6 ms·

Uncomfortable conclusion for you?

by philosopher1234 4y ago

rjbwork 4y ago
Uncomfortable? Not if it were true. But categoricals tend not to be so.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  The stomach digests food
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Not always
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      Not what I said
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        I inferred that you implicitly used it as an example of a true categorical
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    Sometimes. Other times the food is bad and the stomach throws it right back up. Sometimes the food is poisoned and the same happens. Sometimes someone is allergic and it kills them before it makes its way through.
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      I’m still right
staticman2 4y ago
I'm not sure if you are joking but you are of course implying to disagree with Last Psychiatrist is to confirm he is right about everything because disagreeing is resisting the truth. When someone disagrees with a freudian, it's because they secretly know Freud is right about everything but are in denial. Freud's theories are not provable or disprovable, if you want to kill your father you have an oedipal complex, if not you are repressing your oedipal complex. It's not subject to evidence since any event is explained under the freudian framework. Last psychiatrist is presumably the "last" psychiatrist because the field has moved on from Freud's non empirical parlor tricks.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  My point is you didn’t make any argument that he was wrong, you suggested he was crazy because he reached a conclusion you didn’t like. Why would you do that?
  - staticman2 4y ago
    I said I agreed with the people on the comment section in that blog, I didn't see the point in expanding on it since they already had, but I'd be happy to. A psychiatrist can only read a single person's mind, and that person is themself. He goes around constantly calling people narcissists. He doesn't use evidence based research. He doesn't follow the standards of his field. I recall an old blog post where he gives an example of how he believes the socialization of school children turns them into narcissists. He says, essentially, that if a kid tries to stop a bully from preying on others, and the teacher punishes both the kid and the bully for fighting, the kid learns not to care about other since he or she was punished for caring, and will learn to be a narcissist. (It's probably been a decade since I read this so I'll acknowledge it's possible my memory is a bit faulty, but I don't think the basic point of his body of work has been missed). Narcissism to him seems to be all encompassing. He sees it everywhere. This seems to be saying something unhealthy about him. There' a bit in the comic book Promethea, written by Alan Moore, where an angel says that demons aren't so bad. Confused, a human asks the angel why she would think that. Aren't Angels supposed to be enemies with demons? Aren't demons supposed to be wicked and disgusting? Paraphrasing from memory, the angel responds with, "We don't directly experience the world, we only experience a perception of the world in our own minds. I'm an angel. I see angels everywhere." It just seems to me someone constantly seeing narcissists everywhere is not in a healthy place. I'm not actually suggesting he's narcissist, I don't know what his problem is. This is just an opinion of a random layman. I have no idea who he is in real life and I don't care to know. I suppose it's possible that this anonymous author is a perfectly functional, happy adult who only writes like he's troubled, sort of like a happy-go-lucky Hollywood author writing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I can only draw conclusions from the limited evidence I have that his writing doesn't seem to come from a healthy place.

Uncomfortable conclusion for you?

rjbwork 4y ago

Uncomfortable? Not if it were true. But categoricals tend not to be so.

philosopher1234 4y ago
The stomach digests food
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Not always
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Not what I said
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      I inferred that you implicitly used it as an example of a true categorical
- rjbwork 4y ago
  Sometimes. Other times the food is bad and the stomach throws it right back up. Sometimes the food is poisoned and the same happens. Sometimes someone is allergic and it kills them before it makes its way through.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    I’m still right

staticman2 4y ago

I'm not sure if you are joking but you are of course implying to disagree with Last Psychiatrist is to confirm he is right about everything because disagreeing is resisting the truth. When someone disagrees with a freudian, it's because they secretly know Freud is right about everything but are in denial. Freud's theories are not provable or disprovable, if you want to kill your father you have an oedipal complex, if not you are repressing your oedipal complex. It's not subject to evidence since any event is explained under the freudian framework. Last psychiatrist is presumably the "last" psychiatrist because the field has moved on from Freud's non empirical parlor tricks.

philosopher1234 4y ago
My point is you didn’t make any argument that he was wrong, you suggested he was crazy because he reached a conclusion you didn’t like. Why would you do that?
- staticman2 4y ago
  I said I agreed with the people on the comment section in that blog, I didn't see the point in expanding on it since they already had, but I'd be happy to. A psychiatrist can only read a single person's mind, and that person is themself. He goes around constantly calling people narcissists. He doesn't use evidence based research. He doesn't follow the standards of his field. I recall an old blog post where he gives an example of how he believes the socialization of school children turns them into narcissists. He says, essentially, that if a kid tries to stop a bully from preying on others, and the teacher punishes both the kid and the bully for fighting, the kid learns not to care about other since he or she was punished for caring, and will learn to be a narcissist. (It's probably been a decade since I read this so I'll acknowledge it's possible my memory is a bit faulty, but I don't think the basic point of his body of work has been missed). Narcissism to him seems to be all encompassing. He sees it everywhere. This seems to be saying something unhealthy about him. There' a bit in the comic book Promethea, written by Alan Moore, where an angel says that demons aren't so bad. Confused, a human asks the angel why she would think that. Aren't Angels supposed to be enemies with demons? Aren't demons supposed to be wicked and disgusting? Paraphrasing from memory, the angel responds with, "We don't directly experience the world, we only experience a perception of the world in our own minds. I'm an angel. I see angels everywhere." It just seems to me someone constantly seeing narcissists everywhere is not in a healthy place. I'm not actually suggesting he's narcissist, I don't know what his problem is. This is just an opinion of a random layman. I have no idea who he is in real life and I don't care to know. I suppose it's possible that this anonymous author is a perfectly functional, happy adult who only writes like he's troubled, sort of like a happy-go-lucky Hollywood author writing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, I can only draw conclusions from the limited evidence I have that his writing doesn't seem to come from a healthy place.