Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Tassman]

Except in another thread we discovered that there is no such thing as masculine brains and feminine brains. We are clearly looking at pathology here, psycho pathology or not.

We're NOT looking at a "pathology here" according to those best in a position to know. And I DON'T mean the theologians. The APA and every psychiatric association and related discipline in the world have long stopped viewing homosexuality as a pathology in and of itself.

[Starlight]

We're NOT looking at a "pathology here" according to those best in a position to know.

We are: Jedidiah has a pathology in his stubborn delusions and rejection of reality and his insistence that he knows better than medical professionals and scientists.

[Jedidiah]

We're NOT looking at a "pathology here" according to those best in a position to know. And I DON'T mean the theologians. The APA and every psychiatric association and related discipline in the world have long stopped viewing homosexuality as a pathology in and of itself.

Trouble is I was a psych major in college when the establishment (like APA) made the start to change homosexuality to non pathological. It happened by lots of homosexuals and supporters moved into the so called main stream. There was a lot of hostility and threats to those who resisted. It was in the newspapers at the time. Yet I could not find one word about it on the net. A violent take over does not amount to removing a pathological condition from the list of pathologies in any sort of reality. Nor does trying to force pedophilia into the rank of non pathological conditions.

Yes we are looking at pathology. When the inmates take over they will just lie.

[Jedidiah]

We are: Jedidiah has a pathology in his stubborn delusions and rejection of reality and his insistence that he knows better than medical professionals and scientists.

In this one case I do know. I was around when the inmates took over the asylum.

[Starlight]

In this one case I do know. I was around when the inmates took over the asylum.

Ah, you were an inmate who escaped from a mental asylum. Explains a lot.

BTW, your view that the internal politics of the APA 40 years ago is somehow relevant is just bizarre. Many scientists publishing studies on the topic today wouldn't have even been born at that time, and the levels of knowledge we've gathered on the topic in the last 10 years alone have been huge. And we're not dealing with a case of a single scientific organisation going weird - all the major medical and psychological organisations across the Western world have said that the current science shows that there are variations in human sexuality and that prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people hurts them. For you to have some half-baked story about the internal politics of the APA 40 years ago is just utterly and hilariously irrelevant.

[Darth Executor]

Ah, you were an inmate who escaped from a mental asylum. Explains a lot.

BTW, your view that the internal politics of the APA 40 years ago is somehow relevant is just bizarre. Many scientists publishing studies on the topic today wouldn't have even been born at that time, and the levels of knowledge we've gathered on the topic in the last 10 years alone have been huge. And we're not dealing with a case of a single scientific organisation going weird - all the major medical and psychological organisations across the Western world have said that the current science shows that there are variations in human sexuality and that prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people hurts them. For you to have some half-baked story about the internal politics of the APA 40 years ago is just utterly and hilariously irrelevant.

Who trained the new generation of psychologists? Even in hard sciences you often have to wait for the older generation to die off before new ideas become accepted. In a non-science field like psychology, that already attracts an overwhelming ratio of mentally ill progressives? You're simply too dumb to comprehend that obviously corrupt insititutions have no credibility. This is a huge weak spot for progressives because you idiots think merely hijacking an institution gives you legitimacy when in practice it just ruins the credibility of the institution.

[Starlight]

Who trained the new generation of psychologists?

They got the doctors as well, and worldwide. It's apparently a massive illuminati brainwashing conspiracy. Probably done by the transdimensional lizard people your hero Alex Jones warned us about.

You're simply too dumb to comprehend that obviously corrupt insititutions have no credibility. This is a huge weak spot for progressives because you idiots think merely hijacking an institution gives you legitimacy when in practice it just ruins the credibility of the institution.

It's not just the institutions themselves saying these things, it's also the peer reviewed studies. If the institutions were saying one thing and the studies and the scientists another, that would be interesting. But I've read the studies myself and that is not what is happening here. All that's happening here is conservative morons like yourself are in absolute denial of the facts on all fronts, as per usual.

[demi-conservative]

They got the doctors as well, and worldwide.

Most doctors, not being , don't go into psych; so they just parrot DSM/whatever like they learnt during medicine training.

Appeal to 'doctors' is appeal to not-relevant authorities. Focus of doctors is on anatomy, surgery, etc etc, not latest social '''''science'''''.

It's not just the institutions themselves saying these things, it's also the peer reviewed studies. If the institutions were saying one thing and the studies and the scientists another, that would be interesting.

Moron. People in charge of institutions, also are people in charge of journals, and also peer-reviewing.

[Starlight]

People in charge of institutions, also are people in charge of journals, and also peer-reviewing.

Ah, so the Big Science institutions act like the Mafia and have Their People in place everywhere? That tells me you have no clue what you're talking about.

Dude, the peer-review process is actually very distributed and any academic can be asked to review any paper, and the number of different journals is huge. I've gone through the process of publishing papers myself several times.

The APA alone has 117,500 members, you think their small board of directors can control all those members? Scientists tend to be pretty willful and obsessive about the value of their own research, and generally give the middle finger in response to other people trying to tell them what to do. The idea that an organisation like the APA could control its members and get them to toe a party line is pretty hilarious.

