221981 Bullies, 3972 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 101 to 110 of 137
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 121314 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:29pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    I diagnose atomicpoet with Textual Analysis Disorder. He did the same thing in the thread containing the discussion of Mormonism and whether it is appropriate to group it under Christian sects.
    I let the topic die because we were rolling off track. But you're still wrong, and you continue to talk out of your ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    AP—you're never going to be taken seriously if all you do is point to some text and insist that it is entirely authoritative. Especially, if you get it wrong: DSM IV is silent on the putative causes of transgenderism. After all, DSM is a diagnostic listing of behaviors and attitudes—even the listings for neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD don't get into etiology, but just describe behaviors. Ditto the neurocognitive disorders to be added to DSM V. Simpler: the existence of a DSM entry doesn't mean that a disorder is psychological and not neurological. The DSM isn't a reference for that sort of thing.
    DSM-IV stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    As far as the fuming that someone who disagrees with AP's idiotic overreading of the DSM should go get an advanced degree, never fear, other people have been at it already—both "hard-nosed" scientists and activists. The proposed revision for DSM V is here, and does remove the word disorder:

    http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision...Dysphoria.aspx

    Further, despite AP's absolutism, experts interested in the issue do actually take notes from the trans community and appreciate cooperation and input from the same:

    http://www.gidreform.org/
    The DSM-V is currently in consultation -- and is by no means finished. Until then, let the psychologists do their jobs, and stop pretending you're an expert.
  2. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:37pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    I let the topic die because we were rolling off track. But you're still wrong, and you continue to talk out of your ass.
    Nope, I was right then (and still am; your mind is disordered) and I am right now.

    DSM-IV stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition.
    A perfect Aspergarian bleat! True but irrelevant. The link I provided in my previous comment contains both proposed revisions and current DSM IV material. Please show, with links, which DSM entries make etiological claims—neurological vs psychological, specifically.

    Smarter people may note that the DSM is for "mental disorders", not "psychological disorders." That is purposeful. It's certainly not "psychological disorders, but none with a neurological base, nuh-uh, no way."

    The DSM-V is currently in consultation -- and is by no means finished. Until then, let the psychologists do their jobs, and stop pretending you're an expert.
    There's no pretense here. All the smart money is on GID being GD in the next edition, and I pointed out that the experts you somehow believe work in monkish secrecy actually do consult with the communities they engage with, especially in "disorders" that have a strong social component.

    PS: Showed this thread to my wife, who is completing her psych diss for school and developmental psychology at UC Berkeley. She's a very kind woman. She still laughed aloud at your comments. As did I. So here's an idea, keep your mouth shut, fool. Experts are already laughing at you.
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,748

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:40pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    Until then, let the psychologists do their jobs, and stop pretending you're an expert.

    The DSM-V is currently in consultation -- and is by no means finished.
    ...and we are back to the point Pmarsh made back when this started. I do like how you assume and infer what people mean then appropriate their ideas. That is pretty funny.
  4. bobyclumsyninja is offline
    bobyclumsyninja's Avatar

    :)

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    7,034

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:47pm

    supporting member
     Style: Ex-Tiger KF, ex-SanDa

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    EDIT: Looking at the other posts in this discussion, I feel like a thicky. I am one, so it fits, but I'll leave my comments below alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    If someone's objection to the word "disorder" is that it hurts somebody's feelings, swapping that word for another will do the same thing. After all, what is always important is the intent behind the word, not the word itself.
    no, the delivery is key. In art, the intent is key, but in discussion, the means of delivering an idea, are as important as an idea, as it 'frames the debate' so to speak.

    You are a beginner guitarist
    You are an inferior guitarist

    You are overweight
    You are a fatty

    Your hair looks different
    My god, what bird nested on your dome?

    Is your wife African-American?
    Went negro w/ the fam. huh?

    You have a beautiful wife
    What a hot MILF


    Words and phrasing are very important, even in a scientific discussion. Actually, especially in a scientific one, but all the rest of the time also.

    G W Bush saying Paki in a speech, was an insult, even though he meant people from Pakistan, and not to slur them, as the word is used and understood by most to mean. It's still an insult, in that, he didn't bother to know how to avoid demeaning the people he was referring to.
    Last edited by bobyclumsyninja; 8/05/2011 6:50pm at .
  5. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:49pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Smarter people may note that the DSM is for "mental disorders", not "psychological disorders." That is purposeful. It's certainly not "psychological disorders, but none with a neurological base, nuh-uh, no way."
    As I pointed out earlier, it's all word games. I don't care whatever word you choose to describe whatever it is you're describing, as long as you're adequately communicating your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    There's no pretense here. All the smart money is on GID being GD in the next edition, and I pointed out that the experts you somehow believe work in monkish secrecy actually do consult with the communities they engage with, especially in "disorders" that have a strong social component.
    The pretense is pretending any of us are qualified to talk about the subject. You're not. I'm not. But I do acknowledge that scientists currently have a consensus of opinion. This consensus may be up for debate -- but you and I don't belong in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    PS: Showed this thread to my wife, who is completing her psych diss for school and developmental psychology at UC Berkeley. She's a very kind woman. She still laughed aloud at your comments. As did I. So here's an idea, keep your mouth shut, fool. Experts are already laughing at you.
    She's only a student right now? Let's wait till after she graduates, and then see how it lines up with the scientific community's consensus.
  6. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    As I pointed out earlier, it's all word games. I don't care whatever word you choose to describe whatever it is you're describing, as long as you're adequately communicating your point.
    So, you acknowledge that your recitation of the DSM's full title was an utter irrelevancy.

    The pretense is pretending any of us are qualified to talk about the subject. You're not. I'm not. But I do acknowledge that scientists currently have a consensus of opinion.
    Well no, they don't.

    This consensus may be up for debate -- but you and I don't belong in it.
    Of course we do. What behaviors and attitudes are disordered is always partially socially informed.


    She's only a student right now? Let's wait till after she graduates, and then see how it lines up with scientific community's consensus.
    No, actually. Pretty much every person working on their dissertation isn't "only a student"—they actively perform and publish research, edit journals, practice therapy, develop curricula, etc. That you don't know this tells me all I need to know about your level of knowledge of the subject, or how psychology as a field is practiced. Which is: too low to engage with.
  7. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 6:55pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    ...and we are back to the point Pmarsh made back when this started. I do like how you assume and infer what people mean then appropriate their ideas. That is pretty funny.
    The only point I ever made is that we should let scientists and medical professionals use terms that let them do their jobs. After all, who are we to interfere with their work? Did we earn their degrees?
  8. bobyclumsyninja is offline
    bobyclumsyninja's Avatar

    :)

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    7,034

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 7:00pm

    supporting member
     Style: Ex-Tiger KF, ex-SanDa

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    The pretense is pretending any of us are qualified to talk about the subject. You're not. I'm not. But I do acknowledge that scientists currently have a consensus of opinion. This consensus may be up for debate -- but you and I don't belong in it.
    I disagree. I don't think someone needs to be a degree-holding specialist in a field, to participate in a discussion on it, or relay and informed opinion.
  9. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 7:03pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    So, you acknowledge that your recitation of the DSM's full title was an utter irrelevancy.
    Perhaps a redundancy, not an irrelevancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Of course we do. What behaviors and attitudes are disordered is always partially socially informed.
    That doesn't mean you're qualified to perform medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    No, actually. Pretty much every person working on their dissertation isn't "only a student"—they actively perform and publish research, edit journals, practice therapy, develop curricula, etc. That you don't know this tells me all I need to know about your level of knowledge of the subject, or how psychology as a field is practiced. Which is: too low to engage with.
    Let's consider this. I never said she had no expertise -- however, this does indicate I should consider her opinion with a grain of salt. Even if she were internationally recognized, that makes her but one expert. Even so, we'd have to compare her opinion with current scientific consensus.
  10. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    8/05/2011 7:05pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja View Post
    I disagree. I don't think someone needs to be a degree-holding specialist in a field, to participate in a discussion on it, or relay and informed opinion.
    Oh, it's okay to discuss things -- but that does not mean our opinion should bear as much weight as a someone with a degree.
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 121314 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.