Posts by Gary James88

A timeless series... Everything just hits the mark—the acting, the directing, the writing, even the theme song. It’s hard to find a single flaw.

Let's just pretend you didn't actually type that. 🙏

Casey Flores said:Threads like this have been chewed over a thousand times already, and the point is still completely lost. 🥱

"It doesn't matter if things go one way or another, nothing is ever really going to change..."

You've got a point, but at the end of the day, this is a forum. Part of why these places exist is to occasionally vent about how repetitive and pointless certain topics can be.

...But let's not make it a habit. 😛

slyorca62 said:Just four people producing albums for half the artists currently "dominating" the global charts. Isn't that just globalization in action?

I’d call that part of the globalization process, sure, but I don't think you need to lean on conspiracy theories to explain why the results look the same.

There’s definitely some truth to what’s being said about how much music has declined, but I don't buy into any conspiracy theories. Even the ones involving grand, global plots. To me, the reality is far more trivial—it’s just basic market economics bleeding into every other part of society.

Music turned into a pure business engine a long time ago, and businesses are constantly finding more sophisticated ways to squeeze out profit. Anything that doesn't drive revenue gets pushed to the margins. Complex music takes too much time, effort, and mental bandwidth from the average listener, so it falls outside the scope of interest for the industry. Once something is no longer a priority for the money, it stops being a priority for the mainstream media, too. That's how we ended up here: with stripped-down, simple tracks paired with flashy visuals designed to trigger an immediate reaction from the masses.

It's interesting how Spike Lee presents this. I have to admit he's one of my favorite directors, but it makes you wonder: how many "Magical Whites" have played similar roles in movies, even if they didn't fade away as quickly? 😁

You could also tie this into Campbell's hypothesis about the hero archetype in mythology and storytelling—including film. You have the hero, and then there's always some mentor guiding them along the way, but the real question is whether those other mentors disappear just as frequently as the darker ones do.

stormyjackal46 said:Alright, if we’re calling this a Psychology thread... though honestly, it feels more like Philosophy...
Until recently, people actually argued—or rather, pushed the thesis—that those born deaf couldn't develop speech or complex thought. It led to this dark, fundamental question: were they even truly human? 😲😲

Only an idiot would ever suggest something like that. 🤷

At its core, language is just a collection of signs and symbols arbitrarily linked to concepts and objects in our environment. That’s the ultra-simplified version.

Take deaf people, for example. They learn sign language and finger spelling. It's interesting, though hardly surprising, that the brain uses nearly identical cortical structures to process sign language as it does written text—think things like the angular gyrus in the posterior inferior parietal lobe or Broca's area in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Language is a much broader concept than just phonemes, syllables, or spoken and written words. The real key is the manipulation of symbols.

Those are more or less just baseless prejudices, considering I've actually had some pretty constructive debates with believers right here on Religion.

Brandon Lopez6 said:Look, if you start out by attacking 98% of the regular users here (how else am I supposed to put it? 🤔), what kind of constructive conversation are you actually expecting to grow from that?
Are we just supposed to bite our own tongues and agree that Jesus is somehow more important than our actual illnesses, implying we should ditch medical treatment and just stick to prayer? 🤷

You could try answering him with actual arguments, pointing out what might be wrong with his logic, rather than just throwing unhinged outbursts like "that's wrong," "you don't know what you're talking about," "that's just religious nonsense," or "Cthulhu said so..."

I’m locking this thread for a while. The discussion turned toxic, and clearly, this sub isn't ready to step outside its comfort zone to talk about things beyond the standard models—which, by the way, are tied directly to American medical schools and hospital systems rather than being fit for a forum on spirituality.

If people actually understood the "scientific" theories backing certain psychotherapy trends, they might think twice before jumping to conclusions.

It's frustrating. You have the Religion sub where "narrow-minded believers" endlessly debate evolution—topics that really belong in a science forum—yet this supposedly "liberal and open-minded" Psychology sub can't handle a little diversity of thought once every couple of years.

Most people on this forum don't have a clue about psychoanalysis or pharmacotherapy since they haven't actually studied them. They just read a couple of books or skim some info online and think they're experts, yet everyone still insists on debating it.

The forum is public, which is fine, but if we're talking about spiritual therapies being practiced in US hospitals—completely separate from psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy taught in medical school—why should we even be discussing those approaches in one single thread out of 5,000? I don't get this whole "democracy" thing.

I don't see anyone being personally attacked here. On this forum, people have always been free to critique pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy just like any other approach or model—including theories on the causes of mental health issues, whether they're scientific or otherwise—as long as the arguments hold up.

According to The New York Times: "At the turn of the last century, spiritual therapy began being integrated into medicine to treat both physical and mental disorders, according to Prof. Dr. Juliano Ljubičić, head of the University Psychiatric Clinic. So, what actually counts as spirituality in this context? Our interviewee offers a broad definition: spirituality is about connecting with others and oneself through God's love. Dr. Ljubičić was a pioneer in introducing spirituality into psychiatric training at the University of Rijeka School of Medicine. He developed three specific courses based on his textbooks: Spirituality and Psychiatry, Spirituality and Suicide, and Spirituality and Depression. He is also currently working on a global first-of-its-kind project titled PTSD and Spirituality, a collaboration between the University Psychiatric Clinic and the University of Freiburg Faculty of Theology. Plans are already underway to open a spiritual psychiatry outpatient clinic at the University Psychiatric Clinic, supported by a solid scientific foundation established through university textbooks and curriculum at the University of Rijeka School of Medicine."

You can read the full article here.

On another note, I wouldn't call that guy's posts trolling. Either he doesn't quite grasp the reality of depression, or he just holds a different perspective based on his own logic. Trolling is inherently malicious; it isn't just someone being stubborn about their opinion.

Don't get carried away. The level of care and approach he’s describing is something you could officially find in certain hospitals right here in the US if you actually wanted it.

Was psychology ever even part of the Spirituality subforum on this site? 🤷

Lisa Hernandez3 said:It could be an interesting topic, but here in America, there are quite a few schools of thought that view mental health issues primarily through a spiritual lens. Perhaps we could open a sub-forum within the Psychology section specifically for that movement—but only if we structure it so all perspectives get a fair shake at discussion without everyone constantly clashing. Personally, I don't really subscribe to any of those specific movements; I tend to lean more toward the scientific approach—though I do try to understand the social circumstances that allow such views to emerge. It’s fascinating, even a bit troubling, to see how certain ideas are recommended even within the context of a secular university in a country like ours, which is supposed to be scientifically oriented. Because I understand the environment that allowed certain branches of science (and certain "scientists" who act more like followers) to take root, I find it hard to truly empathize with this particular subject. Sure, modern medicine is increasingly incorporating—or at least tolerating—alternative methods like acupuncture or homeopathy, but those aren't typically the methods used to suggest you can find peace of mind by, say, accepting your current social status—a status that, let's be honest, is often shaped by political factors and social maneuvering rather than anything spiritual. This feels like it would work better as a seminar focused on religion or spirituality, or perhaps psychology with a heavy emphasis on sociological implications, rather than a general discussion.[/color]

That would be too much, honestly. Every single group would start demanding their own little corner, which makes no sense—especially since those views don't hold much weight in psychology as a science anyway.

Envy hits when we want what someone else has; jealousy kicks in when we’re terrified of losing what’s already ours. Usually, jealousy is about people and connections, while envy is more about stuff.

My girlfriend meets up for coffee three times a week with some guy she insists is just a friend—that’s jealousy.

George makes twice as much as I do and just finished renovating his massive suburban home—that’s envy.

This is a pretty heavy, controversial topic. There’s actually an entire movement here in the States that treats mental health issues as spiritual crises. It’s even gained traction within certain corners of the medical establishment—you’ll see instances where books are openly presented at medical schools claiming things like homosexuality or atheism are essentially "spiritual illnesses" that can be cured through prayer. They even frame depression as a byproduct of being disconnected from God. You have this segment of the medical community that just shrugs and says, "well, we don't know everything yet," basically applauding these fringe ideas in academic settings. Given everything we actually know about modern science and psychology, what is there left to say about that?

"Madness" is really just a colloquialism at this point. It’s not an official clinical term you'll find in a medical textbook, but people throw it around constantly in everyday conversation or even in literature. It's such a broad concept.

There isn't actually a diagnosis for being "mad," but you'll hear Mary say about Barrett: "Ugh, she's totally crazy!" Or maybe someone gets back from a wild trip to Miami and says: "That was absolutely insane!" You might tell a friend they're nuts for betting that Schumacher would win nine races this season, or encounter some postmodernist who titles their book "Cryptography Madness within the Frameworks of Post-Capitalist Civilization and the Panopticon."