JohnSSM

YOU can tell me why to care about earth science and I still dont have to care. I could tell you why I care about psychology, even though I see it as an earth science, and you would not have to care. Do you care if psychologists give accurate diagnosis and treatment plans? You should, probably. But you dont have to. I care because I want to understand humans like you wanted to understand gravity, I suppose.

The working physicist was wrong. Im sorry that he was wrong. He said "Laws, of course, are mathematical relations" They can be, but are not limited to. SO I simply pointed out the language he used was wrong. This happens all over this forum, all the time, and Swansont has done it himself. IS there a reason that I cannot point out when someone has made an incorrect statement?

I will be done when I prove that you came in here just to start an argument based on having a lack of knowledge in psychology, just to interupt this thread. Youve done it many times before. Its sucks that the moderators refuse to see the obviousness of your anti-social and anti-truth plans. Here are all the quote from the wikipedia that include the words specifier. "In addition to this differentiation, the DSM-5 provides a specifier for a callous and unemotional interpersonal style, which reflects characteristics seen in psychopathy and are believed to be a childhood precursor to this disorder." NOT PROOF that P is a speciifer for ASPD. Narcissists may also have a callous unemotional style. It has nothing to do with ASPD or P. "Nonetheless, psychopathy has been proposed as a specifier under an alternative model for ASPD. In the DSM-5, under "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders", ASPD with psychopathic features is described as characterized by "a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors (e.g., fraudulence)." Low levels of withdrawal and high levels of attention-seeking combined with low anxiety are associated with "social potency" and "stress immunity" in psychopathy.[19]:765 Under the specifier, affective and interpersonal characteristics are comparatively emphasized over behavioral components.[77]" Nothing in this quote says that P is a specifier of ASPD. Sorry. What you thought was proof, wasnt proof at all. The truth is, psychopathy could be a specifier for many personality disorders, so we could just get rid of them all and call them an extension of psychopathy. I have a huge interest in physics. I care about what physics comes up with. I need no connection besides interest. There are models and systems humans use to approach mental illness. If they are bad, they are bad, IF they dont make sense, they dont make sense. IF they leave huge gaps in disorders, they leave huge gaps in disorders. I want to make them good, make sense and not leave gaps in disorders. I dont know why you would care. Why would you ask, why would you care? The thanks is genuine. You could have said "Sadism is not a disorder". And then I would have to present a bunch of proof that sadism is a disorder. That's what a lack of knowledge can do to advanced subject matter where every person is not an expert. I had to argue with another guy that ASPD and P arent the same thing. Then he held onto his uninformed argument as I presented proof against it. It totally hijacks the thread and is typically done on purpose.

I do appreciate that stance. Of course, this isn't a theory of my own. Mainstream psychology and mainstream physics are not the same. In physics, often math if the way to tell if a theory is correct or not, thus creating a mainstream built on the realities of math. In psychology, all the theories are based mostly on models, observations and opinions. So, in this case, someone else claimed that psychopathy is something that it isnt. I have shown proof that this person is wrong. They have shown no proof that they are right., yet, they continue to argue when I have shown the proof that they are wrong. Doesnt this person now need to show proof, or back off of their argument? I suggested that social sadism not longer has a place in mainstream psychology, and leaves a huge hole in disordered personality theory. IN this topic, the only source we can use to discuss this is opinions using models. So the question becomes, did psychology leave a hole in disordered personality types? What proof could I present other than I presented? I can find other people who think it's true, and I can find people who dont see it that way, but there is no proof of how to order psychology. So, in these topics, all the proof comes through observation and how well the brain can organize these concepts. Why should I care? Why did Einstein care to figure out gravity and relativity? It's the exact same reason I care about clarifying psychology. Thanks for that. Instead of taking any ill-informed guesses with no proof, that I must go find the proof to disprove. It is you who does not comprehend. The gap you claim my theory is trying to fill is still an unknown here. You haven't presented any reason why I had gaps in the first place. You have presented no info that proves psychopathy is a specifier, and there is none, because ASPD and Psychopathy are two distinct disorders. I am glad youre done here. BYE!

Well, I thought it was ambiguous, and ambiguity is not really accepted all that much in these forums. When in Rome...

