Here’s an example.
I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying this way of thinking is incompatible with the scientific way of thinking about psychology and neuroscience.
…there’s this quote that escapes me…if you can’t explain your philosophy to a five year old your not doing so well…
No offence my friend. You are long winded and much of your information is in the ’ too long didn’t read ’ category!
It don’t make any sense to anyone but yourself and that isn’t a good sign to most folk in the mental health field!
1 Like
Okay, I’m having social time, and I’m flexible. That’s clear now, so this particular subject I quoted above is something that I’ll address first off.
Scientific thinking is based on phenomena and the descriptive information about phenomena. That’s two subjects in that sentence. There is the natural phenomenon being address, and then there is the phenomenon of informaton that descritpively represents the phenom.
We’re up to what is mind and what is sz in this forum. No one denies that. That’s the subject, but I posit this: who is an sz scientist in the field that has written any of that “secondary phenomenon” I addressed, the one that is supposed to be informationally representing a phenomenon that they can’t possibly have any observations of as they’ve never been an sz.
So where I diverge from is where I’m using the logic method used by all scientists unless they are lazy, lacking, or lying for some reason which happens frequently by the way. I’m sorry to say, but they are no different than Socrates or Pythagoras or Charles Dawkins in their humanity and need to use logic to reveal phenomena and accurately describe how the phenomena work, how they come about, and what else is it capable of doing or being.
So that’s where I’m at on this subject. In fact I’m searching for funding to produce publications of my theories and my experiments/surveys statistics. It’s not difficult when you present something interesting based in logic to people.
Grammar is the first thing that you have to sort out when you run into something “estranged” like this posit. There is no way to conclude anything until one is clear on the writer’s grammar.
Otherwise based on my use of the grammar I am backing up all of what I said there. 
Yeah, I’m definitely not saying it’s wrong of you to think this way. But when you make up most of your own words and definitions, make up most of your theories about how things work, and even make up the name of the scientific field you’re studying, it’s just too idiosyncratic for any scientist to want to have a deep discussion with you about it. You’d be speaking two different languages.
1 Like
This is a logical fallacy. I should try to pin point which one, but using the cliche to prove something is true regardless of it’s application towards the subject being described gets me into the weeds no longer. This is great reading material by the way. Enjoy. 
Master List of Logical Fallacies It’s hot. Don’t lose it. 
“It,” is the subject here, and, “makes no sense,” is the predicate. It is not defined, and this statement can’t make any sense, but if it did, it would be purely emotive and not scientific thinking. Then to add the predicate, “anyone buu yourself,” is relying on descriptive predicates that, for one, you don’t know, and two, you can’t prove. Classic though. I seen this one a lot when I was growing up. No worries. 
“That” refers to our invalidated subject in the prior thought which is to say that “it” is illogical, and because “it” is illogical, it is not agreed upon by “most folk in the mental health field.”
I really have to think here. I do a lot of thinking though. Hehe.
We use a predicate such as illogical statements are not agreed upon in the mental health field because you couldn’t read all of the statements which you disagree with?
I’m sorry, but reading all of this makes me think you DO need to consult textbooks and get real foundations in psychology and psychological research. I question the methodological quality of your so-called experiments and survey research and any potential biases present in it. You are speaking as though you are better than trained researchers and scientists with years in the field and assume your theories are true while explaining them in a way, that, yes, makes little sense.
2 Likes
I don’t have that many newly coined words. Sheesh. Anyway, anyone who would not try to get the grammar I’m using in my course wouldn’t be much of an interview I would say so.
Yes, the grammar step which never disproves either the phenomena that they are coined to label, nor does it prove why it is a good idea to use the terms to describe the phenomena such as the field attached to the grammar in question by yourself.
It is a lot more reading, but if anyone asks grammar questions about phenomena or fields of study, I’ll gladly provide sufficient reasoning for the use of those terms. It’s more reading though, but if anyone is okay there, then I’m okay too. For sure. I have coffee. Bullet proof coffee to be exact. hehe
Thanks.
Then I would be repeating what you believe to be true, and that has been discussed before, so why would I work there? I might as well get a job at a restaurant if it’s all been done already.
My point is not from “their” external view of sz or mind but coming from inside sz first, and secondly, comfing from inside scz via real live abnormal psychology to cross at the cuff where the notorious fallacies prominent in sz believers end, and the truths in logic begin. Truth in logic does not describe anyone whether or not they are trained in any field. Truth in logic in this case applies strictly to the “portions of the universal mind phenomenon” both “abnormal” and “normal.”
Truth in logic doesn’t apply to who said something such as to do with the trainers and trainees. It has to do with universal logic and natural phenomena.
Your fallacy then, I should help out, and clear up, is where you disprove what is stated not because you did the work to try and repeat the results, but it is because you heard from trainees who have no first hand experience with sz.
It has to be grounded in logic: subject + predicate reality check. I need specific quotes of mine, so that I can do the “work of tracking down the realism” in my statements this way in writing to answer your doubts. It’s no problem. I’m up for doing it, if you’re up for reading.
By the way, text books used to say that some humans were not humans and many other fallacies. I don’t need any ticket there. Hehe. Sheesh. What else is wrong with them? It’s up to people to find out, and then do the work to disprove it if they disagree with them.
The subject in the first line is, “I,” that that is about you. The subject in the second line is, “You,” referring to me. The descriptive predicates applied to you and I is that statements of mind make “little sense” to you, and therefore you question results and methods of mine. That is okay. Great post, but…
…what about the part that disproves me?
That’s the juiciest part, and the readers are watering for that. Will you serve it?
Just as a note here,
I tend to write a lot and for many years. I research a lot independently from home online. I use the Trivium method of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and I use my own rule about “hearing all words false and true,” so that I know the phenomenon that I’m studying which is human behavior where informational processes are concerned. I’ve been pursuing this for years writing all the while.
When anyone coins a new word, it is not wrong. I try to be on the level with all of the terminology out there, but when I have no other choice, I have to apply terms that I make at least until I find someone else who has previously named the phenomenon.
One thing about people is that people tend to say someone is making up words, but they have not gone so deeply into fields to where the terminology is used at an esoteric level. If anyone is using anything beside logic to determine the practical use of grammar applied to phenomena labeling like the color, shape, size, land of origin, or regimental beliefs to disprove the practical use of the grammar to describe the phenomena, then you are using a logical fallacy.
That’s to say you are using something in the way like the score at another baseball field to determine who gets the home run grand slam in another field.
It’s not okay for me nor anyone else, and when I see it anywhere in my day-to-day, I get the win every time because I know how to disprove things by using logic.
I’ve been a philosopher since I was 14, and the premise there is logic. You could say I have a cleft in my head, and it is shaped like logic/philosophy.
If you read this far, thanks. If not, then I assume that I will pull the fallacy out of a hat once again when we have coffee and keyboard time.
a fallacy is a logical problem for sure but it’s nothing like I’m suggesting. Your plenty smart enough but your brain mightn’t be as agile as you think…
The quote is off a book about Chaos theory. The quote was something like ’ if you can’t explain yourself to a five year old your a charlatan. ',
It’s not a fallacy what i was suggesting. It was just opinion. Sorry I couldn’t nail down that quote but I don’t think it matters too much! Do what you do.
1 Like
I would never try to hurt any of your egos regardless of who anyone is. I want be as social as possible.
I think I can illustrate the idea of logic like this. Let’s say for the purpose of this lesson that logic is “over the plate.” If you do not get the ball over the plate, then it is not logical. It is instead a logical fallacy. So throwing to someone in the dugout who has done work to very the nature of phenomena in order to “prove” that someone is wrong or that you are right, does not make it right. It’s a “wild pitch” as they say in the game, and it’s a logical fallacy in the area of science and philosophy.
When you get this one thing narrowed down in your life, in regard to other people, and in regard to the way your mind works, everything turns out much better.
The gif below is to illustrate when statements in verifiable logic is thrown to the reader or listener, clearly it’s over the plate, but they mess up the reply, or they simply mistake it for being illogical, thus they ignored it.
And this gif is to show off what it feels like when I’m trying to reply to all of my lovely ol’ skeptics. Hehe.
I appreciate all replies. I love it. Hehe. 
You sound like me. I’m not ashamed.
No schizophrenics are just long term sufferrers of psychosis. Its a highly isolating illness and from that isolation a lot of solopcistic tendencies do arise. That says nothing about intent nor their latent concern fro the well being of others.
Most schizophrenics I know are too easily concerned with others. Good or bad. Sociopaths and narcisisists fake all the cordialities for empowerment of the self. It really isn’t any deeper than that though they can be highly convincing.
Also its blurred lines everywhere. That is to say not absolute. We’re most all part narcissist, part sociopath, and part a lot of other better things.
2 Likes
That describes the narcissist in my Iop. Interesting
Funny because you’re thinking about the ego while I am thinking about gravity today
2 Likes
Gravity is a… sticky subject. I like to avoid it when I can.
2 Likes
Yep I never thought that deep about gravity as I did today… I think it comes from mass or something I’m not even sure. Lol 
I’m not a science person. Gravity is pretty interesting I think we know what gravity is but we never think about it as the tangible thing it is.
2 Likes
Okay well i guess that makes alot of sense. Ive been called narcissistic but mainly its my illness. I just wanted to see what other people think.
2 Likes
gravity is space trying to make sense of itself. it pushes everything together to try and sort out the irregularities.
its is not nature the abhores a vaccuum but vaccuum that abhores nature
2 Likes
Gravity doesn’t spread things out? Gravity makes more vacuum. I don’t think you can say vacuum abhores nature. Empty space is nature.