PHP Warning: Illegal string offset 'type' in ..../includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 113
What is the reason that rare to see mentally healthy brown member? - Page 4
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: What is the reason that rare to see mentally healthy brown member?

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Online
    01-17-2023 @ 08:04 AM
    Location
    --
    Meta-Ethnicity
    --
    Ethnicity
    ---
    Ancestry
    --
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Quebec City
    Y-DNA
    --
    mtDNA
    --
    Taxonomy
    --
    Politics
    --
    Religion
    -+
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    10,111
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,225
    Given: 1,450

    0 Not allowed!

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    I'm only speaking of White guys who posted in this thread to make a point that even in this short thread we can already see four White guys who are just as mentally ill as any of the brown posters. The mental issues of other posters just vary more than those of the browns.

    It's the nature of these type of forums that you will attract some people who are not mentally well.
    My name is ColonelFrankGrimes and my education in math and science is deficient because feminism removed many high IQ teachers because the women became CEOs instead etc...so the USA imports H1B visa immigrants (mostly Indians) and then some Asians like Wen Ho Lee etc... I am just a businessman who has no clue about real science such as physics but let me assert that 'mental illness' is real. Bro, you are like conformist mentally retarded clown and don't understand the Queen of the sciences (math) nor the king of all sciences --physics (all real science has to follow the laws of physics and to say psychiatry follows the laws of physics is nonsensical at best). Being mentally retarded at math (you do business calculations at most) leads you to believe in pseudo-science such as Psychiatry and maybe new age stuff like "crystal power" LULZ.

    Doctor Thomas Szasz studied physics in Hungary and graduated from college with a physics degree then studied psychiatry and became a psychiatrist. He was a professor of Psychiatry at Syracuse university in New York. His background in physics lead to a relentless intellectual assault on Psychiatry. Dr. Szasz is right in saying one has a responsibility of learning about the social institutions of one’s society especially in this case. He is also right in saying that to be an expert in biolgical psychiatry is like that of being an expert in unicorns, witches and astrology.

    Yeah, I am not physicist but I studied computer science at college (strongly mathematical unlike business which uses lower tier math generally) and I read books like "Understanding Physics" Isaac Asimov and the Feynman's Lectures on physics unlike you . It really helps to have a higher understanding of Math and Physics to understand what real science is and you don't have anything close to that background.


    Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that "there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it." Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he's taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that "these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries."..

    https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff-dsmv/

    ...Published in the journal Neuron, Raymond Dolan—considered one of the most influential neuroscientists in the world—co-authored “Functional Neuroimaging in Psychiatry and the Case for Failing Better,” concluding, “Despite three decades of intense neuroimaging research, we still lack a neurobiological account for any psychiatric condition.”

    Reflecting on the more than 16,000 neuroimaging articles published during the last 30 years, Dolan and his co-authors concluded: “It remains difficult to refute a critique that psychiatry’s most fundamental characteristic is its ignorance. . . . Casting a cold eye on the psychiatric neuroimaging literature invites a conclusion that despite 30 years of intense research and considerable technological advances, this enterprise has not delivered a neurobiological account (i.e., a mechanistic explanation) for any psychiatric disorder, nor has it provided a credible imaging-based biomarker of clinical utility.”

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/10...rical-defense/

    Psychiatry’s Failure Crisis: Are You Moderately or Radically Enlightened?

    By Bruce Levine, PhD


    Psychiatry has historically promoted dogma—not science—and dogma tends to be boring for freethinkers who can smell its odor even before they can deconstruct it.

    The challenge then is this: How can psychiatry be examined in a novel way that might intrigue freethinkers and critical thinkers of science, philosophy, politics, and history who would not ordinarily read a book about psychiatry because they are turned off by dogma? A fresh approach to examining psychiatry’s crisis of failure that I thought might interest them is utilizing the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza along with historian Jonathan Israel’s distinction between moderate and radical Enlightenment thinkers.



