Author Topic: TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology  (Read 3613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« on: November 20, 2003, 05:33:00 PM »
TC's-  The Psychology of Anti-Pscyhology



     There are hackers  in the institution of psychology.  They hack into what is real, and noteworthy, and they spread dangerous memes, that work against the individual, the sole purposeful beneficiary of the study of psychology.  They exist like leaches in a field in which they do not belong.  The purpose of psychology is to benefit the individual.  Their pseudo-psychology harms the individual, and harming individual, consequently harms society as a whole.

     The nature of an idea, is to "go", or spread.  Ideas always move.  You can see this if you observe long-term effects of environments brought into contact with certain ideas.  One such group that spread these ideas, through individuals, families, and societies, is this group of pseudo-practitioners, who hide behind the term, "TC".  Well, what is a "TC"?  It is a therapeutic community, and that is what they fall back on.

     Most often, all the presuppositions worked upon, by these witch doctors, lead back to nowhere, and nothing.  The practitioners themselves cannot back up there own conclusions in a scientific manner.  They just fall back on the idea, that that is the way of a, "TC", and they are a "TC"  Well, that is great, but that does not mean anything.

     There is a phenomenon, that almost the entire psychological community has acknowledged by now.  It is a state that many, if not all people live in some of the time.  It goes by a few terms.. "stimulus-response", "reactive-responsive", "Fight-Flight"  At this point, almost all of the predominant forms of psychology attempt to free a person from this state of mind, which is believed by most, to be brought about by lower levels of our brain.. the reptilian, and mammalian positrons of our brain.  They are the least "man"-part of the man brain.  From New-Age Psychology, to Objectivist psychology (many consider these to be at opposite ends of the spectrum), the focus is psychological practice these days, is to free a person from these states, thereby allowing the person to become the creative force in their own life.

     The TC's do something very different.  There is a clear distinction between the TC's form of psychology, and all the working forms of psychology in the world today.  While most psychology's attempt to free a person from the state spoken of above, the "TC's" attempt, to keep a person in that state.  The objective is to utilize it, and make it so dominant of a force in the person, that it appears, that the person is their own flaws.  Once this has been done, the person can then be rewritten to appear as the administrator wishes.  Of course, the person is not actually rewritten, but the person is trapped in a maze of responses that obscure, the person even from themselves, so that fear based programs, take over, and are so dominant that they seem to take the role of the person's submerged ego.

     The purpose of therapy, is to better the person/individual.  "TC's" ,be it on a subtle, or blatant level, attack the individual.. attack the ego... attack the person, and  identity.


By Paul St. John
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2004, 02:41:00 AM »
So the 'science' of psychology is backed up by scientific methodolgy, I think not: :flame:

"I simply do not 'believe' in ANY of their so called science, which is in my opinion pure conjecture, backed up by flimsy contradictory theories, and a very liberal use of linear statistics to describe unimaginably complex non-linear brains and the external interactions between brains. In a nutshell I believe all of these areas are just the latest religion, and psychology is at the stage chemistry was at when people thought they could turn lead into gold (ie: alchemy). I do not say this as some idiot who fears psychology, but as a mathematician who has studied low-level artificial intelligence, statisical pattern recognistion, artificial neural networks and reinforced learning for more than ten years, and learnt by first hand experience, just how stupid it is to come up with any sensible/reliable theory about something as complex as the human brain."

So you might call me a 'true anti-psychologist', who believes that psychology and all related subjects are a futile waste of time and resources, and that it would be far better to wait a few hundred years for yet undescovered 'truely scientific methods' of analysis, rather than attemting to back up conjecture with psdedo-science  :wave:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2004, 02:53:00 AM »
I am also a fellow anti-psychologist :nworthy: .

Check out http://www.cynicalbastards.com/cynic/psych.html for a down to earth view of psychology.

RoganBill
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline notworking

  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2004, 06:05:00 PM »
I like that people-who-couldn't-be-real-scientists theory.  Like I am going to believe the opinion of anyone who can't even freakin' SPELL.  Real scientists or no, they can at least use the language correctly.

