Posts by Gerald Rivera60

Pigeons... if you're looking to trade affection, go check the DMs or some other subforum.

Let’s get it together... this is a dedicated thread... try to keep things a bit more serious here.

I’ve gone ahead and tidied up the thread to clear out the clutter...
Regarding insulin therapy for schizophrenia, here is an informative Wikipedia link for those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_shock_therapy
You can also find some additional details on the subject here:
http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Moncrieff.htm

The point here isn't "what we think about folk music," but rather the Psychology behind it.
Setting aside aesthetics, economics, or anything else... my question is this:
Is there a shared psychological characteristic among people who listen to this genre?
(And before anyone brings up that annoying concept of a "psychological complex"
)... (To be clear, I'm not talking about moral or value judgments)

Keith Lee2 said:...by the way. Do you wash your hands before every meal? That was a question from a personality test.😁

That is actually a very specific question... not really meant to gauge personality (I prefer the term "character," but whatever), but rather to serve as a lie scale—one of the control metrics.

I see someone has been busy digging up old, stale topics. If you’re going to revive them, at least try to be constructive. Look, if you insist on bringing up old news, consider whether it actually makes sense. Ask yourselves if your post adds any value or elevates the discussion by exploring angles that haven't been covered yet.
If you're just going to regurgitate what’s already been said, don't bother. You can pad your post count in more appropriate subforums.

(Take this as both a warning and some friendly advice)

Look, my experience has been a bit different... most of the truly beautiful women I’ve met turned out to be far higher quality people than those who look good but just lack that certain spark. On the flip side, I’ve encountered women who aren't conventionally attractive and are highly educated, yet they carry this sense of snobbery and condescension toward others. They can have some pretty unpleasant character traits.
I've always made it a point to avoid judging someone at first glance. Instead, I wait until I have more "data" on them. You watch how they behave—how they speak, where their eyes wander, how others react to them, whether they actually listen to their conversation partner, or if people genuinely laugh at their jokes. I never walked up to someone just because she was pretty and let that cloud my judgment. That’s probably why I haven't run into as many of those situations.

I wasn't talking about some kind of superhuman level of beauty... just what we find attractive (that was my mistake). It doesn't mean you start swooning the second you see someone; it just means they look appealing, or interesting enough that you’d actually want to go over and strike up a conversation.
The criteria for attractiveness tend to be pretty much the same within any given society, even if certain studies suggest there are some universal patterns at play.
... They aren't identical, necessarily, but they are certainly similar.

Beauty matters. It’s obvious. In many cases, physical attraction is the very thing that prompts you to notice someone, approach them, and start a conversation in the first place.
There is a significant body of research linking perceived attractiveness to reproductive fitness and various evolutionary theories.
Generally, selection boils down to two main criteria:
1. Assessing genetic quality. This is why people gravitate toward those who appear attractive, intelligent, strong, self-sufficient, or decisive.
2. Assessing the ability to provide for offspring. This explains the preference for individuals who are gentle, responsible, nurturing, or possess significant financial stability.
Naturally, these two sets of criteria don't always align.

There’s a common misconception that people with schizophrenia are dangerous to the public, but they generally aren't, unlike individuals dealing with certain other disorders.
The exception is usually those struggling with paranoid schizophrenia—specifically when they become convinced you're out to get them.
I once treated a patient who attacked his mother with an axe because he was under the delusion that there was a conspiracy against him.
On a personal note... an ex-girlfriend of mine lived with schizophrenia. When she was staying on top of her medication—which wasn't always the case—she was perfectly fine. She was definitely a bit eccentric, but otherwise, she was okay.

Listen up, my fellow schizophrenics...
I’ve done a little cleaning up in this thread. I realize some of you find it difficult to keep your thoughts on track, but we are here to practice mental discipline and focus...
Just a reminder, the topic is Schizophrenia
😘

Alright guys, let's get back on track. The main topic here is schizophrenia.
You all got a bit carried away with the chatter....
A few posts had to be removed (and my congratulations have been moved over to the appropriate birthday thread here in the psychology section)
... sorry, but we need some order around here.
🙂

What a mistake I made $10 buying that movie ticket...
In my opinion, this flick borrowed way more from Star Wars than it did from Lord of the Rings.
Sure, it swiped the set design, the masks, the orcs—all those "surface-level" things from Lord of the Rings...
But look at how much it lifted from Star Wars...
You've got the kid living with an uncle who gets killed, and this guy failing to show up to the battlefield on time... then while Brom (Obi-Wan Kenobi) explains the bond with a dragon—it’s basically him talking about the Force... then there's that whole bit about killing an officer to promote the next one... plus the princess (or whatever she is) and the rebels... the rogue rider (Darth Vader), and so on.
All that's missing is for the character to find out in the sequel that that evil king is actually his father...

At any rate, IMHO, it's a messy blend of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Empire Strikes Back, and whatever else.

Psychology has produced a significant body of research regarding the correlation between physical attractiveness and various social outcomes.
In most scenarios, attractive individuals tend to fare better—they experience higher levels of success, enjoy greater baseline trust from others, and often receive lighter sentences in court.
(There are certain niche instances where being attractive acts as a disadvantage... if I can track down those specific studies, I’ll write them up.)

Brenda Smith said:Whether they're actually smarter or not—I'm not interested in debating that.
...

Then this isn't really your lane... sorry. This thread exists specifically to debate that exact point and nothing else. We aren't here to lecture on ethics, economics, or the various nuances of vegetarianism. There are other subforums for that kind of thing.

Personally, I tend to agree with those suggesting that intelligence is the underlying cause of the differences seen in General Electric.
And since we're discussing causality, I’d argue the relationship works the other way: vegetarianism isn't the cause, but rather a byproduct of higher intelligence... though that comes with a massive "IF."

crimsonhound80 said:Well... my friend @Gerald Rivera60, that’s exactly how every addict thinks at the start. 😉 😉

True, but my social life is fine, my job isn't suffering... and I'm comfortable with where I am. It doesn't bother me if I can't get online for a while.
I have other dependencies, I'll admit that much... 🙂

By the way, you changed your avatar, so I didn't recognize you immediately, crimsonhound80...

Look, I’m spending at least eight hours a day at my desk, plus several more when I'm home. And yet, I don't consider myself an addict.
It would be difficult to function without the internet or a computer, just like it would be difficult to live without a washing machine. That doesn't make me addicted to laundry.
I think the real metric here is functionality. As long as it isn't causing issues—if it isn't interfering with your job or your studies, and if your social life remains intact—then spending a lot of time behind a screen is perfectly fine.

Every era brings its own set of addictions and complications... that doesn't mean the internet and computers are inherently bad.
Besides, I think people are overreacting... journalists love to sensationalize things, and some people insist on seeing pathology in everything.
I agree that addiction exists and can cause issues, but I also believe it's merely a symptom of deeper underlying factors—whether it’s financial instability, upbringing, or a lack of better alternatives. It doesn't really matter.

As for that girl, someone should probably ask her how she actually sent an SMS via a computer... personally, I could use a free service like that, provided it isn't just through email.
😬

dar said:Let me touch on your title for a moment... The Need for Connection.

... Actually, the original title wasn't "The Need for Connection." It was "How do you even understand people like this?"
I adjusted it to better reflect the actual discussion... though I'm starting to wonder if I missed the mark.
My apologies for any confusion.

Gerald Rivera60

I’m just coming across these syndromes for the first time, but here is what I managed to dig up online:

Prader-Willi Syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prader-Willi_syndrome
http://www.pwsausa.org/index.html

Angelman Syndrome:
http://www.angelman.org/angel/index.php?id=65

tinna said:We're both 20
He doesn't live alone.

Yeah, all his friends are single too.

... Honestly, those are all the exact reasons why he probably feels zero pressure to settle down.
First off, you're young. Second, he isn't living on his own. In my view, it's hard to call a relationship "serious" until you actually experience what it means to share a life. I don't mean the "old people go on vacation for two days, come over to my place" kind of thing. I mean truly knowing someone through the mundane realities—paying bills together, morning routines, who does the dishes. It sounds trivial, but it isn't.
Maybe he thinks he shouldn't even consider a commitment until he's more financially established... perhaps.
Plus, his entire social circle is single, and clearly, that group is important to him. Once everyone starts getting into serious relationships, the group dynamic usually shifts or falls apart. He’ll lose his primary social anchor.
I'm not sure if he's working, but at most jobs—especially if you're working with a diverse crowd—you eventually find yourself surrounded by married or coupled people. You slowly start to accept that lifestyle as the norm.
(At my office, for instance, at least 80% of us are either in a long-term relationship or married, despite us being a relatively young company...)