[demi-conservative]

Ah, so the Big Science institutions act like the Mafia and have Their People in place everywhere?

Are you sure you are '''''scientist''''''? There no need for that to have conformity, see below!!

Dude, the peer-review process is actually very distributed and any academic can be asked to review any paper

Red herring-truth!! 'Can be' is irrelevant, editors decide on who is asked to review, dumbass.

and the number of different journals is huge.

Red-herring truth!! Most important journals, which are small number*, drive Narrative, dumbass.

The APA has 117,500 members, you think their small board of directors can control all those members?

Basic knowledge about human nature, mr ''''scientist'''', will tell you that large part of people will conform even without any overt, also existing threat**!!! And that's all idiots like you need, small number of people who disagree can be ignored because 'majority consensus'

*which is like how small number of FAKE NEWS mainstream media drive Narrative
** somehow according to morons like you, social Science findings not suppose to apply to scientists themselves. Reality is people conform like mad even without any sticks present!!

[Tassman]

Trouble is I was a psych major in college when the establishment (like APA) made the start to change homosexuality to non pathological. It happened by lots of homosexuals and supporters moved into the so called main stream. There was a lot of hostility and threats to those who resisted. It was in the newspapers at the time. Yet I could not find one word about it on the net. A violent take over does not amount to removing a pathological condition from the list of pathologies in any sort of reality. Nor does trying to force pedophilia into the rank of non pathological conditions.

Yes we are looking at pathology. When the inmates take over they will just lie.

So, in your mind, it's an evil APA plot to normalise the "sinful aberration" of homosexuality, is it?

The problem for you is that it's not just the APA. Virtually every psychiatric association and related discipline in the world has long stopped viewing homosexuality as a pathology in and of itself.

The reason it was previously (erroneously) so categorised 40+ years ago was that 1. Such a view reflected the norms of society at the time and 2. Because of the persecution of homosexuals in that era genuine pathological symptoms sometimes developed as a consequence...and these were the people presenting themselves to health-care professionals. This is not the case today thanks to our more tolerant and enlightened era.

[demi-conservative]

Just to reiterate point:

What about scientists who really really disagree with APA position??

They're called conservatives, and those who speak up libs like you attack, sometimes demonize them. Because for moron that is you, 'majority group consensus' is enough.

-------

Okay I'm done now!! Let me know when you next want butt of yours kicked

[Starlight]

Are you sure you are '''''scientist''''''?

Not with that many quotemarks, no.

Most important journals, which are small number*, drive Narrative

How many is a 'small' number? There's a list of psychology journals here. Dude, seriously, if the most prestigious journals were refusing to publish good scientific work they would be widely mocked for it by their own field.

Basic knowledge about human nature, mr ''''scientist'''', will tell you that large part of people will conform even without any overt, also existing threat**!!!

Then I order you to """""""""conform""""""""!!! Or else!

Reality is people conform like mad even without any sticks present!!

I have a stick. You should conform.

[rogue06]

Who trained the new generation of psychologists? Even in hard sciences you often have to wait for the older generation to die off before new ideas become accepted...

That is a bit exaggerated.

Michael Engel co-author of Evolution of the Insects, who when shown a 14 myo fossil of a honey bee was discovered in Utah which demonstrated that he had been wrong about honey bees not being in North America millions of years ago but had (relatively) recently migrated here from Europe or Asia, was thrilled stating "This rewrites the history of honeybee evolution ... I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

And this is far from some isolated instance. Scientists reject cherished beliefs if and when enough evidence can be amassed against it.

As Carl Sagan noted back in 1987 in a speech:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.^[1]

Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" cites a couple examples of just such occurrences taking place, such as with the issue of continental drift and plate tectonics. He notes that

"The Old Guard" who had a lot of time and research invested in fixed continents tended to be skeptical the longest, and many held out until the evidence became overwhelming. Eventually, they all had to concede their cherished beliefs were wrong.

Prothero revealed how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts and his work ended up providing a good deal of the geological evidence used in support of the theory.

Everybody's favorite Richard Dawkins has repeatedly recounted one instance that he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

I can continue giving example after example of this including debates over whether humans were in the Americas prior to the Clovis culture; the megaflood in eastern Washington that resulted in the formation of the Scablands; how a champion of the idea that whales arose from mesonychids abruptly changed his mind and agreed they actually arose from artiodactyls (an idea he had adamantly opposed) when he discovered a bone that contradicted his presumptions.

[demi-conservative]

Dude, seriously, if the most prestigious journals were refusing to publish good scientific work they would be widely mocked for it by their own field.

Mere assertion, what is mechanism for this??? Most psychologists would keep shut about being rejected by prestigious journals, so as not to ruin chance of being published by them next time. Also, most rejections from really good journals is based on 'this is not significant enough'. What is psychologist to do? Try to make on soapbox and whine that his research is actually good enough for best journals??

Stop trying to do stupid BS, it'll just get exposed!!

Then I order you to """""""""conform""""""""!!! Or else!

I have a stick. You should conform.

You only have inept tries at mocking which is worse than nothing, cos it only makes you look terrible!!!