Posts by mistycrane9

druid said:The most famous figures are Thomas S. Szasz, along with Robert D. Laing and David Cooper, whom I mentioned earlier. There are plenty of their books available here in the States; they were actually translated by Ljiljana Filipović, who specialized in this field. Most of these authors come directly from within the profession, unlike her, who approaches it more theoretically. It was actually through her master's thesis on "the philosophy and anti-psychiatry of Ronald D. Laing" that I stumbled upon these other names... It’s a fascinating subject, even if most of them don't strictly label themselves as "anti-psychiatrists." Even Laing avoids the term, feeling the label itself is just another product of the "normal" societal paradigm.

I won't take up any more of your time, but I managed to dig up some info, including publisher names:...

Many thanks!

car_je_gol said:👍

They overlap quite often. You hear people say someone is "worth a million dollars."
Beyond that, kids born into wealthy families have a much better shot at growing up healthy and attractive. They get the care they need; there's an investment in them. If there’s a congenital issue, they can afford to fix it.
Those stuck in poverty tend to decline quickly, even if they start out healthy and fit.
Still, looking past all of that, I think this is what ultimately matters:

"People divide one another into rich and poor, old and young, beautiful and ugly, healthy and sick, smart and stupid. But all those divisions are irrelevant compared to the one that is final and decisive—the division between the strong and the weak.. "👍

Ernest Hemingway - 'The Devil's Tail'😉

👍 👍 👍

druid said:By the way, the work of psychiatrist Ronald Reagan is quite fascinating. He exposed many of the secrets within his profession, which is why he wasn't exactly the most popular figure among his peers. People often link him to the concept of "anti-psychiatry." There are several other authors who follow a similar path.

If anyone is interested and isn't familiar with them, I’d be happy to list the specific names and their major works.

They weren't just talking for the sake of it, either. They backed up their theories with personal experience and were known for their unique approaches and incredibly selfless dedication to their patients.

I would love to read some of those books. Please, could you let me know "who and what"?

Thanks so much!

Don't forget that things aren't always black and white; most of us fall somewhere in the middle. I believe many people experience this "phenomenon" where they realize how much control they actually have over their own appearance (and I am definitely not talking about plastic surgery here).

I’m speaking from personal experience—I am living proof of a true metamorphosis. There is truth to the idea that a well-groomed man or woman is an attractive one. When you add things like losing a few extra pounds (nothing extreme, just enough to achieve a healthy, fit silhouette), building genuine self-confidence, finding a sense of style that actually suits us rather than looking cheap, and simply being satisfied with life... all of those factors play a massive role.
The way a person feels in their own skin, and how authentically confident they are in their own attractiveness without chasing impossible ideals, can be absolutely striking.
I remember back when I finally started putting more effort into my presentation—and I don't mean wearing mini skirts or low-cut tops—I almost never had to wait at a crosswalk for a car to stop to let me pass. In the past, it often felt like people didn't even notice me at all.

Most of us aren't extreme cases, which means we have plenty of power to influence our own look. Instead of just watching people who already look great, it would be smarter to learn from them and pick up a few good habits along the way.

Besides, most models and so-called "beauties" are really just average-looking people who are well-groomed (or perhaps just heavily airbrushed). If you look online, you can see what those famous actresses or singers actually look like when they're caught off guard or without any preparation.

Carol Lee4 mistycrane9 said:Unfortunately, around here, the alternatives just aren't up to par. It feels like people are just playing games—sort of like throwing beans at a wall to see what sticks. That lack of professionalism and all that quick-fix charlatanism is exactly why most Americans just laugh when they hear about alternative approaches.

Until we get some real legislative reform, and until those elite doctors step down from their positions—mostly because they aren't ready to retire on full pensions at fifty—I don't see much changing. It’s the same old story. I remember seeing this pattern in my own hometown back in the day. Very little movement expected.

It seems like a good thing to me. I’m not entirely sure how they're structured, but at least there's an alternative group out there actually trying to clean up their own mess when it comes to laws and regulations.
Greeting.🙂

I couldn't agree more. Completely on board with this.

I try to stay open to different perspectives and possibilities. I won't dismiss anything until I've seen the truth for myself. In that regard, I’m still more of a student than an expert.

Regarding my own "cultural awakening," it started when I began meeting people from all walks of life. I remember sitting at one table with folks representing nearly every corner of the globe—except, of course, Greenland and Antarctica. What struck me most was how incredibly similar we all are at our core. Since then, I’ve found myself focusing much more on what connects us rather than what pulls us apart. It makes me wonder how bridgeable those differences truly are, and whether they actually hinder communication or the progress of society as a whole.

I see scientific progress moving at different speeds toward a single point of convergence. Eventually, the wheat will be separated from the chaff. What we currently call "alternative" methods will lose that label entirely as mainstream science absorbs and refines them into its own toolkit.

Based on my own experience, I believe we all come into this world with certain predispositions. Which way they develop depends on a complex web of factors. It makes any kind of prediction difficult. It teaches us to be much more cautious when drawing conclusions—especially when we're making decisions that impact someone's life.
Predicting anything is possible, I suppose. But it really just depends on how well we actually understand all those moving parts and how they clash with one another.

It often feels like certain "alternative" thinkers on this path toward understanding try far too hard to take shortcuts. At the same time, some scientists rely way too heavily on their flawed instruments, their methods, or just their own supposed "expertise." It’s why we end up repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

In Germany, there was a case where a convicted sex offender was released early because certain psychologists—acting as official auditors—insisted he was rehabilitated. They overrode the warnings from prison wardens who aren't trained in psychology. Not long after his release, that criminal went right back to his old ways. He held a 13-year-old girl captive for 36 days, raping and abusing her repeatedly while filming the whole thing on camera. It’s a nightmare scenario, and unfortunately, it happens more than people realize. When these "experts" get their assessments wrong, they just hide behind excuses, claiming they can't provide absolute certainty because human behavior is too unpredictable to measure perfectly. Their failure to predict such evil is just dismissed as a limitation of their tools.

I find myself wondering why "laypeople" often seem more qualified in these situations than the actual experts themselves. It’s a strange phenomenon. I remember watching a local mechanic fix my car when the dealership specialist just gave up. Sometimes, those without the formal titles see things more clearly.

To me, these are just the same old recurring patterns. It’s all evidence that our current methods for predicting human behavior are still pretty damn lacking.

What really gets under my skin is how the identities of certain sexual predators—those whom even laypeople recognize as habitual offenders—are often shielded and protected, while the potential victims are left vulnerable.

Different types of crimes, or rather the varying nature of those offenses, naturally demand distinct approaches to legal treatment and protective measures.

Thomas Fox8 said:A thick, prominent beard often signals a strong character. I’ve always noticed that about certain men.
Thin lips—it’s probably just a matter of genetics. Though, honestly, nothing is ever 100% certain.

Most of what you said still holds water. But I have to push back on one point here. Just like you wouldn't draw a final conclusion about someone's entire personality based on a single question from a personality test, you can't judge someone's true character just by looking at one facial feature.

It’s all much more complicated than it looks. It really comes down to context. Take a prominent chin, for instance—depending on how it sits with other facial features, it could signal a streak of cruelty or someone who will step over anyone to get what they want. But in a different light, paired with other traits, that same person might turn out to be a dedicated human rights advocate.

To actually draw conclusions about someone's character, emotional life, mental capacity, or even their moral fiber... you can't just look at facial features and call it a day. It takes real, deep knowledge and years of experience. This isn't some simple game for amateurs to play around with.

mistyrider7 said:👍

What really strikes me about this whole debate is how aggressively some people try to prove points that should be obvious to anyone.

There’s just no way humans would constantly scan faces to judge someone's character if there wasn't a biological, evolutionary reason for it.

If you think about it, it becomes clear that we're using a biological language to identify social niches—essentially survival models for interacting with others.

I'm certain Carol Lee4 does this all the time too, even if she tries to suppress those intuitive gut feelings. She might even try to convince herself that someone who looks dishonest is actually a saint... 😉

Modern social sciences, driven by ideology rather than fact, often seem to fight tooth and nail against truths that clash with the idea that everything is purely environmental or that we are all fundamentally identical.
But we aren't.

Based on the few posts from Carol Lee4 I've read, she seems like a solid expert in her field, and I'm glad we have people like that here on the forum.
BUT WE AREN'T ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH; everyone has their own inclinations and ways of processing life. Skeptics don't discourage me, nor do I waste energy fighting them. Everyone has the right to seek their own truth. After all, "all roads lead to Rome."

I personally find a lot of joy in my "alternative" perspective. It offers more answers and meaning to life's mysteries than mainstream science ever could. Even as a child, I felt drawn to this path; I never once doubted it. Like I said, we aren't all built the same. I see no need to clash with those who prefer a different approach. I can understand them, but that singular viewpoint isn't enough for me. I feel, or perhaps sense, that there is much more behind the curtain than we can even begin to imagine at first glance.

Sorry if I'm completely off-topic, though maybe I'm not.

mistyrider7 said:For now, anyone can look at their own subjective life experience and wonder if the theory actually holds water or not.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't even a question. And I'm certain there isn't one for anyone else who doesn't base their views on whatever trendy ideology is currently in style.

A few months back, I was watching a German documentary on this subject—specifically, things moving in this direction. They listed a whole string of names and studies, though I can't recall most of them. Basically, various neurological studies have shown a fascinating link between disorders in the prefrontal cortex—those brain centers located right behind the forehead—and psychopathic behavior. Or, perhaps more accurately, it showed that "psychopathic brains" function differently in that area compared to "normal" ones. A specific dysfunction in that part of the brain, whether caused by a fall, a blow to the head, or something congenital, leads to a significantly diminished capacity for empathy, which in turn facilitates criminal behavior. There was also talk about facial physiognomy, specifically looking at the area from the eyebrows to the top of the forehead; they compared this among various brutal serial killers with confirmed psychopathic profiles, and similar characteristics kept appearing. It was clearly demonstrated—and I’ll go out on a limb here—that there is something vital happening there, something truly worth further study.

In China, the "science of facial expression" goes back thousands of years. In the past, many methods and principles of Chinese medicine were viewed with heavy skepticism, yet today, their accuracy is being increasingly proven. People often sense something intuitively before they ever find or establish the actual phenomena and underlying connections. Human intuition can be unpredictable, sometimes running ahead of human "reason," but it serves as a catalyst for discovering new insights—insights that some find fascinating, while others see as nothing more than logical, natural truths.

At first, based on the knowledge available at the time, a person would logically assume the Earth was a flat plane; everything else seemed inconceivable. But as we gather more diverse information pointing toward new possibilities, doors open to new understandings that present us with an entirely new range of realities. It's an ongoing process...