related to not wanting to wear clothes. Which is rather bizarre.

So no, a couple of straw man arguments doesn't get you anywhere.
 
Dinwar said:
I'm so glad that all of the trouble I had reading the field notes from dislexic field workers is just figments of their imagination! Stupid, lazy people--how DARE they use modern medical science to get away with making MY life easier?!

Also, the above quote is just stupid. There is a natural range of heights in humans--yet dwarfism is a real thing, associated with a real genetic mutation and distinctly different from the normal variation. There's a natural variation in bone and muscle strenght, but that family in Germany with nearly unbreakable bones (practically speaking) and superhero-level strength isn't simply another datapoint, but represent a new mutation and a distinctly different system than the normal distribution. Just because something has a natural deviation in a population doesn't mean that the extremes aren't caused by something else.

You really need to take a statistics class--just because something looks like a single population doesn't mean that it is. Your interpretation of the data is entirely skewed (see what I did there?) by your ideological biases.

This is pure Argument from Personal Ignorance. I thought you studied philosophy somewhere. I'm getign really, really tempted to start calling you a fraud on that count...
Click to expand...


Appealing to "mutation" as a defining characteristic is another ad hoc or arbitrary point at which we define a condition.
 
Last edited:
Twiler said:
I understand dyslexia to be a mental condition that restricts the ability to distinguish symbols. I also understand that this understanding is incomplete, and that other people know more about it than I do.

What specific aspects of the studies that have been made concerning dyslexia do you feel are flawed?

I rather doubt that you have voiced these ideas, in person, to people who actually suffer from dyslexia.
Click to expand...


I understand an "ability to distinguish symbols".
But what does dyslexia mean?
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
"Hey, if I close my eyes, I can't see anything either. I don't understand what those blind people are on about."

That's what you sound like. I hope you realise that.
Click to expand...

I understand not being able to see.
And blindness is not a "reason" for it.
 
Travis said:
My dad has pretty bad dyslexia but he comes from a time when an inability to learn to read easily simply got you labeled "retarded." And then everyone gives up because who wants to waste time teaching the "retard" to read?
Click to expand...

"Retarded" aplied to a difficulty in reading shows us our tendency to disempower people and make categories and stereotypes.
 
Drachasor said:
There are actually multiple types of reading disorders. Dyslexia is just ONE of them and it means something in particular. Just because you are ignorant of this doesn't make it less true.

One thing, for instance, is that dyslexics have trouble distinguishing between similar sounds in written words. "buh", "guh", and "duh" can give them trouble as an example, and confusion there can makes it harder to read a word.
Click to expand...


There aren't multiple layers of reading abilities, only a range, and disorders is an imaginary causative agent.
 
Jonesboy said:
There aren't multiple layers of reading abilities, only a range, and disorders is an imaginary causative agent.
Click to expand...

How much psychology have you studied? Where or from what did you study? Have you looked at any of the many studies on dyslexia?
 
Dinwar said:
Well, I'm no expert but I'd think that the first part of a diagnosis is to talk to an expert, not Mommy and Daddy or the teacher. No slight against any of the three--it's just that I don't go to my mechanic for medical advice, or my vet for car repairs, and I don't think that either teachers or parents are universally qualified to diagnos this sort of issue (obviously, parents and teachers who study this sort of thing are exceptions--I DO know MDs who double as mechanics, and the like).
Click to expand...

The first part is to reject the predatory diagnosis and ask the doctor why he thinks he should be consulted.
 
Dinwar said:
I'd be curious myself, but I know there is a definition (I've seen it before, just can't recall it offhand). And while it can be misdiagnosed, a misdiagnosis doesn't negate the validity of the condition.
Click to expand...

This is how an irrational belief begins.
Dyslexia is an irrational belief because we say things like "I know there is a definition (I've seen it before, just can't recall it offhand)"

You might as well assert "I know £$%^& has a definition".
 
Finn McR said:
How about this: I am an excellent reader, have been since I could read. But if you were to hold up flash cards alternately with "friend" and "freind" while I looked away, I doubt that I could consistently tell the difference. The only way I can correctly spell the word is, "a true friend is is a friend in the end." (and yes, I actually had to correct my typing, because I wrote it incorrectly the first time). There are plenty of other examples.

I have heard that there is an association between dyslexia and atypically symmetric brain structures (as if the two "parts" of the brain were fighting for dominance), but that is as good as an old wive's tale. I'd be glad to get some information one way or the other.

Also, there are a bunch of "tests" that are supposed to show handedness (other than writing) such as fold you hands with fingers interlaced, etc. When I do those, the results come out mixed. I don't believe that I am amibextrous (can't write with the left hand for a hill of beans), but I do regularly use two separate laboratory instrument controllers with a mouse in each hand and can *sword fight* equally well with either or both hands. (*obviously not life-and-death, but fencing and boffer fighting). I've often wondered if that is related, and responses to a single post on this site can equal a couple of hours of internet searching.
Click to expand...

Tests are contructed around arbitrary conceptual divisions. NO TEST will show what is a condition and what is not. We decide that. That should answer your inquiry about tests.

For example, you talked about assymetric and symmetric brain structures. But asymmetry and symmetry can't be applied to one case, it's a relationship between two cases. It takes two to make an asymetry or symmetry. You must ask yourself why one of the two is preferred over the other. A test won't show you.
 
Jonesboy said:
It is difficult to debunk dyslexia because the term doesn't mean anything.
(...)
quite ordinary difficulty in reading.
(...)
they, and no-one else, knows what they mean.
Click to expand...
Dyslexia means difficulty in reading.

They, and everyone else, knows that it means difficulty in reading.
 
Drachasor said:
How much psychology have you studied? Where or from what did you study? Have you looked at any of the many studies on dyslexia?
Click to expand...

Dyslexia is predatory, bogus reductionism. As is most of the rest of this parasitic industry.
 
Jonesboy said:
The first part is to reject the predatory diagnosis and ask the doctor why he thinks he should be consulted.
Click to expand...

What? How is this diagnosis predatory?

This is an insane as your belief that being a patient is disempowering.
 
Jonesboy said:
Dyslexia is predatory, bogus reductionism. As is most of the rest of this parasitic industry.
Click to expand...

I take it then you don't know anything about the field? You likewise have no evidence to back up your claim? Because I can provide loads of studies regarding the science of psychology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom