Psychology Inherently Stupid

                                                                 
I have a propensity to be rather crass concerning items which to me seem to be both blatant and of themselves, stupid.

Psychology is only one of them, I am sorry to say.

Of all the classes that I have taken in this fine year, and I have enjoyed many of them, Psychology is by far the utmost revolting to me.

The offense this time around,
A stage in development, as noted by textbook, that we all must go through to be characterized as adults,

"Postformal thought: recognition that truth may vary from situation to situation...that ambiguity and contradiction are the rule rather than the exception, and that emotion and subjective factors must begin to play a role in thinking and formulating truth."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
The first two phrases follow the stream of most of the technical jargon the book is bursting with.

The last one, however, screamed at me.
Literally(not really literally) SCREAMED at me.

Thoughts of hunting down the books authors and demanding an answer to the atrocity began to possess my mind. 

It was rather fortunate for all parties concerned, then, that I did not take this course of action, and instead decided to refute the silly claim, as what it is, stupid, right here, right now. 

First of all, it is quite a loaded claim if you disagree with it.   

            Here, I mean that you either lose by falling into the rationalist's trap, coming to their conclusions, or you lose because clearly, if you do not experience this stage, you do not think like a sophisticated adult. 

Au contraire,  fortunately for the more logical of us, this is simply not the case. 

  Determining outcomes and coming to conclusions using emotion and subjective factors is both fallacious and stupid. 

Though I would love to expound upon this, I have already spent hours composing a rather concise post 

concerning this very issue, namely, the role of feelings in determining truth. 

http://highereducationbogus.blogspot.com/2011/12/veritas-truth.html

                                            Nota bene part three. 

Stupid Professor Quote of the Day

Ah...the joys of my college Campus.
Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying this term at college exceedingly, my favorite so far. I feel as if I have a better support system, my own study program, classes for the most part that I thoroughly enjoy, and motivation and drive.
I have to admit though, it peeves me to hear when professors blatantly misinform entire classes with unnecessary and insipid bits of information. Despite the seeming harmlessness of the statements that they make, the implications are not without consequence, and such professors are sending a message(often false) and either furthering their own agendas, or stroking their own egos.

 The statement in question came in my "Human Development" course. We were going over the stages of development from Conception, to Birth.

Without further ado, the statement,
          "By the way, a woman in not considered pregnant until implantation occurs."

Wait....what? Okay did the research. After extensive googling(yes, I just made google into a transitive verb) and finding about 10 websites with articles on this very issue I found multiple answers. About half agreed.
The predominant one I found with this opinion had some other fun stuff(note sarcasm) to say on the issue.

"When Does Pregnancy Begin?

Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical experts—notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term "conception" properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete (see box, page 8)."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

Its the Guttmacher Site. This nonsense and propaganda jargon is to be expected. I expect my professor had these implications in mind when he made this statement, that contraception is alright, because its only causing death to the baby by not allowing it to implant. It then goes on to redefine conception and the like, to fit the agenda that the morning after pill, and other abortafacients and contraceptives, are alright.

Another site I found said something quite opposite. When the term of the pregnancy is considered, in order to calculate development of the baby, it is calculated from the point of the first day of your last menstrual period.
http://www.babyzone.com/pregnancy/week/article/1st-week-pregnancy

Let me get this straight, you're not pregnant until implantation, but your doctor will calculate your pregnancy as starting from a time period that is significantly before that? That just doesn't make any sense.

Dear Professors,
  Stop spewing forth lies, and if you are not sure on the subject, you probably shouldn't pronounce your opinions to the world, and especially not to highly impressionable college students, as if they were facts.

Dear Abortion Mills and Your Kind,
  Stop spewing contradictory nonsense. We see right through your agenda, and in due time, even those with their eyes firmly locked shut, will see through you as well. 

The digestive system - an animation

This reminded me of the play from junior year...

Outdated, but fascinating

Textbook Assumptions are the Sheep's Facts

As to the point of our last post a month ago.  I figured I keep with the same topic but share with you a link. There are a few videos that help set the facts strait.
Over Population is a Myth

More posts are soon to follow I hope. I'm in Sociology class this quarter so wish me luck.

No support assumption from Nutrition Book

Question: Overpopulation is the most serious problem that faces the world today.
           
               True or False

I put false, the answer was true. Scary that that is an excepted fact nowadays. Thanks you textbook for opening my eyes! 

Veritas: Truth

"What has happened to 'truth'?" Is the question that comes to mind as I stand adversary to the modern school of thought that I see has permeated my college Campus.

Here I'm not questioning that there is truth, I am simply expressing my own agitation at the daily attacks on this truth that I have encountered.

Truth to put it simply is - that which is.

As simply as this concept may seem, it must be beyond the comprehension of many of my fellow college goers.

As I sit and simply walk about my campus, I hear tidbits of what it, quite plainly, pure stupidity, ignorance, and what is true close-                  
                                                                                                       mindedness".
**********************************************************************************
1. Stupid.


Yes, I said it, stupid.  There is a lot of stupid going on here, for certain. Could it be from the conversations I most definitely hear everyday that I have gleaned this? Is it from the fraud that is the so called "Honor's" program I am in? Is it the university system crumbling down upon itself? Or could it be the overall stupidity and lack of thinking skills I see exhibited by my fellow students?

Its all of them, I believe:

*Why in a college setting are there remedial lessons?
                              -And why are a fair amount of the incoming freshman taking these remedial lessons?
                                              Did their education fail them so much? And yet we continue to see nothing              
                                              wrong with our teaching institutions?(Not to mention that I have looked up the
                                              graduation rate for NKU and it is[brace yourself]....a whopping 34%).
*Why in a college setting are students unable to engage in any form of mature debates even on 'tender', we'll call it, issues?
                              -Now, I'm happy that NKU offers this "Communications" class. Here they attempt to
                                teach at least some form of logic, in their instructions on debate.
                              -Unfortunately they must not be making much progress, for even the articles I            
                                occasionally peruse in The Northerner are aflame with fallacies.

Examples I have encountered on Campus:
                             1. In my drawing of analogies, not false ones, I once have been greeted not with an actual legitimate rebuttal of the argument that I presented, but a "How dare you compare that to that! You sicken me."
                       Well, that says....nothing. Absolutely nothing.
                       
                             2. When I say I don't agree with gay marriage as a right, or homosexuality as an accepted norm: "Well, you're just a f---ing homophobe/bigot/etc etc."
                     
                      Oh. So what you label me as invalidates my statement, and all the points I can and will make in support of my statement?
                      -Wrong, my friend. Not only have you shown yourself an idiot(now wait for the reason) by your ad hominem attacks, but you didn't offer any rebuttal or any supports of your evident polar opinion, and for all I know you I have none.
**********************************************************************************
2. Ignorant
                 Figures, right? You can't be stupid without being initially ignorant about the matter which you are being stupid about.
                                            I'm not simply pinpointing the lack of an authentic culturing.
                                                    And, NO, I'm not talking about, nor do I care about what happened on the last episode of the totally realistic to life show, GLEE!....that's not culture...thats just sad. :(
                                                   These kids aren't cultured. Shakespeare? Nope. Literature?    
                                                   ...Twilight(eek!). Poetry? Free verse(also known as stilted line prose).
                                                   Art, modern.
-My reaction is yuck. Yes, yuck. I find this quite disgusting. An indication of this culturing, or more correctly, lack thereof, is the "freshman bookpick" of this year at NKU:

PRESENTING Kabuki a graphic novel(aka comic book)

 that will give you nightmares and waste your time.

 ...kind of backwards...I got over picture books 12 or so years ago...

when I learned to read. 

How 'bout ignorance in thought?

1. SoulOfDiscretion: "Ha ha..it always amuses me when people refer to themselves in the 3rd person."

                            -"Whats the 3rd person?" ....conversation killed...

2. In an argument, after I referenced Senior Aristotle, 

                            -'Oh, and he lived recently'(note sarcasm).

So...he is old and that matters...why?

           Isn't truth eternal and unchanging?

           -We still listen to classical music, yes?

           -And continue to read and esteem the classics above the modern bs authors happen to be producing?

           -And study history?         

                         Clearly age doesn't ever suggest something is invalid or unrelatable. (Such thought is results in  

                         the heresy known as Progressivism. Alas.)

Though I could elaborate, ever so much more on ignorance, I'll get to my final point. 

**********************************************************************************

3. Close-mindedness

        Oh yes, I went there. 

               Touchy subject...Mayhaps we shouldn't discuss it. 

                                Thats the college standpoint. 

                                If you might 'offend' someone, don't say anything at all. 

Unfortunately this standpoint doesn't promote thought. If anything it discourages it. 

So let us analyze this scenario.  To engage in thought processes can be referred to as open-mindedness. And so, if you deny, discourage, and suppress thinking on any given subject you are being close-minded.

Alright, I follow you.

Scenarios!!!
          There are a plethora of personal instances and examples I could use to illustrate my point. I don't wish to antagonize anyone in particular, so I will use a typical contended issue to demonstrate.

Scenario One:
-After arguing for a considerable amount of time on the issue it ends as thus:
The person ignores my last refutation of what I have said, and instead of coming up with a rebuttal, which they would be able to do if they had one, uses this timeless cop-out,

"Well I believe women should be able to get abortions
and choose
because obviously they should be able to. I feel its a right."

-1st Statement: Let me see if I've got this right. Woman should be able to get abortions...because woman should be able to? Can't argue with that logic. Wrong. It isn't logic. Its sounds as stupid as it...sounds. 

                                        Here is a depiction on perhaps a less weighty matter: 

 'Star Wars is the best film, because Star Wars is the best film.'

Sound stupid? 

                              Yes...yes it does.

Wanna know what this sucker of  a fallacy is called? 

"Begging the question",  and yes it is a fallacy(I learned about such things Freshman year of highschool) and invalidates your point in an argument. It says nothing, it means nothing, and ultimately in debate serves as a subliminal admission of guilt.

2nd Statement:  'I feel as  if its their right.'

Issue aside, let's analyze the phrase that, to  any educated mind should send up little red flags: "I feel."

Alrighty then, 

1. Why do your feelings validate your argument as a support(or lack thereof)? 

2. Lets looks at feelings in the real world, shall we?

         Perhaps the legal system in America could benefit from this feelings policy. Instead of evidence, support, and proof decisions should be based on how one 'feels' on any lawbreaking issue. 

         Imagine a lawyer, attempting to defend his client with, "I feel as if the suspect is not guilty of murder/arseny/theft." 

          ....or policeman pulls you over and gives you a ticket because he felt as if you were speeding?

                                               Sounds legit, right? 

                                                                                                              WRONG.

                                                                                                                           In fact, it sounds ridiculous.

Ultimately, the person you debated with in this situation and won against(yes, you've won) can not admit they are wrong, and have copped out, and are continuing to delude themselves. 

Scenario Two:

          "End of discussion, I'm not answering your questions or your statement, I believe what I believe."

Hello major cop-out!!!!

        The message I can glean from this type of statement:

                                       1. I don't have a support.

                                       2. I don't like where this is going. 

                                       3. I am losing. 

Again, lets play fill in the scenario to illustrate just how ridiculous this sounds. 

1.You: "You can't say the earth is flat because there is substantial evidence that it is not. In fact, it is an established fact that it is not."

         Retort: "I'm not discussing this any further.

                              I believe it is flat, that's it."

2.You: "Incest is a wrong. The medical defects alone bear witness to this."

         Retort: "I'm not gonna stop believing its okay, it is. I'm not talking about this anymore."

Sound like legitimate supports, right? 

        Translation: I believe this, because I believe this....?

Is someone cutting off the oxygen to their brains? NOOOOO, these are NOT legitimate supports.

In fact, anyone pushing them we would probably label as 'loons' and the very minimum 'unbalanced'. 

Both these scenarios share one common theme. 

                                                            TRUE CLOSE-MINDEDNESS

Not the fake/faulty close-mindedness that many clear thinkers are accused of today. 

You: "I think abstinence is a 100% way to avoid premarital pregnancies, STD, HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases."

                 After a an eye roll, and a nice and long condescending look, your combatant replies,

                                            "Well, aren't we being a little close-minded?" 

What?! No actual refutation of the point I made? Huh? ...just a blanket statement that ultimately means NOTHING!!

-Flip back to the previous scenarios.

Such phrases as, 'End of Discussion', 'I'm not discussing this any further' and 'I'm not talking about this anymore' are pawns of those that practice true close-mindedness.

They outright scream: 'I'm not opening my mind to thinking, I'm closing it to protect my faultily formed deductions.'

Would we take that from a criminal on the stand who has agreed to testify?
"Well. I don't think I'm guilty. I'm also not going to say anything on the matter though."
                                              Bet that goes great with the jury.

Again, rendered ridiculous.
                        Sounds to me like the criminal is just afraid.
**********************************************************************************To conclude, truth is attacked on all fronts. To preserve it(yes it exists). We must point out idiocy when we see it. We must argue for what we believe in a mature and sophisticated manner. Finally, we must be martyrs for the truth.

In the words of G.K. Chesterton, a quote given to me by a dear friend: