All of Scientology, really. It (along with uncovering MK Ultra in 1951, in the book "Science Of Survival") is why the establishment opposes it so much.
Are you moronic or something? Serious question. Psychology can only cure mental diseases, not developmental moronation or mental moronation.
[...]
Psychoanalysis and depth psychology stand stable on mountains of evidence that prove their effectiveness you stupid Black person, where do you midwit homosexuals always come from? Are you the same tard shitting up every psychoanalysis thread?
If yes send me your adress, I will end your suffering.
Mountains of evidence, my ass. They literally vote on new disorders at conferences. That's not science. Also, your threats of violence betray your mental instability...I take it you're the product of psychology yourself?
Are you moronic or something? Serious question. Psychology can only cure mental diseases, not developmental moronation or mental moronation.
You're thinking about psychoanalysis. Psychology is unconcerned with "curing" anyone.
Psychoanalysis and depth psychology stand stable on mountains of evidence that prove their effectiveness you stupid Black person, where do you midwit homosexuals always come from? Are you the same tard shitting up every psychoanalysis thread?
If yes send me your adress, I will end your suffering.
i clicked on some of her videos recently and she seemed to grossly overstep her position as scientist by going on about these "big questions" of philosophy through science. the problem is that science can only explain the physical world. im assuming the book is the same malpractice? not worth reading or watching her imo
>overstep her position as scientist by going on about these "big questions" of philosophy through science. the problem is that science can only explain the physical world
so? why would you try to explain something you can't even be certain it exists?
>The Book of Woe
It's about the DSM. >Freud: The Making of an Illusion
Title explains itself.
You should probably learn the actual history of the subject while paying attention to how it reflected the context of various historical periods before you become an insufferable homosexual who thinks all the subdisciplines are as bad as social psychology and writes off an entire field though.
Nah, I'm perfectly happy with the path Dianetics set me on. BTW, I'm no longer with the official church.
You can read "Super Scio" by Pilot if you like...
http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/contents.html
...but I think that, without a thorough background in Scientology, it'll go over your head.
All of Scientology, really. It (along with uncovering MK Ultra in 1951, in the book "Science Of Survival") is why the establishment opposes it so much.
kek this, I actually read that when I was bored and ahd nothing else to read.
why would you want to shit on psychology, anon? what's wrong?
Psychology has never cured anyone, for starters. They don't have the slightest idea what the hell they're doing.
You're thinking about psychoanalysis. Psychology is unconcerned with "curing" anyone.
Neither one cures anyone.
Mountains of evidence, my ass. They literally vote on new disorders at conferences. That's not science. Also, your threats of violence betray your mental instability...I take it you're the product of psychology yourself?
Shitters gonna shit, I guess.
Are you moronic or something? Serious question. Psychology can only cure mental diseases, not developmental moronation or mental moronation.
Psychoanalysis and depth psychology stand stable on mountains of evidence that prove their effectiveness you stupid Black person, where do you midwit homosexuals always come from? Are you the same tard shitting up every psychoanalysis thread?
If yes send me your adress, I will end your suffering.
Kys pseud
i clicked on some of her videos recently and she seemed to grossly overstep her position as scientist by going on about these "big questions" of philosophy through science. the problem is that science can only explain the physical world. im assuming the book is the same malpractice? not worth reading or watching her imo
>the problem is that science can only explain the physical world.
yeah, thats what science is, hence she shits on psychology
>overstep her position as scientist by going on about these "big questions" of philosophy through science. the problem is that science can only explain the physical world
so? why would you try to explain something you can't even be certain it exists?
imagine thinking you can be certain the physical world exists
absolute lmao
Op here, thanks guys
CJ?
Bike riding on a rail.
>The Book of Woe
It's about the DSM.
>Freud: The Making of an Illusion
Title explains itself.
You should probably learn the actual history of the subject while paying attention to how it reflected the context of various historical periods before you become an insufferable homosexual who thinks all the subdisciplines are as bad as social psychology and writes off an entire field though.
Nah, I'm perfectly happy with the path Dianetics set me on. BTW, I'm no longer with the official church.
You can read "Super Scio" by Pilot if you like...
http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/contents.html
...but I think that, without a thorough background in Scientology, it'll go over your head.
Why? Psychology is very important.
Foucault shits on modern psychiatry and does it quite well
You're looking for Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing
and Seth Farber
Thomas Szasz
Freud, Adler and Jung mog anything Philosophy threw out in the 20th century, sorry to burst your bubble philogay.