I also like the attack on language used in psychology -- i.e., I don't like these words because I don't understand them.  ANY field of study, including math, has terms that seem weird to outsiders.  Take, for example, "imaginary number."

But the very best part is, THERE'S NO ARGUMENT.  Just some guy (or woman) spouting his uniformed, misspelled opinion.  The writer isn't anti-psychology, he's anti-INTELLECTUAL.  Which, dear friends, is a very different thing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2004, 03:40:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-03-10 23:41:00, Anonymous wrote:

"So the 'science' of psychology is backed up by scientific methodolgy, I think not: :flame:








"I simply do not 'believe' in ANY of their so called science,

Well, then you ar4e wrong


which is in my opinion pure conjecture,

except for when it supplies results..
uh huh?




 backed up by flimsy contradictory theories,

often maintream, and in text books, I agree




 and a very liberal use of linear statistics to describe

not for nothing but much of science is such so far




 unimaginably complex non-linear brains and the external interactions between brains.


I see hwere you are coming from and agree, but you missed my point!!


 In a nutshell I believe all of these areas are just the latest religion, and psychology is at the stage chemistry was at when people thought they could turn lead into gold (ie: alchemy).

Agreed, on some levels, but again you missed my point




 I do not say this as some idiot who fears psychology,

never pointed a finger, but "okay"

 but as a mathematician who has studied low-level artificial intelligence,

LOL


 statisical pattern recognition,

Yes... and man is a machine ?  


 artificial neural networks


What was that again about being at the level of 'alchemy' ?



 and reinforced learning for more than ten years,


Can you see one thing and still realise the possibility of another? PS.. You are probably agreeing with me moreso then disagreeing




 and learnt by first hand experience,

which can be written over if not appreciated for what it is.. Refer again to my post

 just how stupid it is to come up with any sensible/reliable theory about something as complex as the human brain."


we ought work on it.. considering how central it is to human life, we ought attempt.





So you might call me a 'true anti-psychologist', who believes that psychology and all related subjects are a futile waste of time and resources,


You might call me smarter then you, but I'd rather be po;ite (:


 and that it would be far better to wait a few hundred years for yet undescovered 'truely scientific methods' of analysis,

But if noone is actually busy attemptinting to solve the mystery, what the fuck will we be waiting for?



 rather than attemting to back up conjecture with psdedo-science  :wave: "
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2004, 04:31:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-04-22 15:05:00, notworking wrote:

"I like that people-who-couldn't-be-real-scientists theory.  Like I am going to believe the opinion of anyone who can't even freakin' SPELL.

Beleive noone, but never let the spelling of another get in the wway of what is inside is my opinion


 Real scientists or no, they can at least use the language correctly.

< Who carse really?  Look for the gem in all.




I also like the attack on language used in psychology -- i.e., I don't like these words because I don't understand them.



I agrre that tyhe basic terminology in psychology ois bullshit, and only take moments to understand, but still don t connect to anything in reality.



  ANY field of study, including math, has terms that seem weird to outsiders.  Take, for example, "imaginary number."


Yes, but at least, they are solid, and objective.. Man is forever moving, and we should stop tryiong to define him in order to fix him.. It may be pleasing for the practitioner, but does little for the patient.







But the very best part is, THERE'S NO ARGUMENT.



Agreed (:

 Just some guy (or



woman) spouting his uniformed, misspelled opinion.  The writer isn't anti-psychology, he's anti-INTELLECTUAL.  Which, dear friends, is a very different thing.  "
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2004, 03:39:00 AM »
It is so obvious that the previous writer is Paul St. John. What is that all about?
And the first post is undoubtedly plagiarised - stolen and past off as your own, PSJ!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
TC's- The Psychology of Anti-Psychology
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2006, 03:58:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-07-11 00:39:00, Anonymous wrote:

"It is so obvious that the previous writer is Paul St. John. What is that all about?

And the first post is undoubtedly plagiarised - stolen and past off as your own, PSJ!"


Well, of course, it was me.. I am the only one 'round here who quotes, and then posts right within the 'quote', in bold writing.

That was my original writing.  I have no proof.  You can beleive it or not.  LOL.. Anyone who knew me would never accuse me of plagarising the work of another!

Paul St. John
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »