Intimate Connections by David D. Burns

[HappyLittleBoy]

Originally Posted by Kick

Nope. That's 100% wrong. New drugs are not required to be tested against other drugs, only against placebo (at least in the U.S. under FDA regulations)

I didn't say it was required. I said what was actual practice. And by the way, you're very wrong about FDA regulations. And you should be sickened by how lax the regulations are.

http://www.tn.gov/mental/omd/omd_docs/placeboEffect.pdf

"Robert DeLap, MD, head of one of the FDA's Offices of Drug Evaluation, has clarified the "FDA doesn't require that a drug study incolude a placebo-control group only that its design be capable of establishing a drug's safety and effectiveness""

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by HappyLittleBoy

I didn't say it was required. I said what was actual practice. And by the way, you're very wrong about FDA regulations. And you should be sickened by how lax the regulations are.

http://www.tn.gov/mental/omd/omd_docs/placeboEffect.pdf

"Robert DeLap, MD, head of one of the FDA's Offices of Drug Evaluation, has clarified the "FDA doesn't require that a drug study incolude a placebo-control group only that its design be capable of establishing a drug's safety and effectiveness""

Why don't you read your sources?

It's not required when it's not ethically responsible to deprive the subject of actual treatment. Your very own link describes that...

[twothreeoh]

Just gonna pop in and say this:

Kick is clearly a highly trained expert in a field related to what you're arguing over. You can tell because he is very careful about the claims he makes and precise in his language. He knows his shit. I'm certain.

MrShit, if you are indeed a Norwegian student, you have a remarkable ability with English and you are very bright. But you're limited by your discipline of psychology.

HappyLittleBoy, you're a little out of your depth, although you are making good points from the pov of an amateur or well-informed patient.

In this boring debate however, Kick really can't be beat, because he's up to date on the most recent developments, is not speaking from personal experience or from a place of emotion and has more than an undergraduate's education in psychology.

[HappyLittleBoy]

Originally Posted by MrShit

I'm pretty sure I said "For minor conditions? Sure. Serious stuff? Not a chance."

You actually said....
"Serious stuff like depression, schizophrenia, personality disorders etc? Not a chance."

And the link I showed you demonstrated that they were being used for depression. Maybe you should have specified how serious?

By the way, in medicine they're called complementary therapies, not alternative therapies, because they are often used to complement traditional medicine, in order to increase the effectiveness of whatever treatment they're given, and enhance quality of life.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by HappyLittleBoy

You actually said....
"Serious stuff like depression, schizophrenia, personality disorders etc? Not a chance."

And the link I showed you demonstrated that they were being used for depression. Maybe you should have specified how serious?

By the way, in medicine they're called complementary therapies, not alternative therapies, because they are often used to complement traditional medicine, in order to increase the effectiveness of whatever treatment they're given, and enhance quality of life.

Yes maybe I should have. Serious depression where lack of proper treatment could potentially make the subject's situation a lot worse.

[gash]

Originally Posted by twothreeoh

Just gonna pop in and say this:

Kick is clearly a highly trained expert in a field related to what you're arguing over. You can tell because he is very careful about the claims he makes and precise in his language. He knows his shit. I'm certain.

MrShit, if you are indeed a Norwegian student, you have a remarkable ability with English and you are very bright. But you're limited by your discipline of psychology.

HappyLittleBoy, you're a little out of your depth, although you are making good points from the pov of an amateur or well-informed patient.

In this boring debate however, Kick really can't be beat, because he's up to date on the most recent developments, is not speaking from personal experience or from a place of emotion and has more than an undergraduate's education in psychology.

ewww

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by gash

Ironically, the fact that you refer to the old medical treatments which are now known to be untrue but at the time were accepted mainstream fact, is relevant to my argument.

They were certain that things worked a certain way, and people strongly opposed anyone who said otherwise.

Nowadays we believe different.

You think that will never happen again?

The reason we have such advanced medical technology today is because of science. The old ways were people talking out of their asses. Science is the closest way we have to seeing the objective success of a medical intervention.

Science has not "always existed" as you put it. The scientific method has been developed over the last few centuries and has allowed us to progress technologically.

