- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I admit that I am a bit nuts. That's why i'm so into experimental psychology as well.
What you say about generalization. I don't call it generalization but statistics. You have to see statistics as an helper. Statistics might show you a way but as you excellently know that it can mislead you. Why I generalized was the fact that 92,4% (I always left special notes about every case since it's my favorite) of people I encountered suffering these kinds of emotions act the same way under the stress of these emotions. My close buddy from the university ended up studying criminal psychology and boy, do those guys generalize.. and they're also pretty successfull with it. Comparing the uncomparable?? Statistically NO ... Maybe once you can explain me how can you scientificaly study anything without statistics?? That's blasphemy my dear friend. I've put all my effort into understanding and empathy because I didn't want to end up like those herds of lousy out of the book therapists.
Generalization is an extreme and at the other end is another extreme called "the uniqueness".
Emotions are a territory where you have to apply emotional logic. And that logic has few strict rules. And one of the most cruel one is that it takes a "god" to change the output emotions if there is unbiased emotion logic present. The best way to change something is to put a clear unbiased input and try to guide the person to transform it into an clear unbiased output.
So who's nuts?? Me a person with a long experience and a big record of successfully putting the correct input into people and teaching them?? You a common theoretist?? Or my colleague a psychologist/sexuologist who commited a suicide a year ago?? I beleive we are all nuts because we're human. But you be the judge...
Who/what's a pshrink??
