Psychology doesn't even exist

Societal problems, economics, etc.

It's ALL about the neurotransmitters (and their receptors and sensitivity, but you get the point)

There is literally NO free will

Everything we like, hate, whether we are talkative or shy, happy or sad, excited or bored, what we lik to do and what we don't like to do, the choices we make, it's all 100% controlled by neurotransmitters

There is nothing what "we" are, we are quite passive observers obedient to the chemical reactions in our body, we do what they tell us, we cannot really change anything about it

Semi-legit. Monks and shit do prove that you can influence your neurotransmitters by concentrating hard enough or entering meditative states, though it takes an enormous amount of training, willpower, and time.

Behaviorism is kinda legit too. You can definitely condition people to react to things in specific ways, much like you can with a dog. The environment has a strong effect on neurotransmitters, but we have pretty limited control over that as well.

My impression is that psychology is more concerned with 'what', neurology/neuoscience is more concerned with 'why'.

mrz wrote:My impression is that psychology is more concerned with 'what', neurology/neuoscience is more concerned with 'why'.

I would say that Psychology = Why and Neuroscience = How

Flare wrote:
mrz wrote:My impression is that psychology is more concerned with 'what', neurology/neuoscience is more concerned with 'why'.

I would say that Psychology = Why and Neuroscience = How

I can see it that way as well. I guess in my example I'm seeing it more from the perspective of psychologists functioning in a diagnostic capacity, like observing behavior and defining what it is, say schizophrenia for example, and then the neuroscientists being more like this person behaves in this way which is termed schizophrenia because his brain has this set of characteristics, so that is the reason why he behaves in this way. In other words, psychologists are concerned with the effect (what), and neuroscientists with the cause (why).

However this is actually a crappy analogy indeed because psychologists do more than diagnostic work.

I suppose the way you are putting it is more like, trying to determine why people behave as they do, for example because they have schizophrenia, and the neuroscientists are more like how does the brain of this individual result in them behaving in this way?

You are actually trained psychologist afaik so I am interested in your take on it and give it more credibility than my own.

Aro_Mirakov wrote:Men,

"What", "how", and "why" are just parts of speech used when we talk about something. Ultimately, "why?" questions do not exist as they can be reduced to "how?" questions -- which themselves can be reduced to "what?" questions.

Below is an example:

1. Psychology explains "what" has happened to the man who is red-faced (i.e. anger).
2. Neurobiology explains that this is due to the activation of the amygdala in the brain.

1. Psychology explains "why" the man is red-faced (i.e. anger).
2. Neurobiology explains "what" has happened to the amygdala in the brain (it is activated).

"What", "how", and "why" refer to the same thing rephrased in different forms -- analogous to looking at a door from 3 aspects of frontal rectangle, oblique (trapezoidal) 3/4 view, and on narrow edge.

InB4: I am no psychologist, but this matter is just basic logic and of understanding the parts of speech.

I think it comes down to what is being looked at. Flare was looking at the subject and explaining why they are behaving in some fashion, whereas I was looking at the subjects behavior and explaining what it is a manifestation of. Similarly, flare was looking at the subjects brain and explaining how its state manifests the subjects behavior, whereas I was looking at the subjects behavior and explaining why it manifests is due to the state of their brain.

Essentially flare his characterization seems more subject oriented to me, whereas my characterization seems more behavior oriented.

you are making your brain chemistry as the brain chemistry makes your mood but its not one way process dumbass
Life is a whore, just pay your dues and fuck her hard

Iced Earth wrote:you are making your brain chemistry as the brain chemistry makes your mood but its not one way process dumbass

It is

It doesn't work in the other direction

You cannot "consciously" alter your mood, because you want to and thus influence your brain chemistry

Brain chemistry determined everything

Sorry mrz. Wanted to get involved in this discussion, but my brain reminded me that I'm subhuman and I became extremely depressed.

If you want to escape your psychic prison, fight to reclaim your depleted neurotransmitters of dopamine (for reward-motivated behaviour) & serotonin (for feeling of well-being & happiness) and the hormone oxytocin (which is an anti-depressant). Clean yourself up, clean up your room, and get exercise by getting tasks done in your everyday life. Physical activity alleviates depression (don't ask, just do it). Force yourself to it. Mind over matter. Also learn to make the right decisions tomorrow so that you do not suffer for them today. Retro-cognition is Legit:

LOL, that is exactly what bluepilled normies think.

Clean yourself up, clean your room - LOL, as if it would work in reverse and fix your neurotransmitters.

Typical ignorance to cause and effect.

It only works ONE way - your free will doesn't exist outside your brain chemistry.

So if you decide to clean your room means your neurotransmitters are already better in the first place.

Has it ever occurred to you that high motivation and physical activity could have boosted the neurotransmitters of dopamine & serotonin and the hormone oxytocin which subsequently led to further high motivation and physical activity which alleviates depression? In science this is known as a bi-directional causal effect.

No, it couldn't have.

It's merely the igorance on the part of "scientists" a.k.a. psychiatrists let alone psychologists who ADMIT they can't do shit about depression.

In clinical depression ONLY MEDICATION can help, because they start from the chemical side of the problem.

Everything else is placebo.

Physical activity is placebo.

This "works" only because it's tremendously difficult for a depressed patient (or a patient with any mental illness for that matter) to accurately assess his own state of mind and level of depression.

That's because of two reasons:

1. You don't feel depression and mental problems directly but you only feel them as your perception of the outside reality which is very misleading and most people cannot separate the two at all.

2. Depression is not constant, it has many "up" periods, which can last 15 minutes, a few hours or maybe even a day or two, when you feel it's totally fine now. But it's not and after your "good mood" passes, you're back into depression again. So saying that "physical activity" can alleviate depression is simplyfying and ignoring the real problem to the max.

So it's not my "ignorance of science" but it's pseudoscientists' ignorance of reality.

^So you basically "argued" while saying nothing worthwhile.

Great job.

The point is all those depressed patients who killed themselves were probably told to do some "physical activity".

Fucking bluepill advice.

Neurotransmitters won't get fixed by doing "physical activity".

If that were so easy, we wouldn't have so many diffrent classes of antidepressants, would we?

People would just go out, do some running and be cured before they get back home.

Who's the idiot, Ona?

Only the most ignorant believe that they are the most intelligent. You are proof. Research has shown that those with below average IQ or average IQ believe themselves to be smarter than the general population. Ironically, those with very high IQs (MDs and PhD) believe themselves to be less intelligent and informed than others. The reason is that the more they know, the more they realise that there are other areas which they do not know. Only idiots believe that they know everything. You are a laughingstock and an embarrassment to yourself in this Forum. Just go back to sleep with your IQ-139, Lol.

That's called ad hominem and is totally irrelevant here.

Your accusing me of being "stupid" is just jealousy and lack of arguments.

If you really want to know, I was quite an good/excellent student at school, but that's beside the point.

You are a rank coward who blames his moral weakness on "neurotransmitters" rather than take a chance of fixing himself yet failing despite his best effort. Why are you so afraid of failure? Can you not take it?

Moral weakness? Wut?

My morality is pure, for example I never claimed to be multiple different persons on this forum, LOL :D

Idiot. If we find Mercedes-Benz to be great cars, we would not buy Audi cars, would we? They are simply different (alternative) forms of treatment. Some patients react well to psychotherapy whilst others do not and require drugs to control their symptoms if they cannot be cured of their illnesses.

If it reacts to psychotherapy it's not depression, it's just having too much time to think about yourself.

Really, I hope that other readers get something out this discussion because I feel as if I am beating up a mentally retarded idiot. I actually feel badly now.

You're not even making any points, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing because you feel jealous of me, I don't know why.

Ta-152H wrote:
Really, I hope that other readers get something out of this discussion because I feel as if I am beating up a mentally retarded idiot. I actually feel badly now.

Actually, now that i think about it, both you and me (Rotting Penis) sound kind of fucktarded. Like we're two morons arguing, trying come up with the best insult and make the other look like idiot, when, in fact, were both complete fucking retards that have no clue.

Let's just leave it that.

No, you are idiot, because the thread is purposefully provocative and you nitpick on its purposefully provocative nature

Low IQ idiot

And that's why I said IDK why you'd be jealous of me, but you apparently are

Also I would like to point out that although some psychologists and other social scientists in general are actually legitimate, and that I take an interest in psychology and such myself, I find that they have been thoroughly infiltrated by parasites who function as nothing other than the priests of the liberals, essentially they are sophists who disguise the propaganda of the parasites into pseudoscientific terminologies in order to lend them credibility. They also are essentially part of the cancer, for example we can see an example of them trying to partake in the slave trafficking conspiracy here;

https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.d ... three.html

To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong.
In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

Thankfully so far they seem to have largely been quarantined by the actual scientific community into their government funded pseudoscience cults, however the prevalence of these sophist charlatans in the social sciences is alarming, and it should be noted that they have fashioned a liberal variant of the slave trafficking conspiracy.

they are shitting from their ivory towers while the world is even worse day by day

Aro_Mirakov wrote:^ Ona enjoys abusing Rotting Penis . . . and Rotting Penis enjoys being humiliated by Ona. They need to take their "strap-on" penis elsewhere and stick it up Rotter's bum (Lol).

Another day another Ona's alt

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest