• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

JoCa's Achievements

  1. Yeah but you did prove it to me. I get it you were trying to prove what "real, reputable" articles look like. I know what journal articles look like. You are avoiding questions and will not admit that even if you don't like it, the article that I linked to was a reputable article that has "peer-reviewed" journal backing. Is the article I linked to legit or not? This is why I hate psycology . .. they can't admit their own mistakes. You are wrong about it not being reputable.
  2. Is PsychologyToday a reputable source? Yes, yes it is. It was previously owned by the AMA.
  3. And the same to you, it's like talking to a brick wall. I proved that what I posted was legit (actually you proved it for me), you can't refute it, so instead of changing your mind or analyzing it, you give up. I wish you luck in your endeavors too. And you won't answer the question. Is or is not pyscology (the underlying base about how human being act) based upon atheistic principles?
  4. Now we get to the heart of the matter. Psychology is all about opinion. Not facts, not science but opinion. I post an article from PsycologyToday-they reference the article you showed, but b/c your opinion of them was low, you dismissed what the article said. Come to find out, the article actually has some legs, you recognize that it has some legs, but refuse to acknowledge it b/c you opinion of them is low. It gets back to the old adage "people believe what they want to believe". Psycology is not a science, it's an opinion generating field.
  5. Yes I do b/c they have done more harm than good. Is psychology not based upon morally corrupt atheistic individuals? Prove me wrong. Just b/c I have a vendetta doesn't make it wrong . .. unless you believe in moral relativism.
  6. Oh you mean like the article about metaphysical gravity that was produced in a "peer-reviewed" pyscology journal article that got published that was complete BS?
  7. I understand now, they are only reputable if you find them reputable . . .doesn't matter about their work, it's all based upon your opinion.
  8. In otherwords, it's a clic. If you don't believe the common mantra (i.e. relevant training) you are branded a heretic and even though you mind have spent years of your life getting a degree, it doesn't matter b/c you didn't take the "approved training". Why did homosexuality get removed from the DSM? B/c they voted on it.
  9. Very good!! We are in agreement, i.e. the proper response to anyone is "I don't know why you have xyz" and yes you are a guinea pig on the wheel of medicine. I have a suggestion . . .maybe you should entire nueroscience . . .something that actually has, like you know science backing it up, instead of an absolutely morally corrupt philosophy. ALL the founding father's of psycology were atheist. The very foundation it is built upon is a lie.
  10. Why do you say they aren't reputable? The articles are written by Phds in the field. This is ludicrous. You have PhDs in the field writing these articles. You "claim" it's not reputable, what evidence do you have to back up that claim . . .besides the fact you don't like them.
  11. I'm not saying "professionals" don't or can't help . . .what I am saying is they don't know why these things occur. Without knowing the why, you are literally taking stabs in the dark as to how to fix it. This is exactly why people go to energy healing, or any other number of outside the mainstream issue, b/c the mainstream doesn't have a freaking clue as to why. What I'm saying is going to a "professional" and expecting them to give you a pill that will make all your troubles go away is fool-hardy. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, some people find help in energy healing for emotional problems, others find help in shamanic journies, others find help in any other number of issues. Limiting the spectrum of help to only "professionals" is horrible. If they actually knew why that would be one thing . . .but they don't know why and you can't solve a problem if you don't know exactly why. Hence, my reference that modern psycology is about as good in helping as blood-letting was in the 1700s. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, we only hear about when it works so people want to need to believe it works so they have confirmation bias . . .all the while ignoring the umpteen thousands upon thousands of instances where going to a professional didn't do jack.
  12. Umm. That's exactly what I've been saying. I really don't understand the conflict here. Please enlighten me.
  13. The two most powerful words in the english language and any other language is "I AM". Jehovah is the great I AM had teaches us a pattern for living. The LDS Church through it's prophets have counselled extensively against those who have unnormal attractions to NOT label themselves. Labeling according to an attraction is severely mentally, emotionally, and spiritually damaging. For those LDS members, Elder Eyring just recently in a Face-to-Face with young adults explained just as much. To label oneself by their attraction is ludicrous. Unfortunately, the membership of the Church is not listening. As a man thinketh, so is he; if one labels themself as xyz they will eventually become that and they will eventually act out on what they are; it is plain as day.
  14. Are you serious? Are you trolling? The article was written Sept. 28. 2017. And I'm a researcher who writes professional journal articles and I've seen plenty of articles written in 2018 that reference articles in 1960s. That's normal, well-established and in fact actually lends more credence to the article as it means the research is more well-established! You completely ignored the rest. Citizens Commission on Human Rights. (n.d.). Real disease vs. mental “disorder.”Retrieved from Pies, R. W. (2011, July 11). Psychiatry’s new brain-mind and the legend of the “chemical imbalance.” Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from Rebuttal please?