    Today, even some key members of establishment psychiatry acknowledge three areas of failure of their profession: (1) worsening treatment outcomes despite increased treatment; (2) the invalidity of its DSM diagnostic system; and (3) the invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness.

    Unacknowledged by establishment psychiatry but reported even in the mainstream media is Big Pharma’s corruption of psychiatric research and treatment, and how this creates widespread conflicts of interest.

    Unacknowledged by both psychiatry and the mainstream media is how virtually all of psychiatry’s policies and practices —not simply its treatments, diagnoses, and illness theories—are doing more harm than good on both an individual and societal level. In A Profession Without Reason (2022), I discuss several of psychiatry’s harmful policies and practices—including its “disease like any other” anti-stigma campaign which actually increases stigma; its “caring coercion” forced treatments which result in resentment and rage; and its individual-defect theories of mental illness that serve as diversions from socio-economic-political sources of suffering.

    Among psychiatrists, there are those who are completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest about psychiatry’s record of failure. They repeatedly tell us that psychiatry is a young science that has made great progress. Promulgating the myth of progress is the historic role of the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the guild of American psychiatrists. One of many examples is psychiatrist Paul Summergrad, who during his APA presidency (2014-2015) began a talk with the following: “We have made great improvements in many areas of psychiatric care in recent years, but there is still a lot of room for improvement in our country’s mental health system,” and he then tells us that the problem is not enough access to psychiatric treatment.

    Not all psychiatrists are completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest. Among those who are not completely unenlightened there are two groups: the moderately enlightened, and the far smaller radically enlightened. The moderately enlightened acknowledge some of psychiatry’s failures but, in common with the unenlightened, desperately attempt to preserve the institution of psychiatry. In contrast, the radically enlightened care only about the truth, and have no attachment to institution preservation.

    The Moderately and Radically Enlightened in the Enlightenment



    In Spinoza’s era, 350 years ago, ruling religious and state institutions fought against science, freedom, and other human rights, and this resulted in a rebellion that we now term the Enlightenment. What intrigued me—and I hoped would interest others—is that among Enlightenment thinkers, there was a clash between the moderately and the radically enlightened, and today this same clash exists with respect to psychiatry.

    In Radical Enlightenment (2001), historian Jonathan Israel explains this distinction between moderate versus radical Enlightenment thinkers. While the term radical can be used in many ways, for both Israel and myself, radical means a complete break with past tradition, including the dissolution of control by powerful societal institutions; and moderate refers to criticism and reform but no complete break from past traditions.

    While all of the original Enlightenment thinkers embraced reason and science, and strove for greater tolerance, freedom and an improved society, moderate Enlightenment thinkers aimed to accomplish this, Israel observes, “in such a way as to preserve and safeguard what were judged essential elements of the older structures.” In contrast, radical Enlightenment thinkers such as Spinoza, Israel tell us, “rejected all compromises with the past,” denying the Judeo-Christian view of God, miracles, afterlife rewards or punishments; and they scorned theologians’ God-ordained hierarchies that sanctioned monarchies.

    During Spinoza’s seventeenth century, much of society—including virtually all ecclesiastic authorities, most civil authorities, and much of the public—was unenlightened; they sought to maintain the status quo of faith in traditional authorities, and they rejected freethinking, religious tolerance, and democracy. Moderately enlightened thinkers saw value in science and tolerance, but they sought to limit the Enlightenment so as not to pose a threat to ecclesiastic and state institutions. The radical Enlightenment was an underground movement that included Spinoza and his friends—and which threatened institutions holding power.

    This contrast between moderate and radical has persisted throughout history. In the 1850s in the United States, with regard to the institution of slavery, if one was moderately enlightened, one was troubled by slavery and opposed its spread to new states but did not call for the abolition of slavery. In contrast, if one was radically enlightened, one fought for the immediate abolition of slavery—this advocated by the “Radical Republicans.”

    Today, we see a moderate-radical contrast with regard to psychiatry.

    Psychiatry’s Moderately Enlightened

    Many psychiatrists, including some key members of establishment psychiatry, are not completely clueless, in denial, or dishonest about psychiatry’s record of failure with respect to (1) worsening treatment outcomes despite increased treatment; (2) the invalidity of its DSM diagnostic system; and (3) the invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness.

    In A Profession Without Reason, an example of a moderately enlightened psychiatrist I offer is Thomas Insel, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director from 2002-2015. Disappointingly, in his recently published book Healing (2022), Insel omits some of his previous acknowledgments of psychiatry’s failures that I had given him credit for, and he offers illogical rationalizations for other failures.

    While Insel remains consistent in his acknowledgement of psychiatry’s record of “abysmal” treatment outcomes, his rationalizations for it in Healing are illogical, unscientific, and thus pre-Enlightenment thinking. As I detail in my review of Healing (“Former NIMH Director’s New Book: Why, With More Treatment, Have Suicides and Mental Distress Increased?“), while Insel continues to acknowledge that treatment outcomes are worsening despite increasing numbers of people in treatment, at the same time, he proclaims that modern psychiatric treatments are very effective.

    The invalidity of psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness has increasingly been acknowledged by the moderately enlightened members of Establishment psychiatry—including Insel. In 2011, establishment psychiatrist Ronald Pies, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated: “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” In Healing, Insel acknowledged the jettisoning of the chemical imbalance theory, stating: “The idea of mental illness as a ‘chemical imbalance’ has now given way to mental illnesses as ‘connectional’ or brain circuit disorders.”

    With respect to this “brain circuit disorder” theory, there is as little evidence for this new biological-defect theory as there was for the now discarded chemical imbalance theory. However, crucial to psychiatry’s usefulness for the ruling class—which values any explanation for emotional suffering that does not include an increasingly alienating and dehumanizing society—is some kind of “individual-defect theory of mental illness.” Thus, moderate institutional preservationists such as Insel know that if they cannot provide such an individual-defect theory—be it chemical-imbalance defects, brain-circuit defects, or some kind of genetic defects—the ruling class will turn to some other profession who will provide a diversion from the socio-economic-political causes, perhaps providing more power to clergy.

    With respect to the invalidity of the DSM, Insel (unlike the APA) evidenced enlightenment when, as NIMH director in 2013, he stated that the DSM’s diagnostic categories lack validity and announced that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” In his 2022 Healing, Insel states: “The DSM had created a common language, but much of that language had not been validated by science.” In plain language, Insel is calling it bullshit.

    As NIMH director, Insel pushed for replacing the DSM with something called RDoC, upsetting the APA who publishes the DSM (which is the major money maker for the APA). Even though Insel has declared the DSM to be invalid and unscientific, the DSM continues to be used by psychiatry for patient diagnosis and treatment.

    Thus, even though high-ranking moderately enlightened psychiatrists know that the DSM is scientifically invalid bullshit, they wish not to offend the APA and derail the institution of psychiatry. And so, the moderately enlightened engage in what philosophers call “reconciliatory theism,” compromising between the truth and acceptable dogma, and they caution us, as psychiatrist Jim Phelps did in a recent post on Mad in America, not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

    In contrast, for Spinoza and contemporary radically enlightened thinkers, if reason and science make clear that any conceptualization is invalid—or what Spinoza called an inadequate idea that results in models and paradigms based on confused and false concepts—radically enlightened thinkers would not compromise their position for the sake of maintaining an institution.

    Perhaps Insel’s most disappointing deterioration is his omission from Healing of his previous assertion as NIMH director about the treatment of individuals whom psychiatrists label with “serious mental illness” (SMI). Absent from Insel’s 2022 Healing is any reference to his 2013 NIMH commentary “Antipsychotics: Taking the Long View” (that has recently been removed from the NIMH website but remains republished on other sites), in which Insel surprised establishment psychiatry by agreeing, in large measure, with psychiatry critics such as journalist Robert Whitaker that standard psychiatric medication treatments for some individuals diagnosed with SMI are counterproductive.

    Insel actually acknowledged in 2013: “It appears that what we currently call ‘schizophrenia’ [which Insel puts within quotation marks] may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories. For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness. For others, discontinuing medication can be disastrous.”

    This assertion was part of why I had considered Insel to be an example of a moderately enlightened psychiatrist. However, sadly, nowhere in his new book (which extensively discusses this so-called SMI population) does Insel repeat it and reference the Harrow-Jobe and Wunderink research—which Whitaker had brought attention to—that Insel had referenced in 2013 to back up his assertion: “For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness.”

    While in A Profession Without Reason I gave Insel credit for being moderately enlightened, with his recent omissions and rationalizations in Healing, I can understand why some might now diagnose him with diminishing enlightenment, a milder form of the unenlightenment that routinely characterizes APA presidents.

    The Radically Enlightened

    While the moderately enlightened acknowledge some of psychiatry’s failures, they—no different than those APA leaders who are completely unenlightened—do everything possible to preserve the institution of psychiatry.

    In contrast, the radically enlightened care only about scientific truths, not institutional preservation.

    The radically enlightened look at the evidence for the “medical model of mental illness,” and seeing no justification for it, they advocate discarding it, unbothered by the consequences for psychiatry as an institution within medicine. Similarly, seeing no evidence that professional credentials are associated with superior outcomes, the radically enlightened proclaim this reality, unbothered by the fact that this costs prestige, power, and money to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

    While the moderately enlightened are critical of psychiatry’s poor performance, the DSM, and psychiatry’s chemical imbalance theory of mental illness, and they may even believe in moderate reforms—for example, seeing value in peer-to-peer support as long as this doesn’t reduce professional authority—they do not challenge the legitimacy of psychiatry as a societal institution, and they do not challenge the current mental illness industry hierarchy with psychiatrists at the top of it.

    In contrast, if science and reason dictate so, the radically enlightened are open to a complete break with past tradition and its institutions. With respect to psychiatry, this includes: eliminating the power that the APA has over civil society through its mental illness declarations; abolishing institutional hierarchies in which individuals with extensive experience in recovery but lacking professional degrees have little or no power; and prioritizing societal variables and social policies that affect emotional well-being.

    For those who think radical means something “too extreme” and “bad,” it is important to keep in mind that as radical a thinker as Spinoza was in his day, there is nothing in what he said that is today considered by progressive thinkers to be too politically radical; and in fact, modern progressive thinkers actually view Spinoza as not progressive enough in some matters. Similarly, in the 1850s, as radical as the Radical Republicans were in their views of African Americans and the abolition of slavery, there is nothing about their views that today would be considered too radical by most Americans; and in fact many progressives would today view the Radical Republicans as not progressive enough.

    This should provoke psychiatry’s critics to consider the possibility that as radical as their views about contemporary psychiatry are considered today, in the future, these views may well be seen as not progressive enough.


    https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/07...y-enlightened/
    Last edited by JamesBond007; 11-30-2022 at 05:36 AM.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Last Online
    12-09-2022 @ 05:51 PM
    Ethnicity
    Uralic
    Country
    Ireland
    Gender
    Posts
    91
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 32
    Given: 17

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    You can discuss anthropology in many places.
    No way and you know it, at least not this type of anthropology because it's very niche. I can't imagine starting a conversation with my friends about even the most mainstream anthro stuff tbh.



