Why Strowbridge lost the debate on Psychology.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Mike Wong refuses to answer a few simple questions:

1.) What is Psychology?
2.) What is Freud's influence on psychology and why it's bullshit?

He claims to know they are bullshit, but can't even describe what they are.

On his hate mail page, he mocks someone for taking Business Math. Well Mike Wong doesn't even have the Business Math equivalent in Psychology.

He claims I'm avoiding the real issue, when all I'm doing is asking if he has the basic knowledge he claims to have. Once he's answered these two questions, I'll debate him on any Psychology subject he wants. He can set the format; he can set the rules.

With two exceptions:

1.) The debate would have to happen after the New Year. I'm moving at the end of the month, and it might prove difficult to answer e-mails when my computer is in several boxes on the back of a truck.

2.) He must answer these questions, with reasonable detail AND IN HIS OWN WORDS, (no pulling definitions out of dictionaries) within 24 hours. Should be simple given his claims. He must already know the answers intimately.

That seems reasonable to me, and should to anyone who have read the debates. Heck, I'd even be lenient on the time frame, I just don't want him copying and pasting an answer from a website or something and claiming he knew it all along.

C.S.Strowbridge

[EDIT: title fixed for our resident Sore Loser- DW]

[MKSheppard]

oooh I predict an Imperial Smackdown (TM) followed by a titling

[MKSheppard]

*gets popcorn to watch the fireworks, then realizes that he has to
work today, and will probably come back at 3:30 PM to a locked thread
where mike makes strowbridge his bitch and repeatedly violates him
before the thread is locked out of professional courtesy to keep strowey
from being embarassed any further*

[Gandalf]

*Sits next to Shep, pinches some popcorn.*

Excellent...

[Sharp-kun]

[MKSheppard]

*Sits next to Shep, pinches some popcorn.*

*kills Gandalf, as per the commandments of Satanism, where if someone
fucks with you, DESTROY THEM*

[Gandalf]

*Sits next to Shep, pinches some popcorn.*

*kills Gandalf, as per the commandments of Satanism, where if someone
fucks with you, DESTROY THEM*

Fair call.

*Finds a very nice (armoured) bean bag, away from Shep*

[Robert Walper]

My condolences to C.S.Strowbridge and his humilating defeat at Darth Wong's methods...oops...hasn't happened yet.

Honestly, C.S.Strowbridge, I'm in no position to determine the validity of your own arguements or Wong's in this type of debate, nor would I try.

One thing I can tell you though; Michael Wong's grasp and application of logic in any debate can be quite devestating to any opponent from a logical perspective.

I know from personal experience, having been brutally crushed by the massive Hand of Wong on more than one occasion. The adopted label "Imperial Smackdown" is not a puff of smoke to be so easily dismissed.

In any case, best of luck, whether observers here think you win or lose.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Last time I checked, Strowbridge wasn't a n00b, Robert...

[Robert Walper]

Last time I checked, Strowbridge wasn't a n00b, Robert...

And you think I asserting he was? Technically, I'm may be repeating what he already knows, but in the end I was merely just offering him "best of luck".

[Alyrium Denryle]

1.) What is Psychology?
2.) What is Freud's influence on psychology and why it's bullshit?

Psychology is the study of the human brain, human individual behavior, nervous system, learning ability, and mental disorders.

Freud introduced science to psychology. instead of leaving it to pure philosophy. The discipline he created though(psycholanalysis) is, for the most part, bull.

Yes, there is some validity to the Id, Ego and Superego idea, especially whe you make decisions in an internal "committee meeting between the 3 like I do on occasion. And the idea that you can treat a person by understanding the root mental cause of theillness, in the case of things like depression, and the les harmful disorders is very valid, and while it takes a lng time, works.

The problem with Sigmund, is that when he developed his field, he didnt use "normal" people as controls. He relied on people that wee mentally ill, and that is where the Oedipus complex, and the psychosexual stages come from. These, have absolutly no validity at all.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Okay, instead of mutually masturbating whichever person we want to win, can we just see if this thing gets off the ground.

I'm hoping this will be the last thread on the topic, hopefully this will end anymore bickering once and for all.

So...

Let the mayhem begin.
[/Carver]

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would be willing to debate that some specific disciplines of Psychology(Psychoanalysis, and much of humanistic psychology) are bullshit

[Darth Wong]

Mike Wong refuses to answer a few simple questions:

1.) What is Psychology?
2.) What is Freud's influence on psychology and why it's bullshit?

You yourself admitted Freud is bullshit, and claimed that it was discredited long ago. Now you're backtracking because I proved that Freudian-style bullshit such as the Rorschach test is still taken seriously by the APA. Pathetic.

Do the quotes "And for hopefully the last time, Frued ideas didn't last a century" and "Frued. He's a real major player in modern psychology. I might as well attack astronomy on medieval Geocentric theories" sound familiar to you? My my, how you can quickly change your tune when you're losing a debate, eh? All I had to do was point out that the Rorschach test is still endorsed by the APA and all of that "Freud's an obsolete dinosaur, you ignorant bastard" bullshit went out the window in favour of "well, you're not a psychologist so I don't have to answer your point."

He claims to know they are bullshit, but can't even describe what they are.

The Rorschach test is still taken seriously by the APA. A projective, subjective test without a shred of supporting evidence. Standard Freudian "interpret innocuous choices to be proof of underlying psychological complexes" mindset. I presented this evidence and you have no answer for it.

On his hate mail page, he mocks someone for taking Business Math. Well Mike Wong doesn't even have the Business Math equivalent in Psychology.

I know enough to know that the Rorschach test is a joke, and that the APA endorses it. Moreover, on my Hate Mail pages, I always address the points directly, and only mention the author's credentials in passing. There is a huge difference between saying "your point is wrong because of <blah blah blah>, it's obvious your total lack of credentials caused your miserable failure" and "you have no credentials, therefore I don't have to answer your point", dumb-ass.

He claims I'm avoiding the real issue, when all I'm doing is asking if he has the basic knowledge he claims to have. Once he's answered these two questions, I'll debate him on any Psychology subject he wants. He can set the format; he can set the rules.

Ad-hominem fallacy. Even if a 6 year old child pointed this out, you would still have to address the point. You refuse to.

With two exceptions:

1.) The debate would have to happen after the New Year. I'm moving at the end of the month, and it might prove difficult to answer e-mails when my computer is in several boxes on the back of a truck.

It shouldn't take too long for you to admt that the Rorschach test is a joke and that no reputable scientific organization should endorse it. Unfortunately, the American Psychology Association is not a reputable scientific organization.

2.) He must answer these questions, with reasonable detail AND IN HIS OWN WORDS, (no pulling definitions out of dictionaries) within 24 hours. Should be simple given his claims. He must already know the answers intimately.

Ad-hominem fallacy. Even if a 6 year old child asked why the ridiculous inkblot-reading Rorschach test is accepted by the APA, you would have to answer the point.

That seems reasonable to me, and should to anyone who have read the debates. Heck, I'd even be lenient on the time frame, I just don't want him copying and pasting an answer from a website or something and claiming he knew it all along.

C.S.Strowbridge

Ever since I raised the point about the Rorschach test, you have refused to address it and have focused every single one of your posts exclusively on your attempt to change the debate subject from subjectivism in psychology to Mike Wong's personal background. It's the most transparent and pathetic line of reasoning I've ever seen.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I think he wants you to deal with this pile:

No, how it works is ...

Someone observes a behavour.
They try to explain it either with citations from previous experiments and studies.

The result:

99.9999% of the time you never hear about it. Tell me, honestly, how many psychological studies have you read in your life?

I read a psychology textbook in university. I couldn't believe the stupid bullshit in there.

Going to give any details, or am I supposed to guess them?

The rest of the time you hear about it either cause the media is blowing it all out of proportion (see end of message for a perfect example) or it's a scam that was exposed.

But in those rare cases, if it was caught BEFORE it was published we would have never heard about it, so you can't judge the success rate.

Uh huh, how does this excuse the fact that theories which blatantly violate Occam's Razor are acceptable in psychology? Rather than explain something with the simplest workable theory, psychologists tend to look for more causes.

Except the simpliest working theory never covers all the possibilities.

