ramin

I also shouldn't forget another art aspect of psychology, and that is that because it will always require inference of indirectly relevant data to human life, by all the data together being inherently incomplete or analogous (i.e. by use of lab animals), it will need correct application and convergence of the data to human life: an art.

This is partly an argument about boundaries. The difference between psychology and molecular biology and physics say may be a quantitative as opposed to qualitative one, to some extent. Though it seems that a part of psychology will also be purely art, always.

Why would you assume that I think primate and other animal life is also solely science, and use that as an argument? Just because science is necessary, it doesn't mean it is complete to me. We cannot explain ourselves and our behavior via solely observations and data. Neither can we with life and behavior of birds. Philosophy will interfere, and in a direct way as opposed to its relation to physics, biology and bio-chemistry say. Furthermore, psychology is self-reflective. We look for data to understand principles, but we use these principles in our construction of our lives, making it an art. The principles of physics and biology, on the other hand, define their domains completely and this does not count as reduction. These principles will be used outside of their domains for the same reason psychology uses its principles, only the use of these principles are part of the psychology domain. What we use and how is an art. Operant conditioning could be a scientific discovery in the science subdomain of psychology. False analogy. The art of invention based on physics, such as inventing lasers, is not necessarily part of physics, though inventing therapy is a part of psychology. If I'm not mistaken it says that human behavior is unpredictable.

Another way of saying all this may be that human life is fast-paced and always changing and thus it cannot be solely based on principles, unless it is the opposite principle of scientific principles: that it can not be based on principles. Read chaos theory (I think)...

First thing to note is that I'm not saying that a field has to yield fully stable results in order to be a science, the point you accurately point out. My point is that the stability and determinism of psychological findings is different in nature than the other sciences, and this very factor makes it an art always, at least partly. Namely, humans will always have the domain of using scientific findings creatively and philosophically to draw conclusions about life, society, and psychological dynamics. In this view it is an art that is based on science and applied science, and thus is not reducible to science. I believe this is also consistent with the effective chaos theory if you've heard of it. If they made Psychology more an art in conjunction with science, it would be much more successful. This is what you might see happening with the emergence of cognitive science (which is also an art, and in a suitably different way than psycohlogy).

Can we make a debate tournament, e.g. by making groups and setting up playoffs etc.?

Psychology admits to representing things inaccurately, attributed blindly to some 'state' of the "science," instead of to the fact that psychology will always be an art as well.

It's really more complicated than that, though it could be summed up in that way, yes. This definition that you've given is right (its what I'm talking about) but it really comes in different forms, i.e. in different intensities, at different times, and in different ways. One form could be indirect in that the pressure to socialize kids a certain way makes kids that are different (in various ways) simply lose out from being fully understood, which will affect their freedom and development in the environment. It could be in a different form for this same person if these things happen at a later time in development. It could be in the form of discrimination, or rejection & neglect, due to the caregivers being pressured to live a certain negative stereotype and/or social class, or due to a general drop in motivation to understand kids due to socialization in the adult-world. More obviously... Understanding that one is a human being is the most elementary of things that I would think even occurs in babyhood, but is distracted & repressed after due to the oppressive-style environment. But I'm not saying feelings of alienation are not natural. I'm saying actually being alienation is unnatural. I'm sure you're right... You obviously don't know much about schizophrenia when you're saying that. You see the danger of implication? Just because schizoprhenia is highly bio-pathological, you think it is genetic. But these are not the same thing. Schizoprhenia is one of the most known diseases to have a necessary environmental component. Even over-deterministic and arbitrary behavioral genetic research has proven this as they admit that the environment is necessary for schizophrenia to form via their data. Schizophrenia is according to them partly genetic, partly environmental. But that's non-sense. It is due to highly unnecessary social isolation that can be prevented via a less deficient society and thus is not genetic at all. Genes are only the medium. Let's not jump the gun again. Bio-pathology does not mean genetic. Stress, vaccination, drugs, and nutrition to name a few things come from the environment and they induce bio-pathology in various ways. I agree as well. The interesting question that you brought up is what to do with them, and others with disorders. It seems that though they are made, it is sometimes too late and interventions (in the case of pedophilia intervention, in the case of bulimia for instance cognitive therapy) must be administered. Ok, I responded to all these in the beginning of this post. But what's a POV? How is it that you can carry on this complex conversation better than me then? Look here's the evidence! All this "disorders" thinking is making you think I actually have some kind of disorder, a salad of disorders even! I was being sarcastic about having a disorder. The notion of a disorder is sometimes so proposterous that I was making fun of it. The notion of disorder is NOT for the patient ever to "know" either. It is only useful as a tool for clinicians and should not be made public, because people can't stop thinking about it and that highly affects them in various ways such as making them lazy to develop, finding themselves an easy to accept pre-made "role" or status level, or method of dealing with their problem. Anyway, you mentioned you have had an interesting life. What did you mean?