I cannot believe that you're studying biology. You're either an amazing troll or a complete idiot

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by PokerFace

This guy is legit? His book starts ike every PUA scammer book. He tells about how he was an ugly virgin and then his natural buddy William helped him to become a player.

After getting bored of banging these bitches, he found the love of his life. He can help even you to skyrocket your game. You only have to think positively. Negative thoughts are only illusions. If you dont get laid, thats also not that bad, the most important thing is, that you love yourself.

your initial analysis is spot on. these "therapists" and "clinical psychologists" are modern day shamans and snake-oil salesmen of the first order. not a single one is better than a pua. they ALL have had or still have something wrong with them, and got into this racket to try and fix their own problem (sound familar--puas). they then rebrand and remarket "newer" and more "complex" sounding ways of helping you.

"cbt", buddha discovered cognitive therapy 2500 years ago, when he said "it is our thoughts that are the cause of our problems, not the situations themselves". rebranded and remarked as new technology.

the fact is, not one "psychotherapy" has been shown to be more than marginally superior to another. and furthermore, talking to a stranger who has no qualifications has been shown to be just as effective. go figure, talking to someone can help you.

so, if you really did feel the desperate need to talk to someone, i would tell you what i would tell anyone looking for help with pickup -- talk to someone normal that has either been through it before, or someone you know who will be supportive and offer some good common sense advise. but, for the love of god dont get mixed up in the rsd type pscyhobabble of "psychotherapy".

and if for some reason you have absolutly no one to talk too, go to a social worker. they are cheaper, and just as effective.

i used to be a psychology student 3 years. my uncle teaches pscyhology at a major university in the us and has met david burns, says he seems nice, but a little off.

heres a good book on the truth of psychotherapy....http://www.amazon.com/House-Cards-Ro.../dp/0684830914

or this....http://www.amazon.com/THERAPYS-DELUS...5942375&sr=1-3

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

your initial analysis is spot on. these "therapists" and "clinical psychologists" are modern day shamans and snake-oil salesmen of the first order. not a single one is better than a pua. they ALL have had or still have something wrong with them, and got into this racket to try and fix their own problem (sound familar--puas). they then rebrand and remarket "newer" and more "complex" sounding ways of helping you.

"cbt", buddha discovered cognitive therapy 2500 years ago, when he said "it is our thoughts that are the cause of our problems, not the situations themselves". rebranded and remarked as new technology.

the fact is, not one "psychotherapy" has been shown to be more than marginally superior to another. and furthermore, talking to a stranger who has no qualifications has been shown to be just as effective. go figure, talking to someone can help you.

so, if you really did feel the desperate need to talk to someone, i would tell you what i would tell anyone looking for help with pickup -- talk to someone normal that has either been through it before, or someone you know who will be supportive and offer some good common sense advise. but, for the love of god dont get mixed up in the rsd type pscyhobabble of "psychotherapy".

and if for some reason you have absolutly no one to talk too, go to a social worker. they are cheaper, and just as effective.

i used to be a psychology student 3 years. my uncle teaches pscyhology at a major university in the us and has met david burns, says he seems nice, but a little off.

heres a good book on the truth of psychotherapy....http://www.amazon.com/House-Cards-Ro.../dp/0684830914

or this....http://www.amazon.com/THERAPYS-DELUS...5942375&sr=1-3

So in other words: You got into psychology because there was something wrong with you, and you're confident that this applies to other people?

Both books you recommend are good, but they don't support your own claims. The second book concentrates only on the psychodynamic approach, an approach that was rejected by the scientific community about 100 years ago. You would know this if you studied psychology.

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

So in other words: You got into psychology because there was something wrong with you, and you're confident that this applies to other people?

Both books you recommend are good, but they don't support your own claims. The second book concentrates only on the psychodynamic approach, an approach that was rejected by the scientific community about 100 years ago. You would know this if you studied psychology.

i got into pscyhology because my uncle is a professor at a university, and him being somewhat of a father figure, i wanted to follow in his foot steps. right off the bat after meeting and becoming friends with a lot of my classmates i realized just how awkward and weird they all were and by using simple deductive reasoning, put 2 +2 together. as the classes progressed i realized more and more what complete horseshit many of the "teachings" were, and what a joke of a "science" this really was. but, my personality is that i like to see things to the end, so unfortunately i stuck with the major wayyyyy too long.

and yes studies have shown that pscyhodynamic approach is just as effective as cbt. i think about 15% of "practioners" still use this base. both are unscientific...you can dress up a pig....

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i got into pscyhology because my uncle is a professor at a university, and him being somewhat of a father figure, i wanted to follow in his foot steps. right off the bat after meeting and becoming friends with a lot of my classmates i realized just how awkward and weird they all were and by using simple deductive reasoning, put 2 +2 together. as the classes progressed i realized more and more what complete horseshit many of the "teachings" were, and what a joke of a "science" this really was. but, my personality is that i like to see things to the end, so unfortunately i stuck with the major wayyyyy too long.

and yes studies have shown that pscyhodynamic approach is just as effective as cbt. i think about 15% of "practioners" still use this base. both are unscientific...you can dress up a pig....

also, if you want backing on the pscyhology majors are crazy thing. just put in the following searches (or simple derivatives of them) into google and you'll see what has been observed by countless onlookers:

"psych students are crazy"
"pscyh students are weird"
"pscyhologists are crazy"

etc..................................................

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i got into pscyhology because my uncle is a professor at a university, and him being somewhat of a father figure, i wanted to follow in his foot steps. right off the bat after meeting and becoming friends with a lot of my classmates i realized just how awkward and weird they all were and by using simple deductive reasoning, put 2 +2 together. as the classes progressed i realized more and more what complete horseshit many of the "teachings" were, and what a joke of a "science" this really was. but, my personality is that i like to see things to the end, so unfortunately i stuck with the major wayyyyy too long.

and yes studies have shown that pscyhodynamic approach is just as effective as cbt. i think about 15% of "practioners" still use this base. both are unscientific...you can dress up a pig....

Would you care to cite those studies?

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

also, if you want backing on the pscyhology majors are crazy thing. just put in the following searches (or simple derivatives of them) into google and you'll see what has been observed by countless onlookers:

"psych students are crazy"
"pscyh students are weird"
"pscyhologists are crazy"

etc..................................................

Great proof.

Try typing in "Black people are stupid" or "Women hate sex". You're more or less confirming that it's a stereotype.

And you'll find equally compelling evidence.

While you're there, try typing in "9/11 was funny" and "Jews control the world".

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

Would you care to cite those studies?

too lazy to look to prove to a random internet poster. just google pscyhotherapy+efficacy...heres a start though

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-psychotherapy

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

Great proof.

Try typing in "Black people are stupid" or "Women hate sex". You're more or less confirming that it's a stereotype.

And you'll find equally compelling evidence.

While you're there, try typing in "9/11 was funny" and "Jews control the world".

i think doth protests too much. on several threads youve jumped on me for stating what most people already know. why is it so important for you to prove that your major isnt a weirdo magnet? this is just a forum full of strangers

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i think doth protests too much. on several threads youve jumped on me for stating what most people already know. why is it so important for you to prove that your major isnt a weirdo magnet? this is just a forum full of strangers

It's not "what most people already know". It's your opinion and experience, and I'm disagreeing with you. Your second statement is a double-edged sword: Why is it so important for you to prove to everyone that psychology is a weirdo-magnet? Did you have problems socializing, and need a scapegoat?

Of course I'll agree there are some people who fit the stereotype perfectly, thinking of themselves as "above" the human mind because they're aware of some bias. But you'll find weird people everywhere.

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

It's not "what most people already know". It's your opinion and experience, and I'm disagreeing with you. Your second statement is a double-edged sword: Why is it so important for you to prove to everyone that psychology is a weirdo-magnet? Did you have problems socializing, and need a scapegoat?

Of course I'll agree there are some people who fit the stereotype perfectly, thinking of themselves as "above" the human mind because they're aware of some bias. But you'll find weird people everywhere.

i just state what unbiased people who've been around said people know. you are always the one to jump on my statements, i just defend. so, what is at the root of your insecurity about me stating said facts? hmmmmm

[twothreeoh]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i just state what unbiased people who've been around said people know. you are always the one to jump on my statements, i just defend. so, what is at the root of your insecurity about me stating said facts? hmmmmm

Me too. I find the most unbiased people on davidicke.com. I know how to evaluate bias because I am a smart thinking person. I can tell that the people around me on davidicke.com are free of bias because I apply my logic and talents to them and find them free of bias. You are not free of bias. I can tell. That is an unbiased fact. I am nineteen. Another fact.

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by twothreeoh

Me too. I find the most unbiased people on davidicke.com. I know how to evaluate bias because I am a smart thinking person. I can tell that the people around me on davidicke.com are free of bias because I apply my logic and talents to them and find them free of bias. You are not free of bias. I can tell. That is an unbiased fact. I am nineteen. Another fact.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i just state what unbiased people who've been around said people know. you are always the one to jump on my statements, i just defend. so, what is at the root of your insecurity about me stating said facts? hmmmmm

I jump on your statements because a lot of them are stupid, stigmatizing and not very well thought out, just like I would if a person said something equally dumb in real life. Even if I was an insecure, socially retarded midget with downs syndrome who got put in a psychological class as a mascot, that wouldn't change anything I've written so far.

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by twothreeoh

Me too. I find the most unbiased people on davidicke.com. I know how to evaluate bias because I am a smart thinking person. I can tell that the people around me on davidicke.com are free of bias because I apply my logic and talents to them and find them free of bias. You are not free of bias. I can tell. That is an unbiased fact. I am nineteen. Another fact.

i would think a pscyhology major would be a little more biased about the people grouped in his feild, him being one of the "group". and i would think someone who has absolutely nothing to gain, feeling good about oneself or whatever, would be slightly less biased. no?

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

Great proof.

Try typing in "Black people are stupid" or "Women hate sex". You're more or less confirming that it's a stereotype.

And you'll find equally compelling evidence.

While you're there, try typing in "9/11 was funny" and "Jews control the world".

oh i see you grouped biases against races and genders with a statement i made about people who pay over 100k and spend 4+ years of their studying, that has been shown to result in the least satisfied graduates. ah that makes perfect sense. sorry for questioning their motivation for said degrree. your honed psychological powers are overwhelming.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

oh i see you grouped biases against races and genders with a statement i made about people who pay over 100k and spend 4+ years of their studying, that has been shown to result in the least satisfied graduates. ah that makes perfect sense. sorry for questioning their motivation for said degrree. your honed psychological powers are overwhelming.

You misunderstood completely. Your reply is irrelevant to the comparison I made. Try again.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

i would think a pscyhology major would be a little more biased about the people grouped in his feild, him being one of the "group". and i would think someone who has absolutely nothing to gain, feeling good about oneself or whatever, would be slightly less biased. no?

Sure, and it's not like you're biased in who you choose as friends or what you remember them saying either.

Wait

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

You misunderstood completely. Your reply is irrelevant to the comparison I made. Try again.

well gist of it is almost ALL psychology students have something wrong with them that motivated them to go into the field, whether they even realize it or not. you saying this observation, that also made by thousands of people on the internet and several of my friends and relatives, is akin to the bias made in racism and sexism is laughable at best -- the reason why is stated two posts ago. try another analogy, first one failed.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

well gist of it is almost ALL psychology students have something wrong with them that motivated them to go into the field, whether they even realize it or not. you saying this observation, that also made by thousands of people on the internet and several of my friends and relatives, is akin to the bias made in racism and sexism is laughable at best -- the reason why is stated two posts ago. try another analogy, first one failed.

The google search only proves the existance of a stereotype.

Just like a google search on UFO sightings only prove that people CLAIM to have seen UFOs.

Or a better example:

Billions of people believe in god.

Does this prove god exists?

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

The google search only proves the existance of a stereotype.

Just like a google search on UFO sightings only prove that people CLAIM to have seen UFOs.

Or a better example:

Billions of people believe in god.

Does this prove god exists?

hey whatever makes you feel better about yourself and your major.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

hey whatever makes you feel better about yourself and your major.

And here you just realized your own shitty logic and you're trying to play it off like trolling

[nimbus5000]

Originally Posted by MrShit

And here you just realized your own shitty logic and you're trying to play it off like trolling

no, logic is sound, just way too bored to explain to an extremely biased person. would be like explaining there is no god to a pastor.

[MrShit]

Originally Posted by nimbus5000

no, logic is sound, just way too bored to explain to an extremely biased person. would be like explaining there is no god to a pastor.

Oldest and worst cop out in the book. Not buying that one I'm afraid.