Quit whining about my whining. The hypocrisy is refreshing. Honestly though, I dont believe the world is against me. My statement had to do with the moderators of this site claiming they have biases for certain members, and then noticing it myself. For instance, I was warned never to be snide. There is snide commentary in this thread from everyone in it, and not mostly me. Would you consider you comment as being snide? It seems snide to me. Lets see if anyone pulls you aside for the snide comment discussion. I have been warned. If I am not flaming nice with people attacking me, I will get banned. Did you have anything to say about the thread or did you just come here to tell me to quit whining? You read the entire thread and al you could think of was quit whining?

Are you referring to the same text I quoted from google? I need to know the source you are using to get that knowledge. Lets approach this in how it applies to the topic. You stated there were gaps in my theory that could be filled by psychopathy. So what were the gaps that you believe psychopathy fairly neatly fills? And how does psychopathy fill those gaps? I'm simply asking you to expound upon the knowledge you must have had when you made that statement. Psychopathy is not a specifier of ASPD. Psychopathy exists on it's own. ASPD also exists on it's own. It's a combination of the two disorders. As I have said, psychopaths feel less and respond less to emotions, which is no type of motivation to hurt others and enjoy it. So ASPD might fills the gaps of my theory, since ASPD is also a disorder of it's own that does not encourage others to hurt other people for pleasure. So Sadism is the only disorder that was ever associated with the enjoyment of hurting others. Not ASPD and not psychopathy. To fill the gap, you would need to find a behavior that specifically leads to the enjoyment of hurting others, and also fill the gaps left by social masochism, or a non sexual enjoyment of being humiliated. In other words, I do not have a copy of the DSM 5. I have the other DSM versions but never bothered to get the DSM 5. The first mention of psychopathy in psychological manuals is the DSM 5. But, it is not described as the traits of anti social personality disorder. I have described psychopathic traits above. It shows the danger of what happens to people when they have both sets of traits. ASPD and P. But there is no evidence that P leads to ASPD or vice versa. But, all the personality disorders will show a lack of emotional sensitivity for the needs of others. So ASPD is only "linked" to psychopathy through that one trait, and a lack of emotional sensitivity drives all of the personality disorders in Cluster B. I hope that helps. Really, all I need is one sadist, who enjoys hurting others for pleasure, that does not have extreme ASPD or psychopathy, And they are out there. Another thing about personality disorders. They simply represent behaviors that we all may have when we are stressed, but the disordered person uses these behaviors for a solution to all perceived stress. SO it all exists on a scale without truly measurable components. I love that. The other day you proposed that I cited sources for my perspectives on Neurons. You claimed to have perspectives on neurons that differed from mine, but you posted no sources. IS that because you had a mainstream belief that neurons operate like little diodes? We never got the continue that situation, and I was simply confused. You were being as rude and such as you are now, and I followed the rules of rudeness and got in trouble. Lets not go through that again. At this point, with you claiming such knowledge, we really need references to verify your claims. I am not allowed to discuss the needs of neurons anymore. So im walking a thin line here. Alas, in an effort to avoid past disturbances, lets just move forward with quoted knowledge when a source is requested. Or its all just talk. You are essentially claiming that every mean person is a psychopath.

Until you describe the gaps in my theory, that you refer to in one comment, and I ask you about in another, I cant go on talking with you. I so dislike being rude, but that is very important information for our discussion, since it was about my theory, and you state there are gaps, without describing them at all. As I have noted, psychopathy has nothing to do with violence, or becoming aroused by hurting others. You also need to post a source for your comment about the DMSV and it's reference to psychopathy which connect it alone to violent or criminal behavior. After that, we can continue to make progress on the thread topic. And I cant understand why you avoid addressing it since i've asked a couple times. Im not being aggressive or anti-social at all. Are you allowed to diagnose me with a psychological disorder? That is a personal attack. Instead of calling mommy to tell them that youre being mean, anti-social and aggressive, why don't you just admit it, and leave me alone. What purpose do you want to serve in this thread? Throwing out unproven and incorrect ideas just to ruin threads or test people? Im seriously interested to know your motivations. I only have theories. I also know, very well, that if I am as rude to you as you are being to me, they would end this thread and maybe ban me. You are a senior member. They have a shown bias to side with seniors members and they even describe this bias in their own posts. I find it an amazingly interesting spectacle to witness by such intelligent people. Biases really effect everyone, don't they?

In the DSM-5, under "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders", ASPD with psychopathic features is described as characterized by "a lack of anxiety or fear and by a bold interpersonal style that may mask maladaptive behaviors ASPD +p is what they call it. So what is P when there is not ASPD? I do believe you are the one who needs to take a further look, or quote a source about your DSM comment. These articles may help you gain a better understanding of psychopathy, and it's use as a term in psychology. Psychopath: Meaning, Signs, and vs. Sociopath (healthline.com) Psychopathy and the DSM - PubMed (nih.gov) "Since the term psychopath is not an official diagnosis, experts refer to the signs described under ASPD. According to Masand, some of the more common signs to be aware of include:" I can describe the traits of a psychopath. Always laid back, rarely excitable, although possibly very driven, will rarely show excitement. A confidence and charm because they are not affected by the emotions of others, which doesn't mean they will be mean. They do have the ability to charm and manipulate others, but they do not always use it to use or harm others. That's most of it. Anything associated with violence or criminally sexual behavior is referred to as ASPD or paraphilic in nature.

"I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite." IF you had a more detailed explanation of the gaps from you it would help. Since psychopathy doesn't fill any gaps, im wondering what those gaps are and you believe psychopathy to be. The topic of the thread is sadism, and there are no established connections between the two. In fact, official psychology doesn't even recognize psychopathy as a real illness. So, Id perfer to use temrinology used in modern day psychology, but psychopath has never been a term in mainstream psychology as anti social. Psychopaths may have less attention for the cares and emotions of others, but that alone does not drive someone to hurt someone else for pleasure. Just as there are sadists, who do enjoy hurting others for sexual pleasure who are not psychopathic.

Is the point that I need to cite the work of others on this subject? Can you also? For instance, psychopathy has very little to do with hurting people and enjoying it. Psychopathy can be pro-social in nature and will not enjoy hurting others. Which brings up a good point. Most criminal acts of sadism are called anti-social now. This is all common knowledge to me, but you may need citations to believe me. I find plenty of material to read everyday on this subject and have for ten years. Since I made the post, maybe I need to gather up some references, instead of taking my own research time elsewhere, although I will take a look. But I dont know why I am. Do you have any thoughts about sadists who may not be sexually aroused by sadistic acts? That was the topic of my writting. StricklandETAL_Assessment_2013.pdf (fsu.edu)

Psychology is still juggling personality disorders, as it has for the last 200 years, trying to find a model that represents them more accurately. In regards to Sadism, sadistic behaviors and activities, it has changed quite a bit. IN the late 80s, the described sadism, not as a paraphilic disorder, as they do now, but as a personality disorder. They essentially erased social sadism from the DSM as a disorder at all, and now only consider sadism to be a sexually associated disorder. So what disorder now describes humans, who seek positions of power, or have them, and use them to hurt, intimidate, degrade, humiliate or scare others? There isn't one. In a way, they have created a sub category within Narcissistic Personality disorder called "Malignant Narcissism", but it isn't officially recognized as a disorder. Just a little tweak some did to get the act of being mean back into the realm of personality disorders, and now they call it hurtful narcissism, in effect. I see it as sadistic behavior without a sexual arousal. And that's my point. They had it right back in 1987 before they changed it. Sadistic Personality disorder was not sexually based, and included all arousals. So, to me, it seems they simply missed the difference between a sexual and social arousal. All sadists become aroused when they belittle others with physical or emotional pain, but he arousal is not always directly connected to a sexual arousal. A bully is a sadist, but not driven by sexual pleasure, they get another pleasure or arousal out of bullying others. I call it an ego-arousal or social-arousal. Others may feel this same feeling when they compliment someone, or hug them, but the sadist feels that arousal when they are mean and domineering. Obviously, this does lead to a paraphilic association with sadism, as many people obsess over fantasies of being domineering or mean, for sexual arousal. However, do Bullies ever fantasize about the ways they will torment someone in the future? It may not sexually arouse them, but if they are fantasizing over how to best humiliate someone, to me, they are a sadist, or someone using sadistic fantasies to arouse themselves, regardless of how their sexual intimacy is affected by these acts. It seems the psychological community may have overlooked some perspectives as they removed sadism as a personality disorder, and focused only on the sexual arousals involved with being mean and enjoying it.

