Reply With Quote
That'd be most sexuals.
Because it's a stupid question that usually doesn't have an answer. Mostly no one can answer, and those very few that can are supremely ed up (IMO). I assume you are supremely ed up.
ing duh. That's what I've been saying.
Untrue.I've only ever pointed out that we are not in control; I've not made a single attempt to claim knowledge of what is in control.
I can't help you're an idiot. I gladly destroy these misrepresentations of facts you (and others) call arguments.Firstly, you for the condescension.
Pick up a ing psychology text and stop talking out of your ass.
Your opinion is rooted in bull , not facts. Touchy, feely bull . And even when you have addressed the issues - like talking about me bringing up nature and nuture - you've done it in a way that reveals you have no ing clue about what you're discussing.Secondly, you're still missing it. Completely.
Time to face the music.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-11-2010 at 08:54 PM.
That'd be most sexuals.
Each person is "brought up" differently, and their behavior reinforced in different ways. No two people are the same, agreed? So what kind of question is that?
Zosa, do you have any friends? I can't imagine the type of person that would want to spend time with you.
Great one Manny!!
Yo manny: how does one ac ulate 35000 posts on a message board then talk about someone else being a loser while holding a straight face?
lol pretending that psychology is an exact science...
might aswell tell em to pick up the bible...
Who did that? And where?
You're asking people to pick up a psychology book, like that's some kind of authority on the subject, where it's as factless as anything in this thread.
It's about as "factless" as behaviorists aren't empirical. Everything I've said can be backed up by research, easily done research.
And it is an authority on the subject. Probably the authority on this subject.
Still waiting for where I pretended psychology is an exact science. I've used "theory" generously.
Have you ever read a psych textbook? You might find it stunning how much biological and sociological information they use as the basis for their theories - you know, proven facts.
But not factually proven. Which is the other side of the scientific method that qualifies you as an exact science. This is something that psychologists get severely butthurt about, nonetheless, it's entirely accurate.
It's about as "factless" as behaviorists aren't empirical. Everything I've said can be backed up by research, easily done research.
As much as an authority as anybody claiming to know how the mind of anybody works. Please, do start explaining how the human mind operates. You'll be the first one.
Snore
Psychology's definition is "study of human behavior and mental processes." IE, how the mind works.As much as an authority as anybody claiming to know how the mind of anybody works. Please, do start explaining how the human mind operates. You'll be the first one.
Wilhelm Wundt has me beat by, oh, 130 years?
You qualify it as something higher than the opinion of somebody else.
I have to infer from that, that you think there's some actual factual information to be found there.
Theories are not facts. A scientist knows as much...
And if you knew anything about psychology, you would know very well there are very different, contradictory theories about this very subject.
Let me add, 'through observation'... still completely based on unverifiable theories, which makes my opinion and yours on the subject as good as anybody.
130 years and we still don't know about the mind... looks like a heavily evolved science...
Psychologists have much research to fall back on.
DuckingFumbass has her own stupid inhibitions.
There is. A load of it.I have to infer from that, that you think there's some actual factual information to be found there.
Theories are based around facts. A scientist knows as much.Theories are not facts. A scientist knows as much...
Like the knowledge from acing psychology and abnormal pyschology courses?And if you knew anything about psychology,
In the minority. The vast majority agree with my sentiments; and since you're so good at inferring, you should have known that I left the door open for just those.you would know very well there are very different, contradictory theories about this very subject.
I qualified my words. I didn't say that there are no conflicts in psychology. I didn't imply it. Like any other field, even fields concerning "exact sciences," there are conflicts.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-11-2010 at 09:53 PM.
That's completely illogical.
This statement is false.130 years and we still don't know about the mind
Research that has shown different outcomes over the course of 130 years. Simply because nobody really knows how the mind works.
Still a theory, ie: unverifiable, thus factually as good as anybody else's theory.
Good for you. I personally couldn't put up with the psychology bull for the duration and moved on to philosophy. Doesn't mean I didn't get my background.
The minority is as good as anything else when you can't verify what you're saying. That statistically speaking 90% of people fit a criteria only proves that your theory is not good enough. If we built buildings using the same way psychology has faith in the soundness of it's science, we would have a lot of creaky buildings.
What is? This is the same conversation of prove me there's a god and disprove there is a god. Which philosophically speaking, really makes psychology a lot like religion.
Through psychology? Absolutely true statement.
52 % cons utes scientific proof,
Stay in the Nba Boards.
Not in the case of sexuality. In fact, sexuality is one of the very few aspects of psychology that can be "measured." How? Most people can be sure, or mostly sure, of their sexuality, without much "mental" red tape.
It is verified by the facts. Just because more than one theory fits the facts doesn't mean a theory isn't verified.Still a theory, ie: unverifiable, thus factually as good as anybody else's theory.
That's like saying evolution isn't a fact even though every day it's proven time and time again. (Yes, I just said that, and meant it.)
That's interesting (really). How do you find philosophy not full of the same BS? I haven't taken a philosophy course but I'd think it'd have much more immeasurable, non-empirical "proof."Good for you. I personally couldn't put up with the psychology bull for the duration and moved on to philosophy. Doesn't mean I didn't get my background.
It's an interesting point, and one I'm willing to concede. It still doesn't mean that the facts don't fit their theories, or that the theories themselves are unusable. Second, 99.9% of educated people base their arguments on some aspect of psychology (nature/nurture) when having these discussions. An appeal to your inner self as proof is simply questionable, because a psychologist has already done that with others like yourself. Why is their evidence unusable compared with yours?The minority is as good as anything else when you can't verify what you're saying. That statistically speaking 90% of people fit a criteria only proves that your theory is not good enough. If we built buildings using the same way psychology has faith in the soundness of it's science, we would have a lot of creaky buildings.
And BTW, I'm pretty sure we'll know the answer to this through exact science at some point or another. We're just not there yet.
Yeah, and i'm just pointing out how you're example is horrid. It's a valid conclusion. I'm not knocking on you for refuting someone else, i'm knocking on you for bringing even weaker .
It's a bunch of bull , the feild of psychology doesn't support your premise so you're hoping to find that gay gene.
It's not about waiting for the truth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions