Pedophila is now considered a disability in Greece.

[DArtagnan]

No i am saying that people choose to exercise their will or not. That is my whole point. Going by your last paragraph, i should not try any more because that is the logical end to that line of though.

Life is about bettering oneself through fighting that uphill battle and going against thte stream of life. You line of thought stops people becoming extraordinary people.

People don't choose anything that's not heavily influenced by where they were born, how they grew up - and how they experienced life during the early years. Also, they don't choose their own physical/genetic make up.

That's something completely beyond the control of any individual.

If you're priviliged enough to have had a decent start on life, or the capacity to not act on destructive urges - that's nice. But it's incredibly selfish and ignorant to deny how other people can have a very different start on life.

Going on about this utopian Hollywood universe in which there's this fairy-tale system of karma and a fair shot for everyone is not helping.

 

[JemyM]

No i am saying that people choose to exercise their will or not. That is my whole point.

This is basically an excuse to never learn.

Going by your last paragraph, i should not try any more because that is the logical end to that line of though.

I could argue that if you really had the will to function in a certain way you would have already begun to focus on learning how you function so that you may compensate on it, thus improving your capacity to do right instead of wrong.
That however would be based on my insight, not yours. It would be wrong of me to judge your willpower based on what I know.

Your belief that doing wrong or right is simply based on willpower is what cause you to do more wrong than you would if you didn't have that belief.

Life is about bettering oneself through fighting that uphill battle and going against thte stream of life. You line of thought stops people becoming extraordinary people.

Uh. Your belief is about blaming yourself for falling down the first pit rather than before you begin to run figuring out where the pits are so you can jump over them.

 

[JemyM]

Not sure if this is part of your irony (which I appreciate), but there are no problems with thermodynamics explainning the filght of the bumblebee. It's one of the things said again and again so it appears to be true. But that may be exactly what you meant.

I would be worried if thermodynamics explains the flight of the bumblebee.

I am not a physician, however, the bumblebee calculation as far as I know it, is an example of how to use math in the wrong way, using a mathematic tool on something which it wasn't meant for, thus ending up with the wrong result. Aerodynamics computes the flow of air on something that moves. It can be used on an airplane, but a bumblebee works in another way. A bumblebee doesn't function as a plane.

I think it illustrates an example of how a laymans limited grasp of a scientific tool may cause them to make wrong deductions about it's usefulness.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's funny, because in my experience - it's the "experts" that tend to overestimate the value of any theory within their field.

It will happen as soon as any other factor than "learning the truth if possible" enters the picture. Wishful thinking and denial being very powerful - it's almost inevitable that people who're passionate about math will apply it when not appropriate.

 

[CountChocula]

There might be all sorts of mental disorders certain Greek people are experiencing, but if you are a pyromaniac, pedophile, exhibitionist or kleptomaniac, etc., why on Earth should you receive free money?

I can understand why the Greek government might offer some sort of subsidy for mental health treatment, but simply being a pedo or a pyro should not excuse anyone from getting a job.

 

[DArtagnan]

There might be all sorts of mental disorders certain Greek people are experiencing, but if you are a pyromaniac, pedophile, exhibitionist or kleptomaniac, etc., why on Earth should you receive free money?

I can understand some sort of subsidy for mental health treatment, but simply being a pedo or a pyro should not excuse someone from getting a job.

What a rigid line of thinking.

It's not about rewarding people because it's fun. It's about helping people who can't function without doing great harm to themselves and others.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

People don't choose anything that's not heavily influenced by where they were born, how they grew up - and how they experienced life during the early years. Also, they don't choose their own physical/genetic make up.

That's something completely beyond the control of any individual.

If you're priviliged enough to have had a decent start on life, or the capacity to not act on destructive urges - that's nice. But it's incredibly selfish and ignorant to deny how other people can have a very different start on life.

Going on about this utopian Hollywood universe in which there's this fairy-tale system of karma and a fair shot for everyone is not helping.

The capacity to not act on destructive urges is not somethign innate, it is learned. I know full well to have a shitty start in life, i got schizophrenia to the point i cant do anything. However i also know that if i wanted to i can do things like use the treadmill and eat healthy if i exercised some will power despite every urge telling me not to do those things.

And there is the line in the sand, i either try and do those things, gradually improve and live a long life or dont do those thign and die early to some heart disease or something. Regardless of what you or JemyM say i will keep trying to do those things because the alternative is very depressing.

 

[JemyM]

It's funny, because in my experience - it's the "experts" that tend to overestimate the value of any theory within their field.

There's a study on experts capacity of making predictions (seeing the future) that showed that the more critical an expert are of their own theories and the more perspectives that they used in their work, the greater were their predictions.

Psychology is the most eclectic discipline I know of, in which students frequently practice using multiple theories on the same scenario just to learn about their own power of making the wrong conclusions due to overemphasis on a single or few theories. I have personally walked through that process myself several times now, most recently in a course about health behavior in which the entire course was hanged up on analyzing the same individual from four different perspectives (trait psychology, psychodynamics, humanistic psychology and social cognitive psychology). Conclusion? Even if convincing at first, they disagree with one another.

It could be that people who study psychology are also the most aware of how falliable the mind can be.

It will happen as soon as any other factor than "learning the truth if possible" enters the picture. Wishful thinking and denial being very powerful - it's almost inevitable that people who're passionate about math will apply it when not appropriate.

There have been studies that show that the more you study, the more critical you become of your own capacity of ever knowing the truth in anything. Truth is a word often tossed around in religion. From what I have seen, science tends to eventually become a practice of building and testing coherent theories to see where the math goes.

I have spent the last four days on "Creativity". A common article beguns 1-2 pages discussing what "creativity" is, then another two on whether or not their tools are reliable, then they test the definition they end up with and show their collected numbers, followed by a discussion that basically concludes that whatever they just did is completely based on their definition of creativity (which they then argue might not be working) and if the tools they used are accepted as reliable (which they then argue that they might not be).

 

[DArtagnan]

The capacity to not act on destructive urges is not somethign innate, it is learned. I know full well to have a shitty start in life, i got schizophrenia to the point i cant do anything. However i also know that if i wanted to i can do things like use the treadmill and eat healthy if i exercised some will power despite every urge telling me not to do those things.

Let's say there had been no understanding of schizophrenia - and let's say our society didn't take that into account.

There would be no diagnosis - and you'd have no way of knowing whether anything was actually different about you.

We could just tell you to pull yourself together, and you'd receive zero understanding.

You think that would be better or worse?

And there is the line in the sand, i either try and do those things, gradually improve and live a long life or dont do those thign and die early to some heart disease or something. Regardless of what you or JemyM say i will keep trying to do those things because the alternative is very depressing.

I'm not sure what you think we're saying.

We're promoting understanding of a real issue - that's all. Because understanding is good.

Denial about real issues isn't good.

 

[DArtagnan]

There's a study on experts capacity of making predictions (seeing the future) that showed that the more critical an expert are of their own theories and the more perspectives that they used in their work, the greater were their predictions.

Psychology is the most eclectic discipline I know of, in which students frequently practice using multiple theories on the same scenario just to learn about their own power of making the wrong conclusions due to overemphasis on a single or few theories. I have personally walked through that process myself several times now, most recently in a course about health behavior in which the entire course was hanged up on analyzing the same individual from four different perspectives (trait psychology, psychodynamics, humanistic psychology and social cognitive psychology). Conclusion? Even if convincing at first, they disagree with one another.

It could be that people who study psychology are also the most aware of how falliable the mind can be.

That doesn't quite mirror your own way of appearing 100% convinced every time you put forth something that's basically just a theory

There have been studies that show that the more you study, the more critical you become of your own capacity of ever knowing the truth in anything. Truth is a word often tossed around in religion. From what I have seen, science tends to eventually become a practice of building and testing coherent theories to see where the math goes.

I have spent the last four days on "Creativity". A common article beguns 1-2 pages discussing what "creativity" is, then another two on whether or not their tools are reliable, then they test the definition they end up with and show their collected numbers, followed by a discussion that basically concludes that whatever they just did is completely based on their definition of creativity (which they then argue might not be working) and if the tools they used are accepted as reliable (which they then argue that they might not be).

I don't see how "the amount of studying" has anything to do with your capacity for critical thinking - and your ability to reflect upon something without a personal bias.

Some people seem to think that studying alone makes you smarter - but I can't agree.

Being smart is simply being closer to the truth, and that's all there is to it. You can read a million books and yet have no clue about what's actually true.

There's a difference between actual knowledge, and the storing of information that may or may not be of any use.

The human mind is extremely limited in terms of being able to take into account all the knowledge possessed in memory - short or long-term.

So, essentially, the more you know - the less you actually know.

Maybe that's what you mean?

 

[pibbur2012]

I would be worried if thermodynamics explains the flight of the bumblebee.
…

*pibbur bangs his head at a nearby wall

But:

I am not a physician, however, the bumblebee calculation as far as I know…
…

I am, and of course we doctor's know everything. Unfortunately physicists might disagree…

EDIT: Wikipedia has something about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight

pibbur who is sort of releived.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Getting to know yourself, including accepting your flaws in order to work with them, is proven to have much better impact on health behaviors than insight in what's wrong.

What do you think this quote from JemyM means and the logical conclusion to it is?

The logical conclusion to that line of thought is that you hav xyz issues and you shouldnt try and do things that xyz impedes. There are many cases where people have been told by doctors that they cant do something because of x condition but they ended up doing that something because they tried.

The difference between the person who go along the journey of life with the stream are many but the person that goes agaisn tthe stream is the one that people will notice.

As for the understanding issue, i am all for understanding. But to class all mental illness as a disability is stupid. It should only be classed as a disability if the mental illnes stop a person from doing something. A person who is a pedophile has nothing impeding them to do a job unless they want ot work in schools.

 

[DArtagnan]

What do you think this quote from JemyM means and the logical conclusion to it is?

The logical conclusion to that line of thought is that you hav xyz issues and you shouldnt try and do things that xyz impedes. There are many cases where people have been told by doctors that they cant do something because of x condition but they ended up doing that something because they tried.

The difference between the person who go along the journey of life with the stream are many but the person that goes agaisn tthe stream is the one that people will notice.

As for the understanding issue, i am all for understanding. But to class all mental illness as a disability is stupid. It should only be classed as a disability if the mental illnes stop a person from doing something. A person who is a pedophile has nothing impeding them to do a job unless they want ot work in schools.

That's a very illogical conclusion.

Jemy is saying that understanding is better than condemnation. That's IT.

 

[JemyM]

You named these documents as a validation of the statement that pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. ICD and DSM says so!

They are based on statistics and observations and anyone with some knowledge in statistics knows that they should be used with care. The disorders described in DSM frequently lack any scientific evidence, for the simple reason that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to gather such evidence.

As a result something is labeled as a psychiatric disorder in DSM because a majority of those who are allowed to vote say it is, based on a concept of what is considered to be 'normal' at that point in time.

It was ruled that homosexuality isn't a disorder. That doesn't make the symptoms of homosexuality go away. It was ruled that asperger syndrome is a form of autism. That doesn't change how AS functions.

Based on your criticism, pedophilia doesn't exist. DSM is built on symptoms. Symptoms are observations. As tools are getting better, the accuracy and reliability of such observations improve, thus we sometimes have to reorganize our findings.

For instance, we might have a category for holes and black balls. If our eyesight improves and we learn that what we thought was a black ball was in fact a hole, the categories aren't changed, neither are they made invalid based on the new and more accurate data.

 

[dteowner]

It could be that people who study psychology are also the most aware of how falliable the mind can be.

Or it could be pure arrogance in believing you can swim in bullshit and somehow not stink.

 

[DArtagnan]

Or it could be pure arrogance in believing you can swim in bullshit and somehow not stink.

Nice.

But kinda weak as an argument.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

That is not what he is saying at all. He is saying that people have urges and we cant stop them and we shoudlnt try to stop them.

 

[dteowner]

Nice.

But kinda weak as an argument.

Let us consider, shall we, that even a many-times-over self-identified expert in the field states that reviewing the same subject using multiple established textbook "scientific techniques" results in conflicting answers. That leads to the conclusion that either the "science" is utter crap or the subject is so complex that we're pissing in the wind (that's a technical term) thinking we actually understand it. I'm perfectly willing to believe either option. Either option pretty well puts these haughty pronouncements from the ivory tower into the realm of "so much hot air". In the real world, you won't get too many opportunities to pull that sort of nonsense. In the real world, there are certainly areas where our understanding is limited, but you don't see too many people working in those areas making the sort of grand pronouncements that we're getting out of a psychology student.

Like that argument a little better?

 

[DArtagnan]

That is not what he is saying at all. He is saying that people have urges and we cant stop them and we shoudlnt try to stop them.

There's a big difference between not stopping what can't be stopped, and saying people shouldn't try to improve their ways and deal with their flaws.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

There's a big difference between not stopping what can't be stopped, and saying people shouldn't try to improve their ways and deal with their flaws.

Ugh. There is nothing that cannot be stopped unless it is by psychosis.