Clearly, this topic is too sensitive for us to be dissecting everyone's biases and attitudes right now—it's just not the right time or place. After everything that’s been said here, any problematic posts will be removed...
Psychology allows for all sorts of perspectives, even the ones that stray far from the norm. Characterless isn't the only user who's held a different take on the nature of trauma or sexual assault itself. When those posts crossed the line, they got flagged or deleted. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad idea to let some of them stay up; we're talking about people's actual thoughts, the kind you encounter in the real world. It's better to counter them with logic and arguments rather than just pretending people with extreme views don't exist.
Frank Jackson5 said:I’ve noticed things get way worse when I'm physically exhausted, not just mentally. I tried going to therapy, but honestly, I'm getting nothing out of it. It feels pointless. Like, what am I even supposed to say? I tell him my problems and he just repeats them back to me. Then he tells me to just stick with the antidepressants, so I basically gave up on sessions that last maybe ten minutes anyway—not because I wanted to, but because of him. Usually, it's just him typing away on some ancient typewriter while I talk.
Not every psychiatrist or psychologist is actually a psychotherapist. That’s why seeing them isn't always the same thing as undergoing therapy. If you aren't there on a specific referral for "psychotherapy," you aren't really doing therapy at all; you're just getting a status check, some brief advice, or a prescription from a psychiatrist.
hiddentrucker16 said:...or am I mistaken about certain countries having outright bans on it?
Spot on. It’s banned in some places (like Canada), but here in America and most other spots, it seems to still be legal (Italy, France, England, USA, Japan...). That said, everyone knows the ECB isn't exactly the gold standard; it's mired in controversy and you rarely see it prescribed these days.
hiddentrucker16 said:I feel compelled to speak up because I am honestly just so frustrated—I’ve reached my limit with the entire field of psychology and psychiatry. It makes me wonder how many innocent souls and broken hearts had to be shattered before they finally realized that electroshock therapy is nothing short of barbaric and moved to ban it... It is as if only God can truly witness the sheer injustice people inflict upon one another—often driven by nothing more than vanity or the ego of some absolute idiots...🙂🙂
Perhaps, in some small way, those inhumane fools will eventually find clarity once their own capacity for empathy is restored... In the end, love is the only true remedy for a wounded soul, and that is a prescription handed down by God alone.
Look, I don't mean to be a buzzkill, but electroshock isn't actually banned. They still use it, just way less often, and the regulations for when they can administer it are much tighter now.
Ronald Rogers27 said:Lust + energy, combined with entertainment + ideal of abundance = a fake sense of prosperity. It’s an illusion, and it’s heading straight for a global disaster.
YES or NO? Tell me why.
Ronald Rogers27
Maybe for those who don't buy into that kind of prosperity. As for everyone else, I don't know; there's been plenty of doom-and-gloom prophecy about global disasters that never actually happened.
There’s an old saying: "Money in the pocket, happiness in the heart."
If someone lives by that philosophy, why are we constantly trying to prove them wrong? We tell them their way is hollow and illusory, and that some other path is the "real" way (whatever that means). Can we even be certain our own definition of happiness is the right one? Are we just being aggressive by trying to force our views on people whose worldview is built on simple hedonism? Should we let people decide what happiness means for themselves, or is it better to push them toward our version of the "correct" path?
They say philosophy requires asking at least three questions for every answer, so... 🙂
electrictiger70 said:Thanks. It’s an interesting discussion, but I’m a bit lost here—what exactly are you trying to get at? I skimmed the first page, but there is no way I am sitting through a twelve-page thread just to find out that, following the usual patterns on American forums, nothing meaningful was actually concluded...
This is honestly one of the better threads on this site. You've got experts from all over—philosophy, physics, math, social sciences—alongside regular people who just find the topic fascinating. It tackles whether the moon actually exists when we aren't looking at it (which is really just a question about how much an observer affects reality). Honestly, you won't find a better answer than the ones posted here, and I think Apex was actually pointing you toward this specific debate when they asked you about the moon a few posts back. For what it's worth, the whole thing runs about 38 pages long. 😁
electrictiger70 said:I honestly don't know if it does. There is evidence that it exists, 😉 but my take is that it doesn't really matter whether it exists when there isn't anyone there to witness it... essentially, if there is no consciousness observing it, then it doesn't exist...
The Copenhagen interpretation—or whatever the standard terminology is 🙂—is the accepted way we view quantum mechanics. Critics of that interpretation have pointed out several paradoxes resulting from it. Whether you use a cat, the moon, or an electron as an illustration, it sparks massive debate. However, the question is never actually about "consciousness" influencing them; it is strictly about the act of measurement.
To get back to the point, self-help gurus try to peddle this narrative that quantum mechanics proves thoughts can manifest reality, which is completely baseless. What would happen if you dared one of them to jump off a skyscraper and tried to use their thoughts to prevent hitting the pavement? 😁
Look, I am not just talking about self-help gurus. And that whole connection between quantum physics and the self-help industry cannot be generalized so broadly as "gurus claim quantum mechanics proves thoughts affect reality"—because there are countless different claims and many different types of gurus out there. You need to be more specific. ☕
placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂 unknown:
No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉
The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics. Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.
To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it. What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁
Various New Age pseudo-scientists either miss this point entirely or conveniently ignore it. Since quantum particles are tiny ("that's right, Mr. Obvious!" 🙂), we track them by firing other particles at them and watching the bounce. That collision inherently changes the direction of the particle being studied. Of course, New Age enthusiasts and spiritualists have somehow spun this to mean that the mere presence of an observer—their thoughts, their consciousness, or whatever else might be floating around in some supposed quantum field of mind—is what influences the particles.
placidranger said:Does the moon exist if nobody is looking at it? 🙂 unknown:
No, this isn't an issue of interpretation; it's the entire point of the thought experiment. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive before we look—or at the exact moment we observe it—or if there’s even a cat at all when there's no observer present. 😉
The Copenhagen (or is it Copenhagen? 🙂 ) interpretation is the standard way people wrap their heads around quantum mechanics. Critics have pointed out various paradoxes arising from it—using a cat, the moon, or an electron as a metaphor—which sparks plenty of debate. But nowhere does anyone suggest that "consciousness" itself is the trigger; it’s the measurement.
To get back to the main point: self-help gurus love to peddle the idea that quantum mechanics proves you can manifest reality through sheer willpower. It’s nonsense. There is zero scientific basis for it. What would happen if you dared one of those gurus to jump off a skyscraper and try to "manifest" not hitting the pavement? 😁
Don't be fooled; New Age gurus always have an answer ready for stuff like that. They'd probably claim the resonant frequency of the concrete particles failed to harmonize with the thought particles due to some sudden interference from cosmic radiation... You know how it is, cosmic radiation always shows up at the worst possible moment.
I mean, maybe having 60% of psychiatrists being totally out of touch isn't exactly "normal" 😂
Honestly, sometimes these shrink doctors feel more like street dealers to me. It’s like they just want to pump you full of heavy—well, legal—drugs. I guess if they can just label more people as crazy, it just makes their market even bigger, right?
An economist with some pretty rough experiences with psychiatry
That percentage is definitely inflated. People always throw around that 30% figure for general psychological issues, but if you actually look at personality disorders specifically, we're probably looking at a few percent—which feels much more realistic.
Alex Barnes8 said:I’m more preoccupied with that 60% figure. Is that even realistic? I mean, the guest was a psychiatrist with decades of experience, someone who’s spent a lifetime dealing with the most intense cases and actually writes books about it... I guess, maybe, he knows what he’s talking about.
It’s always smart to take an authority figure's word with a grain of salt. It's clearly just a rough estimate, since there's zero info on what kind of methodology led to those numbers. Was this regarding Dr. Klain on Sunday Night Football?
Kate Taylor2 said:Yeah, I’ll jump in here—I feel like I end up looking like a clueless conservative every once in a while, don't I? 😁
Anyway, I saw something interesting on the news about how they have these themed rooms in hotels over in Mexico... One is dedicated to Hitler, another one for Marshall, and there’s even one for Bush. 😂
They've even got pictures of Elvis Presley all over them. 😲
It’s pretty funny how you managed to link those three specific leaders together when the hotel actually features portraits of 61 different world leaders.
It’ll happen, one step at a time. Science moves slowly, but it gets there. Transpersonal psychology deals with concepts that are still miles away from being validated by scientific rigor, and science only advances as fast as its own methodology allows. I’ve lost count of how many "mainstream" psychology researchers have told me that while holism isn't a bad idea in theory, we just don't have the reliable methods or technology yet 🙂—because philosophizing doesn't exactly count as a rigorous metric. Psychology already struggles when trying to track three or four interacting variables; trying to account for a human being in their entirety is an absolute nightmare of infinite variables and unpredictable effects.
It’s nice to run into someone interested in transpersonal psychology. I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading up on it and even sat in on some lectures by psychiatrists who leaned into those theories. Reading these critiques regarding the flaws of reductionism and the standard Western scientific paradigm—and the supposed need to overhaul the entire psychological establishment—feels like looking at my younger self from a few years back 🙂. Eventually, I cooled off on all that transpersonal theory, Psychedelic research, Carl Jung, and that whole "left-field" school of thought.
What strikes me is that everyone I’ve met who gets obsessed with a specific theory always insists it’s going to be the next big breakthrough in psychology. But transpersonal psychology isn't exactly new; it’s been around for over 40 years and still hasn't made any real dent in the mainstream. You’ll hear transpersonalists, like Stanislav Grof, claiming that reductionism is on its deathbed, but I suspect the psychological establishment has just successfully pushed them to the fringes, keeping them relegated to a handful of enthusiasts gathered around a few niche institutes.
Take evolutionary psychology, for example. It’s having a massive moment right now because it’s built on objective scientific research and, frankly, a fairly reductionist way of thinking. I don't think we should take the critics of reductionism at their word when they claim it's failing, especially when disciplines like cognitive neuroscience and behavioral genetics are absolutely dominating the field while the transpersonal approach remains stuck on the margins.
For there to be real substance in psychedelic studies or concepts like those proposed by Stanislav Grof, there needs to be more cohesion. To me, the fundamental disagreements regarding human personality among the heavyweights of transpersonal psychology suggest the field is pretty disorganized. Carl Jung said one thing, Stanislav Grof agreed with parts of it but rejected others and added his own spin, and then Ken Wilber abandoned transpersonal psychology entirely to build his own Integral approach. Essentially, there's plenty of lofty philosophy and good intentions, but very little concrete results or unified theory. They constantly bring up spirituality, the soul, or metaphysical constructs like good and evil, yet many researchers in this field can't even define these terms clearly—some aren't even sure if they exist as real entities or are just constructs of the human psyche.
I should also mention that Francis Crick lost almost all credibility recently when he came out with those eugenicist theories about intelligence that most people dismissed as scientifically baseless and racist. 😲, plus you have physicists working in quantum theory who largely reject attempts to apply quantum mechanics to the human psyche and behavior—something some psychologists try to do, which looks highly dubious from a scientific standpoint.
People have been chewing this over quite a bit in the "LSD" thread over on the spirituality subforum. If you want to dive in, go ahead, though you'll have to dig through a lot of pages.
Stanislav Grof is actually a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, not a psychologist, though his work obviously overlaps heavily with psychology.
In academic psychology—and pretty much everywhere else globally—using psychedelics is strictly prohibited for any reason, and even conducting research requires special permits.
Within academic psychology and psychiatry, Grof’s influence on personality theory is so massive that he’s often overlooked entirely, much like how people rarely mention transpersonal psychology, despite him being one of its founders. That's about the level of recognition he gets.
These days, Grof doesn't use psychedelics for therapy anymore; he uses a technique called "holothropic breathwork™."
Research into using psychedelics for therapy is usually wrapped in controversy. You've got a tiny handful of psychiatrists and psychologists who swear by their effectiveness, but they mostly rely on clinical observations and anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous experiments. Most of them have been kicked out of the institutions where they worked; the institutes claim it was due to professional misconduct, while they argue it's just a massive conspiracy against human freedom and psychedelic use.
The Japanese version actually aired on our local TV stations too. I highly doubt the American remake will bring anything new to the table. It was Takashi Miike's specific brand of twisted vision that elevated this Horror film above the rest, and I honestly don't see another director being able to capture that same vibe.
These are some pretty interesting topics. Evolutionary psychology offers several hypotheses regarding emotions and concepts like spirituality, transcendence, art, and morality—though they all come with varying levels of empirical support.
For instance, one hypothesis suggests that the need for transcendence arises as evolutionary "noise." Essentially, certain mental and emotional mechanisms originally evolved for entirely different purposes, but due to their plasticity, they inadvertently create this "sense of the transcendent," even if it serves no specific function. You see a similar thing in architecture: alongside the necessary functional elements like stairs or floors, you get unintended side effects, like the empty space beneath a staircase. That "empty space" created by our cognitive and emotional adaptations might be what we call spirituality. Religion, as an organized version of spirituality with its rituals, could simply serve to strengthen social bonds within a group. It’s that whole idea of being "United under one nation and God."
On the other hand, art is often viewed through the lens of sexual selection. Just as songbirds use their melodies to attract a mate, an artist uses their craft to signal their fitness to potential partners. It’s basically saying, "Look how dexterous I am," or "See how I can manipulate your emotions with my words." Or more broadly: "Not only am I surviving, but I actually have the surplus time and resources to dedicate myself to something as demanding as painting this masterpiece." (Translation: My genetic material is top-tier if I can pull this off). These are just a few theories, obviously not set in stone, but they provide decent food for thought and research.
Defining emotions isn't exactly easy, but you could call them a collection of physiological shifts, physical changes, goal-oriented behaviors, and subjective experiences.
Animals—mammals at least—possess an emotional life far richer than if they were driven by fear alone.
Why did love evolve? When people talk about love, they usually aren't talking about a single emotion, but rather a complex construct made up of several different parts. That’s why it’s so hard to explain. From an evolutionary standpoint, experiencing love matters for a few reasons. Creating a strong emotional bond between parents provides a stable environment for offspring to thrive. In these setups, humans selflessly commit their resources, time, and themselves. At the start of a relationship, that initial "rush" helps drive our behavior toward a specific partner, giving us the desire to pursue them, present our best selves, and eventually decide if they are actually right for us.
As for sadness, it serves as a signal for loss. It's an emotion that flags when we've lost something vital to our survival, reproduction, or general well-being. It should prompt us to pause, withdraw, reflect, and gather the strength needed for our next move. A key part of sadness, like other emotions, is how we communicate it—through things like facial expressions. Since we live in communities, expressing sadness acts as an evolutionary SOS to others, signaling that we need help. This might mean anything from material aid and emotional support to simple advice.
Predicting which direction our emotions will evolve is nearly impossible. There are too many variables, ranging from random genetic mutations to the pressures of natural selection—which, in humans, is heavily influenced by socio-cultural factors. You also have to consider how much time it takes for even a minor change to spread through a population, which can take hundreds of thousands of years. This is why evolutionists argue that modern humans are essentially being born with brains adapted for the Stone Age.