JohnSSM

I know, but i didnt want you to think just because you see something doesnt mean anyone else does. So congrats on seeing something. What did you add to the thread at all with that observation? I guess thats what IM wondering. Yes, well you still havent proven me wrong, so once again, congrats. "Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate. You can talk till the cows come home. You cannot tell me that the statement is not accurate. But I will enjoy seeing you try. I should thank you once again for providing the answer i was looking for in this thread, about the OP. I am grateful.

Man, you are funny. But we have allready proved you have nothing factual to add to this thread. Please stop hijacking.

It was based on my studies. Would you know what dopamine felt like if it entered your system? How? Cuz someone told you how dopamine makes you feel, and they are right. If some scientist never discovered dopamine, would you know anything about it? So hormones and neurotransmitters are often to blame for strange, self induced feelings based totally on a subjective experience. Its not bollox, but you are welcome to your opinion. See what it gets you.

Well, the knowledge ive gathered about neurology tells me that that brain works when many different neurons fire at once. This would seem to indicate that consicousness or any human perception, is created by a sequential firing of neurons, and those nuerons do not always share the same location in the brain. So, locality of consciousness is kinda hard to nail down when you know that about the brain.

Do you remember telling this joke to iwhatshisname? You were gaslighting all psychologists with humor. Humor meant to ultimately offend psychologists... It's called sadistic humor. Of course, I retuned the favor with a better comment about physicists, to show you are not the only one who can offend others with humor, purposefully. Did it work? Did you get the lesson about how rude it is to use jokes to gaslight someone? Since this thread has exposed many examples of anti social behavior, I thought I could use yours as a concrete example. In refusing to learn any lessons about using sadistic humor to gaslight others, you are acting in an anti-social way. It may only be my opinion, but no one who has commented on this thread has any business commenting on this thread. A total and complete lack of psychological perspectives has been displayed by the members of this forum who chose to comment on it. Very sad. If you have indeed come here to learn and discuss, then discuss the op. You offered very little in feedback about the positions taken in this OP. You expressed that others believe the DSM is wrong too. I appreciate it. Anything else about the OP? Id love to finally discuss it in detail with a truly interested party.

Ok sure, but the sentence, "Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival" is still 100 percent true and accurate. Congrats on your experience with your experience. It has nothing to do with mine, and no objective rule over anything.

OK...but back to the topic and OP. Is that OK? YOU can start another topic to discuss if i gaslighted you or not. But do you have the right to create that thread inside this one? Can you self regulate with rules or do we need an enforcer. I cant enforce anything. I can only point out that you are not discussing the OP, at this point. We can literally measure how anti-social you are behaving by how many times I have to ask you to follow the rules of the forum in regards to hijacking threads. If you came here to discuss the OP or topic, then prove it by not accusing me of gaslighting you. And if you have proof, show it, somewhere else. It doesnt apply to this thread. "I believe you are helping me to understand gaslighting. Giving me more experience to feel it and examine it like a scientist. Do you know what this means to me? Amazing. Thank you" I dont think that comment was directed at you, but you responded to me. I believe that comment was directed at iwhatshisname. So now IM confused. All I know is that you suggested that i may be gaslighting people when you returned from a long break from this discussion.

This is what you brought into this thread, I did not make you say this. "I take it that is what you are doing here in particular to a group of individuals." No, it is what they (this one guy in particular) have too me. So, now im waiting for your answer. But you are assuming that I am gaslighting people with no proof at all. Or that is what your statement suggests. Cuz if you are accusing me of gaslighting with no proof at all, that is gaslighting. I have proof that I was gaslighted. So...hows your day going? Hijacking a thread is gaslighting. That person hijacked this thread. IF you continue to discuss off topic, topics, you are gaslighting the thread. Agreed? If so, lets skip the conversation about gaslighting because you were not involved at all. If you have anything to say about the OP or topic, I would be happy to discuss. If you want to discuss gaslighting, I suggest you make a forum topic about gaslighting and do that. This thread is about the OP, as all threads. Lets not forget that just cuz one person gaslighted the thread for three pages.

No, not at all. I have all the evidence that I am being gaslighted right here in this thread. If you examine and dont think so, Im ok with that. Should I direct you to the part of the conversation where he tries to gaslight me with a lack of knowledge about psychopathy, ASPD and the term specifiers within the DSMV? I mean, i have all the proof i need. If you cant see it, what can I do? Debate it with you? Shall I direct you to the many posts where I politely asked him to address the topic or OP, and can you find any comment where he actually did, after I disproved his knowledge of psychopathy? But thanks for showing me the definition of gaslighting. If you understand it and I did it, it should be easy to point out. Do you wan to offer me your proof of my gaslighting, or do you gaslight like the other guy who denied gaslighting? To be honest, your comment is gaslighting. You didnt come here to learn or discuss the op. You came here to claim that Ive been gaslighting. So prove it. It's provable. And I can prove that you just gaslighted me, if you wish. My topic and my thread was not meant, nor intended to "light the flames of fury and frustration in others" in order to control them. I have views about the DSM and how it handles personality disorders. My logical conclusions were not a form of gaslighting, and neither is me, debating my idea. Its gaslighting when you enter a thread, present a doubt, offer proof that is then disproved, and still hold onto your doubts which was just disproved and try to pretend it wasnt.

Maybe you should use my examples of context of the "John Needs" analogy. People in these forums never want to find a common perspective they can both debate from. I offered one. And you came back with, OK. Ill assume you know I am correct now, and theorize that i may be using a figure of speech in which an abstract thing is personified. I have no opinions or cares about that. Or the judgement itself means nothing to me. I explained what NEED is and how it is used in our language. Ignore that, and make any adjustments you need to justify another subjective view. Or address my points, and lets decide if I was right about the application of the word needs. You assume needs creates a position of needing or being needed. It does not. No, I know that rooms have no needs unless they have a purpose to fulfill. So any particular room has no needs to me. IN that sentence, who needs the room to be painted? The room doesnt need it. But who does. Its not even in your sentence. But still, your sentence says that the room needs to be painted. Who thinks so? You? Its not implied is it? because you do not need to imply what needs the room to be painted. YOu just made a factual statement of need about the room, i didnt. Does the room need to be painted? If you say so. Now I am living on planet earth as a biological life form that needs the sun to keep its climate favorable for my survival, I don't need it. My survival needs it. I didnt demand this need, i evolved into the need. The sun also evolved into the process of this need, without wanting to, but it is still there, being needed, and i am still here, needing it. The only reason I need the climate to remain as it is, is because my life is a factor of needing sunlight. And there is nothing that exists that doesnt need to be used. Need has no direction of flow as a verb. It simply makes necessities, as a verb. Blame the people who thought we needed rules to guide definitions, and then you can continue to be confused by how need is not want, or a reward. It takes 2 things for anything to be possibly needed.

To me you describe a feeling of arousal in your mid chest. Feelings of arousal in the mid chest can be caused by high levels of glutamate, being the most used neurotransmitter for arousal and neuronal excitement, which typically leads to other neural excitement like muscles movements or brain confusion. Glutamate can excite your mind to spread energy to all the surrounding neurons, and create spasms of thought, like people have when they are excited. Useless spasms that do not help them remain calm and ordered in thought. You may have noticed overly-excited people's lack of ability to think clearly and rationally? And it returns when they calm down? Lots of it is the effects of glutamate. Their brains are sending too much, because they are too excited. A waste of their energy and excitement. An overbundance of glutamate can also cause the neurons in muscles, to spasm or seize up. Whether or not you are transferring any feelings to other part of your body may mean nothing. It could be a totally subjective feeling, as you attempt to control this arousal. Out minds are powerful creators of perception. But, I believe glutamate could be a very real cause of the feelings you have. Its possible that one part of your body's neural network, a large percentage of which exists in your chest and gut, uses an overabundance of glutamate in that specific area. It does cause localized issue in the brain's neural network, and in reality, that network of neurons extends all throughout the chest and gut. It may give you a sensation or arousal that you cannot describe. As all other hormones and neurotransmitters were created to do. Its not for you to interpret, its for your neural system, but you can still feel it and try to create a subjective description for it, but truly, your conscious senses were probably not supposed to be that aware of it. IN other words, we feel sensations from our bodies and brains which we cannot fully describe, because we are picking up on feelings we cant explain, but we know an arousal is there. In the end, we know It (the arousal) can be real or imagined. Glutamate is where I would start if I thought these sensations meant anything.

Why do you refuse to share the ideas you have? You cant hide it. haha. I mean, this entire time, since I proved you wrong on the specifier argument, you havent expressed one idea about the OP or Topic. How do you explain that? Or I should ask, do you even have the ability to try to explain it? I dont believe so. I will believe it when I see evidence of it though. I promise. You can make me believe in you, all you have to do is express what you know. So now you claim to have personal knowledge of what that paragraph meant, but still needed to ask me what it meant? Fascinating. How do you live with the shame of being wrong about the specifier argument? You apparently lack the integrity to say that you were wrong. I know you believe you are smart. Everyone who reads this will think you have no idea about psychology (if they know much about psychology). But yet, you stay to harass me, as I harass you to stick to the OP. I asked nicely, you didnt respond, which is anti social, by the way, a disorder of thinking by the way, based on delusions by the way. So now I harass you for an answer to the OP and to get back to the OP. You knew this behavior was coming from me. So now that I have honestly debated you into a puddle of "i cant seem to express myself at all, but still claim to have knowledge of psychology" i think it's apparent that I hacked your ability to rebel, with honestly and knowledge and reduced you to, what? what? what? what? That is exactly what has happened. Model the whole thing to learn about yourself and how you look to others. Dont feel bad or beaten. I do this for a living, and that would just be another anti-social feeling. Bad and beaten. You have no reason to feel that way. I am an expert on psychology. You are an expert at "nope, what? nope, what?...the king! You have something to be proud of there. Dont overlook the positive side of anything. Humans, are delusional enough! Use it. And if you dont think therapists and counselors don't go a little crazy trying to deal with disordered people who ask for their help in understanding themselves, only to hear that their education is crap when they dont hear what they want to hear. Talk about contempt! Yes, we do understand how people work. We are paid to understand how people work. People come to us to learn how they work, and they deny what we know! And some clients simply refuse to explain themselves. They know they are disordered, they know that I know that since they came to me with issues, but they refuse to talk about their feelings. And that is the only way to sort through the disorders. Ugh. No one here is in therapy. If they stay to hear and ask my opinions, I can give them to them without worrying if they can handle the truth of psychology. Its not easy. But there can be no lawsuits here, which is why i dont have to use kid gloves when discussing disorders with anyone, whether they have them or not. Its a science, there is an approach and it does work. The very fact that this has been moved to speculations, proves there are very few psychology experts in the moderators list, or the members list. One may only think this is OP is speculation, but its not. But someone who didnt understand Einstein at all, would call his ideas and equations speculations. Right? SO if there are psychological experts with a deep knowledge of personality disorders and all the associated theories, I ask you to please give your opinion on my topic. Show where I speculate against mainstream psychology (only as represented by the DSM, in this case), without providing evidence that they have mis-speculated themselves. If you understand the OP at all, that was the very point. Does the DSM represent all opinions in psychology? Nope. But it is what Im using as a measure of truth, not a definer of truth. The DSM measured the truth wrong. I explain it all in the OP. You accused me of this, in your first response to my post. "Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. " It applied to you, not me. I never accused you of it. And you proved it yourself. Its called projection in the mainstream of psychology. I call it a solution to help you deal with being you. Such interesting stuff. Am I wrong in my analyzation? In order to express that, youll have to express your thoughts and feelings. Cmon pal! The little engine that could. I used to keep a poster of it in the kids room to inspire them to express themselves too! Psychology works. Man, that was a bad faith, projection of self image onto me, in order to make me look like you. Jung would say, there is something you dont like about you, and you wont face it, so you project these behaviors onto other people, and it gives you reason to shut them out and dislike them, and it takes the burden off of you to solve your own problems as you convince yourself that they are everyone else's problems. I dont really quote Jung anymore. The man had no access to modern brain scans. He was at a disadvantage to understand things as I do, and other people who study neuropsychiatry. His models of the brain are an amazing achievement as he did it all with subjective observations of others, and himself, of course. But now his models are mostly useless or we have real concepts of psychology that show they were incomplete or based on a lack of info that we have now.

You have no idea how to interpret and understand that paragraph? Why are you in a psychology forum?

Have you ever tried to explain to a 2 year old, why it is not ok to hit someone for using their toy? They may not want to listen to your explanation of why it is not ok, because they do not want to be intimate right now, they want their toy and they are angry. They know intimacy will lead them to a place where they have to accept other kids playing with their toys. And they dont want to. It all applies here if you know how to apply it. But you'd have to have a deep knowledge of human behavior to actually be able to confirm it understand it and use it.

Oh yeah, it also drives all personality disorders. Just a coincidence, I suppose.

Yes, you have never been willing to share any of your thoughts, about the OP, the thread or anything else. Did you want to achieve the intimacy of understanding, or was your only purpose to destroy any possibility for intimacy by closing your outflow of expression? Cuz thats one real easy way to do it. Humans figure it all out before the age of 2. Its a very elementary approach to destroying intimacy.

Be honest now...use the little modelling machine you inherited from the universe and figure it out. Nevermind that, it has no importance. I was simply fascinated. Thats all you need to know. again, What do you think the relevance of my comment is? If you had to interpret it, without my help, which is where you are, what would you think? Do tell...I must know how you see it. I can learn so much, please, be honest. Man, some people never learn to model anything on their own. They spend their time, dedicated to learning some system. Some systems have such rigid restraints on how they figure objectivity, that could be all they learn about trying to achieve objectivity. Cuz they never had to model anything on their own. So how could this person have creative thought, and truly analytical thought when their analytical and creative abilities were never truly challenged by any other system of finding objectivity? Our environment truly says everything about our perspectives, dont you agree?

Fascinating. Do it again. What do you think the relevance of my comment is? If you had to interpret it, without my help, which is where you are, what would you think? Do tell...I must know how you see it.

Nothing about this conversation has to do with anything relevant as far as I can tell. I am using it to examine your behavior. But go on asking questions. What is your goal of the relevance of any of this? Especially in relation to the OP, unless you just want to break the rules of hijacking without it being acknowledged by you, but I must acknowledge the rules. Im not anti social anymore.

I am only attracted to women. Im straight. So that says alot about how I interpret arousals between men and women. Are you having fun, proving that you can keep me talking? Yes, im aware of it. I control it. But you think you are. I just get to keep talking about psychology, which is what I love to do, and examine strange humans who hide their true motivations without ever knowing everyone is watching them doing it. Totally aloof to reality. I cant be torn away. Do you ever understand plain english? You question it all time. Duly noted. So you are either attracted to gaslighting, which is my theory, or you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you. Please read the whole sentence to find the meaning.

Im not ejaculating. But you make a fantastic point about arousals. Did you think every arousal was sexual? Of course not, but human subjectivity can make anything feel arousing in any way. Did you not know that? So you are either attracted to gaslighting, which is my theory, or you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you.

I dont even know if you are a man or woman, but if you are a woman, can we get together sometime? I think you like me. haha...IF youre a man, I dont have that particular instinct, for whatever reason.

If you dont actually see that we are two men, arousing each other, and getting off on it, as we clearly are. Then I fear you may not understand your arousals and begin to put them on me. As I Said, before, please dont, but I can see how frail your need for arousal is. It denotes an insecurity or lack of satisfaction. Why are you asking me questions? Do you need help with some homosexual shame? I didnt imply any, but do you need to talk about it? I just mentioned how attracted you are to this conversation, and noted the possibility that you have an attraction to mocking me and hijacking this thread. It could be based on a homosexual attraction to me. I cannot throw out that theory at this point. Is it true?

Im not calling you gay, im just noting two men, arousing each other, and getting off on it? Can ya dig brotha?

OK pal, Its been good. I hope you have a good night! Ive had many clients try to take up as much time as they can, and go over time, to prove that I cared about making a connection with them. And everytime, I showed them that I did. I won the anti social battle with kindness and not reacting to their disorders. I controlled them and they did not control me. And that is very important for a psychologist, and a sadist. Haha....I truly enjoyed and got pleasure for all this. That is why I stayed. Thanks for the arousal, sailor