JohnSSM

What would you tell anyone with disordered behavior? DO you want to make them feel like they aren't disordered, or do you want to explain the behavior? I would rather find the model that most closely accounts for the behaviors, created from the mechanisms we know already work to drive many disorders. Politically correct. When psychology is politically correct, all sex becomes sex positive, and all sex is not positive. Sex addiction drives people to disordered behaviors as much as meth addiction. So is all sex positive? No...so we are going to have to tell some people they have disorders. Which is why I said we need to destigmatize all disorders to make them all equal and accepted to ordered behavior. That doesnt mean we have to stop searching for the reasons they exist honesttly. Why did i have to explain that to you? Are you being purposefully obtuse in order to hijack this thread, or you understand nothing of what is being discussed, again.

Thank you! But hopefully they are not only pleasing, but truthful approaches. Its so nice that someone understands my words and doesnt accuse me of being a whacko or uneducated. Im writting a book on this subject, which covers universal behavior. Its hard some some folks to grasp it.

I hate to be the voice of disagreement, but even biases towards flavors will be influenced by the environment and genes. Or is there another factor that contributes to our consciousness and how we perceive the outer world? Outside our Markov blanket, obviously. Maybe the spirit, or the soul. Or maybe you just believe there is any part of you that i'snt a factor of genes and environment. But taste? I highly doubt it. Every human behavior and experience and opinion is formed in the same way. That doesnt mean you actually had any control over it. A schizophrenic may think chocolate and vanilla and monsters. Its the same as you thinking one tastes better than the other.

And for anyone who didnt know David's title did not insinuate that he thought earth was alive, or had needs, you may miss the forrest for the trees often as you get sidetracked by meaningless language that trips up your ability to understand other people. Does anyone here actually believe that David honestly believed that earth had any needs, that weren't connected to sustaining biological life? Not me. Id rather assume he made a mistake in expressing himself than accusing him of being delusional. Especially when it's this obvious to note. John needs to stay here, or we will miss the delivery. Does john have needs defined in this sentence? Is the sentence false in anyway? How else could you express this message? John may need to get to the dentist. But if john goes to the dentist, he will miss the delivery. The original statement is still true. John needs to stay here, or we will miss the delivery. "Need" is not attributed to either noun in this sentence. Need is not a one direction thing. There are things that have need, and things which supply need. Need does not mean force. Need means "a necessity". It does not infer that you are receiving a need, or supplying a need, it only shows a relationship of necessity between two things. Earth necessitates biological life, to survive, with it's warmth and make up. Earth gives needs to biological life, to survive, with it's warmth and make up.

Yes, and with no response to my inquiry, I am left to wonder if they care that you have been ruining this thread purposefully since you arrived. So keep it up...I enjoy it. Its very hard to run me out of a conversation. Did you hear the one about the physicist? Spent all his time learning about math, thought it gave him some power for subjective insight into everything, and looked like a fool in the psychology forum. Its pretty funny too.

Mars only needs global warming if it could ever support biological life that developed on Earth. If that is the case, then it does need global warming. My perception must be way off...all this time I thought i saw the word "earth needs" in both explanations, and all it takes is prepositional phrases to change where we place it in a sentence. Silly me. Earth needs a certain warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive. Survival may not proceed, because earth needs a certain warmth or make up for biological life. A certain warmth and make up, is needed by the earth, or it will not support biological life. There is nothing different about the meanings of any of these sentences.

CONTEXT: degree of completeness of understanding. STATEMENT: A declaration of context. REALITY: The state of objective actuality. STATEMENT does not equal REALITY without CONTEXT. So statement must equal REALITY and CONTEXT. Reality equals statement, plus the degree of context that is considered. I may have done it.

I have a perspective on homosexuality and trans folk which has a more anti-social implications from the world of psychology. When you get deep into the study of anti-social behaviors, they all become linked by a rebellion. A rebellion against outside rules and norms, and it even becomes a rebellion against their own brains and emotions. They simply refuse to be controlled by any system, even their own emotions and the emotions of others. This is in deep cases of anti-social disorders. The disorder literally rearranges how the person feels pleasure or non-pleasure. This is the very nature of anti social personality disorder. Homosexuality is also based in how the person feels about the sexes, and a disorder could rearrange how they see pleasure in the different sexes. An anti-social wants their objectivity to be the highest objectivity, so in denying that, as an anti-social, a male can turn his natural drive to be attracted to women, into his own pleasure hunt to deny the power of the natural drive. Seeking power over the things that wish to control our decisions, is an oft used human behavior. So, an male anti-social person could feel like society, or their environment is pushing them to desire women. To feel free from this push and to have power over it, the person could decide to be attracted to men and male characteristics. That is how anti-social behaviors work, when applied to homosexuality. It could also easily be seen as sexual narcissism. A sexual narcissist would be aroused by their own bodies. And if a man is a sexual narcissist, he may seek what he is, in others. If you examine the gay community, you find different segments within it. SM, Muscle, leather, feminized, etc. They often do not inter-date, and even have their own social events. This really gives homosexuality the look and model of different approaches to solve the same issue. Most of those approaches could be seen as disordered, even the hormonal or gene driven ones. A disorder in the genes or hormone process, may create disorders brains. Isnt that the point? What we need to do is remove the stigma from the word disordered. I have yet to meet one single person without some type of behavioral disorder, and I'm sure that means, I have yet to meet anyone with a perfect system, brain, genes and hormones. But subjective solutions and reactions to the models we encounter (heterosexuality), that simply do not appeal to us, for whatever reason, may be replaced by our own subjective solutions (homosexuality) that take offense with being directed. Because a subjective solution is not truly subjective, without a perspective. And a person who is very aware of control, is aware of that.

Well, I didnt tell you that I allready notified the moderators, using the report features. When you don't know all the information, you really look like a fool. It's a valuable lesson to learn, for us all. I ran to mommy, and mommy didnt help. Ill probably grow up to have personality disorders. Hehe

I feel like you have the need to sweep his statement under the rug. Once again, it was. Laws, of course, are mathematical relations. Its true but incomplete. That is my compromise. Ive been hit with a profound circle of events. I came here to understand free energy, which is based in math reality, but I needed a worded explanation of such as the equations presented don't mean anything to me. But the process of this conversation does mean something to me. Im seeking a physicist or models of physics to help solve human disagreements and frictions. I was hit with the notion than you should come up with a formula, to prove that the context of the forum, did change the context of the statement within the forum. Can that reality be expressed as an equation? And in that, i find a jealousy in your knowledge, if math is your thing. Because I will never be able to make that model, based on an objectively correct equation, to prove anything in psychology or neuropsychiatry. I want the ability to come up with that formula, and I dont have it, and if you focused on transformative models of physics into human behavior, we could really have something. I want what you have, which is why I come here. But I feel so much friction in attaining the answers.

Your maturity level is very low. You have provided proof of it over and over. What that means is your brain never found the ordered model that is was supposed to create. That growth and learning process never became mature, complete, or final, and it leaves you with a disordered brain, which leads to your maturity disorder. Im sorry for your loss. IS there anyone here who has an interest in psychology, or is it all physics guys who know very little about psychology besides what they've learned through pop culture and movies, who followed me here to harass me because of posts from the physics forum? Yikes...I thought this forum was run by good people.

Do you doubt that the moderators have been watching this conversation? They see exactly what you're doing as I do. They could step in if they chose, but they don't. Im totally fine with that. I can handle just about every disorder in the book. But lets face it. These disordered behaviors are within every human, and I have to deal with them all the time. If you want to go on doing as youre doing, I will examine your behaviors as you do it. I learn from every post you make. Thats the point of this topic. Showing one of the shortcomings. There are many others, but this discussion has been a nightmare.

Ive already proved that psychopathy does not account for the gaps you alluded to in my thoery. The only one repeating is you as you repeat your hijacking of this thread. No, i dont run to mommy. Do you?

Unless you address your doubts in this topic, i believe anything else you say is hijacking this thread, and I feel you have been hijacking from the first minute you got to this thread. My proof lays very secure in the record of this conversation, your inability to acknowledge that your point was incorrect, as implied, and he fact that you'd rather talk about me.

I really feel like you try to manipulate every point. The doubts you had in my topic have been disproved. Do you have a any other interest in my topic, or doubts that I am correct in my perspective? If so, I would love to know what they are very specifically. It will take effort on your part to try to understand my perspective, but your incorrect assessment of the gaps in my model have been proved incorrect. We can assume that you now agree with the OP, unless you present any other doubts you have. Thanks!

Can you not point out directly the things I say which are not clear to you? If I knew very little about complex physics, and I came into a thread doubting what the other person says, on what measure do I have to doubt them? Wouldnt I have to show the proof I have for doubting them? I could come into a thread that says "E=mc2 is true and valid". And I could say, no it's not, go read about this to learn why I see it that way, and I provide some link. Isnt it up to me, as the doubter to show where my doubts are and not just say, you make no sense? I could explain economics to any person who doesn't understand it, and they can say, I doubt what you say or you make no sense. How much of economics theory do I need to lay down (make law) to prove what I am building from is correct with this person who doesnt have that knowledge? Isnt it up to them to educate themselves on a topic, only enter if they have some interest in the topic, and can make specific doubts about the topic if they have them? At this point, I can honestly say, I dont now what question you are referring to. Can you present your interest in the topic, and make specific doubts about the topic if you have them? And at this point, I need to ask for references on your psychological perspectives in regards to the topic and the OP. Was your interest in this discussion based on anything in the OP? Or did you just come in here to cause trouble and hijack?

So we can go on arguing about context, but you have no power to be correct in any measurable objective sense. Its like two mathematicians that do not have an objective mathematical solution for a problem, so they can argue all day about how to solve it, model it or see it. I know. This is why you guys much prefer discussions with math, so you can always turn an objective model to get proof. But that cant be done here, with this subject we are going back and forth about. We can both compromise, as universal equilibrium would direct us to do, or we can keep our rigid perspectives are argue forever.

Instead of admitting your personal attack on my intelligence, you double down. And you mean to say that my behavior in other threads could create a bias against me? You already have one. I dont think you can now go on without this bias effecting the way you see everything I say. It's impossible that you haven't made a judgement about me. It is subjective and lacking in any real merit. Because I am not an advanced mathematician does not make me less intelligent than any mathematician. It means I chose to focus my intelligence in other areas. Thats all it implies.

This is ad hominem. The Moderator has used ad hominem against me in a thread. And who can call this Chief Executive on his transgression of the rules? Isn't his the problem with human made power structures? They do not have to follow the universal rules of equilibrium. They can use the power, given to them in their structure, to go against their own rules. Ad Hominem is something that someone with an exaggerated beliefs about their own intelligence resort to. We all know that. You need a moderator.

Of course, I do see your point about context, in a physics forum, addressing my own question about physics, and how the context could have been implied. Could have been. It's a solid point worth mentioning. But I didnt have to say that. I didnt have to give any compromise at all. I could have gone on with my hard stance on the meaning of his sentence. And I wonder if you can do the same with my perspective. We do both have points. There is no math to solve this. No objective view which can disprove another. No. That analogy does not work. The baseball example is not a close enough model to compare with what has transpired over this topic.

Thanks for pointing it out. That is exactly how I see you and other members who come into threads to argue over silly semantics, trying to make everyone else be as exacting as possible. But then, when you hold them under the same microscope of semantics, they are guilty of the same little errors that others make, but when you call them on it, you get attacked by other senior members. If avoiding ambiguity is the rule around here, I will follow it to the T, with every post I see. IS that bad or aggressive? If you tell me a rule, I will use that rule too. You have no idea about the depths of my knowledge or how intelligent I am. To suppose that you do is absolutely ridiculous and based on whatever uselessly subjective means you are using to come to that conclusion. It's worthless. It makes you feel comfortable and powerful to suppose that I am just overestimating my own intelligence. But, the context belongs to the writer. And you cannot disprove that.

Yes, that is a huge point. The DSM provides the official diagnosis of disorders, and when the behaviors require treatment. It is not a guide for all psychological perspectives, but a guide for therapists and counselors. Being in the psychological research community for many years, most researchers and theorists know that the DSM is a mess and has always been a mess. So it's really not all that useful to use it to discuss anything other than how psychology has seen fit to classify these disorders. So, as a researcher, I have arguments against how the DSM makes adjustments over time. Sadism used to be a personality disorder, based on deriving pleasure from hurting others. But they moved sadism into paraphilic (sexually obsessive) disorders, totally missing the point that sadism is not only about sexual arousal. It is arousing without adding an element of sexual intimacy. So, now there is no personality disorder to officially classify people who enjoy being mean as a means to arousal, which does not influence their sexual arousal. But I thought I made that all clear in the OP.

DId that last post help you see?

Its not nonsense. I am not ignoring context. He should have addressed context in his own writting. To be more accurate, he could have said "In physics, Laws, of course, are mathematical relations." I just pointed out that he should have. People do this all the time on these threads. You must have a real interest in writting and communications. Can you point out the philosophy of the writer ignoring the context and expecting the reader to know it? It doesnt exist. The writer creates the context.

What position was up for discussion? Why you should care about personality disorders? LOL..I have no idea what you are referring to! WHat position was I supposed to pursuade? IS this just another attempt to hijack my thread? YOU came into my thread on psychology and demanded that I answer the question "Why should you care about psychology?" Can you go make your own topic called "Why should I Care about psychology?" instead of forcing me to address it here? I know all the definitions and semantics needed for this discussion. One person has denied my definitions so far, and I proved them wrong in all the possible ways. So, IM not sure why I would need to go research anything. Where are the arguments that my theory is wrong based on what is said in the OP? I still dont even know the question. And right now, im going to every physics thread to ask why I could care about physics. I want to be like you. I want to have the power to ruin other people's threads with nonsense questions about caring. You are a role model.