We're too quick to name people as mad these days.

Or at least, I think so. There, I made it clear it's not necessarily a fact, everyone happy? Okay.

Anyway, these days, it seems that if you visit a psychiatrist, your every action, every word, how you say said words, whether you lie on the coach or sit, everything is dissected, and then you get a perdy little certificate saying "I have nervous schizophrenic dementia with a side order of paranoia" or so on.

Almost every personality trait you have can be called "a mental illness". It's absurd. For one thing, the tag of mental illness is not a nice thing to have, unless you're amongst hipsters who will surely want to take a load of touching pictures of you to put irrelevent captions over, and that just makes it annoying. It's infuriating to know that you are in control, that you are fine, but because you're just a little eccentric, people think you need a carer and tanquilisers kept on stand by just in case you snap.

We need to perhaps re-evaluate what mental health issues mean. There is no need to call something a problem when there is none; Simply an unconventional way of thinking, although, while we're at it, we need to think about how most people think about mental health altogether.

But speaking of thinking, what do you think?

When I act full on weird friends say it is like I'm stupid, high and hilarious. I don't like the two first terms frequently used to describe me...

The stigma of mental issues is one of the largest stigma's that nobody thinks twice about.

The brain is an organ like the rest of your body, when it gets sick, you need a doctor for it too. Anyone that says your less of a person because of it clearly has no clue what they're talking about.

Trust me, you go to ONE counseling session and people think your a murderous psychopath.

I'm whimsical.

Not crazy.

At least, that's what the fairies say...

Well...

Half of me says that, in theory, this is good. Having the resources to identify and address previously unknown psychologic issues is great, and would help a lot of people live happier lives.

With actual people involved, it gets messed up pretty quickly. First off, people are overdiagnosed, and worse, people are treating issues as phychologic disorders as the root of a problem when they're only symptoms of serious issues that need to be addressed. If I'd gone the psychological route instead of the hard science one, I wouldn't have the medication or the prospect of surgery to cure the physical issues at the root of the matter. (lol brainsurgery)

Also, I don't think we're very good at responsibly dealing with psychologic matters as a society. Real disorders are abused as an excuse by some, while others wrongly discriminate against those who do suffer from these problems and now have to bear such a label.

Its... A lateral move right now in my opinion, but one that opens up the chance to properly handle mental health in the future.
If people don't continue to fuck it up.

Don Savik:
The stigma of mental issues is one of the largest stigma's that nobody thinks twice about.

The brain is an organ like the rest of your body, when it gets sick, you need a doctor for it too. Anyone that says your less of a person because of it clearly has no clue what they're talking about.

Trust me, you go to ONE counseling session and people think your a murderous psychopath.

Tell me about it. I have aspergers syndrome (although, I suspect if I let a psychiatrist near me now, I'd probably be forcibly dosed up on god knows what) and if I mention it, people look at me like I'm jack the ripper. Aspergers is barely even a gorram mental illness! Hell, one of my friends who also has aspergers was once almost sectioned when he was depressed. I don't know whos approach and opinions need to change more; The doctors or the public.

....in America?

Ok, it's a problem everywhere, but I think it's particularly bad in America as the drug industry can lobby doctors incredibly hard. As someone's who's been on the receiving end of both drugs & industry lobbying in the UK, the process is absolutely disgusting. They literally advertise drugs like other companies market food, clothes, etc, when all decisions on their use should be based entirely on evidence.

A major problem is that mental illnesses are quite hard to define. If you go to a GP & get referred to a depression unit, you're more likely to be labelled with depression than if you'd been referred to another unit. The definitions of mental illness are also really subjective, which makes it hard to diagnose people.

I'd say there's nothing wrong with labelling people according to evidence, as long as the evidence is continually renewed. What we shouldn't do is rush in with drug treatment unless it's absolutely necessary; patients should be treated with cognitive behaviour therapy & similar methods before medication becomes an option. But that would cost money....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that psychiatrists are trained to not view every person as a bucket full of crazy. At least that's the vibe I got from the (admittedly) few people I've spoken with who've done some Psychology. From my understanding, if you go to a shrink, they can listen to you and tell you that you're perfectly normal and you have nothing to worry about. Now, whether or not you go there if you're normal is a different thing.

