Video

Thank you. If you mess up like I did (by X-listing the wrong sections :), you can also email or call Canvas Support. They will correct your error very quickly.

Psychiatrist do too much evil to accept that challenge they'll take the government billions and deteriorate their patients in fact they're not able to cure one person in the history of Psychiatry only treated never cured

Nerd alert

Quick, easy and completed! Gracias-

This is different than how I did it last year...

I find perspectivism a useful concept, but in its strongest form self-undermining, in that it sets itself above the rule it declares for all other perspectives. That is, it is an exception to what it declares is a universal truth: that there are no universal truths, only perspectives.

Thank you! My colleagues and I appreciate you!

I can imagine.. that while the two individuals can argue over the '6 vs 9' 'perspective', like in the picture.. Another two individuals somewhere, perhaps each, of higher-intelligence, would end up agreeing. Each *intelligent individual could consider to see the other side for themselves, come back, mutually agreeing that neither are wrong, and if anything both correct.

Szasz was a deluded human being with an oversimplistic notion of the nature of human beings! His lack of an appreciation of how we integrate our experience into a model of how the world works and therefore the potential for developing suboptimal models which result in unnecessary misery, which would not even consider the burden of chronic stress on the CNS as a cause of corrupted cognitive processing, is so profound that his name and views are simply idiocy and the product of someone with a significant mental illness himself. For this defensiveness against psychiatry represents his own discomfort with an examination of himself and not a truly objective examination of the field.

I agree with Sasz on many points but NOT on his (and Freud's) assumption that that societies, as a rule, NEED a form of social control. Perhaps THIS specific historical society needs it - but who wants to maintain this sick, hierarchical, inhuman, violent, industrial and technocratic society?

Depression is very real. "Depressive disorder" is not. Anxiety is very real. "Anxiety disorder" is not. And so on.

This video coming in clutch for homework. Learned a lot! Lots more to learn :)

psychiatry calls suicide a mental illness

Excellent presentation and in my view Száz is dead on. Many if not most of us come from Messy backgrounds and someone to help them see clearly, act responsibly and learn to love and express themselves. No medication needed for that.

Or following a true spiritual path with a true spiritual teacher

#cirs

Its an "art" NOT "medical science"

Very good video. FWIW I totally agree with the "conclusions".... or the list of relevant questions to be more precise.

This was helpful in reminding our alumni chapter how to prepare. We are journeying with Don Quixote. And --- I am a Frank Smith fan, and ELA educator. Do you actually use Frank Smith's writing in your curriculum?

Excellent content. Thank you

can you tell which all buddhist concept this is related to

Please be careful about using the heel of your hand as you're doing. It's not a good way to get that sound, as you can injure nerves in your wrist. Please watch some good conga and djembe technique videos for a better bass stroke. I ended up wearing wrist splints and not being able to play for 6 months by doing what you're doing. Hitting that hard with the heel of your hand is very unwise.

Let me tell you that the current psychiatry is bs. There is nothing to discuss. Please. How long will people accept this shit

Thanks for a great demo vid! I understand the mobile aspect of this, but doesn't seem like this would be loud enough to play along with a jumbo body acoustic guitar.

Zoroastrianism, which predates the Abrahamic faiths, is monotheistic and is tolerant.

As soon as I saw you play this Cajon while wearing a ring finger, I tuned out

Mental health is the development of a mental + emotional dedication, a cathexis. This can be encouraged via aesthetic Talent Training - as offered by Howard Glasser, Madan Katara and Peter Breggin!

A lot of the critics do t realize it comes down to diet also that effects your mood and body

Thank you for this simple and tangible explanation. I have shared this with my students of sociology.

You Have To Explain The Difference Between Social Monogamy - Sexual Monogamy And Genetic Monogamy...Helen Fisher Is Talking About Pair Bonding Which Means Males Will Invest In Raising Child - Share Resources - Form Strong Bonds With Mates That Doesn't Mean It Is Exclusive...Social Monogamy Means Males With Invest In Raising Child - Share Resources But Not Exclusive Which Is Not Life Long Mating Only For A Breeding Period... Sexual Monogamy - Means Everything In Social Monogamy With Sexual Exclusivity For A Breeding Period... Genetic Monogamy Means Life Long Sexually Exclusive Mating...When People Are Asking About Is Monogamy Natural They're Not Talking About Social Or Sexual Monogamy...Theyre Asking Is Life Long Sexually Exclusive Mating Natural To Humans In Biology Its Called Genetic Monogamy... Which Is Completely Unnatural To Huamns...😂😂 There Is Zero Evidence To Suggest That Genetic Monogamy Comes Naturally To Humans...

Biased Video...The Question Is Humans Are Naturally Monogamous Or Polygynous...

Sex At Dawn Is Pseudoscience...

Hey do you have the reference point for protagoras ‘ supposed work titles please I need to use it for my essay we’re not allowed videos

This video is so well put together! Great job!

czcams.com/video/1EZZzorX2Sc/video.html&ab_channel=KJVHolyBibleBeliever

I am so glad I found this video . I have some more research and reading to do.

This expressed ideas that I've had but couldn't put into words for weeks now. I'm trying to inform myself more about the history and present status of psychiatry, and how scientifically grounded it is as a medical science.

Good job.

If you like the research of Thomas Szasz, I strongly recommend looking at James Davies lectures on the origins of the DSM!

Excellent video, cheers!

Can you add subtittles close captioned to your videos.

Gecko made another kind of travel cajon that isn't flat. And I think, from the videos I saw, it sounds better than this one.

Canvas sucks. It doesn't make anything easy. Some dude made money selling it to schools and the schools that paid for it have to justify why they wasted the money. It's that simple

There is also succinct truth and verbose truth.

Can I cross list sections when students have not been added in there yet? Or should I wait?

The last segment, the phrase 'social construction' has been bothering me on and off for a long time. Listening to your conversation, perhaps I can clarify what bothers me a little. If the word 'social' isn't standing in contrast to biological, then what distinction is the term making? If the social realm is a complex weave of behaviours that have strong biological drivers, but where various social codes frame those drivers, the social codes are also subject to the biological drivers. Or to put it another way, in the language of complex systems, there will be strange attractors as a result of biological imperatives, which will form inclinations and tendencies for the social realm to organise in a particular way. If the social construction of knowledge itself also has strong biological drivers, doesn't this point to the fact that we're stuck in a position of not really knowing the extent to which something is 'grounded' in biology? And as to what it means to say 'the extent to which something is ground in biology' actually means, I think it can only be dealt with in terms of statistics and probability.

This popped up in my feed. A very high-quality discussion, much better than other presentations I've seen on youtube.

'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'. Hang on. There's something not quite right. Did he say 'man' or 'a man'? Who cares! Mankind knows the recorded truth. Ya can't lie to me.

I will sub if you create more content like this.

And a serious comment... You say that "if you are touched by Christianity, you don't need prove its truth in an objective sense, even though you could." (Pp) Could you though? I don't know if that is Kierkegaard's position or yours but it seems like you have just fabricated an objectivity that you have no reason for. Is this a claim that there IS an objective argument for all truths or that objectivity... is actually subjective? Great video, thanks. 😊🙏