I think you meant to say the laws of physics are mathematical relations, because, of course there are many laws that have nothing to do with math or physics. IF we are not very specific, we can lead others astray.

Am I allowed to attack the idea of your rules? I think you are confusing the brain with a CPU and neurons with circuits. It's not at all. All the components of the brain are neurons. That has to be the dumbest stream of ideas I've seen for a long time. Im sure you are a fabulous person, but your ideas are just stupid. "Uh huh. Ok. Whatever, Deepak. " I am not Deepak Chopra and I am very offended that this person called me Deepak. Aren't you going to step in an warn this person? They attacked me, not my idea. Mommy, mommy, the man called me Deepak. Come to the rescue. Yes, absolutely and obviously so. IF you had a proper education in neuropsychiatry, you'd have a better knowledge of how neurons operate within the realm of evolution and learning. IF you were right, our brains would only be computers, which they aren't, and we would not be humans. SO your education of modern day neuropsychiatry is obviously lacking. Uneducated. LOL. Now this really shows your lack of understanding on the subject. That your ideas about neurons are not educated. You want me to stop giving neurons human type traits? And where do human traits, like personality, come from? The behavior of neurons. You really need to start anthropomorphizing them to truly understand them.

Well, a large group of physicists and behaviorists believe you are wrong about neurons and seeking. Im tired of the uneducated person mocking me. Enjoy your exploration. Why cant kickballs become addicted to cocaine, chocolate or sex? Explore your world. Apparently your theory is that the drive to survive is a learned behavior. That's awesome. It flies in the face of evolution itself, but go with it.

The striatum has often been believed to be the center of consciousness because of the reasons DRMDOC has suggested. "The striatum is a subcortical structure in the forebrain that forms the major input to the basal ganglia. The striatum can be further subdivided into dorsal (caudate, putamen) and ventral (nucleus accumbens), and is implicated in regulating motor behaviours and responses to rewarding and aversive stimuli.

iNow, There is much to be known and understood about neuronal behavior, and not only it's behavior, but the structure of neurons, dendrites and the brain itself. There are many factors contributing to the processes you simply described above. I'd first learn everything about neurotransmitters and hormones, how they effect moods, how moods effect behaviors and decisions, or neuronal activity. So our subjective experience can affect neuronal behavior and lead to all sorts of disordered personalities and types of disorders. In disordered people, information does not take the ordered routes their brains have established. They were able to add disorder to their brain structure and function with disordered beliefs. It was all done at the neuronal level and there is no higher place that dictates human solutions, perceptions or behaviors. Explain those realities with "Neurons don’t seek anything. They are cells following basic chemistry and ion cascades" Neurons do seek things. They seek to save energy when it is not needed, they seek to feel comfortable responses to their senses, they seek to further our survival. If they didnt, we wouldnt. Your neurons do not get their behaviors from your subjective consciousness, your subjective consciousness gets your behaviors from your neurons. So, research all that and get back to me.

The mistake here is saying the neurons do this. You’re correct that we intuitively practice possible future outcomes, mentally rehearse interactions with unseen others, and we can game out various scenarios in advance and even nearly in real time for simple stuff, but that happens at a much higher level than neurons. What higher level specifically? We intuitively practice possible future outcomes? You mean, our brains, using a system that we did not develop at all. Intuition? I refer to that as Bayesian probability. No thanks...Enjoy your explorations.

No. That’s not correct. On a number of levels this fails. Neurons don’t seek anything. They are cells following basic chemistry and ion cascades. In aggregate as a system they underly many of the things you’re trying to describe, but what you’re doing is more poetry than science. Fun at dinner parties, but not helpful in research or understanding. You have some research on neurons to do. Have a good dinner.

I didnt say that initial life harvested light for energy. There are a few modern perspectives that believe that solar light was just one of the variables that spawned the transition from non-living to living systems. (Sun's UV Light Helped Spark Life - Astrobiology Magazine) Then I just stated that organisms were using light for energy before they had eyes. Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function. I do not argue that. I argue the opposite. I said I didnt find anything about photosynthesis being a precursor to the evolution of the eyes. IF someone else has considered it, my quick searches did not find them. "This argument does not follow. Mutations are merely changes in the DNA. They are not directed for the most part." For the most part? Every year they find more genes which are attached to experience, not to mention, epigenetics which can change the gene expression. I know this will sound crazy and unfounded to you, but since we moved to speculations, why not speculate? Ha. If we work this evolution in reverse, looking back from where humans are, and how we make decisions, and how our neurons work, we encounter new environmental stressors all the time, and we seek to predict these events so we can change the course of that interaction. Our neurons seek to predict where they should send information or thoughts. You drive to work, and sometimes you hit bad traffic. So you automatically begin thinking of ways to avoid the traffic. Ways around it, leaving at different times, etc. No one had to teach you to do this. Your brain does this, every ordered brain does this, so you experience those neuronal behaviors and they guide how you deal with everyday issues. And you don't consider, that inherent and inherited system, made for sensing changes in the environment, matching them with changes in itself (sometimes incorrectly), and then finding solutions based on much more than trial and error, wasn't being used in our own evolution by our genes? Maybe all gene mutations were all just random mutations, playing trial and error to evolve. Or maybe, the ability to see, started as the ability to detect, and absorb light for energy and evolved from a simpler system into a much much more complex system. That is not irreducible complexity. It is reducible complexity. Every mutation that led from the photosynthetic beginnings, to having modern day eyes, would not have to be random. They were inspired. But that really just means they "learned" what changes to what genes would lead to structural changes that build from the last. Einstein gets all the credit for his theories, but without Maxwell and many before him, would he have randomly mutated his new solution? No, he built it from past solutions. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!

You just opened my entire understanding of free energy and what drives thermodynamic systems and how it applies to our own thought patterns! It was your freelance expression in trying to explain your point of view that did it. I could not direct someone to give me that info, through this whole thread, and then you do it. And we only arrived here through a perceived disagreement about what a force is. Communication must simply flow, from one person to another, and then intimacy of ideas can be recognized. Thanks!

Didnt you just refer to thermodynamics as a force? I assume your sentence meant, "Pressure times surface certainly gives you force, and that force is thermodynamics." I dont know. I never had any misunderstandings about thermodynamics having force-like tendencies, but I get a lot of comments about referring to thermodynamics as a force, and then you yourself, who questioned it, referred to thermodynamics as a force in your explanation of why it isnt a force. As I said, Im happy to call it the forces of thermodynamics, or the laws of thermodynamics, or the reality of how thermodynamics behaves. What will please everyone?

I referred to Thermodynamics as being a force, but not an original force of the universe. But it's really quite arbitrary. Ive asked a few people a few different times, "How would you describe the actions dictated by thermal systems? " Are they a force? as anything with action can be a force. Are they laws? Rules? A theory? Tell me how to describe the forces behind thermodynamics and that is what I will call it. Since thermodynamics indicates an action, I thought force could apply to thermodynamics.

John needs to stay here or we may miss the arrival of the package. You cannot just take one part of a sentence to find meaning. That is not how sentences work. They become one unit of expression. John does not need to stay anywhere and we have no idea about John's needs, but the sentence still contains "John Needs". Im done too. You also used the statement "earth needs".

Without a deep background in advanced math, I find myself struggling to understand the free energy principle, as it apples to brain functions, as theorized by Carl Friston. I can mostly understand the written explanations of these equations, but have questions over how to get the variables to use in the equations. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005 (ucl.ac.uk) ON the second page of that paper, there are equations over images of the brain. Here is a quote from BOX 1. ". The free-energy depends on two densities; one that generates sensory samples and their causes, pðy; #Þ and a recognition density on the causes, qð#;mÞ. T" How would I ever go about generating a numerical value for these two densities, which you need if you want to use the equation. Are these equations ever used to figure actual problems, or are they just models of relation? IF they are used to get specific values where do I find the specific values needed to complete the equation with math?