There is a social stigma associated with this, though. You can just go for consoling every once in a while, the same way you'd go for periodic exams with your doctor. And other people will immediately jump to the conclusion that something's wrong with you.

Now, don't get me wrong - overdiagnosis does happen. I just don't think it's as often as you seem to perceive it. But it's not something unique to the psychology - when I was a kid a doctor almost had me injected with antibiotics because I had a cough. Thankfully my parents saw through the bullshit and just went to a different doctor who diagnosed me with *gasp* common cold. No fancy medicine required.

i could very easily be considered insane. criminally as well as other ways.

"Your honor, I object to being called an unstable psychotic schitzophrenic with persistent ideas of mass-murdering and paranoid delusions about turtles secretly running my life that developed into a psychosis which fueled the chemical imbalance in my brain that was initially caused by repression of my ego by my id but resulted in the accidental homicide of my superego, with occasional moments of dementia.

I prefer human."

I like to see myself as an eccentric free spirit, but every once in a while uptight boring people will treat me like I'm a crazy. I'm okay with it though, because I understand that it's just that they feel safer in their box, while I feel happier outside of it.

Doclector:
Or at least, I think so. There, I made it clear it's not necessarily a fact, everyone happy? Okay.

Anyway, these days, it seems that if you visit a psychiatrist, your every action, every word, how you say said words, whether you lie on the coach or sit, everything is dissected, and then you get a perdy little certificate saying "I have nervous schizophrenic dementia with a side order of paranoia" or so on.

Almost every personality trait you have can be called "a mental illness". It's absurd. For one thing, the tag of mental illness is not a nice thing to have, unless you're amongst hipsters who will surely want to take a load of touching pictures of you to put irrelevent captions over, and that just makes it annoying. It's infuriating to know that you are in control, that you are fine, but because you're just a little eccentric, people think you need a carer and tanquilisers kept on stand by just in case you snap.

We need to perhaps re-evaluate what mental health issues mean. There is no need to call something a problem when there is none; Simply an unconventional way of thinking, although, while we're at it, we need to think about how most people think about mental health altogether.

But speaking of thinking, what do you think?

It's all about stereotypes.
Most people associate the phrase "mental illness" with strait jackets, shock therapy, banging your head against the wall etc. which is sad but that's ignorance for you.
Most people's "knowledge" on the subject comes from TV and movies.
I had a friend who was in a psychiatric hospital and the place looked nothing like in the movies. No one was talking to themselves, no one was laughing maniacally, no one tried to tell me that the aliens are coming, it was quite boring actually.

Also, you're wondering why most people aren't tolerant of things that are different? Because most people are conformists and their worldview isn't really their worldview but a collection of commonly accepted and popular ideas. Anyone who doesn't conform and instead creates a unique worldview is going to be different from them. Different things require different reactions. People don't like that. They want to have a set of responses which they have memorized and can apply automatically, without even thinking about it. Not knowing how to react to something means you have to figure it out by yourself, which takes additional time and effort. This can cause anger sometimes. That's why some people are hostile towards the so-called eccentric people.
That's a simplified version of it, basically :)

I think we're only just now becoming able to explain certain behavior among humans, previously known as personality is now a defect if you stray from what is considered normal.

I don't know if I consider it a good thing that we are so bent on making the ones different normal, or if it's helpful for people who would otherwise just be kept away from public.
I mean it's great that someone who has dyslexia gets more help with reading, but now they are forever labeled, which has social implications.

I think we are getting a bit too quick to label people with a mental illness. In a newspaper article I was given in Sociology a month ago, sorry I don't have a link, it was in The Guardian I believe, apparently now shyness is a mental illness, and not just shyness, but a range of other traits that were considered normal.

Can I ask a question? What is the norm for the person's mind?

