If I would’ve just translated it and copy and pasted it, there would’ve absolutely be whining about a source so… 
So google Nederlandse Multidisciplinaire richtlijn Schizofrenie procenten and translate it orrrrrrrr learn Dutch. It’s the most beautiful language out there anyway.
3 Likes
debatable…I like spanish or latin or, being Italian, my own lol, plus I looooooooove the English accent on girls, idk why lol, But I like the Netherlands too 
1 Like
Hmmm. Okay, good enough lol.
Ontopic, kind of… I was watching a documentary a while back, that not so long ago sexual desire in women was considered a mental illness. Brilliant minds.
5 Likes
when was this, the 1920s?
1 Like
It was dropped in 1952.
2 Likes
damn
1 Like
well weve come a long way since then…I think
1 Like
That’s the thing. I wonder, don’t you think they felt the same back then?
2 Likes
you mean that they felt the same as they do now, like nothings changed? no I think a lot has changed in gender equality but there are many things we still need to learn, and i think most of us have a particular opinion on the opposite sex that is formulated based on past experiences, for example, the women in my life, demonic and human have almost all hurt me bad and some almost killed me, so I am always in my lane and rarely ever go chasing after someone unless they come to me first, but now i am more on the defensive, lol
1 Like
A fair point.
…It isn’t subjective though. King Paimon works with the sciences and liberal arts.
I mean monster in the sense that they’re irredeemable bastards. I have no idea why you’re this upset about it. 
1 Like
Absolutely. You’re right. What I meant was is that people are very rigid when it comes to this subject, when I think looking at history a little scepticism would be healthy. Things can change at anytime. Anyhoo. Leaving this discussion.
2 Likes
That’s one interpretation. It is not objective (universal authentication or evidence found in Nature) so by logical default it is subjective. And as far as I know, King Paimon doesn’t have his own television show nor does he give lectures, so this removes the objectivity through action used in conjunction with an ideology or belief possibility.
Irredeemable in accordance with what? Morality? God?
3 Likes
At this point a lot of black magicians are just like light workers in the idea that there’s a single way to be something that sounds like a yugioh card. lol
5 Likes
If you are referring to electrotherapy (which is the most common they used back then I think) Well… You’re not wrong.
Ok, so for the first article from RealClearScience, their claims seem to be:
Freud did not do science. I agree, he did not do science. Psychologists today do very different things than Freud, so this is irrelevant.
Psychologists do not employ the scientific method. Summarizing the wikipedia article, the scientific method is a rigorous empirical process for advancing knowledge based off of observations made in the world. Psychologists today run experiments where they observe humans in highly controlled conditions, and then analyze the data collected to form falsifiable theories. I’m skimming over many details, but this process is the same for any other scientific field. So I disagree, Psychologists do employ the scientific method.
The truth claims made in Psychology are not equivalent to the truth claims made in the so-called “hard sciences.” I’m certainly no expert in epistemology (theory of knowledge), but I would generally agree. In fields like Physics, one can often observe laws of nature that are very constant in how they behave. Under condition xyz, gravity will always behave the same way. The phenomena studied by Psychologists tend to not behave so uniformly, as human behavior and cognition varies widely based on individual differences and environmental conditions. Within this variation, however, statistically significant patterns may be observed, and these patterns are used to form falsifiable hypotheses and theories that can reliably predict behavior and cognition.
Statistics is not a science. Correct, stats are a form of math. It is, as the author states, “the key facilitator of the scientific method.” Psychologists use stats to perform experiments designed with scientific principles, and then to analyze data to form falsifiable scientific theories, which are further tested and either replicated or changed.
Theories in Psychology are not as strongly supported as theories in Physics. Generally speaking, yes this is true. Physics is a much older field than Psychology, and has had much more time to perform experiments and work the kinks out of its theories. Just because some theories are not as strongly supported as others does not mean that those theories were not arrived at scientifically. Indeed, the scientific method is what will allow those theories to evolve and become more strongly supported over time. I doubt that people started claiming that Physics wasn’t a science when Einstein shook up the very foundations of that field, so it seems very fallacious to claim that Psychology is somehow unscientific when similar things are done within it.
Psychologists make claims similarly to how those in the humanities or arts do. This is false. Psychologists use statistics and the scientific method, while those in, say, philosophy or math use logical proofs, and those in the arts use a more subjective analysis. I believe some humanities use statistics as well, but they don’t apply them in a scientific manner. This does not invalidate their work, it just makes their truth claims different than scientific truth claims, like how claims from math and philosophy are different than scientific ones or those from the humanities.
My claim should be apparent, then:
Psychology is a science. I have stated why I believe this many times now. If you are not clear on my evidence, I could quote from this and my previous post. I’m not sure if I’m allowed to share published articles from scientific journals, legally speaking, but if you have access to such resources they would be useful to consult so you could see what methods and such things Psychologists actually use.
–
I will readily admit that I am biased, but so is literally everyone. My arguments should be judged off of their logic, and so should everyone else’s. It seems to me that the authors of this article were quite biased themselves, for whatever reason, which is why you should dissect the arguments into a logical structure.
I do find this to be enjoyable, so I’ll probably return to the second article at a later time.
2 Likes
Okay this is an attempt to continue the overall discussion about the possible merits/inherent flaws of psychology for those of us who practice magick, I have completely removed posts which addressed:
-
mass shooters, since these tend to naturally draw a discussion of the political context in which they occur, and that is against forum rules
-
morality, which addressed some of the same points about personal experience which were also unavoidably political.
If anyone wishes to discuss political issues raised by the previous posts, with someone whose views differ, please make a neutral approach via PM enquiring whether the person wishes to debate this with you, first.
And as ever, debate the argument, not the person making it, attacking the person simply degrades the overall topic to the detriment of everyone.
Cheers. 
4 Likes
I agree, but Freud was fucked up big time. Freud was a really severe headcase. His only redeeming feature was his cigar smoking.
It was suggested I see a (gay) psychologist. He and I used to drink coffee, smoke tobacco and laugh our heads off together. I got him quality smoking herb and he offered me LSD, which he had a license to import. Both of us appreciated that we were off-centre individuals. That’s the thing; with me this psychologist was openly not ‘normal’ because we were on the same wavelength. Being ‘normal’ is having the same mental diseases as everyone else.
Al.
1 Like
According to some lay people, all members of this forum could qualify as skitzo (with perhaps the exception of some newbies who have not opened their senses at all, but could still qualify just on the basis of their beliefs alone.) . Some people think all you need to qualify, is things like "hearing voices and seeing stuff that “isn’t there” or rather stuff that every single other person cannot see.
The psychologists and psychiatrists aren’t necessarily much better. They change around categories all the time.
Psychologists I’ve met have followed the same archetype of being extremely arrogant on a scale.
I do believe psychology is a valid science, just think it is overrated and that its practitioners and students easily fall into hubris.
2 Likes