3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Do you even know what a sociopath is?


noun, Psychiatry.
1.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

You causally mock the death & suffering of basically anyone who isn't a LEO on this site daily.

As the progressive treehugger hippie I am..

Why wouldn't I want you to learn some empathy and compassion?

The best way to gain understanding is thru share experience.

Somebody posted about this thread...a psychiatrist supposedly. Here's what he had to say about that thread

"Hi all. I'm a psychiatrist. My main area of clinical work is emergency psychiatry, and my main research interest is functional brain imaging. I'd like to start a discussion about the rapist thread, which I see as a serious danger. In a nutshell:
Rape is a crime which sometimes hinges directly on feelings of power over the victim.
That power often loses its meaning if the victim is unconscious. Many rapists typically need a victim who knows they are being victimized.
This victim is the rapist's audience. This is crucial.
The audience gives the rapist pleasure, euphoric delight from unfettered, witnessed suffering. That euphoria is intense and is possibly driven by the same neurobiology involved in a drug high.
Now, when Reddit invites rapists to retell their stories, they offer an audience of thousands. The possibility that individuals reading these stories will be horrified afresh is very appealing to some rapists. It’s neurobiologically very much like anticipating drug use.
Note: the audience doesn’t actually need to be horrified. In the mind of the rapist, the possibility of horrifying an audience is what is appealing.
Ever wonder what makes addicts keep using? A major factor is the craving that comes from recalling the feelings associated with the pleasurable activity or drug. Cocaine addicts, active or in recovery, who are asked to think about using cocaine have measurable brain changes precisely when they report cravings. We haven't actually measured this in rapists, but we suspect it's highly analogous.
Thus, the Reddit rape forum is very possibly triggering rape cravings in rapists.
It is also teaching rapists how to rape better via shared stories, the same way we teach new participants to improve in any field, by sharing our experiences.
I plan to be available to discuss this, so jump in."



http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xf5c2/reddit_are_you_aware_how_dangerous_the_askarapist/

Actually, you're not too far off the mark


Lol - thanks for linking that. The video is still crazy, but its existence makes sense now.

I'm slightly curious now as to why he'd leave Scientology (it seems like a pretty good fit), but not curious enough to do any real work and find out. Oddly enough, the first link I found when Googling why he left was titled: "Scientology, anti-psychiatry quackery, and Mike Adams: It all becomes clear now".

Yes, it does.

>> ^jmzero:

Holy wow. I mean, I think it's clear that child psychiatric drugs are overprescribed (largely because parents press for "something", I think)... but this video is painfully embarrassing.
I kept looking for some hint that it was tongue-in-cheek or something, but I don't think it is. I think this guy thinks a rap, and a comically bad video is the best way to reach people with his message.
It'd be hilarious if it turned out Scientology was behind this (it seems about their level of video production, social awareness, and about the right level of anti-psychiatry hysteria).


Actually, you're not too far off the mark.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

Holy wow. I mean, I think it's clear that child psychiatric drugs are overprescribed (largely because parents press for "something", I think)... but this video is painfully embarrassing.

I kept looking for some hint that it was tongue-in-cheek or something, but I don't think it is. I think this guy thinks a rap, and a comically bad video is the best way to reach people with his message.

It'd be hilarious if it turned out Scientology was behind this (it seems about their level of video production, social awareness, and about the right level of anti-psychiatry hysteria).

Awwww! *blush*>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^AdrianBlack:
Mwah ha ha haaa
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Even darker than usual.
You okay, Adrian. What to talk or anything?


I wouldn't have thought that you were just plain anything.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

Mwah ha ha haaa
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Even darker than usual.
You okay, Adrian. What to talk or anything?



I wouldn't have thought that you were just plain anything.

Mwah ha ha haaa
>> ^Boise_Lib:

Even darker than usual.
You okay, Adrian. What to talk or anything?

My brother committed suicide one week and a half ago. No warning, except for a few small clues of "usual" depression. He most likely had Asperger's from everything we know. But, he never got diagnosed as he was paranoid of doctors and hadn't seen so much as a dentist in 13 years.

I've tried to commit suicide myself in the past. I failed and was diagnosed with bi-polar. My brother pulled his off without a hitch. He had no such second chance--to rise from your own ashes and learn to understand yourself, and in turn others.

I have the vision of hindsight with me now. I know just how dangerous these murky waters of the mind are. They are utterly ignorant. Unrelenting. These waves deceive your mind's eye and convey only one premonition to come. And just when you think it can't be worse reality chases you through your days and dreams like some harried demon; an elemental made of some compulsion filled fateful last night of twilight's last dance. The lighthouse throws shadows rather than light and all the ports are closed.

THAT is what it means to be lost, truly. It requires great effort to stave it off. It is very much like a pitching sea. You must treat it almost like a monster of the deep by going to your doctor and arming yourself with what you can. Drugs, meditation, life changes, and most importantly knowledge...

The Internet may be a trigger in some small amount of cases, I agree. But, it is at school before we become young adults that we need to know these things and learn where to get help. We need to know how to recognize all types in ourselves and others as it is a common place issue; meanwhile psychiatry still remains semi-taboo topic in the public domain, making it a bigger problem still. It's very hard to help someone set on suicide as they are very much like Ahab in "Moby Dick". Watch your words, but know it is never truly one needle that truly breaks the camel's back.

if you already discount the spirit as being non-existent and have never experienced the mental health system then this video will really not hold anything of interest for you.

i find this young mans approach to dealing with mental illness a very humanistic one and while you may feel the numbers may be fudged to make his point...big deal.are you denying the RAMPANT diagnosis in the industrialized world concerning bi-polar?panic-anxiety? this list is becoming LEGION..everyone seems to be all fucked sideways mentally.
and the answer to all this mental health calamity is?........
medicate baby!!
create a society of utter zombies.

and who doesn't take favorable numbers or statistics to make their argument?
or base a philosophy partially on the words and teachings of another?
ken wilbur practically stole from teilhard de chardin and so what of it...not a big deal.

bi-polar is just failed indoctrination manifesting itself as a polarized polemic of what we have been taught how we are SUPPOSED to be and NOT who we actually are.
there are many ways to deal with this.
some self-medicate,others are medicated and then there are those that choose the path this man chose.

i do not agree with everything this young man put forth but i do agree with the humanistic approach:
know what you want.
to do that you have to know who you are and to do THAT you have to have the courage to look at yourself clearly,openly and honestly (much harder than it sounds).
this is when you realize that maybe...just maybe..you were living your life not according to what YOU wanted but rather what OTHERS wanted for you (mom,dad,grandma,girlfriend..you get the idea).
does this solve everything?
of course not but it is a good place to start and notice not one mention of spirit nor any new age jargon.

now self-medication and prescribed medication to me are just band aids without addressing the real problem and BOTH have long lasting side effects that are not of the positive kind.
i dont need to list those do i?

see what im saying here?
i see you tearing apart somebody elses work but did not see you post any solutions.
i mean look at this one line in your post:
"At the beginning, he posses the question, why can't mainstream psychology and psychiatry heal bi-polar disorder. The answer is because we don't understand exactly what it is, just that it tends to happen."
you wrote that and it didnt give you pause for a second?
they over-diagnose something that they dont know what it really is.
how the fuck can you ever be expected to heal something you dont really know anything about but the REAL question is:why the fuck are you even diagnosing people with something you dont really know anything about?

am i the only one seeing insanity all over that?
thats just fucking crazy.

Ugh, he doesn't understand evolution at all... He keeps saying things like "During a certain part of evolution...", it's pathetic how newage-y non-sense likes to attach scientific sounding terms in attempt to legitimize their ideas.

At the beginning, he posses the question, why can't mainstream psychology and psychiatry heal bi-polar disorder. The answer is because we don't understand exactly what it is, just that it tends to happen.

Plus, I can almost guarantee that the 'statistic' that bi-polar disorder had gone up 4000% percent in 10 years two decades ago is a exercise in both failing to correct for clustering and misrepresenting the data. Read one book on how statistics can be easily manipulated to support your bias and a number like 4000% immediately becomes highly suspect thus making the assumption behind his belief also suspect.

Spiral dynamics is little more than a rehashed "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" which has been found to be useless as a way of measuring people.

My list

1: Pharmaceutical Industry
2: Textile Industry
3. Religion Industry
4. Psychiatry Industry
5. Tobacco Industry
6. Alcohol Industry
7. Private Prison Industry
8. Gangs/Blackmarket drug industry
9. Military Industry/Neocons - by denying revenue to Anti-American forces in South America and The Middle East

Is ScaifeTV's list similar?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Hey butterbean, thought you might enjoy this from those corporatist scalawags at reason.tv:

http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Jim-Gray-Six-Groups-Who-Profit-From-Drug-Prohibition

Isn't "butterbean" just terribly southern sounding?

@WKB

True, but when the Columbine school shooting was perpetrated, conservatives were quick to point the finger at Marilyn Manson's lyrics. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that Fox deserves all of the blame here either.

I do think though, that the people pumping that kind of rhetoric onto the airwaves deserve SOME responsibility for atrocities like this. Allow me to compare the Woodstock of 1970 to the Woodstock of '99 for an example.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1970 Woodstock (billed as "3 days of Peace and Music") resulted in reports like this:

"The New York Times covered the prelude to the festival and the move from Wallkill to Bethel.[13] Barnard Collier, who reported from the event for the Times, asserts that he was pressured by on-duty editors at the paper to write a misleadingly negative article about the event. According to Collier, this led to acrimonious discussions and his threat to refuse to write the article until the paper's executive editor, James Reston, agreed to let him write the article as he saw fit. The eventual article dealt with issues of traffic jams and minor lawbreaking, but went on to emphasize cooperation, generosity, and the good nature of the festival goers.

When the festival was over, Collier wrote another article about the exodus of fans from the festival site and the lack of violence at the event. The chief medical officer for the event and several local residents were quoted as praising the festival goers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1999 version of the event (featuring bands like Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who are all, dare I say, a bit angrier [lyrically speaking] than the likes of Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez) is painted in a much different color:

"Some crowd violence and looting was reported during the Saturday night performance by Limp Bizkit, including a rendition of the song "Break Stuff". Reviewers of the concert criticized Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst as "irresponsible" for encouraging the crowd to destructive behavior.

Violence escalated the next night during the final hours of the concert as Red Hot Chili Peppers performed. A group of peace promoters led by an independent group called Pax had distributed candles to those stopping at their booth during the day, intending them for a candlelight vigil to be held during the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance of the song "Under the Bridge". During the band's set, the crowd began to light the candles, some also using them to start bonfires. The hundreds of empty plastic water bottles that littered the lawn/dance area were used as fuel for the fire.

After the Red Hot Chili Peppers were finished with their main set, the audience was informed about "a bit of a problem." An audio tower caught fire, and the fire department was called in to extinguish it.

Back onstage for an encore, the Chili Peppers' lead singer Anthony Kiedis remarked how amazing the fires looked from the stage, comparing them to a scene in the film Apocalypse Now.[12] The band proceeded to play "Sir Psycho Sexy", followed by their rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire". Kiedis later stated in his autobiography, Scar Tissue that Jimi Hendrix's sister had asked the Chili Peppers to play "Fire" in honor of Jimi and his performance at the original Woodstock festival, and that they were not playing it to encourage the crowd.

Many large bonfires were burning high before the band left the stage for the last time. Participants danced in circles around the fires. Looking for more fuel, some tore off panels of plywood from the supposedly inviolable security perimeter fence. ATMs were tipped over and broken into, trailers full of merchandise and equipment were forced open and burglarized, and abandoned vendor booths were turned over, and set afire.[13]

MTV, which had been providing live coverage, removed its entire crew. MTV host Kurt Loder described the scene in the July 27, 1999 issue of USA Today:

"It was dangerous to be around. The whole scene was scary. There were just waves of hatred bouncing around the place, (...) It was clear we had to get out of there.... It was like a concentration camp. To get in, you get frisked to make sure you're not bringing in any water or food that would prevent you from buying from their outrageously priced booths. You wallow around in garbage and human waste. There was a palpable mood of anger."

After some time, a large force of New York State Troopers, local police, and various other law enforcement arrived. Most had crowd control gear and proceeded to form a riot-line that flushed the crowd to the northwest, away from the stage located at the eastern end of the airfield. Few of the crowd offered strong resistance and they dispersed quickly back toward the campground and out the main entrance."

>>>>>>See also, this poignant response from a person in the crowd: http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/17/woodstock-legacy/ (crowdmember comments @ 2:20)

----------------------------------------

Now now easy there big fella, before you start telling me about how correlation does not imply causation consider this: an article recently published by the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that:

"Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility." Furthermore, "Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse."
See: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/6/993

Maybe not the best example I could have found but I've already spent WAY too much time on this post. The point is, WORDS carry a lot of power. Even if the pundits (right OR left) never came out and said it, the implication of violence was certainly there at times.

I KNOW Fox has lead the charge of fear mongering in the name of ratings but anyone else who subscribed to that level of attack should share some of the blame as well. Again, not saying that they should take all or even a lot of the blame, but they should be responsible for the violent laced rhetoric they spout.

I say STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS and we'll see less violence against PEOPLE and (hopefully) more enthralling arguments where the IDEAS are being attacked (which I'm all for) :-)

p.s. sry for the huge post but i was on a roll

@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.