    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    However, if you speak about 'Atlanto-Meds' people will rightfully look at you as being a weirdo who wastes their time with pseudo-science and needless to say the people most likely to 'classify' others at this forum tend to stick out as odd people (what a shocker).
    Discussing about Atlanto-Meds can be weird but discussing about one's personal life on here is ultrahypermega weird. The weirdos are the users who come here to make friends, not the ones who discuss about Atlanto-Meds and what not.
    Take Xacal or Grace O'Malley for instance, both users interested in classifying and genetics respectively who come here sporadically to post about their area of interest and then leave, that's all. To me it's obvious they're normal and well-adjusted persons with a balanced life so don't need to come here to take their daily dose of socialization. Imagine wasting your time here when anthropology is not interesting to you, THAT's weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    People naturally socialize and form friendships.
    ... in real life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    That's the nature of people who aren't autists.
    Austists are the ones who do it on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    If you banned everyone who wasn't into old school physical anthropology or those who didn't discuss population genetics (many of those who speak about it don't even understand the subject or aren't interested beyond 'muh people') the forum would be dead.
    You don't know. Anthrogenica is much more strict in this sense and it isn't dead, quite the contrary. That site makes a good job forcing people to stay on topic thus keeping out the attention seeking weirdos who scare normal people people away.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Online
    01-17-2023 @ 08:04 AM
    Location
    --
    Meta-Ethnicity
    --
    Ethnicity
    ---
    Ancestry
    --
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Quebec City
    Y-DNA
    --
    mtDNA
    --
    Taxonomy
    --
    Politics
    --
    Religion
    -+
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    10,111
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,225
    Given: 1,450

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lplius View Post
    No way and you know it, at least not this type of anthropology because it's very niche. I can't imagine starting a conversation with my friends about even the most mainstream anthro stuff tbh.


    Discussing about Atlanto-Meds can be weird but discussing about one's personal life on here is ultrahypermega weird. The weirdos are the users who come here to make friends, not the ones who discuss about Atlanto-Meds and what not.
    Take Xacal or Grace O'Malley for instance, both users interested in classifying and genetics respectively who come here sporadically to post about their area of interest and then leave, that's all. To me it's obvious they're normal and well-adjusted persons with a balanced life so don't need to come here to take their daily dose of socialization. Imagine wasting your time here when anthropology is not interesting to you, THAT's weird.


    ... in real life.


    Austists are the ones who do it on the internet.


    You don't know. Anthrogenica is much more strict in this sense and it isn't dead, quite the contrary. That site makes a good job forcing people to stay on topic thus keeping out the attention seeking weirdos who scare normal people people away.
    Weird people are sometimes geniuses in disguise. Theyre people who are ignored and shunned, but they have the most incredible minds.

    Anthrogenica is for idiots who think they are experts but have no idea what they are talking about that is why they are ban happy :

    The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

  4. #34
    Sup? Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Colonel Frank Grimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Kekistan
    Ethnicity
    Kekistani
    Country
    United States
    Region
    West Virginia
    Religion
    Esoteric Kekism
    Gender
    Posts
    21,560
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 21,868
    Given: 11,638

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lplius View Post
    No way and you know it, at least not this type of anthropology because it's very niche.
    Didn't I explicitly talk about 'this type of anthropology' in detail in my response? The type of anthropology you want to discuss is a pseudo-science that draws weirdos and this is reflected in the type of people here who take it seriously.

    I can't imagine starting a conversation with my friends about even the most mainstream anthro stuff tbh.
    There is a place called 'university' where you can find people who have like-minded interests. They even have something called 'clubs.'

    Hell, you could use meetup.com
    https://www.meetup.com/topics/anthropology/

    If your friends are morons then find new friends. Although from reading some of your posts you're in the correct company. In fact, I'd bet you don't have many friends.

    Discussing about Atlanto-Meds can be weird but discussing about one's personal life on here is ultrahypermega weird. The weirdos are the users who come here to make friends, not the ones who discuss about Atlanto-Meds and what not.

    Take Xacal or Grace O'Malley for instance, both users interested in classifying and genetics respectively who come here sporadically to post about their area of interest and then leave, that's all. To me it's obvious they're normal and well-adjusted persons with a balanced life so don't need to come here to take their daily dose of socialization. Imagine wasting your time here when anthropology is not interesting to you, THAT's weird.
    Other than Richmoindbred, Laly, and a few others I don't know of anyone here who discusses their personal lives except when it's related to a topic.

    For example, we all know some personal things about Grace because she mentioned them while discussing topics. The forum is more than just pseudo-science and population genetics. That's only a part of the forum. History, politics, current events, etc. and when these topics are discussed personal information is sometimes revealed but the conversation isn't about personal matters. That's normal human behavior. You discuss a subject and if you can relate to it (life experience) you put in your two cents (some people more so than others).


    ... in real life.
    In any place where people gather whether in the flesh or the internet. It's the nature of people to socialize.


    Austists are the ones who do it on the internet.
    Autists don't know how to socialize whether it's off the internet or on the internet.


    You don't know. Anthrogenica is much more strict in this sense and it isn't dead, quite the contrary. That site makes a good job forcing people to stay on topic thus keeping out the attention seeking weirdos who scare normal people people away.
    Then why are you here? Go to Anthrogenica.

    There isn't a large pool of people interested in population genetics to allow for two successful forums on the subject and as I pointed out - and I doubt many would disagree with me - the people who take classifying seriously are weirdos. So what would this forum offer if it followed your 'business plan'? A forum competing for posters for population genetics that it would lose because Anthrogenica is already well established and a few weirdos classifying celebrities and group photos.

    This forum has changed a lot over the years but it has never been specifically a taxonomy or population genetics forum. You're an autist and so you're hyper-focused on your own interest to be able to see the larger picture.

    btw, where in Ireland are you from? I don't mean to get too personal but I don't think you're Irish at all. You inadvertently revealed you're not a new poster by knowing the comings and goings of Xacal and Grace. I do know who you are but I'll play this game.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    capocannoniere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Italian-Brazilian
    Country
    Brazil
    Region
    Veneto
    Gender
    Posts
    1,491
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,288
    Given: 1,225

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lplius View Post
    No way and you know it, at least not this type of anthropology because it's very niche. I can't imagine starting a conversation with my friends about even the most mainstream anthro stuff tbh.


    Discussing about Atlanto-Meds can be weird but discussing about one's personal life on here is ultrahypermega weird. The weirdos are the users who come here to make friends, not the ones who discuss about Atlanto-Meds and what not.
    Take Xacal or Grace O'Malley for instance, both users interested in classifying and genetics respectively who come here sporadically to post about their area of interest and then leave, that's all. To me it's obvious they're normal and well-adjusted persons with a balanced life so don't need to come here to take their daily dose of socialization. Imagine wasting your time here when anthropology is not interesting to you, THAT's weird.


    ... in real life.


    Austists are the ones who do it on the internet.


    You don't know. Anthrogenica is much more strict in this sense and it isn't dead, quite the contrary. That site makes a good job forcing people to stay on topic thus keeping out the attention seeking weirdos who scare normal people people away.
    My brother in Christ, just go classifying and stop wasting your time here then. No one will change its mind because your ass thinks this forum should be only for physical anthropology.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Anglo-Celtic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Location
    Twilight Zone
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Briton, Gaelic, Saxon, Varied
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Scottish, Varied
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Gadsden
    Taxonomy
    Atlanto-Mediterranid
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Hero
    Smedley Butler
    Religion
    Christian
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    5,260
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,952
    Given: 4,054

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosierboy View Post
    You hardly see any mentally well members period.
    Let's keep it real. You rarely see any "normal" people in real life, let alone on Apricity. I started to question whether or not I was normal. Then, some crazy lady screamed at me in public for no discernible reason, and I thought "well I ain't all that bad".

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    capocannoniere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Italian-Brazilian
    Country
    Brazil
    Region
    Veneto
    Gender
    Posts
    1,491
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,288
    Given: 1,225

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anglo-Celtic View Post
    Let's keep it real. You rarely see any "normal" people in real life, let alone on Apricity. I started to question whether or not I was normal. Then, some crazy lady screamed at me in public for no discernible reason, and I thought "well I ain't all that bad".
    I feel like "mentally healthy" is not what we should be looking for. It's a broad, hard to define term, or even a platonic ideal that will never exist.

    We are really looking for members who
    - Don't act as if they were on Twitter, 4chan or Reddit, i.e. not using simplistic ad hominem fallacies every time their opinion gets confronted.
    - Don't insult members with no reason, or simply as a form of recreation.
    - Add up to conversations and are able to hold them with their fellows.
    - Aren't negative attention whores (example Richie).

    Obviously the forum is full of members who have irony and sarcasm as the pillar of all opinions, and I have no problem with it at all. It's as fun to see people falling into baits as it is in real life (I already fell prey of some). But when someone does these things with total honesty, they're bad members.
    I ask you: How many mentally healthy people, use your own meaning to that, do you all know? And out of these, how many have to deal with long work hours, short budget, family problems, parenting duties and all other challenges of life? If your average Joe opens the DSM, he'll easily be diagnosed with 10 mental health problems, and in that I agree with Bondo, but I don't really stay by his side on anything because his behavior towards me and others is disrespectful. Mental illness denial is not a weird niche theory. It has supporters on serious intellectual circles, and I can give you the simple example of Michel Foucault as an anti-psychiatrist.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Anglo-Celtic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:33 AM
    Location
    Twilight Zone
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Briton, Gaelic, Saxon, Varied
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, Scottish, Varied
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Gadsden
    Taxonomy
    Atlanto-Mediterranid
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Hero
    Smedley Butler
    Religion
    Christian
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    5,260
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,952
    Given: 4,054

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by capocannoniere View Post
    I feel like "mentally healthy" is not what we should be looking for. It's a broad, hard to define term, or even a platonic ideal that will never exist.

    We are really looking for members who
    - Don't act as if they were on Twitter, 4chan or Reddit, i.e. not using simplistic ad hominem fallacies every time their opinion gets confronted.
    - Don't insult members with no reason, or simply as a form of recreation.
    - Add up to conversations and are able to hold them with their fellows.
    - Aren't negative attention whores (example Richie).

    Obviously the forum is full of members who have irony and sarcasm as the pillar of all opinions, and I have no problem with it at all. It's as fun to see people falling into baits as it is in real life (I already fell prey of some). But when someone does these things with total honesty, they're bad members.
    I ask you: How many mentally healthy people, use your own meaning to that, do you all know? And out of these, how many have to deal with long work hours, short budget, family problems, parenting duties and all other challenges of life? If your average Joe opens the DSM, he'll easily be diagnosed with 10 mental health problems, and in that I agree with Bondo, but I don't really stay by his side on anything because his behavior towards me and others is disrespectful. Mental illness denial is not a weird niche theory. It has supporters on serious intellectual circles, and I can give you the simple example of Michel Foucault as an anti-psychiatrist.
    I look at psychiatry like I look at vaccines. It's not just a matter of being anti-vaxxers and COVID cultists. It's more nuanced, and it's more subtle. People claim that you're Typhoid Mary if you doubt the efficacy, as well as the safety, of the COVID so called vaccine, but they don't realize that you can simultaneously support proven vaccines.

    Psychiatry also is a mixed bag. I'm not one of those who liken it to phrenology. Many people have been helped by medications and treatments while other people have been hurt by both. Of course, zealots will call me Nurse Ratched just for posting that.

  9. #39
    Veteran Judicator Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Aldaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Half Czech, half Basque
    Country
    Czech Republic
    Region
    Basque Country
    Gender
    Posts
    6,005
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,819
    Given: 7,778

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Moby seems normal? Okay.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:33 AM
    Location
    A quiet town in the Hudson Valley
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Latin, Han
    Ethnicity
    Italian, 1/4 Chinese
    Ancestry
    Italian, an 1/8th Swiss German, a bit of Croatian, a bit of English, a bit of Spanish and a 1/4 Han
    Country
    United States
    Y-DNA
    J L25
    mtDNA
    H20a
    Taxonomy
    Alpine Med
    Politics
    Conservative
    Hero
    Giuseppe Garibaldi
    Age
    24
    Gender
    Posts
    3,271
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,004
    Given: 2,252

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anglo-Celtic View Post
    Some of us know it, and some of us don't. I'd like to think that I'm "nice crazy" rather than "mean crazy".
    I know I'm both. Depends on how much I like the person.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Who are the most mentally healthy members of TA?
    By Longbowman in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 12-05-2022, 09:12 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-01-2022, 09:59 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2020, 05:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •