JoCa
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JoCa
-
-
https://www.quora.com/Is-Psychology-Today-magazine-credible
Is PsychologyToday a reputable source? Yes, yes it is.
It was previously owned by the AMA.
-
3 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
*sigh*....like talking to a wall.
I wish you luck @JoCa in your endeavors.
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?
-
2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
I think you just stated your opinion regarding the field of psychology.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
I repeat my prior statement: You clearly have a vendetta against the area of psychology so maybe stay away from threads that are asking for help regarding mental health and psychological treatment?
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.
-
5 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
Also anyone can write an article and post it online. A peer-reviewed journal article is exactly that. Peer-Reviewed. It goes through a lengthy editing process by individuals in the field to determine if the article has used appropriate research methods and has reliable information.
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?
-
4 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
PhD does not equal "reputable".
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.
-
3 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
PhD does not equal "reputable". Anyone can get a PhD with enough money. Doesn't mean you are up to date on relevant training and are currently licensed (especially within clinical psychology).
That's why I showed you an APA accredited, peer-reviewed journal article. This is the way that we find reputable evidence in the field of psychology.
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.
-
1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
No one knows exactly how the brain works. Psychology researchers and continuously looking to figure out the etiology of all diagnoses. But we have found treatment strategies that have good outcomes supported by reputable research. It is a continuously changing field as new technology allows us to fully understand the brain and the body.
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.
-
1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
The conflict is in the material you were citing. "Psychology Today" and other related websites are not reputable or reliable, and thus if used to back up your theory will be received badly by others.
And this article semi-supports your argument. It agrees that the pharmaceutical companies have profited off of this false "chemical imbalance" theory, but that there is still a need for a biopsychosocial approach to treatment. Which still includes the inclusion of medication if necessary.
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.
-
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:
That you think this way shows your ignorance on the subject. Most people on anti depressants don't just act "half asleep" all day.
Oh please enlighten me, oh wise sage, knowing of everything.
-
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.
-
40 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:
This is a reputable source on your topic.
Umm. That's exactly what I've been saying. I really don't understand the conflict here. Please enlighten me.
-
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.
-
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Your link goes here - yes?
The bottom of your link shows this - right?
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 http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/real-disease-vs-mental-disorder.html
Pies, R. W. (2011, July 11). Psychiatry’s new brain-mind and the legend of the “chemical imbalance.” Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com
Rebuttal please?
-
8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
the medical community,
Not an argument. Can you not address the PsycologyToday article?
Is there or is there not a chemical imbalance? Simple question. Answer it please.
Or do all you have is logical fallacies about how I'm not in alignment. One thing at a time, we'll deal with other things later.
-
8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
So yeah, JoCa, in one breath, belittles competent medical advice, and in the next breath, quotes a blog run by "a group of renowned psychologists, academics, psychiatrists".
In one breath, he takes issue with an article from LDS.org that was written 13 years ago. In the next breath, his suggested link references a work from 1991 - a full quarter-century ago.
Lol . . .you have no clue with what you are talking about. What reference to 1991?
-
I know this is hard, but that article was written 13 years ago.
I will link it again b/c you obviously didn't read it:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-illness-metaphor/201709/the-myth-the-chemical-imbalance
"Furthermore, we are learning that many mental illnesses result from chemical disorders in the brain, just as diabetes results from a chemical disorder in the pancreas."
Obviously Elder Morrison isn't up on the latest and greatest. He is directly wrong here and finally! in 2017 someone in the profession actually had the guts to admit it.
My CFRs from an actual pyscologist.
https://podcast.rosemond.com/?name=2017-12-22_jr_20171216.mp3
https://podcast.rosemond.com/?name=2017-12-08_jr_120217.mp3
https://podcast.rosemond.com/?p=archive&cat=all&pgn=2
Pretty good stuff here.
You really should read Jane_Doe's comment again. It's really quite interesting, people who actually have gotten over mental illness, talk about emotional healing. The vast, vast majority of major problems come from trauma.
-
45 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Not saying JoCa will do this, but he does have a quite long multi-year track record of making discussions like this real contentious, real fast. Not quite what you came here for, I get that.
? Only b/c I don't spout the typical mantra.
Yes, depression is real. Yes symptoms are real.
I know it gives people a lot of comfort to think that doctors really know why people are depressed, have symptoms, etc. But if you ask any good psychologist and they answer honestly, they will tell you that they really don't know exactly why. Studies after studies have shown that medicines are at best placebos and at worst really jack with your brain. It's a nice comfort food thought (that the doctors really know what is happening), but they don't really know.
I just linked an article from PsycologyToday (about as mainstream in psychology as you can get!) about the myth of "chemical imbalances" and what do I get in return. STE "Just ignore JoCa he is not in alignment with the Church). Really-that's the response. That's about as delusional as you can get. The profession admits "chemical imbalance" is a myth but anyone who points it out is "NOT in alignment".
Sigh, talk about self-delusion.
Did you know that in order to get a psychological drug approved by the FDA all it takes is 3 double blind tests showing it outperforms placebos. Not 3 in a row, not 3 out of 5 but 3. So they could run thousands of tests and get three and viola new drug.
The placebo effect is very real and very powerful . . .but a significant portion of the time, the drugs are just that very expensive placebos with very dangerous side effects. This isn't earth shattering, just do your research. Oh but I'm "NOT in alignment" b/c I research the crap out of a subject . . .got it.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not bring this up to provoke. If you think I'm lying, I can't help you; all I can tell you is the truth. I don't intend to provoke, the truth is provocative however. And the best medicine to help people in their lives is truth, not self-deception and lies.
-
31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Quite a lot of it is absolutely NOT in alignment with what the church has to say about the issue.
Formal CFR issued.
-
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Remember my friend, you should pay attention to the doctors and mental health professionals-they do know best.
Obviously you didn't pay attention to what she wrote. "They know best", yeap right, except they initially gave her medicine that made her suicidal. If she had actually committed suicide, would anyone be held to blame . .. nope.
In any other medical field this would be called malpractice and people would be calling for the doctor to be fired!
But keep thinking "they do know best" . . .logically inconsistencies got to love it.
-
1 minute ago, Petty3 said:
I hope to get off medication sooner than later.
Great goal; you know yourself better than anyone else. It's important to be very aware of yourself. How you are feeling, are you coping well? If you aren't, find some good coping mechanisms.
3 minutes ago, Petty3 said:I have no idea if I have a chemical imbalance or not
You don't. It is certainly possible to have a damaged brain . . .but for that I'd get an MRI.
5 minutes ago, Petty3 said:I was hospitalized for a short time after starting the medication for suicide and realized the medication was doing the opposite of what it should.
Doesn't surprise me; the amazing thing about today's mental health profession is that people will get all up in arms about it, but they never seem to get up in arms about the crap they give you. Just look at the side-effects a good portion of them say "suicidal thoughts". Oh isn't that just lovely. If I'm a cynical person I say it's almost a plot. What's the best way to get rid of people who are depressed, give 'em drugs to "cure" it but that really just make them kill themselves.. . .yeah that will solve the problem!
The rest generally just make you drugged up . . .oh isn't that lovely you can't think about being depressed if you are half-asleep for the entire day.
-
11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Just because we now have the tools to better measure some illnesses than others doesn't make any less real. Pretending a problem isn't a problem only hurts things
Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying? I swear.
I say: Symptoms of depression etc. are real, however doctor's don't know jack about why the symptoms are there.
You think: How dare you shame people? Don't you know that just b/c we can't measure it, it doesn't make it any less real!
Me: Umm, yeah it's real alright, where did I say otherwise, just b/c the symptoms are real doesn't mean doctors know how to fix the symptoms! With medications, you are literally a guinea pig, here take this one, oh that didn't work, take this one, oh that didn't work, take this one. You are a guinea pig. Face facts.
You yourself said you had major trauma, this lady had major trauma, there are good journal articles that describe how most major illness, bipolar, etc. have trauma as a root in the background. Fix the trauma, people can function.
-
1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:
A person should NEVER shame another for carrying illness (whatever the cause) or seeking the best medical help. I know you don't mean to @JoCa, but for me it's coming across as you're shaming people who have illnesses you can't quantify and shaming them for seeking the best treatments for that. Again, I know you're not meaning that impression, but it is that being given.
??? Okay, way to read way too much into what I wrote. Shaming people (sigh) I swear I hate modern culture. You can never have a actual open conversation anymore, without it delving into "shaming". This is a major problem in today's society . . .literally you cannot have a conversation anymore based on logic, facts, etc. b/c if the facts are against what you feel you are "shaming people"
No, of course the symptoms are very real, of course people suffer from them, of course they need help and you know where-ever they can find help . . .great. But this idea that doctor's know what's going on is just BS.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-illness-metaphor/201709/the-myth-the-chemical-imbalance
Freaking A . .. read the blooming article from PsycologyToday!
Oh my word, I swear . . .
-
Just now, Jane_Doe said:
My husband has diabetes. He has to take these pills the rest of his life. This is not depressing, it's the facts of an illness. Some illnesses are temporary, some a permanent, some we don't know when they will be better. Trust in the Lord & listen to yourself & consult with expert medical help.
But you can't compare diabetes to depression or any other "mental illness". One is very scientific, one is not. In one case, you can measure blood sugar, you can not measure whatever bs the psycological profession likes to use. As the founder of the whole chemical imbalances stated "it is a useful metaphor".
No one would say that diabetes or low blood sugar is a "useful metaphor", b/c it's actually based on science. The way we currently treat "mental illness" is like doing blood cuttings from the 1700s, there is no objectionable proof to back it up, it is all just a "useful metaphor".
The symptoms are very real, but to say that a "chemical imbalance" causes them is bs. . . .the vast, vast majority of mental illness deals specifically with trauma-as the woman and you have pointed out. Once the trauma is cleared up, by and large, the illness gets much better.
Where is heavenly father when I need him? Antidepressants and the spirit.
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by JoCa
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.