abstinence only christians in your face again

[skunkd0c]

a Mr will also always be a surgeon according to google
most of the dr do not have this level of qualification

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119265/


Summary points

• (Male) surgeons are always addressed as Mr in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland
• The tradition arose before 1800 when physicians were by definition doctors who possessed a university medical degree (an MD); surgeons seldom had any formal qualifications
• The growth of voluntary hospitals in the 18th century brought high status to surgeons
• After the founding of the Royal College of Surgeons of London in 1800, surgeons had a formal qualification (the MRCS)
• Surgeons became so proud to be distinguished from physicians that the title of Mr became a badge of honour

 

[AlecTheGardener]

Wow. Even after reading the article it still seems backwards to me.

They bask in the history if their profession, which were often untrained idiot barbers.

*facepalm*

 

[ginwilly]

That's cool, thanks for the knowledge drop skunk. The more ya know...

 

[skunkd0c]

Wow. Even after reading the article it still seems backwards to me.

They bask in the history if their profession, which were often untrained idiot barbers.

*facepalm*

yeh the barbers or butches lol became the surgeons

i do not think most of these MR do any surgery anymore that's why they just go around consulting and wearing nice suits
they are supposedly the head of their field of medicine and do not need to get their hands dirty anymore
they help and oversea the younger surgeons that actually do the operations

i think you would have to have lots of money for a MR to actually operate on you lol

 

[UncleBuck]

Feelings are subjective.

feelings can be quantified easily and very accurately on a continuum.

ever take one of those 200 question tests that basically asked the same 5-7 questions over and over?

those place you and your subjective feelings very precisely on a continuum amongst a rather large sample of others who also took the same test.

you can even measure to what degree feelings are manipulated.

in college, i volunteered as a test subject for someone's thesis. went into a room, sat down, filled out a few of those long questionnaires, which was followed by a few pages asking us to describe how we would feel if our family was murdered, or how we would feel if we witnessed a loved one being raped, and so forth. this was followed by having us fill out the exact same questionnaire right after.

turns out they can easily quantify your subjective feelings of nationalism and the like quite objectively by comparing your responses before and after the priming questions about your family being murdered.

subjective feelings can be measured quite objectively and accurately.

 

[ginwilly]

I wanna be right about something in this thread damnit

You still here? Thought you would be too embarrassed to keep trying but ok then... Ever been less than truthful during questionaires? Ever have different moods at different times resulting in different answers? Give it up man.

How accurate are IQ tests?

 

[skunkd0c]

Does CBT work on indigenous folks

or do they not need it ?

 

[UncleBuck]

You still here? Thought you would be too embarrassed to keep trying but ok then... Ever been less than truthful during questionaires? Ever have different moods at different times resulting in different answers? Give it up man.

sorry, wife got frisky and i'd rather boff her in some kinky mitt romney missionary style rather than witness you flail frantically without ever condemning the actual scientific processes involved in psychological research that informs the foundation of psychology.

i tried to find the study just now but came up blank. but do you have any objections to the methodology involved? several research questionnaires are given to establish a baseline which measures you on a continuum against your peers, a priming question is then asked, and then the same questionnaires are repeated. an obvious result emerges showing a shift in response to certain evaluative criteria in the questionnaires between the first and second time taking them.

feelings may be subjective, but do you doubt that they can be quantified objectively and accurately?

i can come up with some actual studies for you to pick through methodology if you wish, but these are peer reviewed papers. a drunk racist southerner on the internet is not gonna find anything that PhD colleagues are missing.

 

[UncleBuck]

Does CBT work on indigenous folks

or do they not need it ?

the B part certainly works, unless you have discovered some flaw in classical conditioning (protip: you won't). the C part is where we enter the subjective parts of therapy, which are still based off of solid science but subject to the individual.

 

[skunkd0c]

sorry, wife got frisky and i'd rather boff her in some kinky mitt romney missionary style

lol i like the way you fuck the wife then get straight back on the puter
no after play don't he hanging around helping her clean up the mess n shit
but then again you do not need to impress her anymore

if you bend the wife over you can use her arched back as a table for you keyboard
type while you fuck!

just a thought lol

 

[UncleBuck]

lol i like the way you fuck the wife then get straight back on the puter
no after play don't he hanging around helping her clean up the mess n shit
but then again you do not need to impress her anymore

if you bend the wife over you can use her arched back as a table for you keyboard
type while you fuck!

just a thought lol

i did have a cigarette and a beer after.

 

[skunkd0c]

the B part certainly works, unless you have discovered some flaw in classical conditioning (protip: you won't). the C part is where we enter the subjective parts of therapy, which are still based off of solid science but subject to the individual.

i remember reading an article that claimed that CBT was too yankee for the UK lol

 

[ginwilly]

sorry, wife got frisky and i'd rather boff her in some kinky mitt romney missionary style rather than witness you flail frantically without ever condemning the actual scientific processes involved in psychological research that informs the foundation of psychology.

i tried to find the study just now but came up blank. but do you have any objections to the methodology involved? several research questionnaires are given to establish a baseline which measures you on a continuum against your peers, a priming question is then asked, and then the same questionnaires are repeated. an obvious result emerges showing a shift in response to certain evaluative criteria in the questionnaires between the first and second time taking them.

feelings may be subjective, but do you doubt that they can be quantified objectively and accurately?

i can come up with some actual studies for you to pick through methodology if you wish, but these are peer reviewed papers. a drunk racist southerner on the internet is not gonna find anything that PhD colleagues are missing.

good for you man, we all need some sexy time

Do I doubt that feelings MAY be quantified objectively and accurately? No, sometimes. Do I feel it can repeated consistently? No, not every time. That's the difference when dealing with subjective matter. Moodswings, man's propensity to embellish and subjective interpretations of objective findings all lead to inconsistencies. Twenty researchers can have twenty different interpretations. That's why we refer to them as soft sciences. In fact, a recent economic Nobel was given to a man from the US who "proved" why Keynesian economics are simple minded. We can not consistently and accurately predict human behavior.

That's just a Nobel Prize winning theory though, I'm sure you know better.

I would still like to know what your issue with the term soft science is. It's not derogatory.

I'd also like to get your thoughts on the scientific accuracy of IQ tests.

 

[UncleBuck]

i remember reading an article that claimed that CBT was too yankee for the UK lol

if you could phrase that more objectively i could respond. CBT is one of the most effective forms of therapy, borrows a lot from some incontrovertible scientific psychological studies.

or, as some idiots might say, SOFT SCIENCE!!!!!

 

[ginwilly]

if you could phrase that more objectively i could respond. CBT is one of the most effective forms of therapy, borrows a lot from some incontrovertible scientific psychological studies.

or, as some idiots might say, SOFT SCIENCE!!!!!

That's RACIST

 

[UncleBuck]

Moodswings, man's propensity to embellish and subjective interpretations of objective findings all lead to inconsistencies.

that's why we define sufficient sample sizes dummy.

We can not consistently and accurately predict human behavior.

do you mean on an individual, daily level? even then we can come pretty damn close.

over a larger sample size and timeframe, there is nothing new under the sun.

I would still like to know what your issue with the term soft science is. It's not derogatory.

yes it is. you are attempting to diminish science (right wingers have a tendency to do that), when you can't even name examples of this "subjective orientation" you complain about.

it's kinda like when you attempt to condemn affirmative action because of quotas (already illegal) or speak out against hate crimes while demonstrating that you have zero idea how they even work or are applied.

i'll listen to an educated, knowledgeable person give legitimate critiques of where science may fail, or become "subjectively oriented". but am i gonna sit back and listen to an uneducated right wing racist neo-confederate douchebag who can't even back up his own claims with a single piece of evidence?

nope.

I'd also like to get your thoughts on the scientific accuracy of IQ tests.

you gonna use it as a leaping board for your evolutionary racism, "unevolved from the neck up in certain geogrpahical regions", debunked euphemistic bullshit?

 

[skunkd0c]

if you could phrase that more objectively i could respond. CBT is one of the most effective forms of therapy, borrows a lot from some incontrovertible scientific psychological studies.

or, as some idiots might say, SOFT SCIENCE!!!!!

CBT is one of the most effective because its the main form of therapy offered its in an almost monopoly position
the overall success of CBT for patients with various mental health conditions is nothing to celebrate

 

[skunkd0c]

it's kinda like when you attempt to condemn affirmative action ?

do you really support that ?

 

[ginwilly]

that's why we define sufficient sample sizes dummy.

To make it as accurate as possible, yes.

do you mean on an individual, daily level? even then we can come pretty damn close.

over a larger sample size and timeframe, there is nothing new under the sun.

pretty damn close, yep again

yes it is. you are attempting to diminish science (right wingers have a tendency to do that), when you can't even name examples of this "subjective orientation" you complain about.

it's kinda like when you attempt to condemn affirmative action because of quotas (already illegal) or speak out against hate crimes while demonstrating that you have zero idea how they even work or are applied.

i'll listen to an educated, knowledgeable person give legitimate critiques of where science may fail, or become "subjectively oriented". but am i gonna sit back and listen to an uneducated right wing racist neo-confederate douchebag who can't even back up his own claims with a single piece of evidence?

nope.

I have tried to explain to you over and over in this thread that emotion or feelings are subjective. I even gave an example of did I make you mad or make you wet. You can be really thick sometimes.

you gonna use it as a leaping board for your evolutionary racism, "unevolved from the neck up in certain geogrpahical regions", debunked euphemistic bullshit?

Nope, I wanted to use it as an example of the inaccuracies that are accepted in the soft sciences. The fact that you will try to turn a losing argument into RACIST is pretty damn predictable too, but not 100 percent.

 

[skunkd0c]

affirmative actions sounds like something my mum used to say

"two wrongs do not make a right" ?

although my mum was wrong about this

if right = true and true = 1
false = wrong = 0
since two wrongs could be 2 zeros or 2 falsehoods

A Nand gate would give a true or a 1 or a right at its output
for two zeros at its input

thus two wrongs can make a right or two zeros make a 1

so affirmative action must be a Nand gate