I don't think the problem is with diagnosing mental illnesses, I think the problem is people's reactions to that diagnosis. I tell my friends that the doctors suspect I'm bipolar (note, I'm not diagnosed, it's just a possibility at this point) and one of my friends refuses to take my emotions seriouslly anymore. If they do something to piss me off and I get annoyed, it's not their fault, I'm just going through a mood swing according to them.

Still, it's better than the friend who thought that that meant I was schizophrenic or whatever and started avoiding me because they were scared I would kill them or something.

Still, most of my friends reacted really well.

Ironically, when you think you actually have a mental disorder, it gets palmed off as 'unresolved parental issues' as in my case. Yeah, 'cos it's my hatred for my mother that causes panic attacks when people look at me. I'm not just mental or anything.
Well that's my experience anyway.

As for people being called crazy, I really hate it when people refer to those with depression as 'crazy' or 'mental'. Depression doesn't make you weird or a freak, it just makes you view the world in a negative way, and yes that sometimes makes them want to seek an exit from life but when you're disillusioned to the idea that every life is sacred then it really isn't such a big deal to want to end yours.

So whereas yes, some people with depression (often co-morbidity with schizophrenia) are mad, crazy, mental, but a lot of them are just not seeing the world the same way you do and it doesn't make them freaks.

Rant over.

Doclector:

We need to perhaps re-evaluate what mental health issues mean. There is no need to call something a problem when there is none; Simply an unconventional way of thinking, although, while we're at it, we need to think about how most people think about mental health altogether.

But speaking of thinking, what do you think?

Well, it's far easier to overreact to those that differ from the average man than try to think things through, evaluate them from different perspectives and try to reach a decision which would please everyone.

Modern psychology -- a diagnosis for every variation. "Keeps to them-self? Aspergers."

Modern psychiatry -- a pill for every symptom. "Energetic? Ritalin."

TheVioletBandit:
I like to see myself as an eccentric free spirit, but every once in a while uptight boring people will treat me like I'm a crazy. I'm okay with it though, because I understand that it's just that they feel safer in their box, while I feel happier outside of it.

That's probably the most beautiful thing I've heard in a while. Cheesy, but just the right amount of cheese.

DoPo:
they can listen to you and tell you that you're perfectly normal and you have nothing to worry about.

Theoretically, this is true. The problem? It's in their best financial interest for there to be something wrong with you. That means you have to come back regularly.

It's a monumental conflict of interests. At least in the medical field they generally have to point to something and say this is wrong, here's why. In Psychology, though, it's all abstract, which means bullshit central. Now, that doesn't mean psychologists are all lying. They may simply not realize they're being overzealous.

Before I switched to software engineering, my major was Psych, and the first thing my psychoanalysis professor told us is not to try to psychoanalyze our friends and family. His reason for saying this was, according to him, if you look hard enough you can find something wrong with everybody.

Humans always feel to need to slap on a label to every little thing nowadays. You don't have many friends, therefore you've got Asperger's Syndrome. You're a 7-year-old who hits other kids and can't concentrate on homework at school, therefore you've got ADHD. You got a boner over a dude, therefore you're gay. You're 16 and you're an impractical person, therefore you're mentally retarded. You use hand sanitizer rather than the soap and water in public bathrooms, therefore you've got OCD. You said that 15-year-old looks hot, therefore you're a paedophile. If a girl's stressed and lashes out on you, she's just on her menstrual period.

Some people even want these labels as an explanation for why they think they're weird, or other people perceive them as weird. Like some teenagers who try to shove in your face that they're bisexual because they think you're cool (not generalizing here, obviously not all bisexual teenagers are like that). A while ago, there was a girl that got on our school bus and sat close to me and my friends. I can't remember how it started, but she was constantly insulting my friends, spitting and stuff on the seats and floor, and generally acting weird with us, but whenever we called her out on it, she immediately became defensive and retorted, "It's not my fault, I have a mental disorder!", something which she never elaborated on. That doesn't explain why she continued to sit near us, talk to us without provocation, and insult us for no apparent reason.

It's fucking ridiculous. I dunno, maybe we should just pack it in and call everyone batshit-crazy sociopaths. I mean, I guess we all have the capacity to be sadistic murderers, right (half-sarcastic, half-serious)?

Everyone's a little damaged in the cranium department, people may seem really normal on the surface but if you had a poke around in their mind you'd find a missing crayon or two. Some people just a few more sandwiches short of a picnic than others. Society feels the need to label what they don't understand

It does seem that everyone wants to have a mental illness so they can pass of their less desirable character traits to something they don't have control of. If someone's lazy or unmotivated they claim that they have depression. If someone is socially awkward they claim to have Aspergers. If someone lacks any sort of focus or gets bored easily they claim ADHD or ADD.

Nobody's perfect. It's something we know yet we still strive to pass of our imperfections as the fault of something else. I'm lazy sometimes, I don't feel like doing something or I feel like I want to stay in bed all day or feel depressed - but I don't have depression. I dislike awkward social situations, I find it difficult to connect with or understand people sometimes - but I don't have Aspergers which is a form of autism. I find I get distracted easily from things I find uninteresting - that doesn't mean I have ADD. We all face these things in small levels but we can't just claim a mental illness or worse, medicate for it just because we don't like that aspect of ourselves.

We are getting too quick to label. And if one were mostly looking at things that pretty clearly have a neurological element and strongly impede personality happiness. Major disorders and the like, then you would think "no, this isn't some big stigmatizing of people who aren't considered "normal", it's helpful labels for problems that really do exist and need treating".

But then, there are icky little things like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love-shyness
Remember that "virgin shaming" topic? If a guy isn't a Casanova, he has a mental disorder. Nice.

I seriously got a gag reflex the first time I heard that term.

And not just this, the field has had a history of considering all sorts of things, including homosexuality as a mental disorder. Women who liked to have frequent sex and had a high sex drive were labeled "nymphomaniacs". And while we're moving a way from some of that a little bit, the field is still loaded with offensive crud.

Love-shyness is a new-term! So much for progress!

Doclector:

Don Savik:
The stigma of mental issues is one of the largest stigma's that nobody thinks twice about.

The brain is an organ like the rest of your body, when it gets sick, you need a doctor for it too. Anyone that says your less of a person because of it clearly has no clue what they're talking about.

Trust me, you go to ONE counseling session and people think your a murderous psychopath.

Tell me about it. I have aspergers syndrome (although, I suspect if I let a psychiatrist near me now, I'd probably be forcibly dosed up on god knows what) and if I mention it, people look at me like I'm jack the ripper. Aspergers is barely even a gorram mental illness! Hell, one of my friends who also has aspergers was once almost sectioned when he was depressed. I don't know whos approach and opinions need to change more; The doctors or the public.

Personally, I think doctors are too quick to label Asperger's and Autism these days. They just feel the need to label people, and feel like they're earning their paycheck. I think it ends up being a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy because from that moment when they're diagnosed, they're treated differently. Maybe the other kids are told "look, just be sensitive around that boy/girl there", or maybe they're taken out of class for sessions. Generally, they're just put on the spot and it doesn't do them any good. They might as well hang a glowing neon sign around the person's neck reading "look at me, I'm weird!"

It singles them out like hell, and probably just worsens social anxiety. Especially because people are going to inevitably take a negative first impression from it.

As someone with an actual mental illness severe enough to qualify for disability here in America as well as two stints in the psych ward, I loathe how some people who are just going through a rough patch or have some quirk blame it on some mental illness that they claim to have. It's not a casual, passing thing to place blame on, and it's not trendy. It is something physically wrong with your brain that requires treatment.

Every time I hear some variation of, "oh, you're bipolar? I get mood swings too. Ha, maybe I am too!" I want to punch someone in the throat. Bipolar episodes are severe and typically last for days at a time. Bipolar disorder has the highest suicide rate of all of the psychiatric illnesses, including Schizophrenia, but because of all of the "I went to therapy for a few weeks when I was sad, so I'm a crazy, misunderstood, delicate snowflake now" people, it's now seen as a trendy excuse for being a bit moody.

The obsessive need to find a label for the smallest thing trivializes the struggles of those who are actually mentally ill. I hate it.

I went to a sort of psychiatrist recently. Had about 8 conversations that lasted an hour. Then I was classified as having the most common form of autism, an autism spectrum disorder. At first I thought: So I'm slightly different, and therefore I have an autism spectrum disorder? Didn't seem like they could be sure that I had this just from these few short conversations.

I used to think they didn't label just about everything with a mental disorder, I thought they had decades of research behind this so that a simply different personality wouldn't be classified as an actual sickness. Now I think the opposite.

Feel miserable --> Go see a doctor --> Doctor labels you with depression --> Tell friends/family you have depression --> Feel worse because everyone starts acting awkward around you --> See stage 2 and repeat

Being unemployed atm, I feel miserable alot of the time. But theres no way in hell I'd go see a doctor about it for the reason above - I don't want a stupid label that makes crap worse. Labels (of pretty much any kind) are stupid and damaging, and it seems ridiculous that it's pretty much all that modern psychiatry does.

Grey Day for Elcia:

TheVioletBandit:
I like to see myself as an eccentric free spirit, but every once in a while uptight boring people will treat me like I'm a crazy. I'm okay with it though, because I understand that it's just that they feel safer in their box, while I feel happier outside of it.

That's probably the most beautiful thing I've heard in a while. Cheesy, but just the right amount of cheese.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

VonKlaw:
Feel miserable --> Go see a doctor --> Doctor labels you with depression --> Tell friends/family you have depression --> Feel worse because everyone starts acting awkward around you --> See stage 2 and repeat

They do that? For the record, if a doctor tells you you have depression because you feel like shit, don't believe them and go somewhere else. Depression is characterised by several symptoms and you have to have three or four to even be considered depressed. There is always the possibility of "You have a rough period". Depression actively gets in the way of your life, while feeling bad - not as much.

Doclector:
Or at least, I think so. There, I made it clear it's not necessarily a fact, everyone happy? Okay.

Anyway, these days, it seems that if you visit a psychiatrist, your every action, every word, how you say said words, whether you lie on the coach or sit, everything is dissected, and then you get a perdy little certificate saying "I have nervous schizophrenic dementia with a side order of paranoia" or so on.

Almost every personality trait you have can be called "a mental illness". It's absurd. For one thing, the tag of mental illness is not a nice thing to have, unless you're amongst hipsters who will surely want to take a load of touching pictures of you to put irrelevent captions over, and that just makes it annoying. It's infuriating to know that you are in control, that you are fine, but because you're just a little eccentric, people think you need a carer and tanquilisers kept on stand by just in case you snap.

We need to perhaps re-evaluate what mental health issues mean. There is no need to call something a problem when there is none; Simply an unconventional way of thinking, although, while we're at it, we need to think about how most people think about mental health altogether.

But speaking of thinking, what do you think?

Having being diagnosed by a brain picker with an "acute anxiety disorder" or something to that extent, I can tell you that no, I wasn't labelled as MAD. I have problems that need resolutions. Knowing where my problems are coming from (at their core, I have many problems that are seemingly unrelated otherwise) helped me immeasurably, though I'm struggling to progress any further at this time.

I'm not broken, It's not a quirk and I'm certainly not going to get stigmatised for it (unless I let it rule my life).

Under the sciences, which include fledgling sciences like psychology CLASSIFICATION IS EVERYTHING. Without it the order of discoveries, theories, Hypothesis and just plain nonsense can get jumbled up and extremely confusing and misleading.

If you're self concious about being labelled by a professional, then you have in fact another issue to get over before you can move forward with whatever issue you had initially (heavy on presumptions here, I apologise in advance if I presume wrongly).

Getting diagnosed isn't categorical either. It's a loose description to help people sort out problems internally, which can manifest externally. Me for example flunked college twice despite being completely into the type of stuff I was asked to do. I just couldn't handle stress, no matter what the source (and I had other heavy sources at the time). EDIT: Just a side note, but even being told to "man up" or being threatened by my family members wasn't enough to pill me out of that rapidly descending spiral. Getting that help was the best thing that has happened to me in a long time.

Also, the term mental illness... I only ever hear TV and media call it that. I don't believe a professional would say you are mentally ill unless you really do have an illness (plaque/fungus on the brain, unnatural degradation of neural receptors etc.)

EDIT: I think there is an issue with prescription drugs, but it may just be an issue of will power for most people, which the drugs can give a little nudge.

zombiekiller1907:
Can I ask a question? What is the norm for the person's mind?

The norm is everything that you're not. So I guess we're all better than you

/s

OT: I think a lot of it is the pack-mob mentality. Which sucks for some people

Ragsnstitches:
Snip

Welcome to the UK, my friend, land of the stiff upper lip where those who can't quite keep it so apparently aren't right in the head. I am noticing something of a theme here, though...it could be that standards really are better elsewhere in the world, and the UK is one country out of perhaps a few more lacking in understanding.

zombiekiller1907:
Can I ask a question? What is the norm for the person's mind?

I'd define it as the typical majority. Really though, that goes into a deeper question, namedly, what is sanity? Is there such a thing, or is it something we made up to sort the supposedly typical from the supposedly strange? That's a deep question more philosophical in nature, and it's one that it's difficult to even get started on.

Binnsyboy:

Personally, I think doctors are too quick to label Asperger's and Autism these days. They just feel the need to label people, and feel like they're earning their paycheck. I think it ends up being a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy because from that moment when they're diagnosed, they're treated differently. Maybe the other kids are told "look, just be sensitive around that boy/girl there", or maybe they're taken out of class for sessions. Generally, they're just put on the spot and it doesn't do them any good. They might as well hang a glowing neon sign around the person's neck reading "look at me, I'm weird!"

It singles them out like hell, and probably just worsens social anxiety. Especially because people are going to inevitably take a negative first impression from it.

I definately agree with that. I've often doubted whether I even have it. I'm different, sure, but to label it a syndrome? I can definately tell you that some of the flak and stigma has probably "damaged" me far more than aspergers alone ever could.

LilithSlave:

But then, there are icky little things like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love-shyness
Remember that "virgin shaming" topic? If a guy isn't a Casanova, he has a mental disorder. Nice.

I seriously got a gag reflex the first time I heard that term.

Love-shyness is a new-term! So much for progress!

Hehehe, that wikipedia article is hilariously awful. I began to write about the best bits, but it's so insane I ended up doing a massive critic of it.

The man himself...
The entire research and development of the theory of this was conducted by one bloke. Just one. This bloke is called Dr. Brian G. Gilmartin, and what a bloke he is. His Wiki page says that his research interests include the practice of "sexual spouse sharing", and the effect of dog ownership on family life. Wow. This sounds like the kind of man you want to confess all your secrets to and then let him prescribe you drugs! Another person is mentioned, but only because Gilmartin references his psychological personality test, which in an awesome display of scientific progression, was based around the theory of (and I'm not making this up) The Four Humours! Top notch stuff there guys.

Also the only research actually done around this was a sample of 500 American heterosexual males: 300 love-shy students and older people, and 200 not love-shy 'highly social' teenagers. With which he claims shows scientifically that "people of all ages, all races, all sexual orientations, and all genders can be love-shy" Because apparently there is absolutely no difference between the sexual identities of males and females. Seems legit.

A study of Gilmartin's "research", A.K.A. why no one has any respect for the field of psychology anymore...

According to Gilmartin, the love-shy tended to prefer vocal love ballads such as Broadway theatre music, brassy jazz music, easy listening, film soundtracks and light classical music, but not traditional classical music. A few also mentioned having a strong liking for country and western. Rock music of almost every kind was disliked by the love-shy, but only on an aesthetic level, not on moral grounds. Gilmartin noted that surprisingly few of the love-shy men mentioned female singers.

Gilmartin concluded that the majority of love-shy men prefer music with emotional/escapist themes and rich, beautiful melody. As a result, love-shy males dislike music that is noisy, loud, dissonant or amelodic in their point of view. The non-shy men Gilmartin interviewed typically enjoyed rock music and would only buy rock albums. The music love-shys enjoyed was considered boring by most of the non-shy men.

Bwahahahaha, what utter nonsense. What does that have to do with anything ever?
He just discovered that older people like to listen to older music, and teenagers listen to popular music: It was the 80's. Give the man a medal (or a slap)
I also like the way he singles out the love-shy group as not liking female singers, insinuating that the teens apparently love rocking out to chick vocals. Maybe he actually thinks all the 80's rock stars are chicks.

Maybe he'll have better luck studying the films they watch, because apparently that is a really important indicator of how successful you are convincing ladies to bone.

Gilmartin compiled a list of movies between 1945 and 1980 that were most often seen by the American love-shy in his study. According to Gilmartin, the full list of 63 repeatedly seen movies can be classified into two categories, "heavy", emotionally engrossing love stories, and escapist musicals with a strong romantic flavor.

In contrast, the movies most often seen by non love-shy men were classified as, action-adventure, science fiction or fantasy/superhero, light comedy, and crime drama.

What? That has nothing to do with... For goodness sake! All your non love shy guys were teenagers, OF COURSE they're gonna be watching action movies you muppet, also how does this prove anything? I thought the love shy guys would be less worried and afraid of romance, not more engrossed in it...

A challenger appears...
Oh look, another researcher is finally mentioned: "Talmer Shockley, a self-confessed love-shy person"
As well as having a hilarious name he (or possibly she, it's hard to tell with a name like Talmer). They wrote a book called "The Love-Shy Survival Guide (2009" I'm guessing it's pretty much like the Zombie Survival guide, except less scientifically accurate. I'm sure he has tonnes of evidence and years of study to back it all up wi... "Shockley offers no additional scientific proof of love-shyness except to reference the thousands of members of online discussion forums devoted to love-shyness" For the love of Pete, they're not even pretending to defend this ass gravy anymore. The Oracle of Delphi had a more advanced scientific method.

And then we come to Gilmartin's proposed treatments, because what use is madness if it has no practical application?...

The major therapeutic regime Gilmartin recommends after practice dating is sex surrogate therapy. He claims, "Any truly comprehensive program calculated to guarantee a complete cure for intractable, chronic and severe love-shyness must incorporate a program facet that entails use of sexual surrogates." Sex surrogates are therapists who will have physical intimacy up to and including sexual intercourse with their clients and are not the same as prostitutes. A quality surrogate therapy will include an additional therapist to oversee the therapy.

I... I don't even have a comment on this. How? After typing this out Gilchrist actually lost 3 stone, as his aversion to science actually caused gravity to recoil from this abomination of universal thought.

A review of his critics, A.K.A What do you mean that's not scientific?...

Gilmartin makes references to astrology, reincarnation, past life regression, and Kirlian aura (page 15) to support his conclusions which reviewer Elizabeth Rice Allgeier felt "waters down the potential impact of his writings" in her book review for the Journal of Sex Research.

I never thought I'd say this, but I don't think the lady that wrote the Journal of Sex Research went far enough, I think this proves the man's madder than a ferret in a cocaine factory, although she doesn't seem to criticise his decision that the cure for shyness is getting jiggy with your psychiatrist while someone else watches, so if you're reading this Ms. Rice, give me a call, y'know, for reseach purposes!

And there ends this weeks descent into madness. Dunno if anyone else found that funny (I'm not as good as Daystar at making humourous rambling joke speeches). Maybe next time I should just outsource it too him. Oh well. It still stands that that was the most unscientific bollocks I've ever seen, I'm just glad I wasn't reviewing his paper on "Sexual spouse sharing". Maybe next week.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked