FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Distinguishing Mental Health issues

Distinguishing Mental Health issues

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Serious question as i know there are quite a few people on the forum who know this subject well. If someone appears to have some very strange ideas about things, how would you distinguish between a person who is mentally ill and a person who just believes dumb shit?

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

Or Alex Jones who is a conspriacy theorist who can see the US government in every aspect of his life and says they are putting chemicals in water to turn the friggin frogs gay. Is that weirdness or paranoia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Have you ever watched 'they live'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

To be honest you cant. People believe in all kinds of stuff and are passionate about things. I dont think their memtally ill. I have a friend when shes ill she starts to preach about god. I know thats when shes ill as i know her

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes. "

Sorry but that's a cop-out response. When Dr Phil interviewed Shelly Duvall, he knew she was mentally ill so he didn't challenge her statements that contradict reality, which is a classy thing to do. If you and I are having dinner and I start telling you how all the ice cream trucks in London are actually Mi5 radars watching us through the walls then you only have 3 options;

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Have you ever watched 'they live'? "

No, should I?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"To be honest you cant. People believe in all kinds of stuff and are passionate about things. I dont think their memtally ill. I have a friend when shes ill she starts to preach about god. I know thats when shes ill as i know her"

Argh, so complicated. Thanks for the input though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

There is a book that tells you all the symptoms.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *appy squirrelWoman over a year ago

Norwich

most of it depends on your thought process - how do you come to a certain conclusion. can you explain it? is it logical (even if your own opinion is different) or not? most people with delusions or paranoid thoughts are not able to tell you how they know certain things or at least not with any logic in it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"There is a book that tells you all the symptoms. "

Yes but the definitions are a mile wide so it's useless in practical application

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit "

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have you ever watched 'they live'?

No, should I? "

Yes. It sort of uses the theory of David ick but clearverly made the analogy with the unconscious control that society has on us.

Very old movie though but very famous. The guy who see the 'real' world through sunglasses.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit "

No. You don’t get to call cop out in my answer. You don’t get to ask an opinion and then say it’s not correct, if it’s my opinion.

I’m sorry you also don’t get to be so reductionist to then reduce the question is follow up to three options that are of a different shift to your premised question. Nuance and context.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have you ever watched 'they live'?

No, should I?

Yes. It sort of uses the theory of David ick but clearverly made the analogy with the unconscious control that society has on us.

Very old movie though but very famous. The guy who see the 'real' world through sunglasses. "

Classic! You've gotta see it broken. Cult film

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"most of it depends on your thought process - how do you come to a certain conclusion. can you explain it? is it logical (even if your own opinion is different) or not? most people with delusions or paranoid thoughts are not able to tell you how they know certain things or at least not with any logic in it"

Wow, that's a good distinction. See Alex Jones has a logic trail, not saying it's a good one, But he has one. David Icke believes it because of some sort of visions. Maybe that is the best answer.

It's difficult though. I had a very awkward situation where a friend invited me to his house and there I met another of his friends. My friend neglected to mention that the other guy was autistic. I got into a debate with his friend about some really technical subject with my main criticism of him being that his world view lacked nuance! My friend only told me afterwards that the guy was autistic, I was pretty angry at him for that. If I'd know the guy was autistic then i wouldn't have bitten when he criticised me, but i had no idea since autistic people aren't visually any different!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have you ever watched 'they live'?

No, should I?

Yes. It sort of uses the theory of David ick but clearverly made the analogy with the unconscious control that society has on us.

Very old movie though but very famous. The guy who see the 'real' world through sunglasses.

Classic! You've gotta see it broken. Cult film

The 7 minutes fight is timeless

but it shows how truth is difficult to accept

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

No. You don’t get to call cop out in my answer. You don’t get to ask an opinion and then say it’s not correct, if it’s my opinion.

I’m sorry you also don’t get to be so reductionist to then reduce the question is follow up to three options that are of a different shift to your premised question. Nuance and context. "

Sorry but you seemed to avoid the central issue of my question. I'm not trying to diagnose people, I'm trying to better adjust my personal behaviour when encountering mental illness. To do that, I have to make judgements, you can't just say leave the judgements to someone else. Sorry if you thought my reply was harsh but I was trying to get to the heart of the matter.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Have you ever watched 'they live'?

No, should I?

Yes. It sort of uses the theory of David ick but clearverly made the analogy with the unconscious control that society has on us.

Very old movie though but very famous. The guy who see the 'real' world through sunglasses.

Classic! You've gotta see it broken. Cult film

The 7 minutes fight is timeless

but it shows how truth is difficult to accept "

Will check it out thanks!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I saw three conspiracists drinking in the pub the other day now you can’t tell me that’s a coincidence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Wow, that's a good distinction. See Alex Jones has a logic trail, not saying it's a good one, But he has one. David Icke believes it because of some sort of visions. Maybe that is the best answer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about. "

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"most of it depends on your thought process - how do you come to a certain conclusion. can you explain it? is it logical (even if your own opinion is different) or not? most people with delusion or paranoid thoughts are not able to tell you how they know certain things or at least not with any logic in it"

I know what you mean, but it depends what specific mental health condition you are referring to, perhaps with delusions - although even then I know many people with very clear logic to their delusions. But equally not all mental health conditions will have delusions as a manifested symptom, so it doesn’t cover the wide ranging question posed by the OP.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tonMessCouple over a year ago

Slough Windsor ish

I wouldn't try to make a diagnosis, each individual presents in an entirely unique way, I'm not a psychiatrist I just have a mental illness.... Sure I can see somebody suffering similar symptoms to my own but to just say "oh, I have those symptoms, they must have the same as me" is not always the answer.

Its taken me the best part of 4 years to get a correct diagnosis... Years of misdiagnosis and " let's try this medication" to finally end up on the correct medication and stabilise. How can an unqualified man off the street make the right diagnosis on a whim?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Wow, that's a good distinction. See Alex Jones has a logic trail, not saying it's a good one, But he has one. David Icke believes it because of some sort of visions. Maybe that is the best answer.

Hence my problem! I like to challenge people on certain views, but I'm not cruel in these sense that I want to show a schizophrenic person all the gaps in their logic!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I wouldn't try to make a diagnosis, each individual presents in an entirely unique way, I'm not a psychiatrist I just have a mental illness.... Sure I can see somebody suffering similar symptoms to my own but to just say "oh, I have those symptoms, they must have the same as me" is not always the answer.

