2·
2 months agoVLC
Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.
- 0 Posts
- 147 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: January 7th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
It’s based on Hamlet. So Shakespeare, not the bible.
302·3 months agoIs the internet scarier?
Or is it just millennials and “internet natives” having kids and more of them knowing better what the internet actually is.
I tell people to imagine a public place with everyone in it, the majority wearing masks or costumes. With constantly recording surveillance. Do you take off your mask.
Sure the mask is not perfect protection, and there are areas off to the side where people seem to not be wearing masks. But go ahead and choose a way to keep your kids safe.
If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven’t studied properly I’d it’s not buried under copious other citation.
Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.
People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won’t and that’s the problem.
It’s amazing you’re concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals “biasing” articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Because it doesn’t matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you’ve read.
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can’t stop you but you’ll be wrong.
“Victorian engineering”, “Victorian Science” and “Victorian medicine” will definitely have different connotations.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.
Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.
From the article you posted.
“For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed”
“In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy”
So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms
The fact is Freud is right except in the majority of what he’s said and done.
Mental health is health.
If you’re practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you’re in the same bracket as quacks.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
That’s why it’s important to discredit old ideas, whoever they’re from.
Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.
Freud shouldn’t be studied outside of a history class these days.
Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.
In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.
Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don’t recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.
Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they’re peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
16·3 months agoFl. Oz are actually nothing to do with weight. They are volume.
For each fluid oz. use 30 ml
It’s only approximate but the official measurements for nutrition actually do it in the US so it’s not a real unit anyway anymore.
You don’t have to throw out anything. Everything that’s right has now been through peer reviewed studies authored by other people.
The problem is most of what Freud said is wrong, you can be a psychoanalyst without a medical degree because it isn’t a medical field.
Modern psychiatry is a separate subject and you’re happy to defend psychoanalysis and conflate it with psychiatry.
Which would be no different to conflating nutritionists and dietitians, chiropractors and physiotherapists, or, to quote Dara O’Brien, dentists and toothologists.
Freud was wrong about a lot of stuff.
You disagree. Very strongly.
Why?
Honestly, Zoom just has a hilariously high frequency of vulnerabilities being discovered.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I said you were wrong and you were wrong. So I guess this is where we find out whether you care about objectivity.
Are you going to shift your opinion any iota’s to match the facts?
“You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.”
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message. But feel free to take a second stab at it.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.
So let’s go through it.
Freud tried to be a doctor, tried to be objective about the mind which became psychiatry.
So the father of psychiatry.
But he actually practiced psychoanalysis which is unscientific and now discredited.
It’s not a strong opinion anymore than “please use the scientific method”.
"Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
Descartes was a philosopher. Freud tried to be a doctor.
Freud has been discredited as a bad philosopher and a bad psychiatrist.
The idea that he was trying the “study of the subjective” is false.
The reason he is known as the father of psychiatry is he tried to make objective observations about consciousness.
He largely got it wrong, so his ideas are now hokum. But he gets some credit for trying.
Much like Hippocrates. We disregard the stuff he got wrong. His ideas are discredited. We happily ignore the stuff he didn’t prove scientifically.
Then we get on with medicine with actual evidence.
Saying Freud only studied the subjective would be discrediting him even more than I’m doing.
What do you think Freud was studying?
Don’t treat subjective pseudoscience as medicine.
Calling Freud’s work subjective is essentially discrediting it. That’s what you’re doing.
So to disappoint. This is a shopped title.
But the real thing isn’t much different.
Anyway, here’s the title track.
So to disappoint. This is a shopped title.
But the real thing isn’t much different.
Anyway, here’s the title track.
When fusion or fission occurs you get new atoms.
It’s Hydrogen that’s existed since the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to make atoms. Seconds after the big bang.
That’s most hydrogen.
It’s never been fused into heavier elements just still sticking around and caught in the planetary part of the solar system rather than the sun itself. Or any previous suns.
There’s some helium like that but most helium was formed inside suns later, and heavier elements all formed later in suns or supernovas.