PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: zanzibar on January 27, 2007, 12:43:11 pm
-
Anyone else suffer from procrastination? Or had it when they were younger, but overcame it?
Myself: I'm pretty sure I have a bad case of it. When I have something of a work-related nature that I want to accomplish, I tend to stay up late working on other things or sometimes just goofing off. I don't go to sleep because I know I should be doing the thing I'm avoiding. My hours get switched around from time to time as a result depending on where I am in the week.
-
Yeah i got sumat like that, its a pain when you need to get GCSE coursework done and end up not getting it done and not learning anything in school cos im so tired of doing other random junk all night.
Languge warning. --Neko
-
I dont have time to procrastinate, maybe I'll get around to it tomorrow.
Why put something off today, when you can easily avoid it just as well tomorrow.
-
I also suffer from Procrastination. Often happens when I sit in front of the computer or TV. I just forget time or is too tired to do something and "promise" myself to do it later. That "promise" is never fulfilled, mostly caues i'm even more tired in the late hours than I was when I made the "promise".
This often leads to guilt and a feeling of not living up to your expectations which then leads to depression. It's indeed an evil circle. I've promised myself to eat apples instead of the goodies of life and force myself to do my homework before I near a Computer or TV.
Probably so. I'm going to change to my normal clothes. We'll see, i'm tired ;)
-
Hell yeah. My life is just one giant procrastination-fest.
I literally have over 50 novels and novel ideas that I want to finish... eventually. And there's about a hundred other things that I wanna do... eventually.
Not to mention how often I forget things... keys, money, important papers... a long line of expensive jackets and mobile phones :P
-
Dat's me O_O
-
lol .... I told Stronith about this thread because he is the biggest procrastinator I know. He said he will look at this thread later. X-/
-
Ah, we're hopeless :]
-
Hell yeah. My life is just one giant procrastination-fest.
I literally have over 50 novels and novel ideas that I want to finish... eventually. And there's about a hundred other things that I wanna do... eventually.
Not to mention how often I forget things... keys, money, important papers... a long line of expensive jackets and mobile phones :P
Writing a novel is different. I don't think that qualifies you as anything but normal.
-
lol .... I told Stronith about this thread because he is the biggest procrastinator I know. He said he will look at this thread later. X-/
The only reason I'm looking at this thread is 'cause it flashed up in my face :P
Anyway, procrastination is usually deeply rooted in a person's psyche (I know, I say that way too much :P). It usually stems from feelings of inadequacy (i.e. you feel 'too tired' to do something, or feel you need more experience first) or an unrealistic view of what's attainable (i.e. you overestimate and bite off more than you can chew, get swamped, and then put it on the back-burner without giving it a real chance)
If neither applies to you, then you're probably just lazy :P
-
I guess i'm the one who takes too much water over my head. It can become hard at times and. I have long periods of inproductivity which keep me in a low mood (Sorry, Kar :P.)
It's like a AA battery strapped to a V8 engine :]
-
It usually stems from feelings of inadequacy (i.e. you feel 'too tired' to do something, or feel you need more experience first) or an unrealistic view of what's attainable (i.e. you overestimate and bite off more than you can chew, get swamped, and then put it on the back-burner without giving it a real chance)
If neither applies to you, then you're probably just lazy :P
I'm neither of those, and I'm not lazy either. It's an anxiety thing.
-
It usually stems from feelings of inadequacy (i.e. you feel 'too tired' to do something, or feel you need more experience first) or an unrealistic view of what's attainable (i.e. you overestimate and bite off more than you can chew, get swamped, and then put it on the back-burner without giving it a real chance)
If neither applies to you, then you're probably just lazy :P
I'm neither of those, and I'm not lazy either. It's an anxiety thing.
Anxiety? What exactly are you anxious about? (If I should be so bold to ask ;))
-
I'm the king of procrastination.
I underestimate the task and only leave myself a few hours to do stuff. Of course, I work through it.
Some of you may remember a couple months ago, when I learnt calculus in a week. Good times :D
-
I do this for every single bit of work ever. Leaving it to the last minute generally means you're under more pressure, and in my case I learn much faster under pressure. When it comes down to coursework however, it's usually not the greatest idea :P
Some of you may remember a couple months ago, when I learnt calculus in a week. Good times :D
pfft, a week? I've learnt a whole maths module in a day before now :P And got an A in the exam. Ph34r!
-
15 week course and I skipped almost every day.
And don't lie, unless you read 15 pages a minute there is no way you can cover half of Cal in a day.
I got 90 on the exam
-
Well it depends on how detailed you go into calculus :P Our books really weren't that big, only a couple of hundred pages. However, I didn't miss all my classes in that case, so it wasn't calculus I had to totally self learn from scratch (statistics yes, and for one module we didn't have any classes at all xD they just told us which book to buy and left us to self learn). That would have been dumb :P
Pssh, I hope to never procrastinate a whole course xD;
-
It was dumb, my actaul class mark suffered but, atleast the course was slightly challenging as opposed to the huge lump of boring it usualy is.
But getting back ontopic, I procrastinated a whole course, beat that :P
-
Anxiety? What exactly are you anxious about? (If I should be so bold to ask ;))
It's not a matter of being anxious about anything in a normal, rational way. It's an irrational condition, just like real procrastination is an irrational condition.
-
Good thing you're not in my classes then. Attendance is automatic 25% of your grade.
Becuase I'm evil.
oh, and I never procrastinate.
> . >
< . <
:whistling:
-
Then why are you here :P
Nah, low one.
Anxiety? What exactly are you anxious about? (If I should be so bold to ask ;))
It's not a matter of being anxious about anything in a normal, rational way. It's an irrational condition, just like real procrastination is an irrational condition.
My anxiety often comes from a lack of fulfilling a task. Perhaps i'm too lazy or i've settled on an excuse, "too tired". It might originate from insecurity but i'm not sure. Insecurity can be built counterwise by mentioned lack of fulfilling a task because of lazyness.
The only way is to break the apparent bad circle and counterwise do one of the causes. Do things instead of being lazy, forget excuses and instead of being insecure, imagine what it would be after you've made that task/tasks.
For me, this worked until I had no more homework/tasks to do. I became restless and started drifting into my old patterns. My guess would be you should always have something to do, to keep you "in shape".
-
Anxiety? What exactly are you anxious about? (If I should be so bold to ask ;))
It's not a matter of being anxious about anything in a normal, rational way. It's an irrational condition, just like real procrastination is an irrational condition.
Haha, there's no such thing as 'just being anxious'. You may not be able to rationalise it, but that doesn't mean it's not a rational cause. Unless you have some sort psychosis, like schizophrenia or something. But even then, that's a rational cause for anxiety in itself. A chemical imbalance such as a lack of seratonin could result in inherent anxiety, but that can be 'fixed' with anti-depressants or other drugs.
Point is, if somebody seriously can't figure out why they might be anxious, they should seek psychiatric counseling. Could change your life...
-
When I have something of a work-related nature that I want to accomplish, I tend to stay up late working on other things or sometimes just goofing off. I don't go to sleep because I know I should be doing the thing I'm avoiding. My hours get switched around from time to time as a result depending on where I am in the week.
Yes, I have exactly the same problem. I don't go to sleep, but I don't do what I 'am supposed' to do either, even if I don't dislike the thing I am supposed to do. I avoid thinking about what I have to do by reading forums, watching TV, listening to the radio or by doing anything that is able to keep my attention away from the things I have to do. It's pure escapism and I usually fail to get out it once I have started to stop thinking about what I had to do. A half conscious feeling of: "I still have work to do" that pops up now and then keeps me from going to bed. However I do use quite some tricks to avoid getting in such a situation in the first place. They don't always work, but so far I am somewhat content about my 'solutions'.
My biggest escape machine is my laptop, so at the end of the day, I usually remove it from my desk and place it somewhere out of sight. This is to prevent me from starting it up without having consciously decided to do so. For the same reason, I don't even have a TV. (I live in a students house, we have a TV in the shared living room)
Another thing that often works is making a quick scedule. I write down what has to be done, even when it's trivial and I won't forget it anyway. For some reason it has more 'weight' when it's on paper. I think it works because it takes some time to write something down, so you don't have the chance to procrastinate it in less then a second without me actively being aware of it. It forces you to consciously make a decision about whether or not you are going to do it right now, or any time later. I usually use the back side of an envelope which I throw away when I've completed the things written down on it.
A final thing that can work great for me is organising social pressure. When I have to study, I agree with others to meet at the library. Things like that.
Relying on tricks like that may feel a bit weak. It does for me at least. The cultural determined idea is that when you have a minimum of wisdom, you can beat procrastination, because it's totally irrational. Relying on tricks is accepting that your own motivation and common sense is sometimes simply is not enough to get you started and that's not a nice thing. The flipside is that it works, while telling yourself that you don't need it and you'll stop procrastinating tomorrow doesn't. I doesn't always work, but things surely have improved since I started to force myself to do thing I already wanted to do.
I'm neither of those, and I'm not lazy either. It's an anxiety thing.
It's interesting you mention anxiety. That is an issue for me as well. Even when I was (and still am) very confident of myself, I didn't want to be confronted with situations which theoretically could prove me that I had been overconfident. I.e. I didn't prepare for exams, so if I failed them, I could blame my preparation. It may be anxiety not to live up to my own or others standards. I'm not quite sure though, it's just what logic tells me.
-
I'm quite lazy but its more a confidence and motivation thing tthat prevents me from doing things. But when I get started on things I usally work hard at it, until I get bored.
-
I have the exact problem Hitancrias has, perhaps I'll try the solutions.
-
I don't either prepare for tests normally. Right now I have 2 tests and i've "promised" myself to read the first one one week before the first test.
Hmm >_>
I've met the school counsellor and i'm trying to talk to people but it does no good, probably because i'm anxious to why i'm anxious :D So that would mean i'm anxious about a hidden cause i'm anxious about...
All seem to have the same problem. We avoid what needs to be done, perhaps because we're not keen on taking the risks, maybe let ourselves down or just anxious. Often for some unknown reason.
Thanks for the tips, Hitancrias. I'm sure they'll help.
Ironic, isn't it. I'm sitting by my computer, discussing procrastination on a gameforum :D
-
Yep...I'm procrastinating right now... Damn mid term....
-
Haha, there's no such thing as 'just being anxious'. You may not be able to rationalise it, but that doesn't mean it's not a rational cause. Unless you have some sort psychosis, like schizophrenia or something. But even then, that's a rational cause for anxiety in itself. A chemical imbalance such as a lack of seratonin could result in inherent anxiety, but that can be 'fixed' with anti-depressants or other drugs.
Point is, if somebody seriously can't figure out why they might be anxious, they should seek psychiatric counseling. Could change your life...
Psychosis means that you are out of touch with reality - you are beyond borderline. Schizophrenia means that you're suffering from pretty heavy hallucinations and delusions including paranoid and illusions of grandeur. Something can have a reason and yet not be rational. Someone can have an irrational belief for a reason, but his or her reason for having that believe may not be based in rational thought. I also recommend that you take more care in recommending drug therapy to people who suffer from anxiety because there are numerous complications that accompany drug therapy, and many people feel that drug therapy does more harm than good. Look up the addictive qualities of Paxil and similar drugs if you feel like educating yourself.
@hitancrias: Thanks for your response. My situation does mirror your own. The thing is, I consider myself to be a smart person, and yet the problem persists.
-
Zanzibar, I've been taking Psychology for years, I know what a 'psychosis' is, and I know what schizophrenia is, and I'd like to think after all that time listening to actual psychologists in person, that I know a little more than wikipaedia :P
I suggest you look up serotonin, and its effects on the human brain. Without it, you feel depressed, tired, irritable, anxious and aggressive. So if you naturally don't make enough of it for whatever reason, your life will be rather unpleasant. The ONLY known cure for a lack of serotonin is anti-depressants - they have the ability to stimulate the release of serotonin, and in time can bring your serotonin levels back up to normal, so that you wont have to take them any more. (Unless you get addicted, but addictions are never impossible to break, and its rare that anyone would get severly addicted to Paxil or Prozac...)
And I don't think you understand my meaning when I say 'rational cause'. Schizophrenia is totally irrational - because talking to figments of your imagination obviously isn't rational behaviour - but the cause of that schizophrenia could be a simple blow to the head, damaging the frontal lobe.
The same way your anxiety might seem irrational, but the cause could be a simple chemical imbalance, or sexual frustration, or something else entirely.
Point is, people aren't inherently anxious - there's always something making you that way, be it natural or an effect of modern society.
-
Zanzibar, I've been taking Psychology for years, I know what a 'psychosis' is, and I know what schizophrenia is, and I'd like to think after all that time listening to actual psychologists in person, that I know a little more than wikipaedia :P
*sigh*
I've also studied psychology in university. Not enough to qualify for a minor, but more than just a casual look. I have friends who are psychologists. Friends who see psychologists. An aunt who is a psychologist. And I've read books and articles which are better sources of info than wiki.
I suggest you look up serotonin,
I know what seratonin is and how it works on the nervous system.
and its effects on the human brain. Without it, you feel depressed, tired, irritable, anxious and aggressive. So if you naturally don't make enough of it for whatever reason, your life will be rather unpleasant. The ONLY known cure for a lack of serotonin is anti-depressants - they have the ability to stimulate the release of serotonin, and in time can bring your serotonin levels back up to normal, so that you wont have to take them any more. (Unless you get addicted, but addictions are never impossible to break, and its rare that anyone would get severly addicted to Paxil or Prozac...)
1. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors don't bring your seratonin levels up to normal so much as they regulate levels in the body, thus breaking any patterns of highs and lows. They have a different effect on anxiety, on bipolar disorder, and on clinical depression.
2. Addictions are not only common, but in the case of Paxil they are extremely common. Paxil stays in the body for a much shorter period than Prozak, thus explaining why it's so addictive. A person who has studied the effects of Paxil will tell you that Paxil is more addictive than heroin, and the addiction can be life long with withdrawl symptoms that last for years and possibly even life.
And I don't think you understand my meaning when I say 'rational cause'.
No, it's you who didn't understand my meaning when I said "rational". I introduced the term to this conversation, so it's YOU who misunderstood the meaning of the word in its particular context. By rational, I meant resulting from reason. Not from a reason, but from reason itself - that process of the mind that tells you things like "Perhaps I should research my facts before I speak of things I know very little about".
Edited to add: Drug therapy does nothing to address the social causes of depression.
-
*sigh*
I've also studied psychology in university. Not enough to qualify for a minor, but more than just a casual look. I have friends who are psychologists. Friends who see psychologists. An aunt who is a psychologist. And I've read books and articles which are better sources of info than wiki.
Then you would know that schizophrenia, and other extremely obvious psychological disorders, are one of the very first things they teach you about in psych. In fact, I think it was the first.
And not only that, but the majority of people know what schizophrenia is, even if they have no interest in either medicine or psychology at all...
I know what seratonin is and how it works on the nervous system.
Well goodie. I'm glad we've established that...
1. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors don't bring your seratonin levels up to normal so much as they regulate levels in the body, thus breaking any patterns of highs and lows. They have a different effect on anxiety, on bipolar disorder, and on clinical depression.
2. Addictions are not only common, but in the case of Paxil they are extremely common. Paxil stays in the body for a much shorter period than Prozak, thus explaining why it's so addictive. A person who has studied the effects of Paxil will tell you that Paxil is more addictive than heroin, and the addiction can be life long with withdrawl symptoms that last for years and possibly even life.
I find that hard to believe. You're just splicing together two facts into one: Yes, addiction is common, and yes, severe addiction is possible, but NO, severe addiction is NOT common.
Not only was that explicitly stated, but I know many people who have come off it with little bother - including my mother, who's taken it for over 3 years, and came off it in 2 weeks.
No, it's you who didn't understand my meaning when I said "rational". I introduced the term to this conversation, so it's YOU who misunderstood the meaning of the word in its particular context. By rational, I meant resulting from reason. Not from a reason, but from reason itself - that process of the mind that tells you things like "Perhaps I should research my facts before I speak of things I know very little about".
Oh, my mistake, I thought your comment had something to do with the initial topic. I was talking about everything occuring in your mind having a traceable source, be it physical or emotional. Nothing to do with 'reason' or rationality.
Edited to add: Drug therapy does nothing to address the social causes of depression.
I never said it did. In fact, I never suggested drug therapy for anything BUT a lack of serotonin, for which drugs are currently the only solution.
The entire POINT of psychology is to address the social causes of things like depression. If I had that much faith in drugs, I'd become a chemist - I'm just saying, there are some things that psychotherapy can't fix: chemical things.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I suggest you think about what is being said, rather than trying to out-do me in the one thing I'm actually knowledgable in :P
-
I have been procrastinating posting in this thread but now I see it is too late as the topic has changed to some quibble about the merits of the pseudo-science known as Psychology so to procrastinate no longer here is my comment for what it is worth (not much). I took a first year psychology course, skipped all but the first two classes and passed the mid-term exam armed with nothing more than a ten-sided die. Don't you just love multiple guess?
-
I find that hard to believe. You're just splicing together two facts into one: Yes, addiction is common, and yes, severe addiction is possible, but NO, severe addiction is NOT common.
Not only was that explicitly stated, but I know many people who have come off it with little bother - including my mother, who's taken it for over 3 years, and came off it in 2 weeks.
I know people who have quit Paxil without bad side effects as well. I also know people who have done heroin occasionally for decades and yet haven't turned into junkies. However, Paxil DOES have a very high occurence of causing severe withdrawal symptoms after users quit usage. Of course, "high" is a subjective term, but it is high compared to other medications.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paxil+addiction&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=paxil+withdrawal&btnG=Search&meta=
Edited to add: Drug therapy does nothing to address the social causes of depression.
I never said it did. In fact, I never suggested drug therapy for anything BUT a lack of serotonin, for which drugs are currently the only solution.
The entire POINT of psychology is to address the social causes of things like depression. If I had that much faith in drugs, I'd become a chemist - I'm just saying, there are some things that psychotherapy can't fix: chemical things.
Seratonin imbalances can be the result of social and environmental factors, not just biological or mental.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I suggest you think about what is being said, rather than trying to out-do me in the one thing I'm actually knowledgable in :P
I don't doubt that you're knowledgeable.
I have been procrastinating posting in this thread but now I see it is too late as the topic has changed to some quibble about the merits of the pseudo-science known as Psychology so to procrastinate no longer here is my comment for what it is worth (not much). I took a first year psychology course, skipped all but the first two classes and passed the mid-term exam armed with nothing more than a ten-sided die. Don't you just love multiple guess?
I agree that psychology isn't a science. It works using theoretical models / abstractions which describe processes that cannot be directly observed or proven.
-
I really procastrinated too much to post here!
Now as the topic shifted, well if psychology cannot be considered as a science, then what about *cough* Psychoanalysis?
And perhaps even worse, what about Jungian Psychology with "The Shadow", "Collective Unconscious" and so on?
Or *cough* the "Psychological Types" on cheap personality tests?
-
I really procastrinated too much to post here!
Now as the topic shifted, well if psychology cannot be considered as a science, then what about *cough* Psychoanalysis?
And perhaps even worse, what about Jungian Psychology with "The Shadow", "Collective Unconscious" and so on?
Or *cough* the "Psychological Types" on cheap personality tests?
Psychology is a humanity, just like philosophy, theology, and english literature. The problem is that psychologists try to pass themselves off as scientists when they are not. Freud's work was no more scientific than Marx's. Modern theories suffer from the same fundamental epistemological and methodological failings.
-
Freud's work was no more scientific than Marx's.
Or than Ayn Rand and all those ficticious economic models from right-winged economy as well.
Anyway economics the way they are since they were founded are based on supositions and biased theories to defend one or other mean of production, or to rant against one(Usually either pro or anti neoliberal/capitalist/etc), it cannot be considered as non-biased, neither as science. It is not based on empirical analysis. But on what the "ideal" economy of the ideology defended by the writer would look like.
Returning to topic. It seems psychology became very mundane nowadays. Any one makes a cheap interpretation of an already flawed stereotypical analysis of personality then puts it as either free or paid "Personality Test", and to increase the problem, self-aid books are common.
-
Self help books are horrible. Them, dream interpretations, star sign books and all the other quasi-science books. Passing guess work as fact is never a good idea.
-
...
I hate you guys... so... much. :P
Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.
As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?
-
...
I hate you guys... so... much. :P
Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.
As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?
Just because you can't understand something fully does not mean that something else is true. Thats the argument from ignorance. Just because something helps people doesn't make it true either. Is the fact that people are comforted by religion proof of god's existance? <-(Not a religious attack but an example relating to his asertations.)
-
As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
Perhaps you should reread Hawking's books.
I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?
Black holes make more sense than Freud.
Psychology is simply taking something we already think is true and describing it using a theoretical model. We then point to the model as proof that what we thought was true is actually true.
-
...
I hate you guys... so... much. :P
Seriously though, I think there's a lot to be said for psychology. You can't deny it helps people. Helps a lot of people. It's pretty much THE answer for anything that drugs wont fix, so there has to be some merit.
As for psychology as a science... What the hell is a 'science'? I'll admit that some of the stuff Freud and Jung put forth is a bit outlandish, but after reading some of Stephen Hawkings' work... the idea of an anti-personality - or a part of your psyche that holds everything that you're not (i.e. Jung's 'shadow') - doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
I mean, if you can swallow that a star imploding to the point that its volume is 0, and gravity is infinite, will pull everything within its 'event horizon' into the single point of 0 volume, removing it all from space completely (i.e. a 'black hole'), then why not accept a few Freudisms?
Just because you can't understand something fully does not mean that something else is true. Thats the argument from ignorance. Just because something helps people doesn't make it true either. Is the fact that people are comforted by religion proof of god's existance? <-(Not a religious attack but an example relating to his asertations.)
Has extensive knowledge of religion and theo-therapy techniques ever cured a mental illness? Even so, I'd reckon it happens a lot less frequently than in the world of psychiatry.
I mean, how much does your aunt make a year, Zanzibar? I bet it's a killing - that alone shows how much psychology is in demand... 'cause it works. Apparently. It's like, the done thing - if you're wacky in the head, you go to a shrink. Everybody knows that. Saying it's all bullsh-ugar is like saying that mathematics is a useless skill in life... ('Cause although you might not have to face much maths and/or psychology, it's one of those fundemental things that makes everything work.)
-
Perhaps you should reread Hawking's books.
Psychology is simply taking something we already think is true and describing it using a theoretical model. We then point to the model as proof that what we thought was true is actually true.
You have just defined the very meaning of 'science' in that sentence.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein.
Sir, I believe you have just been burned :P
Edit: And Atomica's right. So many things are based on psychology - advertisement (that's obvious), marketing (know why McDonald's colours are red & yellow? 'Cause it makes people uncomfortable - which means they get out faster, which means more people come in faster), set design (Ever noticed the terrible lighting and colour schemes in the Big Brother house? It's designed to induce stress), fashion (Ever wondered why the catwalk is so far above the audience? It's to create a sense of idolisation and confidence), warfare (Ever wondered why spec ops soldiers wear black? It's not to hide - it's the shock value of seeing a shadowy figure breaking down your door), law enforcement ('Psychological warfare', anyone? Not to mention criminal profiling), and so many more all employ psychologists for their expert opinions. It's very much in demand because it works very well.
-
I mean, how much does your aunt make a year, Zanzibar? I bet it's a killing - that alone shows how much psychology is in demand... 'cause it works.
I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying that it isn't a science.
Part of the reason why psychologists are so in demand is because the process to become a psychologist is very demanding, and they weed people out who have alternative theories. To an extent, it's artificial scarcity.
You have just defined the very meaning of 'science' in that sentence.
Einstein's quote means that science isn't science. He's saying that the way people do science isn't very scientific.
Also, in science, you're supposed to be able to test your theories. Psychological theories are not as testable.
Edit: And Atomica's right. So many things are based on psychology - advertisement (that's obvious), marketing (know why McDonald's colours are red & yellow? 'Cause it makes people uncomfortable - which means they get out faster, which means more people come in faster), set design (Ever noticed the terrible lighting and colour schemes in the Big Brother house? It's designed to induce stress), fashion (Ever wondered why the catwalk is so far above the audience? It's to create a sense of idolisation and confidence), warfare (Ever wondered why spec ops soldiers wear black? It's not to hide - it's the shock value of seeing a shadowy figure breaking down your door), law enforcement ('Psychological warfare', anyone? Not to mention criminal profiling), and so many more all employ psychologists for their expert opinions. It's very much in demand because it works very well.
Those are all social in origin.
-
Does anyone else have an image of Joey Tribiani (sp?) singing a song in regards to this discussion?
-
Procrastination--- I would say that I... hummm... Ill get back to that one.
Psychology as a science, back in my day it was listed in the cource cataloge as a science. Wiki seems to say it could go either way.
"The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge and its ethical implications. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of the scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are." -- Wiki
-
Science is split into scientific facts and testable theories. Gravity and evolution are both. Phycology isn't either, like astorogy.
-
Just so that I am not misunderstood.
What should be called scientific has been debated and will continue to be debated. There is no point in argueing about it.
FYI... some would say that science never claims absolute certainty, thus, science does not have facts.
-
But science does have terms known as scientific facts. The closest thing to certainty the we can have. That is not debatable.
-
This guy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ made a carrier out of debating just that.
-
I skimmed through a bit and he seems to be saying that science moves forward at a non-uniform rate. Seems fairly obvious. Science is the contemporary way of understanding the things around us. A scientific fact is a theory for which there is evidence and that has been tested numerous times yielding the same results. Thats not to say that it is absoulute truth. Its just the closest we can get at the time of it being a scientific fact. There is always new evidence coming to light and untill there is much more phycology will not be a science.
-
Science is split into scientific facts and testable theories. Gravity and evolution are both. Phycology isn't either, like astorogy.
I thought you were saying scientific fact = absolute truth.
A scientific fact is a theory for which there is evidence and that has been tested numerous times yielding the same results. Thats not to say that it is absoulute truth. Its just the closest we can get at the time of it being a scientific fact.
On this part I can agree, but I think it is a bit more complex than that. Kunh did write some kind of essay on the subject.
-
I said its the closest thing to certainty we can have at that moment in time. We seem to agree in everything except syntax.
-
Wiki seems to say it could go either way.
All hail the almighty public opinion!
-
Wiki seems to say it could go either way.
All hail the almighty public opinion!
Don't worry, everybody knows the almighty Zanzibar opinion is beyond anything the mere public could possibly conceive as right... :P
And what exactly are you guys talking about? Psychology and Chemistry and the other sciences all have the EXACT same methods of proving 'fact'.
Example:
Chemistry - You give someone a dose of Adrenalin, monitor them and take down the results, and conclude that adrenalin increases blood pressure, heightens senses, etc. Repeat 1000 times and you record it as a fact.
Psychology - You lock a subject and a bunch of others in a room and force them to count beats. There's 11 beats in total. Afterwards, a man comes in and asks them each how many beats they heard. Each person says '12', so when the subject is finally asked he also says '12', proving that social pressure can effect people's core beliefs (i.e. how many beats they perceived) Repeat 1000 times and you record it as fact.
Naturally, there will people who stick to their beliefs even though 9 people before them all heard differently, just like there are people who aren't effected by adrenalin. But the majority are for both.
Where's the difference? Why is it not a fact, simply because it concerns the mental and not the physical?
-
We are far futher from understanding the brain than we are from the laws of physics and chemistry.
-
And what exactly are you guys talking about? Psychology and Chemistry and the other sciences all have the EXACT same methods of proving 'fact'.
I guess you've never studied Piaget.
-
We are far futher from understanding the brain than we are from the laws of physics and chemistry.
That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. :P 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.
Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.
And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.
-
That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. :P 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.
Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.
And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.
The brain is not just a concept. It's a physical object. The "mind" however is something far more conceptual in nature since we can't directly observe it or say "It is here.".
If you think that particle physics and black holes are merely "half-baked theories", then you have just shown yourself to be truly ignorant on the subject. I recomend picking up a few books on the subject aimed at people with a layman's understanding. When you find a good one, they actually make for a really fun and quick read. I'd say that they are a "light" read, but I wouldn't want to cause trouble.
-
When I said we don't know how the brain works I ment its inner workings. Define emotion. See? And yes the "Layman's books" are a light read compared to some.
-
That's the worst definition of science I've ever heard. :P 'Science is more easily understood than non-science'.
Besides, 'the brain' is a concept of biology. An organ. Yet we know next to nothing of the brain.
And we know FAR more about the mind than we know about Black Holes, or gravitons, or some of the other half-baked theories that Physicists put forward as so-called fact.
The brain is not just a concept. It's a physical object. The "mind" however is something far more conceptual in nature since we can't directly observe it or say "It is here.".
P.S. "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense mental state that arises autonomically in the nervous system rather than through conscious effort, and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response."
No you define energy.
If you think that particle physics and black holes are merely "half-baked theories", then you have just shown yourself to be truly ignorant on the subject. I recomend picking up a few books on the subject aimed at people with a layman's understanding. When you find a good one, they actually make for a really fun and quick read. I'd say that they are a "light" read, but I wouldn't want to cause trouble.
Umm, physicists barely understand what Black Holes are, or the physics behind them. So far the only concrete thing they know about Black Holes is that regular physics doesn't seem to apply to them. And gravitons are purely theoretical - most physicists don't even entertain the idea of particles governing the force of gravity.
I'm using these as an example for why Science isn't the be-all and end-all for understanding the world around us. If you really think science is the answer to everything, you're the ign'ant one...
There's as much factual support for psychology - based on trial & error - as there is for science - which is also based on trial & error.
P.S. "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense mental state that arises autonomically in the nervous system rather than through conscious effort, and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response"
Now you define energy.
-
P.S. "Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense mental state that arises autonomically in the nervous system rather than through conscious effort, and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response."
That definition is filled with assumption and there are parts of it which are contestable. It doesn't really answer the question of what the mind is or how it works, but maybe this will be a better answer to give you:
Umm, physicists barely understand what Black Holes are, or the physics behind them. So far the only concrete thing they know about Black Holes is that regular physics doesn't seem to apply to them. And gravitons are purely theoretical - most physicists don't even entertain the idea of particles governing the force of gravity.
Black holes are objects which have compressed to such a small size that their mass exists within the limits of their own Schwarzschild radius.
I can give a much clearer and more objective defintion of a black hole than you can produce for emotion, and yet you would say that we understand emotion well and we understand black holes poorly. I can even describe blak holes mathematically. Can you do the same for the mind?
I'm using these as an example for why Science isn't the be-all and end-all for understanding the world around us. If you really think science is the answer to everything, you're the ign'ant one...
I believe my claim was that psychology isn't a science, not that science is the be-all end-all for understanding the world.
Now you define energy.
"The ability to do work."
There's as much factual support for psychology - based on trial & error - as there is for science - which is also based on trial & error.
Again, have you studied Piaget? It doesn't seem like it. Piaget's work and the theories based on his work is probably the best demonstration of why it is fraudulent to portray psychology as a science.
-
That definition is filled with assumption and there are parts of it which are contestable. It doesn't really answer the question of what the mind is or how it works, but maybe this will be a better answer to give you:
Of course not. That's my point. Words can't describe what the mind is and how it works - it's like trying to explain communism with hand-gestures. That doesn't mean we don't understand communism.
Black holes are objects which have compressed to such a small size that their mass exists within the limits of their own Schwarzschild radius. Modern theories suggest that black holes has a diameter of one Plank length.
I can give a much clearer and more objective defintion of a black hole than you can produce for emotion, and yet you would say that we understand emotion well and we understand black holes poorly.
Okay... explain how that happens. Or why it happens. Why would something compress that small? Why have the diameter of one Plank - what's the signifisance of a Plank? (assuming that theory is correct... it makes even less sense, but I guess I'm no physicist)
What's space-time? What happens when space-time is bent?
All of this is just speculation based on an out-dated theory.
I believe my claim was that psychology isn't a science, not that science is the be-all end-all for understanding the world.
So if science doesn't have the answer to everything, and psychology doesn't have the answer to everything, and it's just as easy to observe psychological 'facts' as it is scientific (in some cases moreso, 'cause psychology is in the head of the guy sitting right next to you, not millions of light-years away, and reachable only by mathematical equations...)
"The ability to do work."
Funny, that's also my definition of a green card.
Again, have you studied Piaget? It doesn't seem like it. Piaget's work and the theories based on his work is probably the best demonstration of why it is fraudulent to portray psychology as a science.
No, we didn't. Probably because his theories were based around a particular era or group of people that doesn't conform to our time. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. And besides, do you know how many so-called scientists there have been who've come out with utter bullcrap? Back a few centuries scientists used to think being a black person was a disease, and back farther they used to think the world was flat. Does that mean science isn't a science?
-
That definition is filled with assumption and there are parts of it which are contestable. It doesn't really answer the question of what the mind is or how it works, but maybe this will be a better answer to give you:
Of course not. That's my point. Words can't describe what the mind is and how it works - it's like trying to explain communism with hand-gestures. That doesn't mean we don't understand communism.
You just said we don't understand the mind and can't. Score one against it being a science.
Black holes are objects which have compressed to such a small size that their mass exists within the limits of their own Schwarzschild radius. Modern theories suggest that black holes has a diameter of one Plank length.
I can give a much clearer and more objective defintion of a black hole than you can produce for emotion, and yet you would say that we understand emotion well and we understand black holes poorly.
Okay... explain how that happens. Or why it happens. Why would something compress that small? Why have the diameter of one Plank - what's the signifisance of a Plank? (assuming that theory is correct... it makes even less sense, but I guess I'm no physicist)
What's space-time? What happens when space-time is bent?
All of this is just speculation based on an out-dated theory.
Read the book before you comment.
I believe my claim was that psychology isn't a science, not that science is the be-all end-all for understanding the world.
So if science doesn't have the answer to everything, and psychology doesn't have the answer to everything, and it's just as easy to observe psychological 'facts' as it is scientific (in some cases moreso, 'cause psychology is in the head of the guy sitting right next to you, not millions of light-years away, and reachable only by mathematical equations...)
If we can't understand the mind, as you pointed out, it doesn't matter where it is.
"The ability to do work."
Funny, that's also my definition of a green card.
Were you avoiding the question and making a joke or being serious?
Again, have you studied Piaget? It doesn't seem like it. Piaget's work and the theories based on his work is probably the best demonstration of why it is fraudulent to portray psychology as a science.
No, we didn't. Probably because his theories were based around a particular era or group of people that doesn't conform to our time. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. And besides, do you know how many so-called scientists there have been who've come out with utter bullcrap? Back a few centuries scientists used to think being a black person was a disease, and back farther they used to think the world was flat. Does that mean science isn't a science?
They thought those things because they knew no better and didn't seek evidence. Science as pointed out earlier is not stagnent. It constantly moves. We learn new things about the world around us. Some of what we learn challenges former scientific 'facts'(I use quotes because I mean scientific terms not actual concrete facts as you seem to think I do.) and we go out and gather more evidence to 'prove'(See above.) one or the other.
-
You just said we don't understand the mind and can't. Score one against it being a science.
What the hell? Where did you get that from. I just said it's difficult to put it into words. Why don't you try to explain the colour green to me then? Maybe you'll see what I mean. (And I'm not talking about 'Green is the colour of grass', or 'green is a part of white light refracted back to us'. That's like me saying 'the mind is something you use to think'. I mean explain what 'green' is.)
Read the book before you comment.
Most physicists contend Einstein's theory of relativity.
If we can't understand the mind, as you pointed out, it doesn't matter where it is.
But we can understand the mind. That's what psychology is: The study of the mind. Like I said before - psychology has a very deep understanding of the mind, obviously, because it's employed everywhere successfully.
Were you avoiding the question and making a joke or being serious?
I didn't think I'd have to explain this. If "The ability to do work" really satisfies science, and its the best they can come up with, fine.
"Emotions are a certain state of mind which alters one's disposition"
They thought those things because they knew no better and didn't seek evidence. Science as pointed out earlier is not stagnent. It constantly moves. We learn new things about the world around us. Some of what we learn challenges former scientific 'facts'(I use quotes because I mean scientific terms not actual concrete facts as you seem to think I do.) and we go out and gather more evidence to 'prove'(See above.) one or the other.
That's exactly what psychology does. It evolves. So why isn't it a science.
Anyway, this is getting nowhere. You guys are just reitterating your points in answer to my arguments, you aren't actually paying attention.
You make a point, I make a counter-point, and you re-phrase your point like it somehow counters my counter-point, so I re-phrase my counter-point, you argue about the exact phrasing of my counter-point and then make the same point again, I rephrase the counter-point again, you get frustrated and then it gets locked.
It's... disheartening :P
-
I think something can't be classified as science if it claims itself as an absolute truth or as a *cough* FACT, that is the foundation of science. All theories, knowledges and discoveries should and must be questioned by all, including what the "Mainstream Scientifical Community" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) claims as the most closer to truth. Many bring an agnostic view over religion. Here is an agnostic view over Science.
IE: Have anyone ever sent a probe to the core of the Earth? Then why is this possibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core) more widely accepted by the Mainstream Scientifical Community than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth_theory) ?
Answer: because other mainstream scientifical knowledges dismiss it, some of them are properly done to question it, specially the "Gravity on the Hollow Earth" and the analysis of Earth mass, but it is dismissed mainly thanks to the New Age pseudoscientifical crap that was built over the possibility of the Earth being Hollow.
But I love these ones, worst than all those self aid books, the kind of science that was widely accepted, in fascist and other totalitarian States. To classify rebelliouness, nonconformism, and refusal to obey as a disease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_Progressing_Schizophrenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggishly_Progressing_Schizophrenia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania)
And another highly questionable "disorder":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_about_ADHD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_about_ADHD)
Some of these examples make clear that certain "scientifical knowledges" are nothing but extensions of the enforcement to conform to established social values or to the State and that governments have a great power(sometimes fortunately not used) on defining what is "pseudoscience" and what is "science".
Miniluv cures mind disorders fullwise, doubleplusgood proles happy
Also as I said before: As Psychology, Economics can be hardly classified as science as most works either have a Neoliberal/Pro-capitalism POV, a Social-Democrat/Leftist POV or a Marxist/Anti-capitalist one. Neutrality is practically non-existant on Economics books. You either got the Red one to rant capitalism and launch utopian views that only work in theory, or the $ one to praise capitalism based on ficticious ideal economic models of "free market" and "fair competition" where Trusts, Monopolies and such don't exist and where the dirty corporate games, the unpredictability of human nature and so on are not considered.
There are some books about that, like "Railroading Economics: The Creation of the Free Market Mythology" and "Debunking Economics"
-
We've been through colour in a different thread. Its the product of a reaction our brain takes to a particular wavelength of light. You can't understand how the mind works. You can understand the effects but not the causes. And just because Phycology is successful does not mean it has a deep understanding of the mind. I could know that when I press down the pedal in a car it moves forward. That doesn't mean I have a deep understanding of engines, does it? And you can't use your incomprehension of certain scientific theories as points to prove that something isn't science.
Edit to respond to last poster: Its all about politics with you is it :P
Well the reason that highly improbable theories aren't looked into is that they are just that: Highly inprobable. I could claim the celestial tea pot in orbit of the earth controls the universes gravity but would people go looking for it to analyse its properties for the sake of being fair and neutral? No.
-
Its all about politics with you is it :P
Unfortunately many sciences and not so scientifical theories are influenced and used by politics, both in subtle and outrageously obvious ways. Military applications are sadly what move a considerable amount of scientifical researches in certain countries ( *cough* USA Military-Industrial Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex) *cough* ) and governments and corporations fund certain researches with goals that are far from the ideal goal of just supporting the progress of mankind's knowledge through science. Psychology and other sciences of the mind for example(WARNING: FNORD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FNORD) Ahead!): PsiOp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyop) , MK-ULTRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK-ULTRA) , Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagandism) , Subliminal Messages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_messages) and so on. Classifying rebellion against social and political systems as mental disorder is another historical one.
Well the reason that highly improbable theories aren't looked into is that they are just that: Highly inprobable
I know what is the reason that defines such probability, the scientifically known(and oftenly questioned as well) "Occam's Razor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor). In such matters, the Solid Core mainstream theory is much simpler than the Hollow Earth. Although the final answer about what is really in the core of earth(Having enough technology to send a probe deeply to the core of the Earth) will take a long time yet.
-
I'm not saying that because its simpler its more probable. If that was the case I could just say god did it to every scientific question.
-
We've been through colour in a different thread. Its the product of a reaction our brain takes to a particular wavelength of light. You can't understand how the mind works.
No, that's why you see the colour. Not the nature of the actual colour.
You can understand the effects but not the causes. And just because Phycology is successful does not mean it has a deep understanding of the mind. I could know that when I press down the pedal in a car it moves forward. That doesn't mean I have a deep understanding of engines, does it?
Lol, you could say that about anything.
Science says that if you move your foot, you're using up 'energy' and generating 'kinetic energy', and when you use it to apply pressure to the pedal, you're transferring kinetic energy from your leg to the pedal, which eventually causes the release of kinetic energy from chemical energy, and so the car moves.
Psychology says when you brighten a restaurant excessively, it creates a sense of vulnerability and nakedness, and makes people feel more stressed out and more like they want to escape the constant illumination, and so they are more inclined to take their food and leave immediately, which keeps the restaurant clear for more customers to come in.
They're both two identical ways of thinking. The only difference is one applies to the physical, and one to the mental. And people, like you, are only able to see the physical, so they think that the physical is obviously better known than the two.
Even though both minds and bodies have been around for exactly the same amount of time.
-
We do not see colour. We perceive wavelength as colour.
We know that the mind exists. We know its definition and description – it’s the processes of awareness. We can describe what we know with words rather easily. However, we do not know what the mind is. We can’t dissect a body and point at the mind with a pencil. We can say that it’s closely connected to the brain, but the brain is not the mind.
Explaining communism with hand-gestures is quite easy if you know sign language.
Objects collapse into black holes because of the force of their own gravity. They become so small because there’s nothing to prevent them from collapsing given the force of their own gravity. The Plank length diameter was a conclusion that resulted from a branch of mathematics inspired by string theory. Coincidentally, the Plank length is the theoretical diameter of a string theory particle and it’s also the smallest resolution that we can observe space-time at.
Space-time is the field that particles exist within. When space-time is bent, typically forces are present. However, space-time is merely an abstraction. It's symbolic. It's an idea we use to describe what's happening around us.
Psychology does not really deal with facts. It’s mostly taking what we already “know” to be true and then describing it with an abstraction. A representational model. This is unscientific in a number of ways. Freud and Piaget are good examples of why psychology is methodologically flawed. More fundamentally though, the theories don’t lead to new information. They’re merely used to confirm the preconceived notions that they themselves were based on.
Now, psychiatry is a science, but that’s because it’s essentially biochemistry.
Not all that gets called science is actually science.
Piaget is very relevant to today’s theories, since many of the today's ideas are based directly on his work. He’s basically the founder of developmental psychology. Well, Aristotle came a bit before him, but anyway. The problem is that he was a complete quack. And yet, people still base theories on his work, even though his work has been shown to be garbage.
Emerald, we are not repeating ourselves except where you repeat the same questions. You haven’t been countering our points, and you’ve been making some pretty asinine remarks. If I were to ask you to back up your claim that our understanding of black holes is “speculation based on an outdated theory”, I suspect you would be unable to. When I disprove one of your assertions, you seem to ignore me and then ask something unrelated. You’ve made it obvious that you don’t really know what you’re talking about, and your ignorance doesn’t at all seem to bother you. This is a problem if you wish to engage people in discussions.
Psychology says when you brighten a restaurant excessively, it creates a sense of vulnerability and nakedness, and makes people feel more stressed out and more like they want to escape the constant illumination, and so they are more inclined to take their food and leave immediately, which keeps the restaurant clear for more customers to come in.
Psychology says this, but included in that is the idea that this phenomenom is the result of unseen internal processes innate to the mind. That makes proving it a bit more difficult.
-
I'm bored now...
And you'll love this, but when I mentioned psychology as a 'science' in passing, it was a figure of speech. I didn't actually mean psychology was a science, I just meant it as a generic term for 'a system of practical knowledge'. Kida like when they say music is a science.
But when I thought about it, I figured psychology was as much a science as anything else. It's a science of the mind... which evidently is hard to grasp by some people. Even when they take psychology for a few years and have an aunt in the business. But that's my definition of the word.
Hey, wanna argue about about whether it's 'color' or 'colour' now? :P
-
Dodge, dance, distract, and revise.
-
Music is by no means a science. That is simply abuse of a word. Using it for something its not. A science of the mind is absurd too. Is philosophy a science? No. Its a word which has a meaning which does not cover what you want it to cover. Simple.
Ps. Its colour.
-
Ps. Its colour.
Emeraldfool knows he's wrong and that he can't defend his statements, so he's instead trying to get people to argue with him over stupid irrelevant things such as the proper way to spell "colour". If you wish to engage him on that level, I won't stop you.
-
No, its fact that its colour in the English language. Not a discussion. A fact. I wouldn't sink so low as to even entertain the idea that the Americans are right about a language thats not even thiers. Back on topic please...
-
Emeraldfool knows he's wrong and that he can't defend his statements,
That one sentence pretty much sums up why arguing with you is one gigantic waste of time.
Everyone else is 'obviously' wrong, and you're 'obviously' right, and all this 'debate' is really just you patiently trying to show everyone why your opinion is the correct one.
I suppose I was naive to think you were actually listening to what I had to say...
(Honestly, I'm sure you read that and thought something along the lines of 'of course I was listening! you're an idiot! I'm so gonna slap a pissed-off rant on your ass!', but could you honestly tell me what my point was without going back over it with a fine-tooth comb? In fact, maybe you should, just to see the points I was making without the express purpose of arguing them to the death.)
-
Emeraldfool knows he's wrong and that he can't defend his statements,
That one sentence pretty much sums up why arguing with you is one gigantic waste of time.
If I see that you're trying to change the subject or distract from a point someone else has made, I'll call you on it. It indicates that you recognize that you've been proven wrong on something, but instead of admitting it, you'd rather just move on to something else (like the proper spelling of the word "colour").
-
Stop procrasticating about discussing procrastination please. (get back to the original subject, and leave the land of offtopicness)
-
I've been ignoring this thread for a while but the time seems right for a quote for a former first lady
My evil genius Procrastination has whispered me to tarry 'til a more convenient season.
-
I was using 'colour' as an analogy for my perception of the word 'science'
Another testament to the fact that your only thoughts go to how you are going to argue a point, rather than what that point actually means. I've never ever seen you agree with anything I've ever said, regardless of how small and insignificant a comment. It stands to reason that there'd be something you would agree with me on. I mean, it's not like there's not a lot to choose from. :P
But no, everything I say you turn into an argument.'Planeshift is closest to the dark ages', 'Karyuu acts innocent', 'cheating is wrong', even when it looks like we're on the same side, you somehow find a way to twist your argument so it opposes mine, just so you can argue with me.
I'm sorry I've procrastinated so long in telling you that :P
-
I've never ever seen you agree with anything I've ever said
I very rarely see reason to agree with you. Of what relevence is that?
-
I guess if I don't reply to something you say, then there's a chance I agree with it.
More seriously, I'm not picking on you. I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you. I just disagree with you on a lot of things.
-
I've procrastinated enough to bring this thread back on topic.
I think the common practice of procrastinating comes from two factors: from your own personality and from the way your family treated you.
There are people that are more methodic and organized, that act fully based on a schedule. For example: there are people that wake up always 7:00 AM, including on holidays, breakfast on 7:15, lunch on 12:00, dinner on 7:00 PM and sleep on 11:00 PM. However these people also are less prone to make radical changes on their lives or to have innovative ideas, while the procrastinators are usually the opposite, people that cares little about having an orderly life with routines, schedules and such, that prefer innovation and independence over hierarchies and schedules.
Anyway don't worry, Albert Einstein "procrastinated" until 9 years old to speak fluently :whistling:
Also some people associate it with the already mentioned and controversial "Attention-Deficit Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-Deficit_Disorder)", that has as one of the "symptoms":
Procrastination, inability to begin an activity
-
Personally, I don't see procrastination in terms of being a free spirit. It's more of a cage than anything else.
-
Personally, I don't see procrastination in terms of being a free spirit. It's more of a cage than anything else.
Of course it is, following strictly and orderly schedule is the way to free yourself.
I was caged before, now I will not procrastinate and follow order, sleep always at 12:00AM, I will be free to don't sleep when I am tired but instead sleep when the rules I created for myself wish to. I will lunch always precisely at 12:00 PM regardless of being or not hungry. Hoorray!
But now I'm caging myself perhaps? No I'm not, procrastinating is the cage!
-
Hmm I have to dispute the wikitinuum. I am perfectly able to start an activity, I just prefer to delay at times.
-
But there are more options than being a procrastinator or living by a strict schedule.
-
How can the act procrastinating exist if there isn't an existing schedule of what is being procrastinated? The other option is to nullify the own meaning of the word procrastination by shredding all schedules, deadlines and routines from your life so you won't have a point of comparation through time for it. Of course it would disrupt fully your professional life, meaning that if you insisted in such thing, you would soon end up as a Hobo, which shows the sad reality: it's not a question of escaping from cages of schedules or of the "cage" of procrastination when we're bound by money, and the need of cash chain many to corporate life until becoming full "Corporate Dummies".
-
If I get hungry while playing a game but put off eating for hours there is no set schedule I am breaking but I am still procrastinating assuaging my hunger.
Right now I am procrastinating going to bed because there is more rum to be drunk which I am procrastinating in drinking because I will regret it tomorrow....
-
If I get hungry while playing a game but put off eating for hours there is no set schedule I am breaking but I am still procrastinating assuaging my hunger.
Right now I am procrastinating going to bed because there is more rum to be drunk which I am procrastinating in drinking because I will regret it tomorrow....
I guess it's nearing impossible, still if you suppress your bodily sensations to the point they become insignificant, or if you take a fully nihilistic approach to life, you may become able of nullify the meaning of procrastinating, at least for yourself.
-
And if I am so engrossed in a game that I don't sleep for 36 hours because I keep putting off going to bed? I don't understand what you mean by nullifying the meaning.
Main Entry: pro·cras·ti·nate
Pronunciation: pr&-'kras-t&-"nAt, prO-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: Latin procrastinatus, past participle of procrastinare, from pro- forward + crastinus of tomorrow, from cras tomorrow
transitive verb : to put off intentionally and habitually
intransitive verb : to put off intentionally the doing of something that should be done
source (http://m-w.com/dictionary/procrastination)
-
I mean to make the act of "procrastination" as unvoluntary by ignoring all the meanings of the world as absolutes. If there is nothing that "should be done" and if you see procrastination as not intentional, if you deny the own meaning of procrastination as truth in the most radical form of nihilism, you will nullify its meaning. In other words, if you ignore what you were culturally taught about putting off things, procrastination will have no meaning for you.
Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth.
-
I guess I see what you are saying, of course the transitive form of the verb has no sense of "should be done" and if you are doing one thing you are always putting off doing something else even if that something else is "not doing that one thing."
-
This is related to the discussion Paxil.
Another friend of mine is quitting Paxil. She wrote this description of her experiences so far:
I quit paxil, with my shrink's blessing. Mentally I don't really need the antidepressant anymore.
I've tried to get off 3 times already though. And each time, the withdrawal symptoms made me go back on.
My shrink tells me it's as hard to get off of as heroin. I wouldn't know, but it can't be too much worse than this.
some that I'm having (from quitpaxil.com)
- an unconventional dizziness/vertigo
- the feeling of shocks, similar to mild electric ones, running the length of your body (so that's what that snapping feeling is)
- nausea
- hypersensitivity to motion, sounds, smells. (I mean, I know I'm always like this, but often I need to be by myself in a dark room now)
- blurred vision
- headaches (constantly!)
-memory and concentration problems (very bad - having trouble at work, feeling very lightheaded and trouble thinking straight and talking)
- intense fear of losing your sanity (well, I would feel this way if I didn't know all of this is NORMAL)
Many people think that this are "just in the head" from depression or anxiety from not being on medication. I actually feel I'm doing very well, mentally. I've only have one crying fit since I quit.... which was due to pure frustration from feeling so ill.
The worst of it is the dizziness. If I move my head slowly, everything starts to spin, and my vision gets really blurry. It feels like spinning on a swing... but I can never get off. Even moving my EYES can set it off... or thinking too hard.
Almost as bad is the constant pain and pressure in my head and eyes, the constant feeling that I'm going to throw up, and that weird zapping feeling I get randomly.
Last but not least, is the feeling of never feeling "ok". Since the symptoms started, at any point, I feel really fucking crappy.
I considered taking a leave of absence from work. But apparently the symptoms can last MONTHS.
So I'm trying to troop this out. Maybe it will build character.
I can't do too much right now. Looking at things hurt my eyes. Watching TV hurts my head. Surfing the internet makes my dizzy. Walking, even to the bathroom, almost makes me throw up.
I'm going to sleep now.
Wish me luck (and strength) everyone... please... I need it.
edited again:
ok, I just read that this could last A YEAR.
A YEAR?? ?? ?? ??
I mean, I knew it could last weeks - I was off for 3 weeks the last time before I gave up and went back on.
But a year?? ??
good god. I'm doomed. I don't know if I can pull this off.
-
That is really sad and not terribly uncommon, psychiatrists are worse in my mind than psychologists because they are frequently just shills for the pharmaceutical companies and they have no conscience. They look for treatments and not for cures because there is little repeat business with a cure.
-
This is related to the discussion Paxil.
Another friend of mine is quitting Paxil. She wrote this description of her experiences so far:
Oh dear god.
Zanzi, I think it's very important that you don't come in contact with her for the next three weeks :P
Actually, on second thought, she seems pretty confident - tell her she'll never manage to do it, but don't make a very convincing argument.
One of the main reasons my mom got through it so well was because her sister kept telling her she'd tried already and it was impossible :P It pissed her off so much she never even thought of giving up...
-
That is really sad and not terribly uncommon, psychiatrists are worse in my mind than psychologists because they are frequently just shills for the pharmaceutical companies and they have no conscience. They look for treatments and not for cures because there is little repeat business with a cure.
I couldnt agree more.
It is sad when someone places their mental health in the hands of a 'Professional' that cares about little other than money.
"here take these.....oh buy the way .... you need to take it for the rest of your life"
'will I get better taking this stuff?'
"Better is a relative term, we can discuss it in our next 32 sessions....by the way here is your bill"
-
That is really sad and not terribly uncommon, psychiatrists are worse in my mind than psychologists because they are frequently just shills for the pharmaceutical companies and they have no conscience. They look for treatments and not for cures because there is little repeat business with a cure.
I couldnt agree more.
It is sad when someone places their mental health in the hands of a 'Professional' that cares about little other than money.
"here take these.....oh buy the way .... you need to take it for the rest of your life"
'will I get better taking this stuff?'
"Better is a relative term, we can discuss it in our next 32 sessions....by the way here is your bill"
This is just another evidence for a sad fact I pointed out:
Unfortunately many sciences and not so scientifical theories are influenced and used by politics, both in subtle and outrageously obvious ways. Military applications are sadly what move a considerable amount of scientifical researches in certain countries ( *cough* USA Military-Industrial Complex *cough* ) and governments and corporations fund certain researches with goals that are far from the ideal goal of just supporting the progress of mankind's knowledge through science. Psychology and other sciences of the mind for example
Now time to add some things:
About AIDS and Cancer:
What is better for mankind regarding these problems?
A: To find a cure
What is better for pharmaceutical corporations regarding these problems?
A: To never find a cure and keep people through constant use of medications that fight against the symptoms as it is much more profitable than selling a cure and erradicating the disease.
What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
-
Oh dear god.
Zanzi, I think it's very important that you don't come in contact with her for the next three weeks :P
Actually, on second thought, she seems pretty confident - tell her she'll never manage to do it, but don't make a very convincing argument.
One of the main reasons my mom got through it so well was because her sister kept telling her she'd tried already and it was impossible :P It pissed her off so much she never even thought of giving up...
It effects people in different ways. I know someone who quit it without any withdrawl symptoms whatsoever. Others experience disabilitating levels of suffering for a year or more.
-
It effects people in different ways. I know someone who quit it without any withdrawl symptoms whatsoever. Others experience disabilitating levels of suffering for a year or more.
Well, obviously. My concern is that your pessimistic attitude towards the whole drug thing would break her spirit...
Most people don't suffer year-long withdrawal symptoms, and even when they do, most of the symptoms are barely noticeable after the first month or so.
(And even if you don't believe that's true, it's what you should be telling her regardless)
-
Well, obviously. My concern is that your pessimistic attitude towards the whole drug thing would break her spirit...
My concern is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Well, it's less of a concern and more of an observation.
I'm encouraging her. I have no idea what this BS about "pessimistic attitude towards the whole drug thing" you refer to is. There are certain facts regarding the drug and I'm simply telling you about them. My friend is already well informed about it, much more than I am since she actually has personal experience with it.
Most people don't suffer year-long withdrawal symptoms, and even when they do, most of the symptoms are barely noticeable after the first month or so.
(And even if you don't believe that's true, it's what you should be telling her regardless)
Do some freaking research on paxil before the next time you say anything about it. And no, my friend isn't an idiot who will believe anything I tell her. She's highly educated on the subject through, if nothing else, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH HER OWN SYMPTOMS. What the heck are you telling me to do, e-fool? Tell her that her symptoms are psychosomatic? Or perhaps I should tell her to shrug it off?
Some of your posts add nothing to the discussion. Posting for the sake of making noise is unadvisable.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxil#Side_effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxil#Side_effects)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxil#Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxil#Controversy)
What cannot be denied is that the release into the public domain of previously secret Glaxo documents, can only serve to stimulate discussion and debate regarding the way certain companies choose to market their products.
-
Most people don't suffer year-long withdrawal symptoms, and even when they do, most of the symptoms are barely noticeable after the first month or so.
That is not true. O.o I am surprized with all the back ground you claim to have, that you have never heard of a thing called "addictive personalities." Further more anti depressants have different affects on us all. Some can stop taking it and not have issues. Where as others have to struggle with the drug not in their system and there is no time frame in which it will end. Could take weeks, months, years. Some people never really recover.
-
That is not true. O.o I am surprized with all the back ground you claim to have, that you have never heard of a thing called "addictive personalities." Further more anti depressants have different affects on us all. Some can stop taking it and not have issues. Where as others have to struggle with the drug not in their system and there is no time frame in which it will end. Could take weeks, months, years. Some people never really recover.
There's no such thing as an "addictive personality". At least, that's what I was taught. There's people who may have insecurities, or dependency issues, or were raised to believe 'drugs are the answer', but there's no such thing as someone who was born to be an alcoholic/druggie.
I have never come across a case of someone who has suffered strong withdrawal symptoms from Paxil for over a month or two, and although I'm sure they exist, I'm also sure they're rare. The standard timeframe for Paxil withdrawal symptoms is 1-4 weeks.
I'm not saying it's not addictive, and I'm not saying it can't ruin people's lives, I'm just saying it's not as bad to come off as everyone seems to make it out to be.
There are several other issues concerning Paxil that I'm not so sure about, including a slight potential to induce 'akathisia' in young people, which may cause them to become extremely jumpy and twitchy, possibly even driving them to commit suicide.
And Zanzibar, stop having a tantrum. :P I only meant that you seem to treat the phrase "withdrawal could last from weeks, to months to even years" to automatically mean "Paxil always takes at least a year to come off for all patients, and most patients barely recover from it at all" - that is utter bull, and you know it.
-
Its not his fault you read that into what was said, wich is clear that is not what he meant.
And yes there are addictive personalities, period.
Taking any drug that plays with pathways in the brain, IMHO, is an extremly dangerous game.
-
Its not his fault you read that into what was said, wich is clear that is not what he meant.
Yes it is. Because that's exactly what he was stipulating. He never once resigned to the fact that year-long addictions are rare.
And yes there are addictive personalities, period.
I don't think there are. And since it's currently an ongoing debate, I don't think you can 'period' anything.
Taking any drug that plays with pathways in the brain, IMHO, is an extremly dangerous game.
So is brain surgery. Which would you prefer?
-
I would prefer headbanging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headbanging#Brain_Damage) ! It really mess with your head dude! And it rocks! Brain surgery and psychiatric corporate drugs sucks! ::|
-
I would prefer headbanging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headbanging#Brain_Damage) ! It really mess with your head dude! And it rocks! Brain surgery and psychiatric corporate drugs sucks! ::|
Where do you come out with this stuff? :P
I mean, why would you look up an article on head-banging in the first place?
-
It seems pretty obvious to me he looked it up in order to be able to cite it and the conversation had drifted towards the practices of people whose sanity can be brought into question -- sad people on various drugs (and their problems), nutty God-complexed doctors who treat them and psychopathic CEOs whose companies provide the treatments. Indeed procrastination also can be considered a sign of mental stability if one wishes to relate the topical drift back to its origin.
It is often difficult to surmise the purpose of a thread topic just from its subject line as they are brief of necessity and cannot delineate the direction the discussion may follow with any great precision.
-
I expected that way earlier ;D
-
Don't worry about procrastination people. Sooner or later one of the corporation$ will launch a new psychoactive drug that reduces tendency to procrastinate... but has addiction as a side effect. :thumbdown:
-
There's no such thing as an "addictive personality". At least, that's what I was taught. There's people who may have insecurities, or dependency issues, or were raised to believe 'drugs are the answer', but there's no such thing as someone who was born to be an alcoholic/druggie.
It doesn't have to be alcohol or drugs a person is addicted to. They can also develop this type of personality. You don't have to be born with it. (Just those statments tell me you know nothing about it) I have had some experience with people who have this sort of personality disorder. I have seen it with my own eyes, I know it to be true. Whether you believe it or not matters not to me, but there are many professionals out there that will strongly disagree with you. Unless you have done extensive research on this, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
-
Addictive Personalities (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE1DF1138F93BA25752C0A965948260) can come from people in all walks of life, this is an interview with an Addicted scientist (http://www.he.net/~seidel/addictive.html)
Take a test to see if you have an Addictive Personality (http://www.lifetimetv.com/reallife/health/quiz/health_quiz_addict.html).
Research suggests that people who become addicts tend to share certain key characteristics, such as a brain chemical imbalance or an unhappy childhood, that put them at risk. "It's not [that] if you have a specific gene you're going to be an addict, [and if] you don't have the gene you won't. Rather, some people might have a low risk factor [for addiction], and others might have a very high risk factor," says Robert Forman, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of "Consuming Passions."
-
Suffer from procrastination? Mmm... that's a tricky one. I'm fairly sure I do, but maybe it's just indecision. I'll answer tomorrow.
Anyway, why put off until tomorrow what you can do today? If you enjoy it today, you can do it again tomorrow.
-
Doing something now pays off in the long run but putting it off is instant gratifaction!
-
Do I suffer from procrastination? I'll tell you later....
-
Addictive Personalities (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE1DF1138F93BA25752C0A965948260) can come from people in all walks of life, this is an interview with an Addicted scientist (http://www.he.net/~seidel/addictive.html)
Take a test to see if you have an Addictive Personality (http://www.lifetimetv.com/reallife/health/quiz/health_quiz_addict.html).
Ugh, what BS. "A test for addictive personalities!! Question: Do you have an addictive personality. A) Yes, B)No. You have selected A. Based on our finely-tuned psychological profiling system, we have determined that you are an addict, and should pay $150 an hour for counseling. Here's some links to some of our professionals: gdeeppockets@lifetimepsy.com, griftadoc@lifetimepsy.com, etc." :P
And did you read that interview transcript, or did you just slap it on because it had 'addiction' and 'personality' in the same sentence? It is describing addiction, not 'addictive personalities'. It's referring to the personalities of addicts, and not the concept of a predisposition to addiction inherent in one's psyche. Addicts tend to think alike - obsessed with getting a fix - but that's after they get addicted. What we're talking about is someone who's more likely to get physically addicted to something than someone else simply because of a part of their mind/personality.
It's true that certain mindsets/personalities mean certain people are more likely to seek-out drugs, and use it to escape their troubles, but that's outside influence (i.e. whether or not it's because you're depressed over a rough break-up has nothing to do with your subconscious being), and not a reflection of an inner yearning for being addicted.
I think that's where the misconceptions stem from - people don't really grasp the difference between someone who's just depressed (or any other affliction that may drive them to addiction), and someone who's otherwise completely normal except for an inexplicable weakness for becoming addicted to things.
It's a nice way to stay in denial: "No, there's nothing mentally wrong with me, I just have one of those addictive personalities, that's what. I mean, if I was depressed or something I'd know, right?" But ultimately, there's always another reason why people can't stop doing something. Deep down.
-
It's referring to the personalities of addicts
"Addictive personality" means you're someone who is likely to become an addict. It does not refer to the general personality of addicts.
-
It's referring to the personalities of addicts
"Addictive personality" means you're someone who is likely to become an addict. It does not refer to the general personality of addicts.
Very good, Zanzi. You get a wollypop :P
Next time read the whole post. Or maybe even the preceding sentence of the one you're quoting. Or just the rest of the sentence:
"[The interview cited by Laragorn]'s referring to the personalities of addicts, and not the concept of a predisposition to addiction inherent in one's psyche."
The interview describes the thoughts and motivations of someone 'addicted to science' (aka a 'workaholic'). Which is irrelevant, like you said.
-
Myself: I'm pretty sure I have a bad case of it. When I have something of a work-related nature that I want to accomplish, I tend to stay up late working on other things or sometimes just goofing off. I don't go to sleep because I know I should be doing the thing I'm avoiding. My hours get switched around from time to time as a result depending on where I am in the week.
^ That pretty much sums up how I spend my time. It all gets done in the end though.
-
^ That pretty much sums up how I spend my time.
Me too :)
It all gets done in the end though.
Not so much like me ;)
-
I usually end up cleaning my room, sorting the files in my disc and doing other stuff that I wouldn't normally do whenever I have to study. I think's a way of self punishing me while I'm avoiding to study. It's nice though. Things get clean and confy. :P
-
I usually end up cleaning my room, sorting the files in my disc and doing other stuff that I wouldn't normally do whenever I have to study. I think's a way of self punishing me while I'm avoiding to study. It's nice though. Things get clean and confy. :P
I'm usually reduced to ultimately meaningless repetitive tasks that I do over and over for no reason.
In other words, talking to you guys :P
-
I have history A level coursework I need to do by tuesday, a draft.
I have a week to get some ICT coursework that i thought I had mostly done, but turns out that i just screwed up royal, because my idea was to simple.
I have English second draft A level coursework that I have to do by tuesday.
I had Friday off, I meant to do something but I just breezed it.
Today is going much the same way. I want get started on this home rule bill coursework, and finish it. I then want to start on remodelling my ICT to fit what i need to do.
I want to get in a second draft of my English second coursework for tuesday.
Its 3:30pm and I have done jack &*$#.
On a personal level around my A level work:
I want to make some more models and texture a few that I have made.
I want to make the .dts exporter work. i want to export some models into torque.
I want to finish a few more concept drawings and final designs.
I want to edit a few models I already have made so I can texture them.
I got big list of wants.
Half of list of wants is a need.
I should get my priorities sorted.
problem is I just have no drive.
So I am just kinda facing doom as far as my A levels are concerned... I seem to be doing alright but its all come down at this particular space in time. So I'm loaded down.
The fact that I;m loaded with work now isnt helped by my lack of drive.
I've been much the same for years.
I'm going to die youn and starving lol.
-
I'm going to die youn and starving lol.
Thats great, no need to save for your retirement then :P
-
I'm going to die youn and starving lol.
Thats great, no need to save for your retirement then :P
Woot no hip replacment bills for me!
-
I wouldn't say I procrastinate. Its not so much that I put things off, as that I just don't do them.