Misapplication of symptoms, diagnosis, and remedies is all justified under an inherently female system built to enslave, numb, and effeminize. It's entirely built upon the freakish notion that everyone has a problem that urgently requires help from a professional and that if these problems were solved the world wouldn't have any problems. Just think of, What If Hitler Just Went To A Therapist? What Was His Problem? ridiculousness. This is why irate females will immediately try and associate what they don't like about you to some made-up neurosis and diagnose you.
Psychiatry should have been putting nutjobs in nuthouses, electrocuting homosexuals, and distributing stimulants. Psychiatry IS a system through which resentful, mentally ill women release their anger through poisoning people and peddling self-destructive nonsense.
(02-08-2023, 10:02 PM)godvvins Wrote: Misapplication of symptoms, diagnosis, and remedies is all justified under an inherently female system built to enslave, numb, and effeminize. It's entirely built upon the freakish notion that everyone has a problem that urgently requires help from a professional and that if these problems were solved the world wouldn't have any problems. Just think of, What If Hitler Just Went To A Therapist? What Was His Problem? ridiculousness. This is why irate females will immediately try and associate what they don't like about you to some made-up neurosis and diagnose you.
If you want to get more particular about women (and stupid people in general) their understanding of the mind is totemic, and so is their understanding of psychology. Women don't really understand what any particular psych term is meant to be, they just understand that they hold power. Women, especially stupid online oversocialised women, have this general approach of considering a thing settled once it has a name. In the future this issue will just be resolved by invocation of the name. Where things get really totemic, and the best examples, are when they smash words together. "Slutshaming" was the first time I noticed this years ago and it really made me uncomfortable, where the two words are no longer even conjuncted, it's this one new concept which is taken as self sufficient and complete. A full stop on all adjacent issues. You aren't meant to think about what a slut is, what shaming is, or why either is relevant or what shaming a slut is supposed to mean in this context. "Slutshaming" is agreed upon as bad and if you're suspected of it you are to stop what you are doing and grovel.
This is what all of psych is to women. Words of power. The most recent example I'm noticing is their tendency to append "bro" to anything they want to declare offlimits. "STEMbro", "techbro", "rationalitybro", etc.
Phrases of power are also a thing, and general thoughts that are just meant to terminate thought and make you accept defeat because of how accepted they are. The example that brought this to my mind was someone recently telling me my jewish friends and admiration of certain mean nothing in the face of the suggestion that I "hate Jews". I mean I arguably do of course, but "hate jews" is such a loose and stupid totemic view of the subject. And more interesting to me is the argument raised, that this approach is akin to "and I have black friends". It's been on my mind how weird it is that "I have black friends by the way" became accepted as such an utterly stupid and bad non-argument that it's a meme and faux pas. How is this? It seems pretty damn bulletproof to me. I think it's an earlier and very accepted example of a mental totem achieving victory. You don't say that because you don't.
Sorry back to what you actually wrote now and the thread's subject.
Quote:Psychiatry should have been putting nutjobs in nuthouses, electrocuting homosexuals, and distributing stimulants. Psychiatry IS a system through which resentful, mentally ill women release their anger through poisoning people and peddling self-destructive nonsense.
Now you seem to be thinking fetishistically. These are obviously just things you want. Why should you go the trouble of having them sanctified by a process you don't respect? We're speaking hypothetically, if you hypothetically have the power to completely change the course of practiced psychology you have the power to just cut it out entirely. Do you see any innate value in psychiatry/psychology for what they are or do you just like the idea of power wielded against the inner lives of people you consider enemies?
For me, I think psychology, just as the study of the inner human life, can do a lot of good. It's most of what I do on this forum. Psychology as an organised force tends towards retardation. I see true psychology as a literary and magical tradition. It's about interpreting and leading. Not science.
And as for psych as it is, I think its primary problem is that it can't and won't acknowledge that most people it simply cannot help with any kind of reliability. Its prestige rides on this totemic appreciation of the field as the ones who know and fix, no matter how obviously far their observable results are from this ideal. A psychologist could help you. So could joining scientology, or peating, or drinking turpentine to kill the homosexual jewish worms in your gizzards. These people are basically witch doctors adored by women and morons.
(02-10-2023, 12:40 AM)anthony Wrote: Now you seem to be thinking fetishistically. These are obviously just things you want. Why should you go the trouble of having them sanctified by a process you don't respect? We're speaking hypothetically, if you hypothetically have the power to completely change the course of practiced psychology you have the power to just cut it out entirely. Do you see any innate value in psychiatry/psychology for what they are or do you just like the idea of power wielded against the inner lives of people you consider enemies?