Ok so let me ask you it another way then. You're having dinner with Alec Jones and he tells you not to order tap water because the government put chemicals in it to control your mind. Do you agree or challenge him on it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society. "

It was a badly posed question. Because the answer is (and you said it within your OP) unclear. If your point is should you offer intervention or not, then my educated move would be whether or not their behaviour or belief would pose them or another harm. And if so, I’d refer for support.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Since you're specifically aiming this at people with unusual views, I think a really good indicator is to ask them if they've either read or entertained criticisms of their views. If it's clear that they are well versed and have a good grasp of the arguments against them... but can still defend it... then you simply have to concede that they're perfectly fine mentally speaking... they just see things differently. If they refuse to read or entertain opposing arguments. Or if their rebuttal of them is nonsensical. Then it's not so much that they may have a mental illness but rather that there is something other than pure reason operating behind their views; that they mean something to them on an emotional level perhaps. This, of course, leaves them vulnerable to slowly wandering off piste intellectually. I would put Icke somewhere in this. Lost in his own ego.

Does that help?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Wow, that's a good distinction. See Alex Jones has a logic trail, not saying it's a good one, But he has one. David Icke believes it because of some sort of visions. Maybe that is the best answer.

Hence my problem! I like to challenge people on certain views, but I'm not cruel in these sense that I want to show a schizophrenic person all the gaps in their logic!"
do you question random people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Even a GP couldn’t give a formal “off the cuff” diagnosis, they would refer you on to Experts, who spend years studying the complexities of the human mind and all accompanying symptoms and such.

To be diagnosed with mental health issues GP’s have checklists/symptom lists (for depression etc) but it’s so much more complex in diagnosing someone with the more complex mental health diagnoses. And look at those wrongly diagnosed, it’s trial and error....the experts are still learning too.

I couldn’t tell at face value if someone was mentally ill or just plain eccentric. There are just so many cross over behaviours.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

No. You don’t get to call cop out in my answer. You don’t get to ask an opinion and then say it’s not correct, if it’s my opinion.

I’m sorry you also don’t get to be so reductionist to then reduce the question is follow up to three options that are of a different shift to your premised question. Nuance and context.

I repeat, the question was not presented correctly. I’ve answered more what I think you’re trying to get at in my last answer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have you ever watched 'they live'?

No, should I? "

Well you keep suggesting people watch dr phil...so maybe you should

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Not intervention so much, but to avoid misunderstandings. At the end of the day, if we have dinner and I give you a half hour rant on why the jews control everything and you just don't say anything and smile nervously. Then I'm going to think "Wow, she really gets it just like me and what a great connection we had".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Since you're specifically aiming this at people with unusual views, I think a really good indicator is to ask them if they've either read or entertained criticisms of their views. If it's clear that they are well versed and have a good grasp of the arguments against them... but can still defend it... then you simply have to concede that they're perfectly fine mentally speaking... they just see things differently. If they refuse to read or entertain opposing arguments. Or if their rebuttal of them is nonsensical. Then it's not so much that they may have a mental illness but rather that there is something other than pure reason operating behind their views; that they mean something to them on an emotional level perhaps. This, of course, leaves them vulnerable to slowly wandering off piste intellectually. I would put Icke somewhere in this. Lost in his own ego.

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"There is a book that tells you all the symptoms.

Yes but the definitions are a mile wide so it's useless in practical application"

The DSM 5 is the latest version. However perhaps a shorter version for your purposes would be the 3 Ps.

Is the condition pervasive? Is it persistent? And is it problematic?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Do you find it hard to create connections. Do you always feel a need to challenge rather than just listen and absorb anothers views

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Wow, that's a good distinction. See Alex Jones has a logic trail, not saying it's a good one, But he has one. David Icke believes it because of some sort of visions. Maybe that is the best answer.

Hence my problem! I like to challenge people on certain views, but I'm not cruel in these sense that I want to show a schizophrenic person all the gaps in their logic!do you question random people. "

Not random but in my example with the autistic guy, I made a throw away statement about a very technical subject in a group setting and he came back at me very strongly. If I'd known he was autistic, I would have laughed it off.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Serious question as i know there are quite a few people on the forum who know this subject well. If someone appears to have some very strange ideas about things, how would you distinguish between a person who is mentally ill and a person who just believes dumb shit?

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is? "

Why would you need to distinguish between the two? If someone starts saying weird things to me I tend to just smile and let them speak and not get into an argument.

Whether they are autistic or have some other mental health issues or whether they're just taking the piss, it doesn't really matter to me. They believe whatever they are saying and that's fine by me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Well I don't want to be associated with view points like that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

"
i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

You said in your OP that you don’t know about this, why then disagree with a sensible and relevant reply to your question?

Estella does actually know what she’s talking about.

It's not an answer to the question. It's impossible to get through the day without making assumptions. We need to make assumptions to function in society.

Do you find it hard to create connections. Do you always feel a need to challenge rather than just listen and absorb anothers views"

Not really. I don't really want to listen to and absorb racist views (for example), if I know the person is mentally ill then i can let it slide but otherwise it's a problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is?

Why would you need to distinguish between the two? If someone starts saying weird things to me I tend to just smile and let them speak and not get into an argument.

Whether they are autistic or have some other mental health issues or whether they're just taking the piss, it doesn't really matter to me. They believe whatever they are saying and that's fine by me."

Imagine someone started saying blatantly racist stuff to you that was a bit more complex than just slurs. So it's not a case of "Johnny don't use that word" but you either explain why they are wrong or let it slide.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"There is a book that tells you all the symptoms.

Yes but the definitions are a mile wide so it's useless in practical application

The DSM 5 is the latest version. However perhaps a shorter version for your purposes would be the 3 Ps.

Is the condition pervasive? Is it persistent? And is it problematic?

Good point, the autistic guy wasn't saying anything problematic. But i have other examples that were.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is?

Why would you need to distinguish between the two? If someone starts saying weird things to me I tend to just smile and let them speak and not get into an argument.

Whether they are autistic or have some other mental health issues or whether they're just taking the piss, it doesn't really matter to me. They believe whatever they are saying and that's fine by me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tonMessCouple over a year ago

Slough Windsor ish

I'd probably just knod and not order the tap water and move the conversation swiftly along... I've no desire to challenge him, he is entitled to his thoughts even if they do sound bizarre to me and I can see no reason to question him on it.

Perhaps you would? In which case, to what end? Are naturally confrontational? Do you need to challenge him or change his thoughts somehow? If he is just a bit eccentric do you then try to reason with him?

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is?

Why would you need to distinguish between the two? If someone starts saying weird things to me I tend to just smile and let them speak and not get into an argument.

Whether they are autistic or have some other mental health issues or whether they're just taking the piss, it doesn't really matter to me. They believe whatever they are saying and that's fine by me.

I'd let it slide and walk away. If they are incredibly racist there's nothing I could say to change that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Yes I'm naturally confrontational, to use the technical term in psychology, I'm extremely low in agreeableness. I'm happy to control that for certain people though, but it would exhaust me if i had to make exceptions for everyone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Which end of the spectrum do you put yourself on then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Op a couple of threads youve posted lately i can see your trying to understand mental illness. Mental health is different for everyone and not everyone with crazy ideas is mentally ill

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Op a couple of threads youve posted lately i can see your trying to understand mental illness. Mental health is different for everyone and not everyone with crazy ideas is mentally ill"

But previously I implicitly assumed none of the people with crazy ideas were mentally ill, there has been some great points made here and I dont think alex Jones is mentally ill. I just don't think it's cool to mock someone with schizophrenia.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tonMessCouple over a year ago

Slough Windsor ish

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people"

In your own mind perhaps. A friend of mine is bipolar. You can tell they think they're running circles round us when they're up. But to us it's often just a bunch of disconnected links. I'm sure in their mind they think they're blowing us away with their genius. But unfortunately it's just garbled nonsense

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Which end of the spectrum do you put yourself on then. "

I'm not autistic, I'm just extremely low on one of the dimensions of personality. I don't require any special passes, if anyone thinks I'm a twat then they can tell me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people

"
but you dont know everyone who is ill. I know someone that managed to convince everyone she was a nurse for three days

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It would depend who I was talking to and how well I know them.

I've seen people change so drastically through mental illness, until the hallucinate, talk about going on holy missions to look for the sword of the devil ,think they are a ball and hide inside their neighbours discarded fridge.

They were clearly mentally ill and had to be listened to and not argued with.

People are so different that one approach doesn't fit all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people

Apologies Diamond. I just realised this came across as quite rude. I of course don't know if you genuinely run rings around others when you're delusional. Sorry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views."

That's one life strategy. Personally i just avoid certain people that I think my personality is incompatible with, I don't want to hear what they've got to say and they don't want to hear what i have to say. It gets more difficult when you have forced situations (e.g. work and family gatherings) hence the desire to make better assessments.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tonMessCouple over a year ago

Slough Windsor ish

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Which end of the spectrum do you put yourself on then. "

Funny... I have a lot of experience around Asperger's and the Autistic Spectrum and was thinking similar... I guess we all make our own judgements (not diagnosis) subconciously

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

For example take David Icke who tells us that Obama was a shape shifting, satanist, lizard who leads a paedophile ring. Is that just weirdness or schizophrenia?

I understand there's not a simple, one size fits all answer. But what I'm asking the people who are educated on this subject (Not me), how do you personally make an educated guess which it is? "

I have a similar curiosity about Phychis? How can some people be lauded for hearing/seeing the invisible while others are punished for it????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people

"
and you do know some peoplw with bipolar are genius just look at history

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

OP, discussing a different viewpoint doesn’t have to be confrontational, challenging or mocking. You can talk and always agree to disagree. Even with someone floridly unwell, you don’t collude, you may contain if dangerously unwell and threatening to hurt someone or themselves, but in conversation you can still disagree with someone else’s beliefs without it being disagreeable.

It is a skill though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Which end of the spectrum do you put yourself on then.

I'm not autistic, I'm just extremely low on one of the dimensions of personality. I don't require any special passes, if anyone thinks I'm a twat then they can tell me

Fair enough

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alking DisasterWoman over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Does that help?

Hell yeah that helps. Good distinction

i disagree. When im delusional i can run circles round people

Apologies Diamond. I just realised this came across as quite rude. I of course don't know if you genuinely run rings around others when you're delusional. Sorry "
no need to apologise but just look througg history at the genuis with bipolar

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill."

Hence the thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"OP, discussing a different viewpoint doesn’t have to be confrontational, challenging or mocking. You can talk and always agree to disagree. Even with someone floridly unwell, you don’t collude, you may contain if dangerously unwell and threatening to hurt someone or themselves, but in conversation you can still disagree with someone else’s beliefs without it being disagreeable.

It is a skill though. "

I'm also very selective about who I spend time with. I don't feel obliged to have three courses with an idiot just because I'm there. Actually this year there was one event where we didn't get to starters

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I'm signing off for the night, really appreciate the comments, lots of very helpful ones from many different people. It's given me a lot to think about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit "

Its not a cop out response, i have family members who are MH professionals which for them has taken varying years of training and experience..

why as for advice and then say its a cop out when the advice given is what a MH professional will tell you is the only way a person can be diagnosed competently and correctly which is the right thing for them if they are ill..

i can diagnose a broken bone or a possible internal injury etc but with MH its never anything more than a guess..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alking DisasterWoman over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread"

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?"

Exactly, if its a view they feel deeply about whats wrong with discussing it. You can find out all sorts of different ways of thinking and looking at things and how they came to their conclusions. All probably perfectly logical when you see their reasoning.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?"
i dont want to be treated differently

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?"

Because they can become aggressive ,confused or frightened.

When reality changes for them they can't be reasoned with. It can be frightening for both them and people around them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It is a skill though. "

I agree with this

Empathy is the place to start. If someone holds entirely opposed views to your own you're unlikely to get through to them by using a language foreign to them or mental leaps that are too big. Instead it is best to engage with their world view rather than mocking it, try to grasp why they hold it, and move outwards from there.

A while ago I was attacked in the usual way by an atheist in a cafe who accused me, as they do, of being mentally ill or an idiot. As I'm confident of my point of view, I quickly segued into a dismantling of their argument. To which they got more and more emotional and vitriolic. It was a nasty experience.

Some time later, after connecting and reflecting, it dawned on me how vicious I had been. Although it was just a rational argument to me, to the person I was arguing with it was clearly a deeply emotional issue. I wondered what horrors he had been through to lead him to his views. Afterwards I resolved to try and check first why people are atheist before arguing with them as there may be a lot of hurt behind it that I should respect and leave well alone. Err as you can tell I haven't quite formed that habit yet

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Because they can become aggressive ,confused or frightened.

When reality changes for them they can't be reasoned with. It can be frightening for both them and people around them.

This was the reason I was thinking of. So the OP makes a good point. Perhaps we do need to try and assess the situation, or at least keep assessing and then change our behaviour if the other person seems agitated or upset.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Because they can become aggressive ,confused or frightened.

When reality changes for them they can't be reasoned with. It can be frightening for both them and people around them.

That kinda comes back to the point in perhaps how to disagree with someone, and being mindful of it. But also comes back to the point of being mindful of *anyone* if they become agitated or upset.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People believing in Aliens, sea creatures or whatever doesn't mean they are mentally ill.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

I like to hear other viewpoints. Probably why I do threads that get people heated, because they open up with more varied thoughts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?"

Wouldn’t that depend on the type of mental illness?

If a person is confronted/questioned about their belief, they could end up believing in it more, which might not be helpful if they are anxious and might exacerbate their condition in a bad way.

Surely you need to just listen. Be empathetic?

I dunno...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?"

As with my previous post. Don't challenge... probe and explore. Even if I met a racist I wouldn't clash. First I'd want to explore why. If I disagreed I'd say so. But I may not try to counter argue. When I argue against someone it's usually because I've first formed the view that they'd be cool with that. Sometimes, as with my previous post, I can get that wrong and feel bad afterwards

Just so you know, though, I would make it clear that I disagree and don't support their racist view. So I wouldn't be passive and wouldn't be a push over at all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

Yup, I'm afraid in my mind that's an ego problem. You don't need to agree or challenge, you can tolerate, or simply remain silent, or change the subject etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 16/08/18 22:49:02]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Just so you know, though, I would make it clear that I disagree and don't support their racist view. So I wouldn't be passive and wouldn't be a push over at all. "

I would not always suggest probing and exploring though. Sometimes that is unhelpful if someone is floridly unwell.

If their behaviour or beliefs suggest harm to themselves or others, contain. Don’t probe or explore or collude or challenge, but calmly contain until qualified support has arrived.

If not a crisis situation then you can speak as you would to anyone else, people are more than just their illnesses or beliefs, just be mindful, as you should with anyone else, as to where it is upsetting or causing them distress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

It is a skill though. "

It is that!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Just so you know, though, I would make it clear that I disagree and don't support their racist view. So I wouldn't be passive and wouldn't be a push over at all.

I would not always suggest probing and exploring though. Sometimes that is unhelpful if someone is floridly unwell.

If their behaviour or beliefs suggest harm to themselves or others, contain. Don’t probe or explore or collude or challenge, but calmly contain until qualified support has arrived.

Oh goodness yes. You're absolutely right Estella. If someone is presenting as unwell then definitely don't test them. Just assume they really are unwell and either get out of the way or see if any professional help is needed.

I was still in the mindset of the op where it's not clear they're unwell. They're just spouting some weird views. If upon a little probing it quickly became evident they were unwell I'd also stop. That's why probing is better than confronting. As it gives you that window to assess the person.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Because they can become aggressive ,confused or frightened.

When reality changes for them they can't be reasoned with. It can be frightening for both them and people around them.

That kinda comes back to the point in perhaps how to disagree with someone, and being mindful of it. But also comes back to the point of being mindful of *anyone* if they become agitated or upset. "

I think this is spot on. There’s nothing wrong with having a differing opinion and challenging anyone, it’s how you do it that matters.

If people started to properly listen to others, then they’d be more likely to pick up on body language which can convey the discomfort someone might be feeling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It is a skill though. "

You’re not going to be able to explore someone’s belief systems/delusions at a BBQ. To be frank, you’re more likely to cause distress with your poke the bear interpersonal approach. Some delusions can be longstanding & just because they still believe these things it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re relapsing.

Perhaps OP, and this is just a suggestion, it would be simpler for you to work on your own social skills, understand where your need to challenge others’ views and learn to soften your approach?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"What if they *are* mentally ill? Should we treat them any differently? Why not challenge their views the same as you would with anyone?

Just so you know, though, I would make it clear that I disagree and don't support their racist view. So I wouldn't be passive and wouldn't be a push over at all.

I would not always suggest probing and exploring though. Sometimes that is unhelpful if someone is floridly unwell.

If their behaviour or beliefs suggest harm to themselves or others, contain. Don’t probe or explore or collude or challenge, but calmly contain until qualified support has arrived.

This. It’s hard to add anything to this topic now as much of what I think and the considered, expert advice I’m not qualified to give, has already been said.

Personally, if I don’t know someone, I’m not going to challenge them on what they think, I’m going to politely nod and move the topic on. If, when I get to know them better, I feel that it’s appropriate to have a debate (and they like it as much as I do), then I’ll have at it with gusto.

We all have different opinions and we’re all entitled to them, even the downright odd, distasteful and potentially unstable ones.

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit "

So that's a good example as it's probably a situation you can work around.

If someone makes hyperbolic statements and publishes them on a platform which allows monetising ie, Alex Jones from info wars, it's probably an act.

If someone makes hyperbolic statements in public life, they might just be sleep deprived, malnourished, burnt out from work, then sprinkle into that an overactive imagination or a characteristic conspiracy piece and you have someone who might buy into this kind of crap.

Of course, someone might have an undiagnosed mental health issue, but only a clinician can correctly assess this.

Of course some people just want to believe and promote conspiracy bulkllshit as rational debate and explanations don't lend someone to pain as 'evil' or corrupt.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If, when I get to know them better, I feel that it’s appropriate to have a debate (and they like it as much as I do), then I’ll have at it with gusto."

Is it wrong of me to interrupt this thread by saying I'd like to see Elcee "have at it with gusto"

xxx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?"

Because autism isn’t a mental health issue. Not in my book. Two of my best mates have Asperger’s and another good friend is so far on the spectrum you can tell within two minutes of talking to him. It’s just a different way of perceiving and interacting with the world.

Mental health issues, in my very much untrained opinion, are those issues that cause negative interactions with and perceptions of the world. They can be managed with medication and/or talking therapies but they are not what any of us would wish to have. They can be temporary, in response to triggers, or a permanent struggle.

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"If, when I get to know them better, I feel that it’s appropriate to have a debate (and they like it as much as I do), then I’ll have at it with gusto.

Is it wrong of me to interrupt this thread by saying I'd like to see Elcee "have at it with gusto"

xxx"

Oooohhh, matron!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me."

I disagree a little.

I don’t disagree that autism/Asperger’s is not a mental health condition, it irks me too when people conflate these types of conditions.

I do disagree that mental health conditions have to be viewed as solely negative. I’m not suggesting anyone would willingly choose to have one, but I’m also not globalising that they have to be viewed as only and entirely negative.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me.

I disagree a little.

I don’t disagree that autism/Asperger’s is not a mental health condition, it irks me too when people conflate these types of conditions.

Thank you...I wasn’t entirely comfortable with what I said on that bit but didn’t know how to put it in the right words.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me.

I disagree a little.

I don’t disagree that autism/Asperger’s is not a mental health condition, it irks me too when people conflate these types of conditions.

Thank you...I wasn’t entirely comfortable with what I said on that bit but didn’t know how to put it in the right words. "

No, it made sense and it was only a slight amendment from my perspective. And I’m glad you called out the difference re A & MH.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me."

I don't know how to say this without totally fucking it up, really sorry, I don't mean it in a bad way.

It's more a 'why' in that I know autism isn't a mental health issue but it's along those lines in that the person is 'different' so I would still try and tread carefully when interacting with them- having no idea if the 'difference' was autism or mental health or different opinions to mine.

I can't diagnose someone with mental health issues or autism or whatever else. Does that really make me a bad person if I mix the different things up? Why do people get annoyed about it? Is being autistic better or worse than having mental health issues?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me.

I disagree a little.

I don’t disagree that autism/Asperger’s is not a mental health condition, it irks me too when people conflate these types of conditions.

Thank you...I wasn’t entirely comfortable with what I said on that bit but didn’t know how to put it in the right words. "

It’s simple...ASD (autistic spectrum disorder), intellectual disabilities & mental health issues all come under the umbrella of mental disorder.

Or, more simply put, humans!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 16/08/18 23:46:06]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well actually there’s a lot of debate on the differences and similarities. On the whole though autism is viewed as a developmental or neurological disorder rather than a psychiatric one. It might be simpler to umbrella them all as complex brain disorders. But recognising that say a brain injury is held as distinct to autism and distinct again to a mental health condition or disorder.

The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Well actually there’s a lot of debate on the differences and similarities. On the whole though autism is viewed as a developmental or neurological disorder rather than a psychiatric one. It might be simpler to umbrella them all as complex brain disorders. But recognising that say a brain injury is held as distinct to autism and distinct again to a mental health condition or disorder.

The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it."

Totally fascinating subject though. I bow to all professional knowledge on it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it."

I find neuroscience and the philosophy of the mind fascinating. I particularly like Haldane's argument that if logical thought was merely the result of chemical reactions we wouldn't be able to assert as much because logical thought wouldn't exist in order to frame the argument... we would only have arrived at that view like puppets controlled by a series of dumb chemical reactions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction."

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?"

Well thought disorder typically describes psychosis (where thoughts and conversation appear illogical and lacking in sequence and may be delusional or bizarre in content) and not all mental illness has psychosis. For example not all depression does, chronic anxiety, and Bipolar 2 would have hypomania but not mania with episodic psychosis and so on...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Oh I didn't realise it only described psychosis.

I meant a thought disorder as in negative, destructive, repetitive etc thoughts that cause psychological distress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Oh I didn't realise it only described psychosis.

I meant a thought disorder as in negative, destructive, repetitive etc thoughts that cause psychological distress."

No, thought disorder is a specific term.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking."

It's not automatic, that's you projecting onto me. You're pretending like there isn't a distribution of ideas with some being sensible and others being bizzare, like the ones I've mentioned in the original post.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

It is a skill though.

Perhaps OP, and this is just a suggestion, it would be simpler for you to work on your own social skills, understand where your need to challenge others’ views and learn to soften your approach? "

Not really, this is an example of the tolerance paradox. Some people don't have strong views about facts, science and objective truth. Perhaps these things aren't important in their daily lives. I do and I think the truth is objectively a higher virtue than empathy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The point is you don’t, you leave diagnosing to professionals. But you also don’t assume things about people either way in absolutes.

A) don't challenge me because your assessment is that I'm mentally ill

B) Agree with me because you think that's what the ice cream trucks are doing

C) Call me out on my bullshit

So that's a good example as it's probably a situation you can work around.

If someone makes hyperbolic statements and publishes them on a platform which allows monetising ie, Alex Jones from info wars, it's probably an act.

Of course, someone might have an undiagnosed mental health issue, but only a clinician can correctly assess this.

Of course some people just want to believe and promote conspiracy bulkllshit as rational debate and explanations don't lend someone to pain as 'evil' or corrupt. "

Good points. After thinking about what people have said here, I don't think Alex Jones is mentally ill but i do think David Icke is. I also don't think Alex Jones is making it up, I think he's gone into an echo chamber and probably wasn't the sharpest cookie to start with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We all have mental issues most of us just control it better said my mate in the army

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alking DisasterWoman over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

I'm not projecting. I'm going by previous interactions with you and the way you discuss things on here. If anyone disagrees with you, it is their views that are incorrect and yours that are right.

Some of the things you spout off are bizarre to my way of thinking. You are also very fixed in your thinking. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

You have been told that by others on this thread, so it's most definitely not me projecting.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"...

Though, talking about mental health issues and then backing it up with an example of autism has narked me somewhat

Why?

So talking about mental health issues, which are illnesses and conditions that require treatment in many cases, and autism, which is just a different way of interpreting the world, annoys me."

Well I think you need to look at the context more. You said it yourself, it's a different way of perceiving the world. It's pretty stupid of me to criticise an autistic person for lacking nuance in their view point and taking things a bit literally. I just had no idea they were autistic, it all happened so fast! Like people said above, you can do more harm than good trying to pick apart the reality of someone with schizophrenia and in that sense, it was a stupid conversation trap for me to fall into with an autistic guy. My friend should have told me though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

Yet you reject the basis of evolutionary psychology!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

I'm not projecting. I'm going by previous interactions with you and the way you discuss things on here. If anyone disagrees with you, it is their views that are incorrect and yours that are right.

Some of the things you spout off are bizarre to my way of thinking. You are also very fixed in your thinking. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

You have been told that by others on this thread, so it's most definitely not me projecting."

If you said I was argumentative and have strong views, then fine. But you need to consider that you don't read every thread or follow my every word. You therefore have not considered many times that I've admitted when I was wrong or apologised to people publically for taking their points incorrectly. I'm pretty good at explaining my sources and logic, if people want to challenge me, which is more than I can say for 90% of the forum. At the end of the day, we do live in a time where there aren't really a lot of new ideas, most debates have been done and the "new" ones are highly derivative. Probably the field I'm most interested in at the moment is why people continue to believe dumb shit that has been disproven, but we actually have answers for that too now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

I'm not projecting. I'm going by previous interactions with you and the way you discuss things on here. If anyone disagrees with you, it is their views that are incorrect and yours that are right.

Some of the things you spout off are bizarre to my way of thinking. You are also very fixed in your thinking. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

You have been told that by others on this thread, so it's most definitely not me projecting.

I am the third person to agree that you are someone very fixed in your thinking with am adamantine ideology that cannot be shaken and which sometimes leads to bizzare statements.

We have had many debates. I can't recall one occasion that you have admitted to being wrong or apologised for anything either with me or anyone else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Oh I didn't realise it only described psychosis.

I meant a thought disorder as in negative, destructive, repetitive etc thoughts that cause psychological distress.

No, thought disorder is a specific term."

Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

I'm not projecting. I'm going by previous interactions with you and the way you discuss things on here. If anyone disagrees with you, it is their views that are incorrect and yours that are right.

Some of the things you spout off are bizarre to my way of thinking. You are also very fixed in your thinking. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

You have been told that by others on this thread, so it's most definitely not me projecting.

I am the third person to agree that you are someone very fixed in your thinking with am adamantine ideology that cannot be shaken and which sometimes leads to bizzare statements.

We have had many debates. I can't recall one occasion that you have admitted to being wrong or apologised for anything either with me or anyone else. "

That's called the representative heuristic and with respect, pot calling the kettle black on all your other points. I'm not very ideological at all, you are far more ideological than me. Which ideology do you think I subscribe to by the way?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Perhaps OP, and this is just a suggestion, it would be simpler for you to work on your own social skills, understand where your need to challenge others’ views and learn to soften your approach?

Sometimes one needs one to perceive the other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Perhaps OP, and this is just a suggestion, it would be simpler for you to work on your own social skills, understand where your need to challenge others’ views and learn to soften your approach?

Sometimes one needs one to perceive the other."

As I've said above, there aren't a lot of new ideas. Often people sprouting things aren't away that they are essentially repeating debates that are thousands of years old. I do it myself sometimes since none of us have read every book in history.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Oh I didn't realise it only described psychosis.

I meant a thought disorder as in negative, destructive, repetitive etc thoughts that cause psychological distress.

No, thought disorder is a specific term.

Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?"

They used to be held separately (prior to 2013) but are now included in the DSM-5’s mental illness umbrella. The manual is a continually growing and evolving work though, and there’s been controversy in things that used to be included (homosexuality) and things still included (gender dysphoria, thus transgenderism).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Perhaps OP, and this is just a suggestion, it would be simpler for you to work on your own social skills, understand where your need to challenge others’ views and learn to soften your approach?

Sometimes one needs one to perceive the other.

As I've said above, there aren't a lot of new ideas. "

Regardless - sometimes it is not a question of debate but of perception.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

I find the mind to be an extraordinarily fascinating subject.

I would prefer if they were called thought disorders as opposed to psychiatric disorders.

Actually a nicer word for disorder would be good too

But psychiatric refers to all mental illnesses but thought disorders are not manifest in all psychiatric disorders. It’s an important distinction.

Ah ok I understand. A catch all phrase.

I must only be familiar with the thought disorders.

What are some of the ones that aren't thought disorders?

Oh I didn't realise it only described psychosis.

I meant a thought disorder as in negative, destructive, repetitive etc thoughts that cause psychological distress.

No, thought disorder is a specific term.

Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I would imagine if that is just your way you are a bundle of laughs and joy to have dinner with

But even us nutters are entitled to our own thoughts and opinions... Even when I'm experiencing psychosis my thoughts, however random, manic and bizarre, are my thoughts and I'm entitled to them.

I appreciate you feel it would be exhausting to not question and challenge people but I put to you, it's equally as exhausting to those around you to be constantly waiting for the next challenge.

Even in the case of extreme racism or homophobia, being able to listen and then put forward your own opinion, setting the facts straight for example, can be done in a nonconfrontational way.

Just accept others have different views.

Just because someone has different opinions to you (and are just as stubborn in their thinking) it does not mean they are mentally ill.

Hence the thread

Ok, let me put this another way. Just because someone has different opinions to you, it doesn't mean they believe "dumb shit".

Why is it automatically the other person that's incorrect? It could be you and your thinking.

I'm not projecting. I'm going by previous interactions with you and the way you discuss things on here. If anyone disagrees with you, it is their views that are incorrect and yours that are right.

Some of the things you spout off are bizarre to my way of thinking. You are also very fixed in your thinking. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

You have been told that by others on this thread, so it's most definitely not me projecting.

I am the third person to agree that you are someone very fixed in your thinking with am adamantine ideology that cannot be shaken and which sometimes leads to bizzare statements.

We have had many debates. I can't recall one occasion that you have admitted to being wrong or apologised for anything either with me or anyone else.

You now have three people saying you are very fixed in your thinking. You can, of course, choose to ignore it, though one might think a reasonable person would ponder that three people who don't know each other have come to the same conclusion.

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological. "

Alt right is an exceptionally weak term, the proper meaning was coined by Richard Spencer for people that are highly nationalistic. I despise him and nationalism. If you mean that I like Jordan Peterson, yes I do. But that doesn't mean I've swallowed all his ideas whole.

Personally i think you know better than to take the opinion of three strangers on the internet who see a social media depiction of you and think that's a view of yourself one should base life decisions on. As if i don't have a highly intelligent wife to bounce things off of or highly capable work colleagues etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Not really, this is an example of the tolerance paradox. Some people don't have strong views about facts, science and objective truth. Perhaps these things aren't important in their daily lives. I do and I think the truth is objectively a higher virtue than empathy."

Sorry if I take this quote out of context. I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread. But I'd argue that empathy affords us a higher truth than objectivity. For a start objectivity is itself merely a game we play that involves empathy. We imagine what the world is like without us, outside of our experience of it. There is no two ways about it... such a game is essentially a fraud; the world doesn't exist without us; everything we know about it is experiential and it is essential that it's experiential... without being so we wouldn't know the world. As such, scientific "truth" is always secondary knowledge and guesswork. It is never actually true.

The counter claim to this is that nothing is ever true. But matters of experience and emotion clearly are. Pain is true. Love is true. Experience is true. Imo a good scientist recognises that these things are the masters of science, not vice versa. When we empathise with someone we are reaching for a deeper kinder emotion-based truth. This will always be a higher truth than anything science can currently offer.

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks."

The original instigator of transforming the little DSM II advisory booklet on possible mental health issues into the massive scientific bible it has become since, ascribing everyone on the planet with some diagnosis of mental illness, is also on record for saying he regrets what has happened to the DSM and thinks it has gotten out of control. I agree with him. Just thought it was an interesting point to make

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams. "

The other day you criticised me for being inconsistent calling myself a liberal because i was saying things that weren't liberal enough! In rugby we say that the best referees are 70% accurate. That's my view on the ideologies i prefer, the best ones are 70% accurate. 70% accuracy is amazingly good when you're dealing with complex dynamic systems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right. "

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today. "

Ah yes, that's true. We're never going to agree on that! On some level you're right and on another level I just can't stand how degenerated the English language has become since 2001. I'm holding out a little longer for proper definitions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist? "

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

If this discussion is to go any further we need a definition of "truth". What all of us rely on in our everyday life is a correspondence theory of truth: that there is an external reality and what is true is what corresponds to that reality.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today.

Well, "liberal" has been defined differently to your take on it for over a hundred years, so you've probably lost that one...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms". "

Jordan peterson and Sam Harris spent 4 hours debating what truth means. I listened to all 4 hours, it's interesting but fuck me is that a conversation I never want to repeat. It'll never fit into a 178 post thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms". "

So you accept that I pick and mix, which by definition means I'm not an ideologue?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite Pornstar OP Couple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today.

Well, "liberal" has been defined differently to your take on it for over a hundred years, so you've probably lost that one... "

English isn't like Chinese where you can literally make shit up. The format of English words betrays bullshit terms and misuse because the spelling shows you how the word was created. Liberal comes from the Latin liberalis which basically means free man. There's an obvious connotations that that people will look stupid if they ignore.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

Yet you reject the basis of evolutionary psychology!"

My gripe with evolutionary psychology is merely with its essential conceit that psychology evolves. Since the mind is still very much a black box, it is currently impossible to know if it is at all subject to the same process of natural selection that our bodies are.

Raw human intelligence doesn't seem to have evolved at all over millenia. Regardless of all the just-so stories we're supposed to believe about it. Just pluck any native from a remote untouched tribe and give him a western education and you're certain to find he fares pretty well. Not an earlier intelligence at all. Just uneducated. Even the argument that self awareness arose out of evolutionary needs is currently unconvincing to say the least.

Evolutionary psychology also seems to be predicated on a popular oxymoron that our personalities are the result of nature and nurture. Well when you think about it it can't be both. It's got to be either/or. Either our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions and genetic switches which have programmed us to be a certain way, and this gets rid of Cartesian dualism, allowing for a fully materialist view of life. Or they aren't. In which case we don't really need chemical reactions and genes to explain thought processes. We need to approach thought as coming from somewhere else. We can't operate based on a fudge of the two. Can we?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms".

So you accept that I pick and mix, which by definition means I'm not an ideologue? "

Being an ideologue doesn't mean you adhere 100% to some particular system posited by a Great Thinker. No one is like that. We all pick and mix.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"The best thing about the brain though, there is just so much we still don’t understand about it.

Yet you reject the basis of evolutionary psychology!

Why can't we have both nature and nuture?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today.

Well, "liberal" has been defined differently to your take on it for over a hundred years, so you've probably lost that one...

English is a creatively evolving language, as much as Chinese is. Speaking both, I disagree with you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I don't dispute I have a particular ideological take on things. The difference we have is that I recognise my ideological biases and don't purport to rely solely on value based "facts".

As for your ideology, it's probably best described as alt right, a mix of virulent anti leftism, religious belief and an insistence that only they are non ideological.

Indeed, you may be completely different in real life, but people on here can only go on your persona on here.

The thing that most strikes me about you is that whilst you are very quick to point out other people's ideological biases you seem oblivious to your own. It's all a bit specks and beams.

No, I was taking issue with your definition of "liberal" as being different to the one used by most people today.

Well, "liberal" has been defined differently to your take on it for over a hundred years, so you've probably lost that one...

Communism derives from the Latin communis which means "community", so communists must be people interested in furthering the interests of the community, so anyone bringing gulags, Stalin, Mao etc when discussing communism must be talking bullshit...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Agreed

Some of the disorders described are complete bullshit.

One would almost think psychiatrists want as many people as possible to have a 'disorder'.

A massive bonus for pharmaceutical companies though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms". "

1) I see myself as having out grown post modernism. That means I don't deny or attack it. I use it and build on it to go beyond it.

2) I define truth as simply "how things actually are". If you think about it it could never have had any other definition regardless of how philosophers got their knickers in a twist over it.

Pain is true because we have direct and conclusive undoubtable knowledge of "how it actually is". Your claim kinky that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms" is totally reliant upon a whole bunch of claims that may or may not be true, the foremost being that other things we call "living organisms" experience pain just as we do. Since we currently have no way of obtaining conclusive undoubtable knowledge that this is so, we can't classify this remark as being true. Instead it is merely likely. This is where science operates... in the realm of likelihoods not truths.

We can overcome the inadequacies of science in this case by empathising with other "living organisms" and, through doing so, sense their pain. Science can't yet explain how we can do this, and I have no doubt cynical psychologists would describe it as merely a fraud; that our guesses about other's states are only ever just guesses and offer no genuine insight. But, as with much of science, it is precisely these empathetic guesses and intuitive hunches which continue to power human knowledge and progress forward.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But of course it's not a question of either/or. We can pull on both. But you just need to get the priority right.

You sounded very post modernist there, but i don't think you are a post modernist?

Maybe he has a pick and mix approach to ideology as well.

On that basis it makes no sense to say "pain is true", unless you mean that "pain exists as something experienced by living organisms".

1) I see myself as having out grown post modernism. That means I don't deny or attack it. I use it and build on it to go beyond it.

2) I define truth as simply "how things actually are". If you think about it it could never have had any other definition regardless of how philosophers got their knickers in a twist over it.

I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

By the way I love the idea that I can just dismiss the efforts of some of the ideas of the world's greatest thinkers over thousands of years to deal with this tricky issue because a bloke on a swingers site tells me his definition is the only possible one....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

You're confusing "how things actually are" as a linguistic statement. It isn't. You could phrase it in a myriad of other ways... "what whatchacallit really is"... etc. We all intuitively grasp both what such phrases are referring to and that this is obviously what truth refers to. Any clever attempt to linguistically muddy the waters is silly. The emperor has no clothes on... and neither does this bloke on a swingers site

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

I don't intuitively grasp the phrase so I am afraid I need your help. What are the "things" to which you refer?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

I don't intuitively grasp the phrase so I am afraid I need your help. What are the "things" to which you refer? "

I love how you're willing to propose the existence of "living organisms" and their feeling pain as being true but want to contest the existence of "things" Haha. Talk about cherry picking inconsistency

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

I don't intuitively grasp the phrase so I am afraid I need your help. What are the "things" to which you refer?

I'm not contesting the existence of "things". I just want to know how you define them. I suspect our definitions may be different and it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion if we are taking about different concepts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

I don't intuitively grasp the phrase so I am afraid I need your help. What are the "things" to which you refer?

I'm trying to decide if I can really be bothered with this. I've already asserted that the statement "how things really are" isn't a linguistic statement. I could replace it with a myriad of other statements pointing at the same issue. "The state which reality is actually in". If you want to question what reality is and whether it has a state then be my guest. But you're only shifting the issue around not dispelling it. If you think you can draw out a massive long dilemma about what truth means in order to show it's super complex you're just being obstructive. Everything you need to know about what truth means is contained in my little post earlier in the thread. There is no division to conquer here. It's really really simple. Hence my dismissal of the world's greatest thinkers over thousands of years on this issue. They were wallies who got lost up their own arse on this issue

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"I am afraid that "how things actually are" as a definition of truth just begs the question. You have to define what "things" are.

Glad you liked it

I don't intuitively grasp the phrase so I am afraid I need your help. What are the "things" to which you refer?

I am not sure "how things really are" is not a linguistic statement when it is a statement made up of words in the English language, but there you are.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the statement "the truth is how things really are", because I don't know what things you consider to be real and how you define reality.

Fine if you don't want to engage in that discussion. But it's slightly surprising that you think you have defined the nature of truth in one short but hugely question begging statement.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am not sure "how things really are" is not a linguistic statement when it is a statement made up of words in the English language, but there you are.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the statement "the truth is how things really are", because I don't know what things you consider to be real and how you define reality.

Fine if you don't want to engage in that discussion. But it's slightly surprising that you think you have defined the nature of truth in one short but hugely question begging statement. "

The reality of a situation is neither a linguistic conundrum nor a supposition that begs any questions. It is a raw reality beyond language that we try to use words to invoke. It doesn't matter what we each define "things" as. It's highly likely we'd both be wrong. The truth would be that "things" are something else. That would be the reality of what "things" are. So you can see how language is a red herring here.

If you disagree that situations actually have discreet singular state of affairs then you're either anti-science or a quantum physicist. However, you are still making a truth claim in saying as much. You are stating that the state of a situation is that it doesn't have a state. This, then, is its state.

To anyone else who thinks this issue has got hugely complex... it hasn't. Truth still means, as it always only ever did, "the state of reality as it actually is". Simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species..."

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?"

Yes, page 410.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410."

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"I am not sure "how things really are" is not a linguistic statement when it is a statement made up of words in the English language, but there you are.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the statement "the truth is how things really are", because I don't know what things you consider to be real and how you define reality.

Fine if you don't want to engage in that discussion. But it's slightly surprising that you think you have defined the nature of truth in one short but hugely question begging statement.

To anyone else who thinks this issue has got hugely complex... it hasn't. Truth still means, as it always only ever did, "the state of reality as it actually is". Simple

What I can gather from that is that you do indeed belief in the correspondence theory of truth. That there is an external world of things that exists separate to and independent of human consciousness and a true statement is a statement that accurately reflects that external reality.

Would that be correct?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

Why ffs?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

If you think that's bad, imagine how many people would go nuts if they knew that dyslexia is in there!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

Why ffs?"

I don't understand why it's a mental health disorder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

If you think that's bad, imagine how many people would go nuts if they knew that dyslexia is in there! "

Another ffs moment!

So is PMS

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am not sure "how things really are" is not a linguistic statement when it is a statement made up of words in the English language, but there you are.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the statement "the truth is how things really are", because I don't know what things you consider to be real and how you define reality.

Fine if you don't want to engage in that discussion. But it's slightly surprising that you think you have defined the nature of truth in one short but hugely question begging statement.

To anyone else who thinks this issue has got hugely complex... it hasn't. Truth still means, as it always only ever did, "the state of reality as it actually is". Simple

Would that be correct? "

No. That makes too many suppositions. The reality of the situation is either that an external reality exists independent of our experience, or it doesn't, or something else is the case. Any way you come at it though there must still be a state which reality actually is in, even if that state is indeterminable or purely illusory.

Whatever this state is... that's the truth. Whether we can ever know that truth or make linguistic claims about it are secondary issues.

Can you see how you've wasted a lot of intellectual energy and half the thread trying to raise an argument over something that's done and dusted and always was so. It's classic pointless anal philosophising in an attempt to try and say nothing

Perhaps you can see why I've only got so much patience with it.

I'm curious though... what axe have you got to grind over asserting reality has no ultimate state of affairs which it is in? Are you seeking to undermine the scientific project by asserting that there is no one answer to anything? Are you a quantum physicist? Or is this all just plugging back into your emotional need for there not to be a god?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

If you think that's bad, imagine how many people would go nuts if they knew that dyslexia is in there!

Another ffs moment!

So is PMS

Does it cover the subconscious habit of oxygenating the body i.e breathing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

We are just exploded stars trying to make sense of the universe and trying to survive its ultimate end.

We all know deep down inside us we need to work togehter to try survive the end of the world, the end of our sun, the end of our galaxy. As we pass each step we will enter a new era of thinking.

Until that happens we will live in chaos trying to survive a single day, and so will our minds.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Are personality disorders classified as mental illness?

Ok thanks.

Like Darwin and Origin of the Species...

Is Restless Legs Syndrome listed in DSM-5?

Yes, page 410.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Ffs though

If you think that's bad, imagine how many people would go nuts if they knew that dyslexia is in there!

Another ffs moment!

So is PMS

Does it cover the subconscious habit of oxygenating the body i.e breathing?

You have to wait for DSM-6

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lackalphabullMan over a year ago

Birmingham

the subjects that David icke and Alex Jones cover are more conspiracy facts when followed up with proper research rather than being reduced to idiosyncrasy should be followed up with more research. they different dimensions that exist which not all is privilege to understand or encounter. in fact could it not be the case that being on a forum on a swing site is also displaying cognitive dissonance to ones own mental health issues! food for thought .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I wonder if there’s a disorder for dismissing (before even reading) researched clinical expert opinion?

I’m not advocating particularly for one thing or another beyond actually knowing what you’re negating first.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wonder if there’s a disorder for dismissing (before even reading) researched clinical expert opinion?

I’m not advocating particularly for one thing or another beyond actually knowing what you’re negating first. "

The Dunning–Kruger effect

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder if there’s a disorder for dismissing (before even reading) researched clinical expert opinion?

I’m not advocating particularly for one thing or another beyond actually knowing what you’re negating first.

The Dunning–Kruger effect"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder if there’s a disorder for dismissing (before even reading) researched clinical expert opinion?

I’m not advocating particularly for one thing or another beyond actually knowing what you’re negating first.

The Dunning–Kruger effect

Oh yes, of course. Anyone who questions 'expert opinion' must be lacking in something.

Considering that 69% of the DSM-5 task force report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, I dont think it's a bad thing to question some of the listed disorders.

I still don't understand why restless legs syndrome is a mental health disorder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think before we judge if that person is ill or not, more importantly, it’s how comfortable we feel around them.

If they can speak for four hours straight and talk over you, to me they aren’t mentally ill. It’s just a bit annoying

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder if there’s a disorder for dismissing (before even reading) researched clinical expert opinion?

I’m not advocating particularly for one thing or another beyond actually knowing what you’re negating first.

The Dunning–Kruger effect

Oh yes, of course. Anyone who questions 'expert opinion' must be lacking in something.

Considering that 69% of the DSM-5 task force report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, I dont think it's a bad thing to question some of the listed disorders.

I still don't understand why restless legs syndrome is a mental health disorder

You misunderstand, my point was from not knowing it’s in there, to not reading about it there, you’ve dismissed it completely.

I don’t have an issue with querying, in fact my first post about the manual pointed out some of the controversial of it, and it’s evolution. I don’t think relationships with pharmaceuticals also are absolute proof of the manual lacking integrity. I’m also not saying it isn’t either. That’s the point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Controversial aspects*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Its*

Typo hell, sorry.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *adyGardenWoman over a year ago

LONDON (se)

Most of the time you won't even know when you encounter someone with a mental health condition. I am bipolar but most people don't know unless I tell them or they suddenly realise why I act how I do in certain situations. I normally avoid people when I'm not in control of my condition weather it be an upper or a downer because I can flip moods so quick and don't want to be around people. I'm also claustrophobic so if people are in my personal space and Making me feel uncomfortable I can easily flip even when I am in control of my bipolar.

You don't have to handle people with mental health issues because trying when you don't understand them as a person can make things worse. Just walk away unless they are putting themself in danger in which case call 999

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I did know it was listed hence why I thanked a poster for confirming it.

I didn't say the link with pharmaceutical companies was absolute proof, just a reason to question its integrity, which I most definitely do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Gotcha.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)