No one would deny the environment interacts with the brain. It is that the environment is the primary cause of behavior, while the brain is primarily the medium. Vygotsky, and in some dark and disturbing manner even Freud, are the only known psychologists who acknowledge this accurately, with Vygotsky perhaps uncomparably better than Freud. This principle is a great way of explaining human psychology accurately, and thus reading Vygotsky is very rewarding. All that new psychology stuff, all over North America (and infiltrating into other places as well), that's just bogus material. What you have to realize is that the people in the top of psychology know this already. Some of them, like the former head of APA I believe (Sternberg) are able to counter this in some minor way. Others say that psychology highly simplifies, overgeneralizes, and presents phenomenon incompletely, but that is because it is the state of the science currently, still a little bit young, not realizing that they already can and eventually will have to make inferences outside of the science end of psychology, where abstract sequences of events and potential events take place. Which is the environment part of psychology (and thus not emphasized). There are some hopes in reforming these aspects of psychology by use of a new cognitive systems approach called "situated cognition," in which arguments about the nature of information in the environment (and its processing) can be formally made.

You better believe it. A whole lot of wasted money that could go to starving children. Also, they do harm as well as waste money: through spreading their deterministic ideology. Ok? Well, common-sense that has a lot of evidence to support it doesn't seem to be shared by many researchers. Also, to say that everything needs evidence is ridiculous and tedius. Its the sick ideology behind it that doesn't allow for the correct inferences. All evidence is incomplete on its own and requires inference and argument. And they can't infer truth because of fed political norms.

There intellect is tedius and laughable! There are millions of people with common-sense that already know the answer...

You're obviously talking about a different isolation than I am. Comon...Denying one's own humanness is hardly natural. Feeling insecure and inferior at times is a better argument. So what's your justification that humans don't realize their humanness naturally again? I didn't get that last thing about youth and the mentally ill. If people feel insecure all the time, it doesn't mean that's by nature. It's probably due to my first premise: that society creates such isolation. As long as you argue against me, I think you have to consider my premises. You are arguing for a certain nature of humans, while I say that the very same behaviors are due to social influences. You have to somehow justify your position how it is not society that influences people to feel subhuman. No!!! I'm saying that's the type of isolation people feel that makes them mentally ill: that they are not accepted as humans. A dictionary!!! That's funny... Great, but that's not the type of isolation I'm saying people experience in order to become mentally ill!!! Well for having "ADD" you're pretty good at this. So what does ADD refer to again, society's labelling of healthy people with attentional pressure in a fast, isolating society!!!? It would seem like society needs some cognitive and behavioral therapy!! I also want to note here that I have ADD, Autism, OCD, BP, UP, Fetishism, GAD, Fugue, as well as Schizophrenia right on the horizons! Also, you gotta love the Fugue... Cultures...hmm. I'm not sure. I would use the phrase "political or social pressures" rather than culture. Culture to me seems to be the good side of things: the developed meanings and values according to good reason. So I would again say political or social pressures...

I can understand how some people will always at times 'feel' isolated. The point is that in reality they not be isolated. Do you think there has to be social norms that always isolate some people? Isolation in the sense that they do not feel that they are considered basically equal with others' date=' as human beings. And what justification do you have for such a claim? I think this is the real issue at hand: this belief that you and many others have. First you seem to think isolation means the 'feeling of isolation,' while it means not being considered human. Secondly, and where we consequently diverge, you believe that isolation is a must, in other words that humans will always not feel human! I really look forward to your views... I already did, in detail, in response to your previous threads. Why would you deny it?

Directly why not. But ultimately this is due to social norms, beliefs, and behaviors. This can be taken in two different ways, and hopefully you're not playing semantics on me. I reject the importance of genetic factors in depleted environments.

I used the word "premature" to indicate premature stages of it. Any illness has onset stages. Yes, most illnesses have the same root cause of social isolation.

Relieving isolation is easier than one thinks. It can come from simply thinking that one is basically a human being just like everyone else. It doesn't mean communism, theocracy or any other purported lack of freedom.

It isn't clear? Society isolates, and this comes out in different ways such as the non-burden, isolated, schizophrenic and autistic attitudes, or the revenge-seeking, sick, meaningless attitude of various types of psycho-paths and pedophiles, or the self-destructive attitude such as the bulimics. To close-up into the problem of pedophilia, societies that assume sickness and disturbance are susceptible for self-fulfilling prophecies and the snowballing of people's disturbing thoughts (tell someone they are sick, and they will become it). Being rejected from false and arbitrary definitions of right, as well as being labelled sick (just by the label existing), one does not gain anything from following those definitions and in fact sees reason to not follow them and rationalizes their habit as a decision. Another factor is when society itself is currupt and discriminatory. Why should one follow these people's rules and norms?

Vygotsky is a window into reality (for some, "a different perspective"). The reason I say this is that he emphasizes potential and influences of society as opposed to boring and rigid genetic determinism. This opens the door of psychology and life to new arenas.

Psychology is the medium between neuroscience, a science, and sociology, an art. It is NOT a science as in biology and never will be, because society affects human psychology, and study of social influence is a science in a different sense than biology etc (e.g. it does not study mechanisms in the level of discreteness and physicality of science).

I believe they should be identified early and incarcerated through monitoring these things in the community. However, and here's the catch, society has to take responsibility as well. These things are necessarily illicited and allowed by society, through isolating people.

The way you all are defending genetics is similar to the way people used to defend behaviorism. New phenomena have their eras, because they are interesting discoveries, and improvements relative to the past. Nevertheless, they are usually very overemphasized, and even detrimental.