|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2014 8:35:08 GMT -5
... I mean, I figure, if yer gonna' study a machine, go big or stay at home! don't mind me just playing out a bit of old conditioning!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 12:54:25 GMT -5
I used to hate it, wouldn't touch it with a barge pole... all those academics talking crap. Then I learned a bit more about it and realised it is only another way of looking at human consciousness. The world of psychological diagnosis and treatment is seriously screwed up and nowt but a money making cartel... but psychology as an understanding of how a mind is created, brings the deceptions, illusions, perceptions, imaginations etc into view, as the little grey thing that sits in the head, and is such a small thing that there's nothing about it to be feared.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2014 17:26:08 GMT -5
Analyzing a set of thoughts and then asigning the resulting abstraction to a person seems to me the ultimate in dehumanization.
It's one thing to observe and notice and compare perceptions -- especially for the sake of establishing honesty ... quite another to relate based on (essentially to) an abstract pattern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 18:12:57 GMT -5
Analyzing a set of thoughts and then asigning the resulting abstraction to a person seems to me the ultimate in dehumanization. It's one thing to observe and notice and compare perceptions -- especially for the sake of establishing honesty ... quite another to relate based on (essentially to) an abstract pattern. Yes, that's what the psychological industry tends to do. But that's simply a poor application of psychology. Much of simple psychology these days, points to the observation that emotions, attached to thoughts, attached to behaviours, create a cycle of emotion/thought/behaviour. To break it, is to question the validity of those thoughts/emotions/behaviours and to get to the origin (conditioning) of that cycle in order to break its hold. Treatments such as CBT try to re-condition the mind to create 'healthier' behaviours. But the theory behind it (when you remove the industry)is not that different to us pointing to the deceptions of the mind. If it can be changed, then it wasn't real in the first place. That's the questionable aspect of the theory that psychology currently ignores.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2014 18:27:58 GMT -5
Analyzing a set of thoughts and then asigning the resulting abstraction to a person seems to me the ultimate in dehumanization. It's one thing to observe and notice and compare perceptions -- especially for the sake of establishing honesty ... quite another to relate based on (essentially to) an abstract pattern. Yes, that's what the psychological industry tends to do. But that's simply a poor application of psychology. Much of simple psychology these days, points to the observation that emotions, attached to thoughts, attached to behaviours, create a cycle of emotion/thought/behaviour. To break it, is to question the validity of those thoughts/emotions/behaviours and to get to the origin (conditioning) of that cycle in order to break its hold. Treatments such as CBT try to re-condition the mind to create 'healthier' behaviours. But the theory behind it (when you remove the industry)is not that different to us pointing to the deceptions of the mind. If it can be changed, then it wasn't real in the first place. That's the questionable aspect of the theory that psychology currently ignores. Reprogram folks like they's just computers! Nice!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 18:34:11 GMT -5
Yeah exactly, that part of it is disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2014 21:47:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2014 15:08:28 GMT -5
You missed the point of the question. Obviously, the most effective method of control would have been to delete the thread. No, Laughter,I did not miss your point. It was pretty obvious where you were aiming. I simply headed you off at the pass. Indeed, Deleting the thread would have served & indicated a need for control, but that action would not have been in alignment with a need to constantly be doing & saying something. When all of those needs are in play simultaneously, (need to do & say and be actively 'moderating' AND controlling things), what we get is, I'd say, precisely what we're seeing. This is amusing that you'd resort to psychoanalyzing some cardboard cut-out of my mind that you've built in yours based on what you think you understand of what I've written on the forum. In contrast, I've resorted to one and only one term from the field in my correspondence with and about you: projection. I know that that these opinions that you express are projections for the simple fact that what you are describing as my experience, is not my experience. Here is a clue for you about the usefulness of psychology -- none of what appears to you in the mind is of any use to you in finding out what you really are. Now that you'd state your opinions with such confidence, and that they are as obnoxious as they are, is, to re-iterate, very very amusing, and that is the source of the satire that you constantly complain about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 15:27:45 GMT -5
No, Laughter,I did not miss your point. It was pretty obvious where you were aiming. I simply headed you off at the pass. Indeed, Deleting the thread would have served & indicated a need for control, but that action would not have been in alignment with a need to constantly be doing & saying something. When all of those needs are in play simultaneously, (need to do & say and be actively 'moderating' AND controlling things), what we get is, I'd say, precisely what we're seeing. This is amusing that you'd resort to psychoanalyzing some cardboard cut-out of my mind that you've built in yours based on what you think you understand of what I've written on the forum. In contrast, I've resorted to one and only one term from the field in my correspondence with and about you: projection. I know that that these opinions that you express are projections for the simple fact that what you are describing as my experience, is not my experience. Here is a clue for you about the usefulness of psychology -- none of what appears to you in the mind is of any use to you in finding out what you really are. Now that you'd state your opinions with such confidence, and that they are as obnoxious as they are, is, to re-iterate, very very amusing, and that is the source of the satire that you constantly complain about. This is an example of moving a post from one thread to another, and adding an unnecessary element of confusion. Why was this necessary?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2014 15:36:03 GMT -5
