Just A Little More Fun Before Going Back To Serious Things

IT WASN'T AS YOU SUGGEST "a medical professional" who made the accusatory "diagnosis" that I've "got aspergers" (sic) it was a jerk of an online commentator who, though alleging to have a career in science could not answer what I said on several points about science.  

I do have to wonder at the use of such "psychology" in argument, it implies, for a start, that the thinking of someone put in the category "Asperger's" is by that definition unreliable on its face and not in need of understanding or answering.  The couple of people I've known labeled as such don't seem to demonstrate any high degree of illogicality that I ever noticed.  They are awkward in crowds and if forced to speak much will say things they regret but, then, some people who are gregarious often say things that are hurtful to other people, they just don't seem to mind having done so.  Maybe the "syndrome" is an active conscience or awareness of the potential to hurt other people without meaning to.

That is one of the consequences of the pathologizing of human thought and the ability given to such pseudo-scientists as those who generally work in the area of human behavior to make up and pathologize , give them a name, come up with a "treatment" for them which they can then sell them pills for or charge them so much per "session" to gab about it.  That is until they sometime in the future decide their predecessors got it wrong and remove it from the newest, niftiest edition of the Diagonstic and Statistical Manual (the infamous DSM) no doubt with a few new ones for practitioners to rope in more suckers with.  

In the meantime people who are unhappy are more often than not left as unhappy as before their sometimes years long "treatment," sometimes with a drug addiction or two or some other problem which is a relic of such "treatment".  Those who were unpleasant are sometimes even more so afterwards.

In this case, however, it was someone using sci-babble to dismiss points in a debate that they couldn't answer and my refusal to drop the point when they didn't answer it or give a reason that it was irrelevant.  That's not a problem on my part, it's a problem of such people generally being crappy at logical argument and using words without considering what they really mean.  As I said, yesterday, most of the times you hear someone drop the terms "DNA" or "natural selection" or "random chance" or "probability"* they are used very sloppily, unjustifiably and even illogically, even by very sophisticated scientists.   They are in most of the cases I notice, doing exactly what the same people accuse other people of doing, creating, gods to fill in the gaps of knowledge so as to support their preferred ideological claims and to pretend that they know something they don't know.   

It was one of the worst consequences of the rise of psychology and psychiatry that so much of human life, so many human beings, their minds, were stigmatized and  that the lax and casual use of terms such as "Asperger's" have given too many people the idea that their minds and behavior are not really under their ownership or, to some extent, control.   It's hard to control yourself but you really are the only one who can do that.  Minus criminal or self-destructive behavior you are most likely left to do that.  Minus those, if you aren't hurting anyone, letting some shrink work you over is probably a really bad idea.  And if you can't pay, the psychiatric industry isn't really interested in you or your problems, they'd rather rope in people with good insurance or an ability to pay so they can convince the affluent that it's other people who are responsible for their unhappiness and why they can't get what they want.

*  I don't think it's for nothing that the psychiatric industry has the word "statistical" in the title of their professional catalogue.  Given what you find when you look behind the generally deeply flawed methodology of their collection of such statistics, their use of the term is a good example of what I said.  If they have ever, once, achieved one of the logical necessities for such use of statistics asserting to demonstrate something about the general population, gotten a genuinely random sample of sufficient size to support their contentions, I'd be extremely shocked.  If they have done it twice I would say it would have to force a belief in miracles happening.  

Medicine is a mixture of science and art, we should be thankful that those doctors who treat our bodies rely on more valid science than those who allegedly treat our minds are allowed to get away with. But whenever anyone relies on self-reporting of unobservable things as all of the so-called behavioral sciences do, it's bound to go wrong.

I'd read theology, or philosophy.  Those guys who suggested that people talk to a philosopher instead of a shrink, for most people, probably did someone some good.  If you get one who isn't interested in forming a cult with them at the center.  ALWAYS avoid people who have that kind of chrasima, they are dangerous no matter what their line of work is.  I'd trust someone who has those fabled symptoms of "Aspergers" more.

Update:  Perhaps if you don't like me pointing out that "DNA," "natural selection," "random chance," and "probability" function as god in the gaps for the atheist, materialistic and scientistic I can piss you off more by saying that even within science, which is comprised of what's published by scientists as science, all of those have the same role as demiurges in pagan mythologies as creators of everything from species of living beings to the entire universe.  In Stephen Hawking's late work "the law of gravity" had the same character, he even credited it with the creation of the material universe out of "nothing".  In other MAS believing scientists it's other little understood forces, some of which may not even exist except in their equations.

Atheists believe in gods, lots of them, dragging them up for veneration as the occasion warrants.  They just don't like it when some impious person like me points out that they have their gods just like everyone else does.  And that they junk up science with them and get away with it as a matter of course.