SOCRATES vs JESUS{socrates meets jesus}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
too bad good intelligence tests have cultural markers now which take out the cultural bias or that is whats claimed. that isnt the only reason and thats besides the point. you forget that i was also on that thread and posted. and still say that you dont ridicule them to the same level as you apparently do jung and freud.

I think Freud and Jung are jokes and they don't bother me because they are generally disregarded. I despise the use of IQ tests and what they do to children. There is a big difference between how I feel about them. Two different emotions. My criticisms of IQ tests are far more relevant because they still play a role in the psychological world.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Jesus, 10 out of 10.

Is there prep?

Originally posted by Devil King
How much time does each one have to prepare, and what powers do they have?

You imitate me, Devil.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You imitate me, Devil.

No. No, my friend. I'd be imitating you if I knew what 10 out of 10 meant. As it is, I'm really only guilty of not reading the whole thread before I post.

Ten matches out of ten, ennit.

The chosen mathematical model of the CBvF.

Not every piece suffers major criticism. That is simply false. Many studies go through peer review with few revisions. And no the DSM is not always used. If you did that you would be a terrible psychologist. When you are diagnosing, you would use the DSM to get a general idea. You need far more specific literature to properly diagnose a mental illness or condition. That is, several primary literature sources over the DSM. Otherwise, you deserve to have your license pulled.

yes it does. infact, playing the devil's advocate is a must for any primary data in psychological researches. critisism and CORRECTION however are two very different thing. i can criticise intelligence testing all i want but to be able to imprve on it is another thing. lack thereof is not evidence for validity of the premise. DSM is ALWAYS used, it is there to set limits on what can be deemed a psychological problem or what can not. practically every responsible psychologist does. and i think you are mixing what is meant by primary literature with significance here. primary literature is anything which is discovered or recorded using PRIMARY RESEARCH, i.e. case studies, social experiments etc. it isnt primary in SIGNIFICANCE. primary data is unusable in diagnosis because it is researching problems in controlled conditions and changing variables. that is not possible in real life and the dsm puts the results of those researches into summarised criterian which can be used in conjunction with alternate results to come at a conclusion. primary data is taken from one point of view alone.

No problems with the second response.

Have I? Yes. Primary literature is basically a scientific article that is the report of a study. It contains original or verifying research and is written by the people conducting the study. Credible primary literature is almost always peer reviewed and published in an established scientific journal. The DSM is secondary literature. That is, a composite that draws conclusions from the various findings of many primary sources, usually in less detail.

sigh. read above post. the results of primary research are tabulated or cater to controlled variable to study their affect. extended case studies of a few kinds are the only real credible form of primary data which can be used directly to come to a diagnosis. other than that it is unusable. primary as a technical term referring to primary research should not be confused with significance of literature.

LOL. Those reports are take an approach to therapy combining many different schools of psychological thought. It's a fact. Have you even read them? I severely doubt it with a statement like that. Once again you are making sweeping statements about what mainstream psychology supports and yet have no sources whatsoever to back them up. You are basing them on nothing credible. If they exist and you are actually studied outside of what wikipedia tells you then source them. And internet websites don't count because that is not scholarship. Also, not that I did not say sex was unhealthy. It isn't. Promiscuity is. That is what science says.

outside of what wikipedia tells me??????????? i dont look at wikipedia for psychology, i study psychology as a subject and from time to time meet with psychologists/psychiatrists because of one reason or another. im not making sweeping statements about what mainstream psychology approves, i am talking about vast and established things in the greater pat of the psychological community. the problem your using in your favour is the fact that these things are so well known that people do not write papers any more on them then they write papers on how black men are less intelligent than white men or how they are more full of lust than white men{although if you looked at PRIMARY DATE statistics/studies etc youd find that this ridiculous phrase has evidence to back it up seen from a strictly biased perpspective in primary psychological data. its only in secondary data where it is questioned and a more rounded and truer view reached and in secondary literature do u find plausible explanations for it}. even if i do quote one or two sources saying sumthing understood, youd downgrade the significance of it based on the facts that youd think that they are just singular sources and do not subscribe to the generally accepted way of thinking in psychology.

as for the second part, u have zero unbiased pshychological evidence t suggest that promiscuity is bad. it is neither good nor bad, if it helps you achieve positive goals{which is often the case if extremes are not present outside sexuality in the equation} which it often can in today's world, than its good. if it doesnt, than it is bad. but its the things assocaited with it, sex is definately GOOD, not neutral.

You are right, not everything Freud said has been thrown out. Why? Because he created the idea of stages which has been extremely influential. However, psychology is moving away from that idea. From a staged development model to a continuous model. Also, Freud's personal stage model is no longer put to practical use (because it is full of holes). Rather the concept of stages that he started was adopted by Erik Erikson who was a neo-Freudian (not a Freudian) to create the idea of psychosocial development. However, even that is being replaced by the continuous model originally put forth by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. Vygotsky and Piaget themselves has many critics and their work has been heavily modified, but they are the true leaders in those areas. Ideas of dream interpretation existed long before Freud and there are many different theories. However, dream interpretation is probably the only thing that Freud really contributed to the furthering of psychology that is considered viable today. His ideas of ID and superego are heavy criticized. Lookup Karl Popper for that one. His ideas of ego and the defense mechanisms are more widely considered plausible or decent. But they still had to be extensively reworked. Freud was not scientific. Nothing he put forth was testable and, therefore, was unscientific. He had a few decent ideas, but he was idiot overall. Also, psychodynamics is a very broad term. Today, it can hardly be associated with Freud. It was been expanded and adapted into something much more scientific than anything Freud or Jung did. Very few psychologists adhere strictly to psychodynamics simply because it doesn't work very well or often. And yes, hypnosis is still used pscyhotherapy, but it is often criticized as well because it has great potential to be harmful.

actually no, your wrong there. psychology is trying to find a middle ground between the continuum and fragmented approach. it is not moving AWAY from the model of stages but it is doing research into other models ALONG WITH the fragmented one. there are vehement and large number of supporters for both in psychology, u shud know, even now. and btw, freud's personal model is used as much as milgram or zimbardo or taajfel or cooley. i.e. not at all, BECAUSE a model can not be called the same even if a little change has been made to it. however at the basis, the psychodynamic/psychoanalytical model is still freud's. and no milgram, is not the leader in this field, where on earthdid u get that, it is just ur subjective oppinion. u calling him an idiot doesnt improve your credibility either, just shows bias. psychodynamics is still very much freudian, and youve neglected to mention his other influences i mentioned which are credited to him, phobias as a result of supression of id instincts etc among others. also, every good psychologist adheres to multiple schools of thought, i have no problm with that as long as you dont have problem with accepting the psychodynamic views on sexuality and it being a major psychological school of thought. hypnosis has great potential for harm if misused intentionally or unintentionally. that is why you go through special training before you can be a licenced hypnotist. heck psychology as a WHOLE has great POTENTIAL for harm as its a tool unless you have the mindset to use it properly.
as for testable, he has case studies describing why exactly he came up with the explanations he did. or did you think any other explanation of the time were any more scientific for phobias etc other than somatoform ones. psychological processes can only be inferred, it is practically impossible for the greater part to actually SEE them. positivism is your friend here. i think your referring more to his theories being counterintuitive as opposed to unscientific.

Next paragraph only gets laughter. Freud is not respected. You have merely proven to me that you are not in psychology circles, or science for that matter. I do not disagree with Freud over moral reasons. See above. Once again, I never said sex has bad, therefore I'm not against science saying it's healthy. I am saying that promiscuity is unhealthy according to science and that being abstinent is not unhealthy. You have yet to source anything suggesting otherwise. I have primary literature stating otherwise. Therefore, you are now given the burden of backing your claims with something over than another long paragraph in horrible grammar containing your sweeping statements and attempts at calling my religious beliefs into a scientific debate where I have never even brought up the Bible or sourced anyone that is a Christian.

and you have proven the same. there is a significant percentage which adhere more strictly to freud than i would think adviseable. there is a yet greater percentage which are accpting of psychodynamic principles and use them in conjuction with other schools of thought. as for the promiscuity remark, zero evidence and against logic. on the other hand the abstinance remark cracked me up again. really your clueless about it. abstinance is SUPRESSION of an unhealthily sever kind of a desire which arises often and has healthy physical and mental affects. honestly, your position seems to me that supression of major desires to the point of complete supression is NOT BAD. which is frankly ridiculous. you have selective quotes suggesting otherwise.{not concerning abstinence mind you}. its true u havent brought up the bible, but you might as well have with the comment on abstinance, lmao, as if. also your bias clearly shows in those last lines.

That was not what I was asking for. That was simply a story you can find in any introductory psychology textbook. I'm asking for sourced evidence (ie. from a credible preferably peer-reviewed journal) that is recent (ie. the last twenty years). I disagree with Freud's views because they are not scientific and have no root in science. What they have a root in is his own sexual oddities and his anti-Victorian era sentiments. Some of his conclusions contain plausible ideas, most are idiotic. I have read Freud and he does not carry salt in his arguments. It isn't science, it is conjecture and faulty logic.

yes just like the STORY which set up piaget's stage model as having scientific basis. u can also find that in any introductory psychology book. as for the last twenty years thing, the major experimental evidence for thing like intelligence not being connected to race etc was found in the middle of the last century or earloer part of the last century. and research on such obvious matter is deemed unnecessary in the major and u prolly wudnt find an article describing major experiments to PROVE so. is that evidence for the fact that blacks are inferior mentally to whites?????

they are as scientific as one cud get at the time considering the techniques and processed being studied. your discrediting of hims shows open bias. perhaps you should read about the development of ideas/philosophy in the west before comparing freud's views in the backdrop of the scientific method as seen TODAY. he was a huge step forward. obiously weve come a long way from then but still. its like saying that newton attributing light waves to waves in the static ether was unscientific{when infact evidence-conclusion/corellation wise, it is no better than freud's conclusion of the oedipus complex stemming from personal therapy sessions with children. infact the later is more credible}. again positivism is your friend here. and there is nuthing wrong with antivictorian era sentimnts. he was a liberal and his views much more enlightened than the society that surrounded him. you misunderstand what he means by the terms he uses and hence say there is nuthing to his theories.