This is amusing that you'd resort to psychoanalyzing some cardboard cut-out of my mind that you've built in yours based on what you think you understand of what I've written on the forum. In contrast, I've resorted to one and only one term from the field in my correspondence with and about you: projection. I know that that these opinions that you express are projections for the simple fact that what you are describing as my experience, is not my experience. Here is a clue for you about the usefulness of psychology -- none of what appears to you in the mind is of any use to you in finding out what you really are. Now that you'd state your opinions with such confidence, and that they are as obnoxious as they are, is, to re-iterate, very very amusing, and that is the source of the satire that you constantly complain about. This is an example of moving a post from one thread to another, and adding an unnecessary element of confusion. Why was this necessary? If you think that I've moved anything then yes, you are confused. I haven't moved anything, all I did was quote you from one thread into a different one and the reason for that in this case is obvious: the topic of your amateur internet-based psychoanalysis is much more applicable to this thread than the one that it was in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 17:13:04 GMT -5
This is an example of moving a post from one thread to another, and adding an unnecessary element of confusion. Why was this necessary? If you think that I've moved anything then yes, you are confused. I haven't moved anything, all I did was quote you from one thread into a different one and the reason for that in this case is obvious: the topic of your amateur internet-based psychoanalysis is much more applicable to this thread than the one that it was in. Yup. & Let's just say, I"m not a fan of taking a post from one thread to quote in another. IN the odd case, it's no big deal, but in the face of an abundance of threads and posts being moved around all willy-nilly, confusing things and making the user experience more cumbersome, it just seems to be one more example of a need for you to 'do' something, related to organization, with this forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2014 17:33:58 GMT -5
If you think that I've moved anything then yes, you are confused. I haven't moved anything, all I did was quote you from one thread into a different one and the reason for that in this case is obvious: the topic of your amateur internet-based psychoanalysis is much more applicable to this thread than the one that it was in. Yup. & Let's just say, I"m not a fan of taking a post from one thread to quote in another. IN the odd case, it's no big deal, but in the face of an abundance of threads and posts being moved around all willy-nilly, confusing things and making the user experience more cumbersome, it just seems to be one more example of a need for you to 'do' something, related to organization, with this forum. This strikes me as running away from your psychological diagnosis: So what would have been the most effective method of control when faced with this pole? If there is in fact a need to do & say something constantly on this forum , that need for control would be mitigated by that. So the need for control would compete with the need to do & say something. What we're seeing is just about right to support those theories, I'd say. That at least demonstrates a certain baseline consciousness of the context of this particular thread -- which is as I've already said, obviously more on point to what you were writing than the one that you wrote it in. Confronted with the fact of the diagnosis you refrain, essentially run away from it, instead softening it to reference of a "pattern". Which side of the analysts couch did you pick up this propensity to analyze patterns of thoughts and then pigeon-hole the person who wrote them using these sorts of labels? Do you have any qualifications, any training? Or instead, have you been in therapy before? My guess would be on the latter. Me? I've never been within 100 yards of such a farce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 17:42:06 GMT -5
Yup. & Let's just say, I"m not a fan of taking a post from one thread to quote in another. IN the odd case, it's no big deal, but in the face of an abundance of threads and posts being moved around all willy-nilly, confusing things and making the user experience more cumbersome, it just seems to be one more example of a need for you to 'do' something, related to organization, with this forum. This strikes me as running away from your psychological diagnosis: If there is in fact a need to do & say something constantly on this forum , that need for control would be mitigated by that. So the need for control would compete with the need to do & say something. What we're seeing is just about right to support those theories, I'd say. That at least demonstrates a certain baseline consciousness of the context of this particular thread -- which is as I've already said, obviously more on point to what you were writing than the one that you wrote it in. Confronted with the fact of the diagnosis you refrain, essentially run away from it, instead softening it to reference of a "pattern". Which side of the analysts couch did you pick up this propensity to analyze patterns of thoughts and then pigeon-hole the person who wrote them using these sorts of labels? Do you have any qualifications, any training? Or instead, have you been in therapy before? My guess would be on the latter. Me? I've never been within 100 yards of such a farce. Can you see that you're the only one here, bringing 'psychological diagnosis' into this conversation? What you are calling 'a farce'....you are engaging in, right here, right now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2014 18:03:53 GMT -5
This strikes me as running away from your psychological diagnosis: That at least demonstrates a certain baseline consciousness of the context of this particular thread -- which is as I've already said, obviously more on point to what you were writing than the one that you wrote it in. Confronted with the fact of the diagnosis you refrain, essentially run away from it, instead softening it to reference of a "pattern". Which side of the analysts couch did you pick up this propensity to analyze patterns of thoughts and then pigeon-hole the person who wrote them using these sorts of labels? Do you have any qualifications, any training? Or instead, have you been in therapy before? My guess would be on the latter. Me? I've never been within 100 yards of such a farce. Can you see that you're the only one here, bringing 'psychological diagnosis' into this conversation? What you are calling 'a farce'....you are engaging in, right here, right now. I'm bringing it into the conversation because it's obvious that it's what you were doing. As I've never been involved with the process I can't tell if you're an amateur or not, but given how far off you were on your assessment, my guess is that you are. So figgles, have you ever been in therapy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 18:25:36 GMT -5
I'm bringing it into the conversation because it's obvious that it's what you were doing. Ahhh...yes, that makes sense. nevah!!
|
|