So says you. However, you've never read a MPS study in your life. So you don't know what happened. You also don't know who diagnoised these people with MPS. You don't have to be a psychologists to be a therapist. All you have to do to be a therapist is to call yourseld a therapist.

Are you saying that no one ever got a study on MPS published? That's amazing.

Concession accepted. Lying about what I say is an implicit concession.

I said YOU'VE never read a MPS study. I never said they weren't written.

How long did it take for the Geocentric view to fall out of fashion?

The fact that you have to go all the way back to an era when the Church controlled scientific research proves my point for me.

Hardly. You have no point. Cause you don't know the details. Cause you never studied psychology.

BTW, do you know the answer to your own question? Cause you are acting like you didn't know Frued was called, 'a dinosaur in the history of ideas' decades ago.

And still a century too late. From Day One, his theories (all of them) shit all over Occam's Razor, just for starters.

Really? Describe to me all of Frued's theories. If your knowledge of Frued is as strong as psychology in general, this should be good for a laugh.

I don't know, I'll start asking them. We meet every thursday.

BTW, it was taught in my first year Psychology course.

They taught you Occam's Razor in Psych 101? Very nice.

And the scientific method, logical reasoning, experimentation, etc. Right from day one, BEFORE they dealt with any psychology (besides the definition.)

Your school must be the exception.

Prove it.

Mike, first you claim psychology AND ESPECIALLY PSYCHIATRY and bullshit. Then you claim Neurophysiology and medications ARE science.

PSYCHIATRY DEALS WITH MEDICATIONS.

If that's not proof YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, then you will never back. down.

Psychiatry can deal with medications. It does not exclusively do so.

Psychiatry deals with the medical aspect of psychological disorders.

Admit it, you have no real first hand knowledge of Psychology outside of what the media talks about. You equate Psychology with Psychoanalasis and crackpot therapy groups that use fire walking.

Yes, because it's only marginally better. Any branch of science which does not teach the importance of logical parsimony in theoretical constructs is not a science.

You just admited you have no first hand knowledge of psychology. How can you claim to know how it operates?

BTW, if there was a planet that didn't move in an orbit around the sun, but instead oscillated between two arbitrary points, would parsimony still say Newton's Theory of Gravity we correct?

Pschology is complex, because it has to deal with the exceptions. You know, fit with reality.

Yeah, cause you not knowing what psychology is is immaterial. Sort of like when creationsists who don't know the theory of evolution is are still welcome to post their opinions on it.

And how have you proven that I don't know anything at all about psychology?

Your equating Frued with psychology.
Your attempt to remove neurophsysiology from psychology.
Using disproven theories (MPS and previously Cold Mother Autism) as if they were accepted theories.
Your bungling of Psychiatry.

Do I need to go on?

No wait ... That's not how it works.

If you were arguing with a creationist and they made such a basic mistake as you did, you'd rip them a new one.

What "basic mistake"? Trying to separate the part of the field which deals with medications from the part of the field which deals with behavioural theories without resorting to your stupid bullshit argument that any field which incorporates the first must not incorporate any of the second?

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

Behaviourial theories? Are you talking about Behavorism or are you just throwing out psychobabble you once heard on Dr. Phil?

If it's the former ... Behavorism is psychology in its interity, it is just one of the schools within Psychology. One that COMPLETELY DISAVOWS FRUED. Not only does it disavow Frued, it disavows all non-material aspects of human behovior. For example, the Mind is a concept that behavorists do not deal with. Behavorism deals with conditioning, both Classical and Operant.

If it's the latter ... then you are again basing your view on psychology based on the media.

Either way, it's more evidence that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Geocentric earth. Or the theory that all heaven bodies move in perfect circles. How long did they last?

Until the Church lost its hold on science, dumb-fuck.

So the Catholic Church controlled ancient Greece. That's fucking amazing.

And for hopefull the last time, Frued ideas didn't last a century.

Oh really! He was not quoted by anyone for any significant length of time? Wow. Go spread the news.

He's still quoted, but so are lots of creationists.

And you've read these studies? No, you've read the media reaction to these studies.

No, I've read some of these studies. They're widely available on the web in various formats. Complete with nice charts and graphs and numbers, all of which are based on the assumption that desensitization = incitement to violence. No physicist would ever get away with estimating B by measuring A.

Give us a link then. Give us a link and show the faults.

Very, very recently there was a meta-analysis of Prayer in Medicine done. It showed that Prayer doesn't have a statistically significant effect on the recovery of a patient. Guess how it was covered in the media? 'The effect of Prayer has and effect that nears statistical significance.'

Hardly a fair and accurate representation of the results of the study.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the fact that you can publish psych papers that are based on unstated assumptions or theories which take a shit on Occam's Razor?

Well, given you wazzo knowledge of psychology, I trust your opinions on the mater as much as I trust Darkstar on Star Wars. Give us the proof.

I think he knows he lost on that whole Rosarch thing, which is why he's not drawing attention onto it. But that means you hadn't solved some problems.

In particular, I think he wants to see your explanation on how you could tell Freud's ideas ALL violate Occam's Razor from the get go. For instance, you don't really need that much specific knowledge or scientific studies to say the idea of Creationism is scientifically bunk by simply pointing out God violates Occam's Razor as a black box using principles so hard we would never understand, thus implying more complexity than any mechanisms humans can understand. He's interested to see how you can do the same for EVERY last one of Freud's claims (which implies you understand what Freud postulated in the first place.)

As I'm sure you are aware of, That is different from citing studies that eventually disprove the theory. This is about showing Freud is scientifically unsound.

[Darth Wong]

I think he knows he lost on that whole Rosarch thing, which is why he's not drawing attention onto it.

Then perhaps he could concede the point.

In particular, I think he wants to see your explanation on how you could tell Freud's ideas ALL violate Occam's Razor from the get go.

Irrelevant, since my argument was that psychology is a poor "science" by failing to remove subjectivist garbage such as Freud's most famous mistakes (such as his mentality of assigning "psychological complexes" to innocuous behaviour, as exemplified spectacularly in the Rorschach test). It doesn't mean I have to go through every single thing Freud ever wrote with a fine-toothed comb to prove that he never said ANYTHING which made ANY sense. That is a ludicrous false-dilemma fallacy.

A science is defined not just by what it includes, but by what it rejects. Or fails to, in this case. Strowbridge, in the last thread, tried to disprove the claim that psychology fails to reject bullshit by simply claiming that it was not true (which was a lie, as proven by the Rorschach example) and by yammering on about how other parts of psychology are still good, which completely sidesteps the point. Science is about mercilessly tearing down theories which fail to make the grade, and many of Freud's spectacular mistakes (Penis Envy, anyone?) failed to make the grade from day one. The fact that it took so long to discredit them, and that things like the Rorschach test persist even today, disproves his claim that the profession has conducted itself in a manner consistent with the scientific method.

[Lord Poe]

I thought, in favor of Freud, the Rorschach test was replaced with asking the patient what thought comes to mind when he is shown a banana, a cigar, a lollipop, a polish sausage....

[Utsanomiko]

Hey Strowbridge, if modern Biologists were still using alchemic recipies to make mice and newts, how many years would I have to study Biology to have the 'right' to point out that modern Biology is unscientific for using alchemy? Could I get by with just an undergrad in Biology, or would I need to become a full-fledged Biologist or geneticist myself?

[MKSheppard]

God damn, this is so fucking funny, I was right about Strowbridge's titling,
and a mild version of the Smackdown did happen, but the thread wasn't
locked...so I'm shooting 66% here

[Andrew J.]

Whatever. I just hope your humiliating defeat isn't too humiliating, Strow.

[aerius]

Freud's theories and inkblot tests have about as much validity as me answering every question with the phrase "it's because you touch yourself at night".

Why did the dinosaurs die?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is the Middle east all fucked up?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is psychology full of quacks?
It's because they touch themselves at night.

Why is Strowbridge gay?
It's because he touches himself at night.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Freud's theories and inkblot tests have about as much validity as me answering every question with the phrase "it's because you touch yourself at night".

Why did the dinosaurs die?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is the Middle east all fucked up?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is psychology full of quacks?
It's because they touch themselves at night.

Why is Strowbridge gay?
It's because he touches himself at night.

What if the question is "Why do I touch myself at night?"

[aerius]

What if the question is "Why do I touch myself at night?"

The answer is still "it's because you touch yourself at night", which I believe would make it an example of circular reasoning.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Freud's theories and inkblot tests have about as much validity as me answering every question with the phrase "it's because you touch yourself at night".

Why did the dinosaurs die?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is the Middle east all fucked up?
It's because you touch yourself at night.

Why is psychology full of quacks?
It's because they touch themselves at night.

Why is Strowbridge gay?
It's because he touches himself at night.

Didn't Durandal post this big thing on useless spamming and me-too bullshit?

Shit, I must be schitzophrenic and hallucenating again.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Mike Wong refuses to answer a few simple questions:

1.) What is Psychology?
2.) What is Freud's influence on psychology and why it's bullshit?

You yourself admitted Freud is bullshit, and claimed that it was discredited long ago. Now you're backtracking because I proved that Freudian-style bullshit such as the Rorschach test is still taken seriously by the APA.

Do the quotes "And for hopefully the last time, Frued ideas didn't last a century" and "Frued. He's a real major player in modern psychology. I might as well attack astronomy on medieval Geocentric theories" sound familiar to you? My my, how you can quickly change your tune when you're losing a debate, eh? All I had to do was point out that the Rorschach test is still endorsed by the APA and all of that "Freud's an obsolete dinosaur, you ignorant bastard" bullshit went out the window in favour of "well, you're not a psychologist so I don't have to answer your point."

It depends on what you define as Freudism, doesn't it? BUT YOU REFUSED TO DEFINE FREUD'S INFLUECE.

Freud's views on sexuality were completely blown out of the water by real studies on human sexuality.

On the other hand, psychoanalysis, which was a technique he developed is used in psychology today. BUT NOT THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY.

You see, Phsyics is a science. Applied phyisics is called engineering.
Psychology is a science. Applied psychology is called .... wait for it .... Psychology.

Ahhh, fuck. I just gave away half the first answer. Oh well. Less work for you.

He claims to know they are bullshit, but can't even describe what they are.

The Rorschach test is still taken seriously by the APA. A projective, subjective test without a shred of supporting evidence. Standard Freudian "interpret innocuous choices to be proof of underlying psychological complexes" mindset. I presented this evidence and you have no answer for it.

The APA also used to believe that homosexuality was a mental disorder and that slaves who wanted to be set free were also suffering from a mental disorder. (Once I unpack, I can even give you the name.)

The APA is an organization overrun with political concerns, but that doesn't affect the science of Psychology. Anymore than creationism affects the science of biology.

On his hate mail page, he mocks someone for taking Business Math. Well Mike Wong doesn't even have the Business Math equivalent in Psychology.

I know enough to know that the Rorschach test is a joke, and that the APA endorses it. Moreover, on my Hate Mail pages, I always address the points directly, and only mention the author's credentials in passing. There is a huge difference between saying "your point is wrong because of <blah blah blah>, it's obvious your total lack of credentials caused your miserable failure" and "you have no credentials, therefore I don't have to answer your point", dumb-ass.

And that's a strawman attack. I need to know what you think are the basics before I can debate details. If you have a serious lack of knowledge to what Frued is, then when you use the term Freudism IT MEANS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT I THINK IT MEANS.

I'll say that again:

You may be using the term incorrectly, so we might be arguing about two difference things.

Think about it this way, say we were arguing about material science, BUT I was using the term Ceramic when I meant Alloy. Wouldn't it be best to clear that mess up first instead of arguing about the details?

He claims I'm avoiding the real issue, when all I'm doing is asking if he has the basic knowledge he claims to have. Once he's answered these two questions, I'll debate him on any Psychology subject he wants. He can set the format; he can set the rules.

Ad-hominem fallacy. Even if a 6 year old child pointed this out, you would still have to address the point. You refuse to.

In this very thread I said I would address the points, when I knew what your level of knowledge is. Is that really that strange a request?

I'll answer every question you have on psychology and Freud, AS SOON AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THOSE TERMS.

BTW, I'm snipping the questions till then. I'm assuming you'll have a record so that you can ask them later.

C.S.Strowbridge