The problem with women

[El]

not exclusively, no. and I don't assume the world revolves around me and everyone else does or should give a fuck about me, like someone with an inflated sense of their own importance does.

Everyone is selfish, Dunc. Some are just more blatently than others.

QFT.

Indeed, every ACT is selfish - or so I was once convinced.
Now, I'm not positive, but nearly every one certainly is.

depending on how you define selfish, i may agree on that.

Fulfilling a human need, a need of the person carrying out the act.

Then no, I don't agree.  I think people sometimes act on what they want but not what they need.

Carrying out wants tend to be done due to some kind of underlying human needs. So wants would come under my definition.

I think you're defining 'need' differently than I am, you're wrong, or both.

[Christopher McCandless]

not exclusively, no. and I don't assume the world revolves around me and everyone else does or should give a fuck about me, like someone with an inflated sense of their own importance does.

Everyone is selfish, Dunc. Some are just more blatently than others.

QFT.

Indeed, every ACT is selfish - or so I was once convinced.
Now, I'm not positive, but nearly every one certainly is.

depending on how you define selfish, i may agree on that.

Fulfilling a human need, a need of the person carrying out the act.

Then no, I don't agree.  I think people sometimes act on what they want but not what they need.

Carrying out wants tend to be done due to some kind of underlying human needs. So wants would come under my definition.

I think you're defining 'need' differently than I am, you're wrong, or both.

I am using it in a more psychological sense, and basing what I am saying on the scrap of psychology i learned at school. Suppose my definition was rewritten to include wants, would you then agree?

[El]

I am using it in a more psychological sense, and basing what I am saying on the scrap of psychology i learned at school. Suppose my definition was rewritten to include wants, would you then agree?

Maslow might.  Behold his heirarchy of needs:



I still don't.  Based on the scraps of psychology I picked up in four years of majoring in it in college.  Then again, psychology has yet to be unified, so I've not aligned myself much with that touchy-feely humanistic stuff because I care more about results than the warm fuzzies.  To each his own.

[Lucifer]

i thought you said psychology was pop science, or something similar, and that it was a load of waffle?  in the peanut gallery, on the vivi vs pyraxis thread?

and PMS Elle - i maslow.

[Christopher McCandless]

i thought you said psychology was pop science, or something similar, and that it was a load of waffle?  in the peanut gallery, on the vivi vs pyraxis thread?

and PMS Elle - i maslow.

I had to learn a bit for ICT, believe me i hated it.
And it is not a proper science, it comes under social sciences. When they actually prove things to a proper standard then i will reconsider. Some of the sound bites I have heard from psychology professionals just show how unscientific it is.

[El]

i thought you said psychology was pop science, or something similar, and that it was a load of waffle?  in the peanut gallery, on the vivi vs pyraxis thread?

and PMS Elle - i maslow.

Humanism was a nice step on the way to where we are now, but I don't like the pure humanist approach to therapy- or at least not what I know of the pure humanist approach.  You likely know more than I, though I'd be shocked if our little professor Hadron did.  It (humanism) certainly does have its place both in time (as the third force/introducing free will into psychology) and as a component to current practice, but I don't think that nondirective therapy is as helpful as people like to think it is.  To my understanding, it's not as highly empirically backed as cognitive and/or behavioral.

[El]

i thought you said psychology was pop science, or something similar, and that it was a load of waffle?  in the peanut gallery, on the vivi vs pyraxis thread?

and PMS Elle - i maslow.

I had to learn a bit for ICT, believe me i hated it.
And it is not a proper science, it comes under social sciences. When they actually prove things to a proper standard then i will reconsider. Some of the sound bites I have heard from psychology professionals just show how unscientific it is.

Ahhwww.  How cute.  He bases his conclusions on sound bites in the same quote as he criticies scientific standards in the psychology community.

[Christopher McCandless]

i thought you said psychology was pop science, or something similar, and that it was a load of waffle?  in the peanut gallery, on the vivi vs pyraxis thread?

and PMS Elle - i maslow.

I had to learn a bit for ICT, believe me i hated it.
And it is not a proper science, it comes under social sciences. When they actually prove things to a proper standard then i will reconsider. Some of the sound bites I have heard from psychology professionals just show how unscientific it is.

Ahhwww.  How cute.  He bases his conclusions on sound bites in the same quote as he criticies scientific standards in the psychology community.

I havent actually heard any sensible sound bite from them, when I do i might reconsider. As for the sound bites, these were all things that were supposedly scientifically proven. When you can come back to me that a psycholgist actualy knows rather than speculates on relating to the human mind let me know.

[Lucifer]

Ahhwww.  How cute.  He bases his conclusions on sound bites in the same quote as he criticies scientific standards in the psychology community.

yes, and your point is..?



and hadron, if you're basing knowledge on soundbites, how on earth do you have any indepth knowledge about anything?

[Christopher McCandless]

Ahhwww.  How cute.  He bases his conclusions on sound bites in the same quote as he criticies scientific standards in the psychology community.

yes, and your point is..?



and hadron, if you're basing knowledge on soundbites, how on earth do you have any indepth knowledge about anything?

I did some reading, after hearing said soundbites. In fact lots of it, including reading most of the A-level psychology textbook, and digging on the internet. The only thing they seem to show is a few correlations. Same as any other social science.

[Calandale]

Does the pyramid shape represent anything?
Or is it just 'pretty'?

[Christopher McCandless]

Does the pyramid shape represent anything?
Or is it just 'pretty'?

It represents spiritualist flow... *sniggers*

[El]

I did some reading, after hearing said soundbites. In fact lots of it, including reading most of the A-level psychology textbook, and digging on the internet. The only thing they seem to show is a few correlations. Same as any other social science.

You're being vague, dear, which makes sense, as you're also misinformed.  I'd need to know the soundbited, the textbook, and the stuff you found on the internet to be certain that you're full of shit to set my level of certainty at α=.001, but I'm comfortable right now with a certainty of α=.05, which is standard. 

Does the pyramid shape represent anything?
Or is it just 'pretty'?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[Christopher McCandless]

I did some reading, after hearing said soundbites. In fact lots of it, including reading most of the A-level psychology textbook, and digging on the internet. The only thing they seem to show is a few correlations. Same as any other social science.

You're being vague, dear, which makes sense, as you're also misinformed.  I'd need to know the soundbited, the textbook, and the stuff you found on the internet to be certain that you're full of shit to set my level of certainty at α=.001, but I'm comfortable right now with a certainty of α=.05, which is standard. 

This is a good one I quite like: "Calling children stupid means they are more likely to grow to be stupid" I am told research backs this up, by the consultant who made this one. Can you spot the blatent flaw in that one?
As for using statistics, i prefer the mechanics and the pure. But then i am fussy.

[Calandale]

Seems goofy. Safety of PROPERTY seen
as more basic than some of the stuff above it?