An Open Letter to White Privilege

[piscator]

How can anyone take that shit seriously? And not one single mention, not ONE, that Pistorius might be faking it.
.

I've done some Expert Witness work. You provide what you're paid for, nothing more. Most freelance speculation on the final verdict is frowned upon by attorneys and other checkwriters, and would most certainly be caught before it gets read into evidence.




So, was Thalidomide an antidepressant, or an antianxiety med? I'm aware that was 50 years ago and no one has to suffer today, thanks to modern pharmacology. But I'm stuck waiting on a late plane again, so I may as well post in this thread again.

In my previous example, I happened to be shagging that particular "Host". I knew she was a little flakey, but I had no plans to marry her. Then she got to where she'd talk about her "Group" therapy customers, and how she made her $$.
I ended up better-dealing her for a mall manager pretty quick. True story.

[Mr.Samsa]

Speaking as a professional who has done a fair bit of Expert Witness work, you provide what you're paid for, nothing more. Most freelance speculation on the final verdict is frowned upon by attorneys and other checkwriters, and would most certainly be caught before it gets read into evidence.

Exactly.

So, was Thalidomide an antidepressant, or an antianxiety med? I'm aware that was 50 years ago and today no one has to suffer today, thanks to modern pharmacology. But I'm stuck waiting on a late plane again, so I may as well post in this thread again.

Nah, Thalidomide was never an antidepressant and I think it did have some applications as an "anti-anxiety" drug but it was simply just a sedative. The only problem with it was when it was prescribed an antiemetic (treatment for nausea) in women with morning sickness and they simply assumed that there would be no complications - big mistake. Didn't have anything to do with psychology though and it was more a problem with medical research as a whole.

[mistermack]

Hey, I'm not sure if you saw it but in my last couple of posts to you I asked if you knew of any psychology papers that could be used to demonstrate the claims you're making. Any luck in finding some?

You think I'm going to search through that woo?
What I just posted was psychology in ACTION, and it's pure bollocks.

Take another case from South Africa, the murder of Anni Dewani.
Her husband has evaded justice for nearly four years, on the strength of psychological reports.
It was only by a whisker that he didn't get away completely from facing Justice, for the murder of his wife.
The whole ''science '' should be a laughing stock, and not allowed into any courtroom, until they admit that they can't tell if someone if faking.

Illness[edit]
On 20 January, Shrien was due to appear before an extradition pre-hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court. However, he did not attend the hearing, and the court was told by his lawyer that Shrien had been diagnosed as suffering with both an acute stress disorder and a depressive adjustment disorder by a psychiatrist. Watson, for the South African authorities, told the court that Shrien was presently facing charges in South Africa of: conspiracy to murder; murder; kidnapping; robbery with aggravated circumstances; and obstruction of the administration of justice.[53] The full extradition hearing was adjourned by the Chief Magistrate to 8 February, at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, for which an extension to Shrien's bail was granted.[54]

There's acres more of it. The truth is, the shit is faking it, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it, except the psychologists/psychiatrists, who know how to make a few quid.
They stretched that out to four years. And we all paid for it.

Nice work, if you can get it.

Post traumatic stress disorder is the new whiplash injury. A fantastic gravy train.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

[mistermack]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

I've never read any papers on homeopathy either. Perhaps we're all wrong.
There must be something in it. They write papers. And then read them to each other.

[pErvinalia]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

I've never read any papers on homeopathy either. Perhaps we're all wrong.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day..

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

I've never read any papers on homeopathy either. Perhaps we're all wrong.
There must be something in it. They write papers. And then read them to each other.

Then how do you know they only discuss untestable concepts?

[pErvinalia]

He's an old age conservative. They just know these things!

[mistermack]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

I've never read any papers on homeopathy either. Perhaps we're all wrong.
There must be something in it. They write papers. And then read them to each other.

Then how do you know they only discuss untestable concepts?

You can test the individual strands of wool, but you fail on assessing the jumper.
I said that if you test one thing, you can predict an ability in that thing. That's so bleedin obvious, it doesn't deserve a scientific ''paper''. I also said if psychologists stuck to what they know, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

When I said concepts, I was referring to things like I've already illustrated, all the sham PTSD that's being diagnosed, etc etc.

It's absolutely obvious that those concepts are not testable, except in the mind of the psychologist, and in his bank balance.

I'm not saying that psychology papers are necessarily useless. Not if they are soft and absorbent.

[mistermack]

"Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships."



As a side note, Pistorius could be genuinely grieving Steenkamp's death and be genuinely depressed about it and whatnot, while still having killed her. Killers are often portrayed in the media during court cases as...well, it's like they're expected to have no emotion over what they've done. It's like we're meant to think of them as cold calculating killers who show no emotion during or after the murder, and any grieving for the victim indicates their innocence. I don't think it's that simple. I think if I flew into a rage and killed someone, I might feel awful about it afterwards, like, "Oh my god what have I done?! I really liked that girl and now she's dead because I killed her. Fuck!" And I'd be really sad and depressed because I killed her. Of course Pistorius's grief could very well be an act. But even if it isn't, that still doesn't mean he's innocent.

All true. And as there is no possible way for any human to determine if it's an act, or genuine sorrow or depression or whatever other bollocks they call it, it should be irrelevant to the trial.
The reason that they ordered the assessment was because his defence started to insinuate that he had at the time an anxiety condition, from not having legs, which might have prompted him to shoot when a two-legged man might have held back. That was enough to prompt six weeks of psychological bollocks.

The ''independent'' psychologist found no trace of it, while the defence found one that diagnosed it.
How very fucking telling. They're both fucking liars. Neither of them have a clue.
That's what mental experts can do. They can say fucking anything and nobody can disprove it. And they do just that. For the money.

[pErvinalia]

I'm just pointing out that I don't think you've read a single paper in the field and that's why your view is so woefully misinformed.

I've never read any papers on homeopathy either. Perhaps we're all wrong.
There must be something in it. They write papers. And then read them to each other.

Then how do you know they only discuss untestable concepts?

You can test the individual strands of wool, but you fail on assessing the jumper.
I said that if you test one thing, you can predict an ability in that thing. That's so bleedin obvious, it doesn't deserve a scientific ''paper''. I also said if psychologists stuck to what they know, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

When I said concepts, I was referring to things like I've already illustrated, all the sham PTSD that's being diagnosed, etc etc.

You haven't illustrated anything. All you've done is spray your ignorant opinion around.

It's absolutely obvious...

Said the opinion generator.

[tattuchu]

"Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships."



As a side note, Pistorius could be genuinely grieving Steenkamp's death and be genuinely depressed about it and whatnot, while still having killed her. Killers are often portrayed in the media during court cases as...well, it's like they're expected to have no emotion over what they've done. It's like we're meant to think of them as cold calculating killers who show no emotion during or after the murder, and any grieving for the victim indicates their innocence. I don't think it's that simple. I think if I flew into a rage and killed someone, I might feel awful about it afterwards, like, "Oh my god what have I done?! I really liked that girl and now she's dead because I killed her. Fuck!" And I'd be really sad and depressed because I killed her. Of course Pistorius's grief could very well be an act. But even if it isn't, that still doesn't mean he's innocent.

All true. And as there is no possible way for any human to determine if it's an act, or genuine sorrow or depression or whatever other bollocks they call it, it should be irrelevant to the trial.
The reason that they ordered the assessment was because his defence started to insinuate that he had at the time an anxiety condition, from not having legs, which might have prompted him to shoot when a two-legged man might have held back. That was enough to prompt six weeks of psychological bollocks.

The ''independent'' psychologist found no trace of it, while the defence found one that diagnosed it.
How very fucking telling. They're both fucking liars. Neither of them have a clue.
That's what mental experts can do. They can say fucking anything and nobody can disprove it. And they do just that. For the money.

Any idea what that bit I quoted and italicized means? What the fuck is that all about?

[mistermack]

Any idea what that bit I quoted and italicized means? What the fuck is that all about?

Fuck knows.
He certainly doesn't know, because he's only had one side of it. And that's from a man who's on trial for murder. No mention of how THAT might cloud the story that he's been fed.

All I can guess is that he means these kind of relationships, where the man gets his gun and blows away his girlfriend. In that kind of relationship, you might often get a bit of coercion.

Of course, the quack must have ignored the fact that the court has seen texts sent by the victim, saying that she was often frightened by her boyfriend/killer.

[Mr.Samsa]

You can test the individual strands of wool, but you fail on assessing the jumper.
I said that if you test one thing, you can predict an ability in that thing. That's so bleedin obvious, it doesn't deserve a scientific ''paper''. I also said if psychologists stuck to what they know, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

But a field of science isn't a jumper. Should you really be trying to translate your knowledge of knitting to science? Perhaps that's where you're going wrong. And you don't know what psychologists are sticking to or what they know because you've basically admitted that you've never read a paper.

When I said concepts, I was referring to things like I've already illustrated, all the sham PTSD that's being diagnosed, etc etc.

It's absolutely obvious that those concepts are not testable, except in the mind of the psychologist, and in his bank balance.

I'm not saying that psychology papers are necessarily useless. Not if they are soft and absorbent.

...Are you serious? Mental disorders aren't scientific concepts, they are scientific facts - i.e. descriptions and labels given to observations. They are purely descriptive so aren't supposed to be testable, any more so than a description of "acceleration" is testable.

"Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships."



As a side note, Pistorius could be genuinely grieving Steenkamp's death and be genuinely depressed about it and whatnot, while still having killed her. Killers are often portrayed in the media during court cases as...well, it's like they're expected to have no emotion over what they've done. It's like we're meant to think of them as cold calculating killers who show no emotion during or after the murder, and any grieving for the victim indicates their innocence. I don't think it's that simple. I think if I flew into a rage and killed someone, I might feel awful about it afterwards, like, "Oh my god what have I done?! I really liked that girl and now she's dead because I killed her. Fuck!" And I'd be really sad and depressed because I killed her. Of course Pistorius's grief could very well be an act. But even if it isn't, that still doesn't mean he's innocent.

All true. And as there is no possible way for any human to determine if it's an act, or genuine sorrow or depression or whatever other bollocks they call it, it should be irrelevant to the trial.
The reason that they ordered the assessment was because his defence started to insinuate that he had at the time an anxiety condition, from not having legs, which might have prompted him to shoot when a two-legged man might have held back. That was enough to prompt six weeks of psychological bollocks.

The ''independent'' psychologist found no trace of it, while the defence found one that diagnosed it.
How very fucking telling. They're both fucking liars. Neither of them have a clue.
That's what mental experts can do. They can say fucking anything and nobody can disprove it. And they do just that. For the money.

Any idea what that bit I quoted and italicized means? What the fuck is that all about?

Hard to say given that it's a small snippet of a report with no context, but if I had to guess I'd wager that there might have been a typo either in the report or the journalist write-up and it probably should have said something like: "Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in thOse kinds of relationships.

[Tyrannical]

Just a note on the IQ test claim - it's actually an incredibly valid and accurate measure of intelligence that predicts a whole host of important things, and the idea that it only measures how well you do on IQ tests is a popular myth that has been debunked by practically every study on intelligence over the last few decades.

It's the behavioral tests that are important, and IQ is an important part of that. I'm kind of surprised you agree with the validity of these types of tests, since your actions and beliefs don't seem to reflect it. Unless you believe the genetic component is small, which sort of invalidates natural selection.