A Misdirection of the DSM and Psychological community in Regards to Sadism? Social Vs Sexual arousals.

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

To be honest, your comment is gaslighting.  You didnt come here to learn or discuss the op. 

This is a false accusation that is not borne out by my few posts in this thread which suggest I came to both learn and discuss.

I started by declaring that I was no expert and offering what little I knew about the subject for discussion.
You have just responded to a later post where I thanked you for something I have learned.

[JohnSSM]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually, thank you.

For introducing me to a new term I had never heard of.

I take it that is what you are doing here in particular to a group of individuals.

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.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

IF you continue to discuss off topic, topics, you are gaslighting the thread.  Agreed?

Now you are just trying to be a smart-alec.

 

The rest of your post completely avoids the vicious false accusation you made upon myself.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

30 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

To be honest, your comment is gaslighting.  You didnt come here to learn or discuss the op. 

This is a false accusation that is not borne out by my few posts in this thread which suggest I came to both learn and discuss.

I started by declaring that I was no expert and offering what little I knew about the subject for discussion.
You have just responded to a later post where I thanked you for something I have learned.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by studiot
spelling

[JohnSSM]

Just now, studiot said:

Now you are just trying to be a smart-alec.

 

The rest of your post completely avoids the viscious false accusation you made upon myself.

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.

[JohnSSM]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Did you hear the one about a psychologist ? She joined a Science club and was obnoxious about Science just to laugh at the mayhem she could cause.

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

This is a false accusation that is not borne out by my few posts in this thread which suggest I came to both learn and discuss.

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.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[iNow]

5 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

Dont feel bad or beaten.  I do this for a living, and that would just be another anti-social feeling.  Bad and beaten.  <...> 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. 

What?

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

What?

Man, you are funny.  

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

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

we have allready proved you have nothing factual to add to this thread.

Where?

And “we?” So you have a wingman now, or maybe a dissociative personality disorder?

[swansont]

20 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

Of course, this isn't a theory of my own.

!

Moderator Note

You refer to it as “my theory” so I have to wonder which claim is misrepresentation. Is it your theory, or not?

If it’s not, you shouldn’t say it is, and it should be easy to support your claims with citations.

 

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You refer to it as “my theory” so I have to wonder which claim is misrepresentation. Is it your theory, or not?

If it’s not, you shouldn’t say it is, and it should be easy to support your claims with citations.

 

Im sorry, but I truly dont even remember what you are referring to.  Truly.  This is my thread and topic.  I have a theory that some others share, and some dont see it.  Isnt that how lots of theories are? I dont know how they overlook having no personality disorder to describe someone who enjoys hurting others for pleasure for non sexual reasons.  That is a fact now.  The DSMV does not have a personality disorder that covers the enjoyment of hurting others for nonsexual arousals.  Thats why I repeat it.  How do I prove it or cite it.  I tell someone to go learn all the traits of personality disorders to see if they can find one that includes hurting others for nonsexual pleasure? that is what they will find if they go looking.  If i have to explain it all, it will take me chapters of writting, instead of them doing chapters of reading.  Please tell me how to provide proof of this.

When I first came into the physics forums years ago, i knew very little.  I was forced to go read to even have a chance to discuss anything about physics, and I did.  Those folks were not going to give me an education on phsyics in a forum.  And i cant do that with psychology either.

If no member or moderator of this forum is an expert in psychological disorders, why would I expect to run into anyone who shares my perspectives, if they too are not experts.  I mean.  Have I heard from the most educated psychological minds from this forum, on this subject.  Man, I hope not.  

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

  I have a theory that some others share, and some dont see it. 

!

Moderator Note

Not in the areas of science with which I am familiar. Mainstream topics are taught in universities and many people write textbooks explaining the subject. They publish in respected journals. It’s generally not hard finding supporting literature. Non-mainstream ideas are the ones that are brought up in discussion boards, because there’s little traction for them. Sometimes there are multiple proponents of the idea, but sometimes not.

This sounds like the latter, thus it belongs in speculations, per the rules of SFN.

 

[JohnSSM]

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Not in the areas of science with which I am familiar. Mainstream topics are taught in universities and many people write textbooks explaining the subject. They publish in respected journals. It’s generally not hard finding supporting literature. Non-mainstream ideas are the ones that are brought up in discussion boards, because there’s little traction for them. Sometimes there are multiple proponents of the idea, but sometimes not.

This sounds like the latter, thus it belongs in speculations, per the rules of SFN.

 

Im sorry.  Once again, when was the last time you were in a university to study what they are now teaching in advanced psychology and neuropsychiatry curriculum around the country and the world.  I dont mean to question you, but is there anyone available who knows that answer? Do you?  If you happen to know the curriculum of all the universities in the world, then I get your point.  But i find that possibly astounding.

And also, this is all based in psychological common knowledge.  

My post presents these realities which cannot be argued,

The DSM used to have a personality disorder that accounted for hurting others for pleasure called Sadistic personality disorder.
The DSMV does not have a personality disorder that accounts for hurting others for non sexual pleasure.
Sadism, is now considered a paraphilic disorder, which means sexually obsessive.
This leaves a hole in personality disorders for hurting others for pleasure, and technically, makes it ordered behavior in their eyes.

None of that can be argued.  




 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Not in the areas of science with which I am familiar. Mainstream topics are taught in universities and many people write textbooks explaining the subject. They publish in respected journals. It’s generally not hard finding supporting literature. Non-mainstream ideas are the ones that are brought up in discussion boards, because there’s little traction for them. Sometimes there are multiple proponents of the idea, but sometimes not.

This sounds like the latter, thus it belongs in speculations, per the rules of SFN.

As someone else has noted and confirmed, huge proportions of the psychological research community knows the DSM gets things wrong in every version.  Which is why they try to revise it.  OOps, we got it wrong. Here's our latest consensus.  If you do not also know that reality, I must say that you must not be very attached to this group.  I am very attached to this group and have been, professionally for many years.  But I dont know what Im talking about.  You obviously do.

The folks who wanted to put this in speculations do not know enough about psychology to put it in speculations, because very little of it is speculation.

I will make sure that ALL of my colleagues hears about this...Of course, none of them come to these forums to discuss real psychological ideas.  But they will have a heck of a time reading this stuff!  Most of us are busy writting papers and books.  But the idea that you have no psychological experts to even discuss my thread is proof enough for me.    Say what you will.  I got your number. and you dont got psychological experts here.

Hey, uh, swansont. I did not make a post called "hijack from Seat of the consciousness is in the striatum"..I have no idea whats going on.  

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Im sorry.  Once again, when was the last time you were in a university to study what they are now teaching in advanced psychology and neuropsychiatry curriculum around the country and the world.  I dont mean to question you, but is there anyone available who knows that answer? Do you?  If you happen to know the curriculum of all the universities in the world, then I get your point.  But i find that possibly astounding.

!

Moderator Note

Irrelevant. I’m not engaging on points of fact or knowledge. I’m pointing out the rules. Given your length of tenure here, you should be familiar with them

 

9 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

And also, this is all based in psychological common knowledge.  

!

Moderator Note

It can’t be common knowledge if you need to study it in advanced courses at a university. But if it is taught as such, supporting it should be a trivial task, and you shouldn’t claim ownership of the theory.

 

 

Quote

My post presents these realities which cannot be argued,

!

Moderator Note

Of course they can be argued, and your position seems to mean they are easily supported, and challenges rebutted. So support/rebut them. 

 

 

[JohnSSM]

This is an unacceptable position to take. We expect arguments to be made in good faith, and declaring you will not answer questions does not comply

Are you allowed to ignore questions?  But you cant tell them that you are ignoring them? Makes total sense.

Inow refused to answer my questions throughout this entire thread.  But he didnt openly refuse to, he just ignored them, so its ok....LOL!  hilarious...

Brilliant!

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Irrelevant. I’m not engaging on points of fact or knowledge. I’m pointing out the rules. Given your length of tenure here, you should be familiar with them

If you dont know what is being taught, how do you know modern mainstream?  This is hilarious!  

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Of course they can be argued, and your position seems to mean they are easily supported, and challenges rebutted. So support/rebut them. 

No, they cant be argued.  to argue them you will need to find facts to disprove them.  You cannot find fact to disprove them as they are facts.

You will have to read the entire DSM V section on personality disorders, if you want to confirm what I say about it.  And it is true.  And if you had the read the DSM V, you would know what Im saying is true.   So thats my citation. Go read the DSMv if you want to know what I said about it is true, but you cannot just tell me it isnt true without doing that.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

 

If you dont know what is being taught, how do you know modern mainstream?  This is hilarious!  

!

Moderator Note

I already addressed this: you referred to it as “my theory” and admitted it was only supported by a few people.

This isn’t a negotiation of whether you must follow the rules. Since you only seem to be here to stir the pot, I guess there’s nothing more to discuss.