Ringer

GIYF - google is your friend. or unfriendly use is google it you FOOL

The history channel had something like this. Life after people check it out

What is this even about and where did it come from

It's called a phantom migraine if I Remember correctly. Like other migraines theres not a whole lot you can do but figure out exactly what triggers your's and avoiding those things.

From the link I posted Still doesn't make the entire field of psychology wrong And his theory of the ego and the subconscious was supposed to cover that. Not that it was true but he did cover why people denied these things. So studies of psychology aren't supposed to be done by psychologists? Of course psychological experiments are going to be done by psychologists Could I get a link to that study. What do you mean what's the scientific base? The fact that there are major psychological abnormalities or what basis are the studies conducted upon? It is supposed to help people with these sever abnormalities and find out where these abnormalities come from. I'm sure PhdWannabe would be able to answer better since clinical is his specialty I was making a blatantly false statement that is the argument you are making against clinical psychology by showing how it looks with medical sciences that you say are far more based in scientific fact. All sciences can make mistakes and act upon those mistakes for many years until the mistake is shown. That doesn't make it any less of a science, on the contrary, the fact that these specialties can be shown to be wrong is exactly what makes them based in science. Clinical psych is still a young science and all young sciences are prone to mistakes and general distrust, luckily psychology will move past this prejudice and keep growing like any good science. Clinical psych is roughly 130 years old if you look at most other sciences when they were that young you would be amazed at what some of what you would consider sciences believed.

I would assume everyone here is using the same definition. What does someone's personality have to with their findings? There are plenty of good scientists were probably "bad" people. He didn't perpetrate fraud because he believed what he taught. Ya, and he was wrong. But it was all based on his observations and his own experiences. He had incestuous desires toward his mother at one point and assumed most people shared that experience. He was raised by a nanny and it's not rare for orphans or people not raised by there parents to have sexual desire towards them when they meet. Evolutionarily it's believed that the only way you can tell you're family is being around them (we can't tell by smell or some of the other ways animals do) and not being around your birth parent's you don't gain the incestuous disgust toward them. Because the multitude of scientific studies done. Is that why there are never studies that show how medicines and treatments are worse than the disease they are supposed to cure Some one else mentioned him earlier

http://www.purgatory.net/merits/abnormal.htm Everyone agrees Freud was wrong, no one has argued that point. But instead of ad hominem attacks why don't you attack his methodology? I'll do it for you, he assumed a constant 2 parent male/female family, most (if not all) of his work was done on specific case studies, his theories were based on the idea that all development happened during childhood, his theories were based on the idea that every developmental problem was the fault of the parent, his theories weren't falsifiable. You could go on and on about what was wrong with his science without once attacking him personally. He was wrong, move on. That out of the way, in what way does this make psychology as a whole, even clinical psychology, wrong? Just because Freud may be the only psychoanalyst you know of doesn't mean he's the only one psychologists know of. Just because medicine used to be based on the 4 humours makes medical science fraudulent? No, psychology, like any well behaving science, has moved on even if the majority of bashers haven't. Also, Jung was as much of a quack as Freud. Just because he makes people feel cuddly inside doesn't make him right. If you base your facts on what makes you feel good write a self-help book, not a scientific paper.

What study has been solely based on observation of body language? How would someone bluff a brain scan? And subjects are very limited in their knowledge of what kinds of tests are going on so they don't mess up the data So are you that if you fix the experiment you get different data? Obviously.

I apologize for this if its unintelligible. I took an ambian an hour ago and its kickin in. You confuse emotion with feelings. They aren't the same thing. For a better understanding lets go through the theories of love. First, The main ways people think about the types of love are Eros(self disclosing passion), Ludus (uncommitted), and Storge (Friendship) OR Passionate Love(state of intesnse longing, also called Romantic Love) and Companionate Love (love we feel towards our lives are involved). These can come in any combination. That is the simplistic way to look at it. There is also the Triangular theory of love. Now lets say the difference in what you're saying feel is that You are feeling consumate love while we are feeling consumate love at our parents. But some how your's trumps ours? Or is yours and empty committed love? Either way Love is an emotion not a component. If anything Love has components. He wasn't very wise considering the millions on converts. But we aren't talking about converting us. Never in any of my post have I said or even hinted at what I believe.

You know that the community center is not actually at the WTC site

It was called the Holocaust. Milgram based his experiment on the assumption that Germans are more likely to follow orders from a figure head than American based on our culture of individuality. That was the crazy thing in his experiments, almost everyone "killed" the student when pressured, even when the experimenter wasn't in the room.

Love is an emotion by all accounts I have ever heard. I love my mother, it's an emotion, even if I do feel anger toward her I love her. That doesn't make it any less of an emotion. never said he didn't. Eros love would be lust and associated with cupid more than Aphrodite. Yes it does. That's the point, you can't assume existence.

I would also like to say that despite what a lot of people seems to think psychology isn't just sitting in a room and talking to people. There are many different ways to experiment with psychology and how to test the results as reliable. An example is using an fMRI to watch the process the brain goes through when doing certain tasks and seeing if those processes happen for most people most of the time. There seems to be folk knowledge assuming that most, if not all, psychological studies are only case studies or surveys. This is not the case. Also, I wouldn't say that psychology as a whole has a tough time throwing out strangely prevalent ideas. Clinical seems to have this problem more than others if only because of the large amount of people interested in keeping the practices they've been using for a long time and not have people believe they have been ripped off. There are major areas of psychology that don't have a lot of problems changing or reforming old ideas.

Well monozygotic twins are genetically identical so they are the best way to study something like that. There have been extensive twins studies done on mono/dizygotic twins to explain exactly this. I would find some examples but it's late here and I'm tired as hell. Personally I wouldn't say that only memory loss could cause a shift in how you act, most very traumatic experiences will lead you to change how you act to an extent. As to the formative stage in children, there have been some personality tests the seem to be very reliable over time. Again, I would find examples but I'm fairly tired and don't want to take the time. There are many areas of psychology that study personality. . . again . . . late . . . tired. . . no links

If there were to be a conflict what would be the basis for culling instead of war? Let's kill these innocent people so these people who are paid to risk their live's for us don't have to. I'm with DJBruce in saying it's doubtful anyone actually thought you were saying we should actually do this.

I've never seen it, is there anything that shows what his personality was like before he lost his memory? I'd also like to know what you mean by personality. Do you mean how someone reacts to an event based on prior knowledge? There are standardized personality tests, If you're lucky someone may have taken one then suffered retrograde amnesia and took it again.

Then what exactly are you meaning by love? That Christian's have a completely different emotion than other humans. And what? They use the same word so not to confuse other people? You also say all love stems from Yahweh, but that assumes existence of Yahweh. Who are you to say that all love doesn't stem from Aphrodite.

"I've heard" isn't much for evidence. I've never read anything on pure memory loss actually causing radical personality differences. Damage to the frontal lobe has been shown to alter personality to an extent, but this is hard to gauge considering the only way we can get that information is asking the people around them. The most famous example of this is a man who had a steel pipe shoot through his head during work and survived. Friends and family said he was different than before the accident. I can't remember the guy's name or anything and I'm too lazy to look it up, any intro psych book will have it though. It's called monozygotic (identical) twins. Experience is what happens to you, personality is who you are. Not scientific definitions BTW

Problems: 1.) Money it would even cost to build 2.) Energy it would take to keep all of it running 3.) Sanitation 4.) Keeping it save from all forms of natural disasters 5.) Crime 6.) Privacy 7.) Etc, etc Not to mention forcing everyone to live in these structures would pretty much like a concentration camp

No, arbitrarily choosing the people for killing would ever be considered ethical. There are already millions of people starving everyday, should we start killing off people in those places because of food/water scarcity. Also, in my opinion if we as a planet become so overpopulated that we can't feed ourselves most people would die out anyway so there would be no need

Actually I agree a mosque shouldn't be built and at the same time Here is a map of where all Christian churches should be banned.

Cracked has an article that sums up my feeling on the whole thing nicely.

I have to take a bunch of crap classes: ARTH 101 Survey of Art and Culture ARTH 110 Art Appreciation ENG 112 Exposition and Persuasion FITN 100 Lifetime Fitness and Wellness IVYT 102 Information Studies and Research Skills PSYC 205 Abnormal Psychology Yay for prereq

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tools-for-life Interesting stuff

Circular logic works because circular logic words? May I ask where that definition of theory came from because I have never seen that definition