No worries, you've got lots of good stuff in there!

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Thanks, mate! And thanks for the trip through my pqueue, as well!

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

Thanks, mate! And thanks for the trip through my pqueue, as well!

In reply to this comment by Deano:
*quality

If you've never heard of Kenneth Williams can I recommend you look for some of the old "Just a Minute" radio shows? It's a British panel comedy game where contestants have to speak for 1 minute on a topic without repetition, hesitation, or deviation. Kenneth was a regular guest for many years, and was fucking hilarious. Clement Freud (grandson of the grand-douchebag of psychoanalysis himself) was also brilliant. Really fun stuff.

The village idiot? Freud after a sex change? Chlamydia in a suit?

@mgittle

Agree with you partly. However, I think focusing on religion just in terms of neuroscience is far too narrow a view. Religion brings many, many other benefits in socio-cultural and psychological terms (see here and here for two examples). Far more, in my opinion, than the dangers. But that is not an excuse to overlook the dangers either, and it certainly isn't justification of evils committed in the name of religion.

@chtierna

It really depends on what you call "evidence." Harris clearly sets the bar very high--he will only include as evidence anything that can empirically be tested.

But I think most believers do in fact look at the evidence in their own lives--purely subjective evidence. Has this belief system been useful to them? Has it helped them and the people they care about be happy? Can they see positive benefits in their lives? They may not even believe any of the mystical stuff, but if they answer yes to these questions they have very little motivation to change. Honestly, I think for most human beings, the subjective evidence is far more compelling than the empirical when determining our belief systems.

@BicycleRepairMan

But he clearly is telling us what to believe in this video. You are too. Both of you are telling us to believe that those who are religious are delusional. Delusion is a pathological problem caused by illness. Neither the field of psychology nor psychiatry consider religious beliefs to be delusional (Freud did, but not based on any empirical research--it was his personal view). There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that religious beliefs are delusional in the medically defined sense. They may be "mistaken beliefs" but that is not the same thing.

This may seem off-topic a bit, but let me explain why I hate these kind of videos. "Atheism" means not believing in a god. That's it. Atheists (after the term "fundamentalist atheists" started floating around) have gone to great lengths to protest that atheism is not a belief system (and hence it is impossible for an atheist to be "fundamentalist").

And yet I see more and more videos like this one which in which atheism is clearly being portrayed as a belief system. It is being associated with a positivistic worldview in which only that which can be measured is real or meaningful. Atheists are presented as more rational and logical than other people. And anyone who is not an atheist is demonized as the "other"--for instance, in your own very words as "delusional" --and described in terms of what they are not (i.e. rational, intelligent, etc.) rather than in terms of what they are (i.e. human beings with complex motives and reasons for believing). In other words, atheism is presented as being downright hostile to religion--though oddly enough "religion" is often narrowly defined as Fundamentalist Christianity and Radical Islam.

I'm an agnostic atheist. That means I don't believe in any particular deity though I don't deny the possibility he/she/it/them may exist. I make no claims about my rationality or that of others. I make no claims about the nature of human knowledge. When I say I'm an atheist I mean I don't believe in a god or gods. That's all atheism should mean. Being an atheist does not make one any better than any other human being on the planet. The condescension that I see in most of these videos is, frankly, disgusting. The fact remains that neither atheists nor believers have any concrete evidence that their particular side is correct. You don't agree with the other side? Fine. But if you want to be treated with respect (and judging by these videos, atheists so desperately do) you need to act in a way that is worthy of respect. That is what will get people listening seriously to what you have to say. Not chastising them as if they were a child.

This video just happened to have the Freud Finger Puppet from the SiftShop sitting beneath it during my viewing... Which made it all the better, given the resemblance.

Wow. I was going to say that we need a psychology channel, but I don't think Freud even would have anything on this. If he did, I imagine his lecture would merely be a ploy for Cthulhu and The Old Ones to jump out after the start.

An Oral fixation is a fixation in the oral stage of development manifested by an obsession with stimulating the mouth (oral) first described by Sigmund Freud, who thought infants are naturally and adaptively in an oral stage, but if weaned too early or too late, may fail to resolve the conflicts of this stage and develop a maladaptive oral fixation. In later life, these people may constantly "hunger" for activities involving the mouth.

A child who is not fed enough (neglected) or is fed too much (over-protected) may become orally fixated as an adult. It is believed that fixation in the oral stage may have one of two effects. If the child was underfed or neglected, he/she may become orally dependent and obsessed with achieving the oral stimulation of which he was deprived, learning to manipulate others to fulfill his needs rather than maturing to independence. The overly indulged child may resist growing up and try to return to that state of dependency through crying, acting helpless, demanding satisfaction, and being "needy."

Oral fixations are considered to contribute to over-eating, being overly talkative, smoking addictions, overindulging in sugar, chewing on straws and toothpicks, and even alcoholism (known as "oral dependent" qualities). Other symptoms include a sarcastic or "biting" personality (known as "oral sadistic" qualities). Some suggest a link between oral fixation with oral sex where individuals fulfill their oral gratifications through phallic and ejaculant sensations. Another indicator is constant nail biting, putting fingers in the mouth as well as biting any future sexual partners they may have.

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.

now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.

i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.

let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.

while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).

i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.

please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

@berticus I believe he's referring to Eastern philosophies (in particular Buddhism) that have been saying this for thousands of years.

This talk was awesome. She's got it spot-on I think--if we could raise a whole generation of kids that believed from the start that it's okay to be vulnerable (even with no guarantees that the world will be kind in return), that we should be grateful for every moment (even the terrifying ones), and that all of us are "good enough" to be loved just by virtue of being human beings, we'd see a peaceful revolution take place around the world and real change, rather than superficial change, take place in our social and political structures.

>> ^berticus:

what on earth are you talking about?
1) psychological science is relatively new, 19th C onward.
2) the 'third wave' were interested in humanistic topics just like this.
3) there are vast literatures on all kinds of topics of emotion, love, attachment, belonging...
i don't know why you think psychology is some kinda bad guy, it's just bizarre. and aren't you the same person who is into freud / jung? it just boggles my mind.
i mean no disrespect, it is just thoroughly confusing.

what on earth are you talking about?

1) psychological science is relatively new, 19th C onward.
2) the 'third wave' were interested in humanistic topics just like this.
3) there are vast literatures on all kinds of topics of emotion, love, attachment, belonging...

i don't know why you think psychology is some kinda bad guy, it's just bizarre. and aren't you the same person who is into freud / jung? it just boggles my mind.

i mean no disrespect, it is just thoroughly confusing.

>> ^enoch:

this is a great talk but i find it interesting how western psychology is just now beginning to address this in a substantive way because this is NOT a new concept or philosophy.
WTG psychologists!!! 3000 yrs later and just NOW you are starting to get it!
woohoo!

...Not done watching yet, but something struck me:

Why does Sweeny apologize, multiple times, for his angry outburst during his previous examination of Scientology? I can see him admitting that his reaction did no good, and was in fact probably exactly what they were trying to provoke him to do, as well as possibly saying that it wasn't particularly professional.

However, one cannot interview someone in a professional manner if they are constantly being interrupted, called names, etc. About the only way I imagine that he could have handled that situation better would have been to break into full-on farce and talk over their interruptions with non sequiturs.

$cientologist: This is an e-meter. It measures the presence of ...
Sweeny: I had a telephone for breakfast today. It was ringlicious.

$cientologist: Psychology is a lie! They just want to sell ...
Sweeny: Freud was a hamster that smelled of elderberries!

One good turn of farce deserves another.

*edit:
Finally finished, my connection was really slow to buffer that all. Two more thoughts:
1) A lot of their tactics seem like Fred Phelps' loonies: Provoke, act outraged at the reaction you are fishing for, and attempt to discredit or apply leverage to your opponents via their reactions.
2) The saddest part of the video: there are apparently quite a few people who get their heads on straight enough to break with the official branch of Scientology, yet still buy into the "core beliefs" enough to follow a "reformation".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Outside nudist colonies- body modesty is a prevalent trait for most adolescents - you can blame corrupting society - but it exists.>> ^Bidouleroux:

Being conscious of what? Only peer pressure from the non-naked outside world (which equates nudity with sex) makes teenagers insecure around naked people. Children of nudists generally don't grow up to be "conscious" of their and others' nakedness. When you've seen and have been seen by thousands of naked bodies, nakedness becomes a non-issue.
Also, Freud is pants.>> ^dag:
Why is everybody sexualizing this? Nudity around your kids is not a harmful thing. What most of the books say is when kids start being body conscious, that's when mom and dad need to put clothes on around the house. And I think I liked your first title better, BMG.

Being conscious of what? Only peer pressure from the non-naked outside world (which equates nudity with sex) makes teenagers insecure around naked people. Children of nudists generally don't grow up to be "conscious" of their and others' nakedness. When you've seen and have been seen by thousands of naked bodies, nakedness becomes a non-issue.

Also, Freud is pants.>> ^dag:

Why is everybody sexualizing this? Nudity around your kids is not a harmful thing. What most of the books say is when kids start being body conscious, that's when mom and dad need to put clothes on around the house. And I think I liked your first title better, BMG.