Let us now turn our attention to the subject of qualifiers. [[discussion]]
(talk about that ER nurse who felt obligated to list credentials and experience. She felt it was required to preface her opinion of why drugs are bad, with her credentials as a medical health professional. "The junkies will do whavver necessary to get that drug in that vein."
Unfortunately, I do understand completely why she felt the need to state her first-hand field experience. It is because people are dumbasses. People have a [[[diseasicslly]]] refusal to listen to common sense.
They seem pathologically unable to read over statistics, news, and facts.
Like for e.g., I state that the stupid rebellion that so many females put themselves through is self-destructive and useless. Those dumbarses always spit back, "ohoh what makes you such an expert, are you a psychologist, are you trained in fields of human behavior and history?!"
Um no, but you do realize that this is all common sense...? It is all psychology and human behavior. Noone needs a degree in psychology to figure this out. Any non-expert layperson who has a brain and knows how to use it can easily extrapolate the realistic possible consequences.
So here is my qualifier: I watch the news.[[[[_]]]]]]]
Here's another thing. Why do so many people think psychology is the sort of subject that requires extensive, specified credentials anyway? Erm, it's general psychology, folks. I.e., it is the sort of subject matter for which a person can garner expertise just by observing people.
Remember my whole spiel from a few years ago wherein I questioned the usefulness of a four-year college degree of psychology major? This is kinda the reason for that.
You know how you see disclaimers everywhere? On daytime talk shows, on radio shrink shows, we see little warnings saying stuff like, "this is for entertainment purposes only, these people are not trained psychologists or experts. These people are not trained psychiatrists or counselors, etc."
These little warnings absolving them of any responsibility because some idiot viewing audience member might file a lawsuit.
Well, this is kind of the opposite angle. There should be little signs that say the following. "No, I do not have a degree in Psychology. But for God's sake, this is common sense. This is a matter of exercising good judgment and self-respect. This is about taking the logical and reasonable course of action. So what if we don't have degrees in psychology? You don't need a degree in psychology to know that alcoholism is bad, or that molesting children is bad. Sane, rational people already know this."
A similar strange phenomenon is where people think they should be obligated to add some sort of eyewitness testimony towards a horrific crime, if not being an "expert" per se. Like, Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo said once that she saw a lot of people being victim to domestic violence growing up. That is why she does so much charity and volunteer work nowadays and donates a lot of money for the cause. (That was one of my favorite bands back in the day; I haven't heard much new stuff coming from them.)
I think it is wonderful that she is actively doing something about this sick crime. But she doesn’t need to have any documented experience regarding the crime to be a capable, effective activist against it. Domestic violence is already well-established as being criminal and sick. Noone has to witness it themselves firsthand to effect positive social change against it.
---
Or people's foolish aggravating insistence to go through it themselves, experience it themselves to see if it is bad or not. They are incapable of learning from others' mistakes. They are bullheaded and they must make the mistake themselves.
(talk about that ER nurse who felt obligated to list credentials and experience. She felt it was required to preface her opinion of why drugs are bad, with her credentials as a medical health professional. "The junkies will do whavver necessary to get that drug in that vein."
Unfortunately, I do understand completely why she felt the need to state her first-hand field experience. It is because people are dumbasses. People have a [[[diseasicslly]]] refusal to listen to common sense.
They seem pathologically unable to read over statistics, news, and facts.
Like for e.g., I state that the stupid rebellion that so many females put themselves through is self-destructive and useless. Those dumbarses always spit back, "ohoh what makes you such an expert, are you a psychologist, are you trained in fields of human behavior and history?!"
Um no, but you do realize that this is all common sense...? It is all psychology and human behavior. Noone needs a degree in psychology to figure this out. Any non-expert layperson who has a brain and knows how to use it can easily extrapolate the realistic possible consequences.
So here is my qualifier: I watch the news.[[[[_]]]]]]]
Here's another thing. Why do so many people think psychology is the sort of subject that requires extensive, specified credentials anyway? Erm, it's general psychology, folks. I.e., it is the sort of subject matter for which a person can garner expertise just by observing people.
Remember my whole spiel from a few years ago wherein I questioned the usefulness of a four-year college degree of psychology major? This is kinda the reason for that.
You know how you see disclaimers everywhere? On daytime talk shows, on radio shrink shows, we see little warnings saying stuff like, "this is for entertainment purposes only, these people are not trained psychologists or experts. These people are not trained psychiatrists or counselors, etc."
These little warnings absolving them of any responsibility because some idiot viewing audience member might file a lawsuit.
Well, this is kind of the opposite angle. There should be little signs that say the following. "No, I do not have a degree in Psychology. But for God's sake, this is common sense. This is a matter of exercising good judgment and self-respect. This is about taking the logical and reasonable course of action. So what if we don't have degrees in psychology? You don't need a degree in psychology to know that alcoholism is bad, or that molesting children is bad. Sane, rational people already know this."
A similar strange phenomenon is where people think they should be obligated to add some sort of eyewitness testimony towards a horrific crime, if not being an "expert" per se. Like, Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo said once that she saw a lot of people being victim to domestic violence growing up. That is why she does so much charity and volunteer work nowadays and donates a lot of money for the cause. (That was one of my favorite bands back in the day; I haven't heard much new stuff coming from them.)
I think it is wonderful that she is actively doing something about this sick crime. But she doesn’t need to have any documented experience regarding the crime to be a capable, effective activist against it. Domestic violence is already well-established as being criminal and sick. Noone has to witness it themselves firsthand to effect positive social change against it.
---
Or people's foolish aggravating insistence to go through it themselves, experience it themselves to see if it is bad or not. They are incapable of learning from others' mistakes. They are bullheaded and they must make the mistake themselves.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment