would you go through with the procedure?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And that's what everyone says when they've run out of real arguments.

Like you know more about how to play a guitar and do not need me - a non-player of any instrument - to tell you about it, I do not take lesson by Takeda or yopu or August on how to diagnose different grades of traumatization, and whether traumatization can have different grades of severity or not.

Because, you see - I know this better for sure. Yes. And I will not apologize for knowing it better than him. Than you. Than August. There are many practicioners out there who know more about traumata and therapy attempts than I do, no doubt. Still, also beyond doubt is that you three are none of them.

He never said that. He only said that he wouldn't do it himself.

Context, man, context. Not a strength of yours when picking some word cadavers serving your intention from my postings and using them to your liking, but trying nevertheless to refer to the context may sooner or later have a training effect.

Would also help to fight the impression that you use this kind of distortion and/or distraction tactics intentionally.

Look in a mirror lately, Mr Pot?

Sure. I can only recommend to you doing so.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Like you know more about how to play a guitar and do not need me - a non-player of any instrument - to tell you about it, I do not take lesson by Takeda or yopu or August on how to diagnose different grades of traumatization, and whether traumatization can have different grades of severity or not.

Possibly true, but I would never presume to resolve an argument on a subject I know about by simply talking down to the other person and telling him I know better. If you can't present facts, just shout louder. That's what you did this time, and you can't get out of it by wishing it away.

Because, you see - I know this better for sure. Yes. And I will not apologize for knowing it better than him. Than you. Than August. There are many practicioners out there who know more about traumata and therapy attempts than I do, no doubt. Still, also beyond doubt is that you three are none of them.

Doesn't matter. You gave up trying to show facts and stooped to talking down to people. I've seen other people do it here, and it showed how shallow they were as well.

Context, man, context. Not a strength of yours when picking some word cadavers serving your intention from my postings and using them to your liking, but trying nevertheless to refer to the context may sooner or later have a training effect.

That's easy to say when you make up your own context. You already have a long record of picking and choosing from the things I've said to suit your arguments, and now you want to do it with others by shouting "context". Did he say that or not? If so, I owe you an apology. If not, then you are once again trying to argue with what you want somebody to have said, not what they actually said. That's called dishonesty.

Would also help to fight the impression that you use this kind of distortion and/or distraction tactics intentionally.

You argue with what he didn't say, claiming that that was what he meant, and then accuse me of distortion? Interesting.

Sure. I can only recommend to you doing so.

So I'm a haughty hypocrite too? How so? I'm not the one who talks down to people and tries to lecture them, and when they still have the audacity to keep arguing try to shout them down by bragging about my credentials.

I do look in the mirror every day, and I'm my own worst critic.

[Task Force]

If I have something I wanted to forget, Id do it. (of course, not for something simple)

But I don't have to worry about it, as my brain likes to forget things without any procedure!

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Because, you see - I know this better for sure. Yes. And I will not apologize for knowing it better than him. Than you. Than August.

People discuss history on internet forums all the time, Subsim included. Every now and then I come across comments that make me, a person studying the subject and making living related to it, roll my eyes. Some make me gnaw my teeth and some just cause me to burst into uncontrollable laughter.

Yet if I want to make these feelings public (which I have in here too in some cases), the last way I would do it would be chastising them. Is it because I also study pedagogy and wouldn't act like that in a classroom either? No. It's simply because history, pedagogy, international relations, media studies, museum studies and the various foreign languages are not the only things I have learned in the university.

While I didn't necessarily agree with you on everything, I thought you had the right method in this thread with August. How you now lost it and came up with the quote above is beyond me. You can do better than that.

[Garion]

It's one thing to erase the memory in an individual....but...

What about their friends and relatives that know what happened to them?

Do they walk around on eggshells trying not to let slip any details of the event that was erased?

Do they erase from the patients memory the ..erm.. memory that they had a procedure that removed a memory?

What if the patient comes across a picture of the themselves linked to a report of the traumatic event in a newspaper or other media?

I voted no, because the human brain is very adaptive and removing the memory does not stop the patient using reason to work out what happened.

Cheers

Gary

[Skybird]

Hottentot, you need to be aware of the context when I gave that snappy reply. I cut Takeda short, brutally short if you want to see it like that - and that was exactly what I wanted. Why?

Takeda said:

Skybird, I reject your view that past trauma renders every individual a suffering wreck or psychopath, which seems to be your general belief, both stated in this thread and in others. Painful memories are part of who I am as well. I would not have the procedure done.

He says that this and that "were my view. It isn'T and never was, and I have never, nowhere said that, also not in the thread with August on PTSD.

So I replied to that:

Thats something you read into it. I cannot recall that I made any quantitative assessment that allows the conclusion that I think every traumatization leads to utmost existential breakdown. As a matter of fact traumatization can come in many shades, forms and grades of severity. Thats why studies seriously researching on them often do - at least should - include the definitions of grades or diagnostic keys on which the researchers based when categorizing different grades of traumata.

Mind you, just days ago I explained that I have some practical experience with traumatization, and have had some more theoretical input on it from a specialist as well than just having studied general psychology. I also gave August links to some example studies that supported my arguments.

So, Takeda put soemthing into my mouth, I corrected that, by argument and in calm reaosnable tone. Takeda replied:

You're substituting philosophy for science.

Pardon? Have I missed something? Wrong party, maybe? I replied:

That's clinical fact. Traumatization can come in different grades of severity. Some are light, others are heavy. Don't even try to argue with me on this, I know it better than you. And active clinical practitioners know it better than you anyway. I have seen people with traumatizations that had pushed them into catatonic conditions for days and weeks, as if they were schizophrenic. Light cases of traumatization also suffer, but in kind of an automode or ghostmode can run the needs of everyday life. Between the two extremes, a wide variety of intensities and syndromes is possible. By diagnostic keys according to DSM or ICD, the keys and possible symptom list to be checked for may be the same. But the intensities by which symptoms form out, can vary tremendouslya, can find their very individual modulation.

How much more attention am I expected to spend to this kind of having a "discussion", and taking it serious as if it were of any compoletence on this detail of the generla mess created in here? I do nnot boast, I do not hide that I even do notn work as a psychologist, I just have said before, this and that are my qualifications for asssessing this detai, and from experience and theory, from both, I just know it better than you.

Read all the postings in chronological order, and see how it degraded more and more, and finally ended with Takeda'S snappish reply to the situation of a woman being raped that I quoted as an illustrative exmaple. "Strawman argument", he called that. Well. That left me speechless, and that was when I immediately lost any interest to deal with him any longer. Take note to the many other sidelines of the "discussion", and judge yourself. As I see it, I tried to keep things together. Some people got engaged and ignored the basis of this thread from their first posting on. Did not even take the time to correctly understand the original scenario. They just transported their anger on me from another thread, saw that I was here, and here we go again.

Sorry, I deliberately refuse to see such inconsistent and emotionally derailed chain of pseudo-arguments as somethign that I have to take serious for all time to come and must forever deal with respectfully and as if being of equal value. It's exactly like with Steve's old argument with me, and that is why somewhere else I compared the two, him and Takeda. And Steve also expects me to endlessly react and react to the same inconsistent chain of argument that he has started in a debate two or more years ago, which is why it makes me smiling, it just is that the longer it lasts the more manipulative his angry replies have become when I remind of it, since he sees he cannot bring me around by just repeating his view of things again.

Sorry, Hottentot, but every patience has limits. Mine was reached on that given detail when I gave that sharp reply to Takeda with the clear intention to cut it short at that point. I do not apologize for that, i do not feel bad for that, and same situation same conditions given, I would do it again. Takeda knows much more about musical history and composition and such, that's his profession. The issue discussed here, was part and special focus of my profession. And I probably indeed know the basics of it better than some layman who - even worse - engages me in a state of angry emotional arousal and in the aftermath of a different confrontation in another thread. I gave him repeated and sober, factual, calm replies to some really unqualified, partially unfocussed comments. But after some iterations, it has to end.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sorry, Hottentot, but every patience has limits. Mine was reached on that given detail when I gave that sharp reply to Takeda with the clear intention to cut it short at that point. I do not apologize for that, i do not feel bad for that, and same situation same conditions given, I would do it again. Takeda knows much more about musical history and composition and such, that's his profession. The issue discussed here, was part and special focus of my profession. And I probably indeed know the basics of it better than some layman who - even worse - engages me in a state of angry emotional arousal and in the aftermath of a different confrontation in another thread. I gave him repeated and sober, factual, calm replies to some really unqualified, partially unfocussed comments. But after some iterations, it has to end.

I see where you are coming from, and appreciate you writing your point of view down in such detail. Believe me, I have been there and done that, so it's not me you should be apologizing to at least. I would even dare to say that it's worse in my case, representing a discipline where anyone literate can claim to be an expert (at least in his/her opinion) and even back it up for a moment reasonably well with some book he/she read recently. When was the last time you heard someone claiming to be a "traumatization buff"? Compare to the amount of "history buffs" on various forums.

But that's exactly what has taught me that sometimes it's better for everyone if you just quietly roll your eyes, nod and save yourself the trouble. I accept that people have silly ideas of what studying history is on serious level. I accept that they insist on being right with their ideas. When possible, I will gladly engage them in a discussion, but maintain that we are talking from different foundations. Likewise I wouldn't approach Takeda on musicology and expect that we have equal starting position in such discussion. I try not to lecture, nor come across as arrogant, but neither will I try to discuss the subject as anything I wouldn't normally discuss it as, that is, an academic subject with academic language and methods.

If our worlds simply won't meet in such discussion after I have said everything reasonable I have to say, then I have no reason to take it personally. If anything, it might amuse me a little. Much like a real fighter pilot would probably be amused with me trying to insist I'm an expert on this subject, because I can start up an F-16 in Falcon 4. Much like a mathematician would be amused with me trying to discuss mathematics based on what I learned in high school. In these cases I simply nod and let people believe in what they want. Meanwhile I'll rather go back to creating the history that they can then discuss.

[Takeda Shingen]

Skybird, once again, the only one who is angry here appears to be you. I suggest that you grow up. You demand respect, but give none. Also, I suggest that if you desire to end discourse with me, you should start by refraining from talking about me. Otherwise, I will be forced to reply and I am certain that you have been around long enough to figure out how that's going to end, because if you want to strap on the gloves, we can do that and you're going to lose.

You owe me an apology. I will never recieve it. You cannot bring yourself to see your actions as wrong. Ego simply does not permit it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Skybird, once again, the only one who is angry here appears to be you. I suggest that you grow up. Also, I suggest that if you desire to end discourse with me, you should start by refraining from talking about me. Otherwise, I will be forced to reply and I am certain that you have been around long enough to figure out how that's going to end.

You owe me an apology. I will never recieve it. You cannot bring yourself to see your actions as wrong. Ego simply does not permit it.

Unbelievable, your amount of haughtiness and self-righteousness. I feel slightly ashamed that I allowed to be deceived by you for so many years. My fault.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Unbelievable, this amount of haughtiness. I feel slightly ashamed that I allowed to be deceived by you for so many years. My failure.

Your failure was your poor argument technique. Your reliance on fallacy to make your argument is what did you in. Even when you have a good point, your poor understanding of discourse negates that point. I would suggest reading up on argumentative technique. It will do you a lot of good.

Take, for example, your comparison of me to that senator. I never said or implied anything of the sort, and yet you wished to frame me as the senator. That's a classical strawman. Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You've done it several times over our discourse as well. It, in fact, is one of your favorite techniques. Unfortunately, it is a dishonest technique. Take what I said about what I said about what I percieved to be your view on trauma by contrast. I said that it was my impression. I never claimed full knowledge. Therein lies the difference.

I've seen too many students with your attitude, Skybird. You are so convinced that you know everything that you are unable to see the your own error, or try to put yourself in the other's shoes. It does make me sad, and I speak in kindness to you when I say that I wish there was more that I could do for you. You have so much potential as a human being and as an intellectual, but it is squandered by your stated attitude. That makes me sad, it really does.

[Sailor Steve]

Sky, again you look at someone else the way many of us look at you, hence my pot/kettle reference earlier.

Allow me to speak for myself. Most of the people who know me know that I almost never assume that I'm right, unless it's a technical discussion and I can point to actual facts. When I try to explain that to you, you dismiss it and go on with your assumption that I'm like you. I'm not.

My problem with you has never been on points of argument. If you had discussed your points with me in a civilized manner you might have come to realize that I agree with you up to a point. But you couldn't do that. You have a bad habit of assuming you know better than whoever you're talking to and lecturing them as if they were students who came to you for your wisdom and knowledge. We are not students, and you don't come across as all that wise or knowledgeable. Maybe you are. I'm just saying that you don't present yourself that way.

You might want to retort that it's not your job to please people or to be liked. Unfortunately in an open forum that is exactly what you must do if you want people to treat you in a similar manner. You've just done it again with Buddahaid in the 'Benghazi' thread. Maybe you're right in your thinking, but it never seems to occur to you that you might be wrong, or that he might actually have a point worth considering. Sure you disagree. Sure you're convinced you're right. That said, calling his ideas "idiotic logic" immediately places you in the "haughty" and "self-righteous" category you assign to Takeda. That you don't see that just makes it worse. People, myself included, have called you "arrogant" in the past. You may or may not be, but that's the way many of us see you. You need to remember that we are not your students and you are not here to teach us. We are all equals here, and we are all here to discuss things. Argue, yes, but not from the point that you are our superior. You're not.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Your failure was your poor argument technique. Your reliance on fallacy to make your argument is what did you in. Even when you have a good point, your poor understanding of discourse negates that point. I would suggest reading up on argumentative technique. It will do you a lot of good.

Take, for example, your comparison of me to that senator. I never said or implied anything of the sort, and yet you wished to frame me as the senator. That's a classical strawman. Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You've done it several times over our discourse as well. It, in fact, is one of your favorite techniques. Unfortunately, it is a dishonest technique. Take what I said about what I said about what I percieved to be your view on trauma by contrast. I said that it was my impression. I never claimed full knowledge. Therein lies the difference.

I've seen too many students with your attitude, Skybird. You are so convinced that you know everything that you are unable to see the your own error, or try to put yourself in the other's shoes. It does make me sad, and I speak in kindness to you when I say that I wish there was more that I could do for you. You have so much potential as a human being and as an intellectual, but it is squandered by your stated attitude. That makes me sad, it really does.

And now the haughtiness climbs right for orbit. Bye bye, have a good flight. I allowed to get deceived once, won't happen again. I now see you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You might want to retort that it's not your job to please people or to be liked. Unfortunately in an open forum that is exactly what you must do if you want people to treat you in a similar manner.

Once again, Steve proves himself to be a better and wiser man than I. If I give you my notes, will you write them up as prose and let me read them to my students? They will think I am brilliant.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bye bye, have a good flight.

Then mean it this time. I had said my piece and left back on page two. The next day, I find you talking about me, thus pulling me back in to defend myself, exactly like you did to Steve in another thread. We have another expression here in the 'States: Best let sleeping dogs lie. It's good to take it to heart.

Your reliance on fallacy to make your argument is what did you in.

Its a common habit, taking a decent point he may have to make and simply messing it all up by the most ridiculous lies.

And now the haughtiness climbs right for orbit. Bye bye, have a good flight. I allowed to get deceived once, won't happen again. I now see you.

Has the habitual got himself in a super strop?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Garion

It's one thing to erase the memory in an individual....but...

What about their friends and relatives that know what happened to them?

Do they walk around on eggshells trying not to let slip any details of the event that was erased?

Do they erase from the patients memory the ..erm.. memory that they had a procedure that removed a memory?

What if the patient comes across a picture of the themselves linked to a report of the traumatic event in a newspaper or other media?

I voted no, because the human brain is very adaptive and removing the memory does not stop the patient using reason to work out what happened.

Cheers

Gary

If it is something extremely seriously like rape or worse, the experience SB related, I'll argue it will still probably be worth it to remove the memory.

To avoid problems, the patient will probably have be told what he had chosen to forget soon after the operation. But knowing you were raped on an intellectual level, while unpleasant, beats having visceral memories of it to high heaven.

It'll be even more useful for soldiers. For example, Soldier A might have killed 4 enemies, a "glorious victory". If only he can forget the visceral parts of the experience. So we cut it out and tell him in a battle, he killed four enemies. Without the visceral memories, he can enjoy being a hero, to the benefit of both his country and himself.