Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology

Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.

yes. you can also get a Ph.D in art history.

its a science in that it employees the scientific method. but one could never really eliminate all the varibles for subject to subject in order to emperically prove theories the way one can in the natural sciences. therefore laws and facts outside of the branches of psychology that are closely intertwinded with biology are basically nonexistant.

the difference between a BA and a BS in psychology is the BS will require a lot of course work in the natural sciences

Ok. I have a B.Sc. in Psychology. I had to take an assortment of classes that supported a liberal arts education, Calculus and statistics. I was also required to take three additional classes of my choice in physics, chemistry or biology, in addition to bunches and bunches of psychology classes. My concentration was in Social Psychology, which I also pursued as a Graduate Student. One of the requirements for my degree was conducting an experiment in the field of Social Psychology. Additionally, as a work/study student, I worked in a Social Psychology lab conducting research.

As a graduate student pursuing a research degree in Psychology, I was required to formulate and pursue a body of research.

As I mentioned, there are any number of peer-reviewed research journals in the field of Psychology publishing empirical studies. If you don't understand that Psychology is a science, you need to revisit the definitions of "scientific method" and "empirical."

http://samprad78.expertscolumn.com/article/fundamental-difference-between-social-science-research-and-natural-science-research

Social scientist lab is society or world at large and a social scientist has no control over the equipments or factors that influence them. Natural Scientists work in lab where they can control the conditions and environments.

In social science research the result of investigation are at best generalizations. In natural science research the results of investigations are well defined by natural laws.

https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp

The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.

The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.

anyway, i don't believe i said psychology wasn't a science at all, or that there was no research envolved. I mentioned that the use of the scientific method is what allows it to be called a social 'science'. thank you for outlining your course work, had you not taken all of those natural sciences and math, you would have recieved a BA, dispite the fact that it is a social science.

The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.

If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.

Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:

In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.

The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.

Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.

That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.

^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.

It is accurate and the word of God. Just like my imaginary company "CarStore" wants you to use real project management tools to solve a fictional project management problem.

It's not cherry picking to do half of the Calculus problems in unassigned homework.

^but it's not accurate?

I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.

And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.

^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.

That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.

This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.

^for the record - nor would I want to argue or take away your relationship with your 'God' - I just think it dulls critical thinking and prevents personality development. Now if you are content (and I used content not apathetic or lethargic) in your belief - so be it. When I was a Christian it could not answer my questions - and one MUST be a determinist to be a Christian because of God's foreknowledge and predestination which is so glooomy.

The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.

If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.

Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:

In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.

The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.

Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.

That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.

^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.

I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.

Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.

So stop being so angry about it and live your life.

No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.

I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.

No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.

like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.

And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.

smh - but that is not Christianity then.

The Bible says it is.

are you just like trolling me? The Bible says it is perfect and 'God-breathed' - if you found God knowing the text was not accurate you are not a Christian. Christianity is based on the text - the text says it is perfect and literal. like da faq am I missing here?

smh - but that is not Christianity then.

You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.

What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.