I completely agree with psychology kept as a study of inner life rather than a scientific framework. I think that when something is put within the bounds of scientific practice it usually develops the symptoms you talk about. My mode of thinking was: assuming the authority of these frameworks that guide power cannot easily be dispelled, why not use them for our benefit? This wouldn't be necessary in a perfect hypothetical, but the allure of the expertise of Dr. So-And-So M.D is a useful tool for guiding women and morons whichever way you want.
This is sort of diverging from the original topic, but my ideal hypothetical would be one in which nonsense credentialism and title-chasing simply vanishes from the world. But I think the mentality of people being moved to action only because Dr. Professor Something Esquire says so will always persist in some form or another. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic or short-sighted. I just don't see a nuanced understanding of psychology being promulgated in any way.
(02-10-2023, 04:26 PM)godvvins Wrote: I completely agree with psychology kept as a study of inner life rather than a scientific framework. I think that when something is put within the bounds of scientific practice it usually develops the symptoms you talk about. My mode of thinking was: assuming the authority of these frameworks that guide power cannot easily be dispelled, why not use them for our benefit? This wouldn't be necessary in a perfect hypothetical, but the allure of the expertise of Dr. So-And-So M.D is a useful tool for guiding women and morons whichever way you want.
This is sort of diverging from the original topic, but my ideal hypothetical would be one in which nonsense credentialism and title-chasing simply vanishes from the world. But I think the mentality of people being moved to action only because Dr. Professor Something Esquire says so will always persist in some form or another. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic or short-sighted. I just don't see a nuanced understanding of psychology being promulgated in any way.
I believe that the problems are built into the new "academic" process. The pathways for these qualifications are spiritual meat-grinders which filter anything with more of a soul than a woman or off-white bugman. And I think that's actually an essential part of the appeal for women. That it's vague, mystical (in the bad way, gibberish), basically it doesn't sound like rationalbro thought. And it also doesn't have any sharp or pointy edges that come with thinking with a personality. The academic format does to psychology, or thinking about human innfer life, what it does to everything. It creates this tedious, characterless gruel that superficially resembles thought and attacks anything else.
I believe that psychology only has value in the abstract sense of "we should not concede study of human inner life to retarded insane civilisation-hating jews and retarded women." There's nothing to be scared of here because we (or at least I) am so much better than them at it. But the tools, history, and infrastructure they've built up to pursue this? Garbage. Debris. It's actually in the way of progress (the point, as I said above). If you want to study humanity deprogram yourself of high school english memes then read some shakespeare, or play some Metal Gear.
And yes this actual understanding will only ever be for a few. That's how people are. Most people start breaking down if exposed to more ideas than a dark age medieval peasant would encounter in their lifetime. Replacing our current authorities with less deranged people would fix the world. Might sound totally fantastical, but think about it this way. I've already done it for however many people here.
(02-10-2023, 04:26 PM)godvvin Wrote: This is sort of diverging from the original topic, but my ideal hypothetical would be one in which nonsense credentialism and title-chasing simply vanishes from the world. But I think the mentality of people being moved to action only because Dr. Professor Something Esquire says so will always persist in some form or another. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic or short-sighted. I just don't see a nuanced understanding of psychology being promulgated in any way.
At the risk of going off on a very distant tangent, does anyone know or have a theory as to why normies are so heavily dependent on credentials and outward signalling of competence/knowledgeability? Is it because they lack the capacity to discern between people who claim to have said competence and those who actually do? Does it have something to do with that and maybe evopsych, where they had to make a decision quickly and thus would pick up quickly on mere signals of competence?
I am reminded of an argument on Twitter recently, between broad "coalitions" of irony leftists and right-wingers, prompted by someone claiming he was smarter than all of his teachers beyond fourth grade. Obviously, there is the aspect that it was a white student saying this that set them off (a groid saying "Mane, mah teachers was dumb as hell, they wasn't even educated about black history and they ain't teach us about Emmett Till" would elicit a polar opposite reaction from said irony leftists, but I digress). But this seemed to have been taken as a personal slight by so many of these people. Failed dunks left and right, overweight leftists with 5 disabilities in their bios writing paragraph QRTs. This isn't even really a particularly egregious thing to say, given that education majors are notoriously and demonstrably incompetent, and American education is entirely insufficient for gifted children (and I mean actually gifted, not normie "smart kid" wannabes who base 60% of their self-esteem on being called Gifted™ in 3rd grade and then taking Honours Algebra 1 instead of Algebra 1 in 9th grade).
This is somewhat of a bad example, since the average person is actually considerably dumber than even irony leftists on Twitter (the average American has sixth-grade math, science, and reading levels), but it is evidently a wide-ranging phenomenon. It seems like the greatest resistance to the peabrained idea that a piece of paper makes you a fucking genius or authoritative source on literally anything comes from 90 IQ MIGAtards who claim that, like, doctors are wrong about vaccines (though their evidence to the contrary is... other credential-holders doctors saying so). Anyway, how many people do you think bought Dr. Oz's obvious snake oil bullshit just because he was on TV promoting it? The biggest takeaway is that slavepeople aren't remotely capable of deciding for themselves to whom they should listen. Honestly, I am motivated to attain credentials partly by how many people default to judging a person based on them. It's one thing to be displeased by it, but as you said, I think it's the fundamental nature of people and maybe society. I don't see that ever changing, so like other things, it's better to adapt to it and steer those about whom you care in the right direction.
(02-10-2023, 07:23 PM)Guest Wrote: At the risk of going off on a very distant tangent, does anyone know or have a theory as to why normies are so heavily dependent on credentials and outward signalling of competence/knowledgeability? Is it because they lack the capacity to discern between people who claim to have said competence and those who actually do? Does it have something to do with that and maybe evopsych, where they had to make a decision quickly and thus would pick up quickly on mere signals of competence?
I am reminded of an argument on Twitter recently, between broad "coalitions" of irony leftists and right-wingers, prompted by someone claiming he was smarter than all of his teachers beyond fourth grade. Obviously, there is the aspect that it was a white student saying this that set them off (a groid saying "Mane, mah teachers was dumb as hell, they wasn't even educated about black history and they ain't teach us about Emmett Till" would elicit a polar opposite reaction from said irony leftists, but I digress). But this seemed to have been taken as a personal slight by so many of these people. Failed dunks left and right, overweight leftists with 5 disabilities in their bios writing paragraph QRTs. This isn't even really a particularly egregious thing to say, given that education majors are notoriously and demonstrably incompetent, and American education is entirely insufficient for gifted children (and I mean actually gifted, not normie "smart kid" wannabes who base 60% of their self-esteem on being called Gifted™ in 3rd grade and then taking Honours Algebra 1 instead of Algebra 1 in 9th grade).
This is somewhat of a bad example, since the average person is actually considerably dumber than even irony leftists on Twitter (the average American has sixth-grade math, science, and reading levels), but it is evidently a wide-ranging phenomenon. It seems like the greatest resistance to the peabrained idea that a piece of paper makes you a fucking genius or authoritative source on literally anything comes from 90 IQ MIGAtards who claim that, like, doctors are wrong about vaccines (though their evidence to the contrary is... other credential-holders doctors saying so). Anyway, how many people do you think bought Dr. Oz's obvious snake oil bullshit just because he was on TV promoting it? The biggest takeaway is that slavepeople aren't remotely capable of deciding for themselves to whom they should listen. Honestly, I am motivated to attain credentials partly by how many people default to judging a person based on them. It's one thing to be displeased by it, but as you said, I think it's the fundamental nature of people and maybe society. I don't see that ever changing, so like other things, it's better to adapt to it and steer those about whom you care in the right direction.
It's totemic thinking. If you can't see patterns and sense in front of yourself you impose them. That's just what everyone does. With normalfreaks it's kind of like hijacked pattern recognition. If you need to trust someone with matters of dire personal importance, you go for the person called "doctor". Once this stuff becomes fixed you can't really do anything about it without upsetting them.
>credentials don't matter
>the average American has a sixth grade level of knowledge (this is a credential t. frog)
![[Image: image.png]](https://i.ibb.co/W33zHyw/image.png)
Really, I don't think that the issue is people relying on credentials. People typically should rely on those that hold credentials for their expertise. The root of the problem is modern academia as the business of career creation. Anyone and everyone can become an "expert" now. The whole concept of a community college is absolutely twisted. Academics is dead, the university is dead. Is the average person's instinct wrong, or is this an issue of how experts are created?
@ godvvins The issue is that no one aside from dysfunctional women and outlier 20th century shtetlkikels have ever felt their mind "solved" by psychotherapy. The credentialism/education racket thing is a separate can of worms.
|
