Should this not have happened long ago?

[Jack Knave]

I have been travelling for the past day or so and have only just caught up with this.

For information: my first degree is Psychology and I have life membership of the British Psychological Society. I studied clinical psychology along with a number of other, appropriate, subject areas as an undergraduate. I have made no further formal study of clinical psychology since then. I was more interested in other facets of a huge subject area.

This is part of your #149 :-

"It is a very long time since my brief studies in clinical psychology and it is not an area in which I have subsequently shown a great interest, but I do recall that the McCann's grief and shock and guilt were almost textbook in their appearance."

You call your degree brief? And there has been no follow up in this line of studies since, which took place 'a very long time' ago. That is what I went on.

[Maeght]

You call your degree brief? And there has been no follow up in this line of studies since, which took place 'a very long time' ago. That is what I went on.

So did your intuition on that turn out to be wrong?

[Jack Knave]

So did your intuition on that turn out to be wrong?

That's just lame. I read what you wrote about your past reading exploits, which were vague and sparse in detail, giving the impression of just a cursory dabbling.

[Maeght]

That's just lame. I read what you wrote about your past reading exploits, which were vague and sparse in detail, giving the impression of just a cursory dabbling.

I didn't post that - it was HH - and he never mentioned reading he said studies. My point was that you seem to be claiming superior intuition but failed on comprehension of a post, and have now failed to recognise a poster. Not wanting to get into a petty debate but perhaps you should reconsider your claims at superior intuition and understanding and be a little less certain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to your lack of understanding of psychology and human nature.

You can "refer" to it if you like, but you've yet to demonstrate it. What "lack of understanding" do I have exactly, other that is from not agreeing with your personal opinion on the matter which - so far as I can tell - rests on no knowledge whatever of the subject you blithely dismiss?

And your blind insistence of your scientific rational approach to everything, even the irrational.

What makes my insistence on rationality "blind" in your opinion? And what would a non-rational approach to the irrational look like do you think - killing a chicken and reading the entrails? Counting the raindrops running down a window? What?

Of course I think the rational approach is the only way to deal with the irrational - what other way is there?

I don't think "more probably correct" cuts it. That's just guessing on the matter; shear speculation.

No it isn't. It's actually a probabilistic evaluation of the truth values of propositions based on inter-subjective experience. The text book says that apples fall - I observe that apples fall - everyone I know observes that apples fall. I conclude therefore that it's probably true that apples fall.

Fred on the other hand intuits that apples fly sideways.

Then what?

Intuition isn't something you necessarily choose to do in all, if very many, occasions. It is something that is just there if and when it occurs. Your idea of applying the scientific repetition criteria to it just shows you do not understand what it is.

Actually I do understand better than you it seems what it is - it's called "guessing".
 

I never made that claim within the post in question - show me where I did?

You made the claim about your right for your views to be "aired". I was merely responding to that: the right to speak and the right to listened to are not the same thing.

In fact show me that your posts are evidentially useful.

Which ones?

It's simple enough: test my rational belief that the lift will probably take you to the ground floor safely; now test Bill's intuition that jumping out of the 22nd storey window will do the job.

What were your findings?

But it often starts there, which shows they are useful.

No, it shows that they are useless until and unless to do more than "start there". "Starting there" is just guessing.
   

That outburst is trying to hide an unfounded assumption that the consensus must be true. As you have agreed that is not always the case. Note I'm broadly referring to academic psychology here; those which have are/have been trendy fads and so on.

It's doing no such thing, as I've explained to you more than once already.

[Sassy]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

Had she not took a short cut home through the park she would not have been raped.
Had he got his fags on the way home he would not have been harmed in a robbery of the local late shop.
Has they not driven home in the bad weather and stayed the night when offered, they would not have had an car acccident.

Many elements make up an incident where people harmed.
But in all cases the only real element to blame is the rapist, the robber and the weather.
In the case of Madeleine the person/s who took her are to blame.


The people who are left behind to live with the actions of those who did these things need our support and love to cope with the devastation of those elements we cannot control.

I do not know if many of you know this but my own nephew was a victim of a brutal attack which cost him his life. The people who did this are the persons to blame. I am sure we wish could be there to protect and we weren't. But the evil in the world and even elements of nature sometime takes it's toll on families. We may suffer anger and even immense hurt and sadness we can only help others through it, and pray for them. Judging them cannot hurt them more than they already hurt.