Should this not have happened long ago?

[Jack Knave]

I couldn't have put it better.

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. The McCanns needed then, and still do now, compassion.

What does all this say about Jack Knave's humanity?

What does it say about your 'blind' humanity? A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HH,

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. The McCanns needed then, and still do now, compassion.

Oh well if you're going to bring clinical studies and facts and evidence and research into it you can prove anything. Do you not realise that you're up against Jack Knave's intuition here, so all that stuff has to be junked and we must just take his word for it? Why I've already called The Lancet to tell them to publish an article saying we should abandon all medical research while we just wait for our Jack to intuit his way to a cure for cancer.

Should be any day now I reckon.   

What does all this say about Jack Knave's humanity?

Assuming he ever had any, it's clearly gone AWOL.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

What does it say about your 'blind' humanity?

What makes you think his humanity is "blind" rather than well-informed by good medical research?

A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.

First, whether you find a textbook to be "soulless" or not says nothing to whether or not it's accurate.

Second, do you find all textbooks to be "soulless" or only those that happen to disagree with your personal "intuition"? How "soulful" for example would you find an "A" level physics textbook to be? Would that be wrong too in your view if you happen to "intuit" that - say - light isn't travelling photons at all but rather is invisible pixies chucking around very small lightbulbs?

[Bubbles]

What does it say about your 'blind' humanity? A lot if you had some to make such a telling judgement, though you do seem to rely too much on the soulless textbook as your guide.

?

It's you making a judgement with no evidence!

It says you like to believe the worst about other people who you don't even know, without have any evidence for your poisonous allegations, whatsoever.

Other than you being a spiteful git!

( sorry other posters, but Jacks posts are starting to sicken me  )

[Brownie]

I can't help thinking he's a wind up merchant.  We've had other people on this thread who feel somewhat conflicted about the McCanns but I will go so far as to say that I think they would like to be proved wrong; no-one else has gone as far as Jack in 'doing them down' and he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!

[Sebastian Toe]

he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!

That's because he is desperate to be right, at something, anything, for once!  ::)v

[Jack Knave]

HH,

Oh well if you're going to bring clinical studies and facts and evidence and research into it you can prove anything. Do you not realise that you're up against Jack Knave's intuition here, so all that stuff has to be junked and we must just take his word for it? Why I've already called The Lancet to tell them to publish an article saying we should abandon all medical research while we just wait for our Jack to intuit his way to a cure for cancer.

Should be any day now I reckon. 

Have you ever tried ironic sarcasm as a method of dialogue? My intuition seems to be indicating to me that you'd be pretty good at it - sadly little else seems to be in your favour.
 

Assuming he ever had any, it's clearly gone AWOL.

And on what basis do you make that judgement?

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Have you ever tried ironic sarcasm as a method of dialogue? My intuition seems to be indicating to me that you'd be pretty good at it - sadly little else seems to be in your favour.

Little else other that is than reason. You are of course entitled to your opinion that your personal intuition in some unexplained way trumps that, but personally I'll stick with research and evidence and argument and practical experience if that's ok.
 

And on what basis do you make that judgement?

On the basis that you seem quite relaxed at throwing despicable accusations at people already suffering deep grief with no evidence to support you. That's what "lack of humanity" pretty much means.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

What makes you think his humanity is "blind" rather than well-informed by good medical research?

He said so - the little he did years ago.

First, whether you find a textbook to be "soulless" or not says nothing to whether or not it's accurate.

Whether it is accurate or not is just the first stage. It then needs to be understood in the correct manner. We have seen that people who have read Marx or Nietzsche, say, have come to totally different conclusions and assessments of what they have read and what it means, and so forth. Words are highly fallible which is why the legal system have such a difficult task in writing legal documents.

Second, do you find all textbooks to be "soulless" or only those that happen to disagree with your personal "intuition"? How "soulful" for example would you find an "A" level physics textbook to be? Would that be wrong too in your view if you happen to "intuit" that - say - light isn't travelling photons at all but rather is invisible pixies chucking around very small lightbulbs?

The context is psychology, something that deals with human nature and emotional contents. Anyone who thinks it's sufficient for them to write a book to cover such a vast, complex and multifarious subject is an idiot - someone who thinks they can get it from a book is doubly so. Experience is the key here; a heuristic approach.

I warned you about those pixies, but no one listen to me. 

[Jack Knave]

?

It's you making a judgement with no evidence!

It says you like to believe the worst about other people who you don't even know, without have any evidence for your poisonous allegations, whatsoever.

Other than you being a spiteful git!

( sorry other posters, but Jacks posts are starting to sicken me  )

No, it was just my opinion, my subjective judgement. I wasn't demanding that people should take what I said as the gospel truth.

[Jack Knave]

I can't help thinking he's a wind up merchant.  We've had other people on this thread who feel somewhat conflicted about the McCanns but I will go so far as to say that I think they would like to be proved wrong; no-one else has gone as far as Jack in 'doing them down' and he gives the impression that he would be delighted to be right!

We all love to be right, even you!!!

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Little else other that is than reason. You are of course entitled to your opinion that your personal intuition in some unexplained way trumps that, but personally I'll stick with research and evidence and argument and practical experience if that's ok.

And how would you use that to assess the McCann's?
 

On the basis that you seem quite relaxed at throwing despicable accusations at people already suffering deep grief with no evidence to support you. That's what "lack of humanity" pretty much means.

But that is your subjective judgement of what I said, which was more than just mere words.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

He said so - the little he did years ago.

The “little he did” what?

Whether it is accurate or not is just the first stage.

But that was your argument - that the textbook was “soulless” as if that in some way had anything to do with the accuracy or otherwise of its content. If you didn’t mean that, why use the word?

It then needs to be understood in the correct manner. We have seen that people who have read Marx or Nietzsche, say, have come to totally different conclusions and assessments of what they have read and what it means, and so forth. Words are highly fallible which is why the legal system have such a difficult task in writing legal documents.

None of which is relevant to the point under discussion. Harrowby told us that the McCann’s response was pretty much “textbook” – ie, consistent with the clinical understanding of how some grieving parents will do their best to arrive at a coping strategy. Your critique was that they didn’t look sufficiently like genuinely grieving parents to you, and you tried some alternatives cod psychological diagnostics on the fly.

What is it that you think you know that the people who study the subject, work with people suffering deep loss, and have their findings peer reviewed and published don’t know?

The context is psychology, something that deals with human nature and emotional contents. Anyone who thinks it's sufficient for them to write a book to cover such a vast, complex and multifarious subject is an idiot - someone who thinks they can get it from a book is doubly so. Experience is the key here; a heuristic approach.

Straw man. No-one does say that it does cover human nature in all its complexity. What is being said though is that the McCann’s response was entirely consistent with the understanding psychology gives us of how grieving parents can behave. What then makes you think that you know better?

And how would you use that to assess the McCann's?

First, the burden of proof here is with you: you’re the one who said that they don’t look like genuinely grieving parents to you.

Second, I’d use it by deciding that the personal opinions of amateur observers probably offer less of value than the published research by qualified specialists on the subject, based as it will be on the study of representative samples of people who have suffered heart-rending loss.

But that is your subjective judgement of what I said, which was more than just mere words.

No, it’s what you actually said and – so far at least – you’ve offered noting to suggest that what you actually said is “more than mere words”.  Expressing your intuited opinion on something is “mere words” until and unless you can provide a rationale to suggest that it’s anything other than that. 

[Brownie]

I wonder if we have all gone a bit far in assessing the McCanns.  The thread title refers to the police closing the forensic investigation and whether or not it should have closed long ago.  I don't know the answer to that one but files on missing children aren't kept open forever, I doubt there is much more the police can do.  If new evidence comes to light it will be reopened.
We aren't detectives.  It is a terribly tragic business, that is something we can all agree on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I wonder if we have all gone a bit far in assessing the McCanns.  The thread title refers to the police closing the forensic investigation and whether or not it should have closed long ago.  I don't know the answer to that one but files on missing children aren't kept open forever, I doubt there is much more the police can do.  If new evidence comes to light it will be reopened.

We aren't detectives.  It is a terribly tragic business, that is something we can all agree on.

Probably. What we've established is that there's no reason to think the McCanns to have been negligent or stupid, and that Jack Knave's intuition on the subject has about as much evidential value as my Gran's intuition that there are aliens living in her TV.

There's nothing else to say really.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

The “little he did” what?

You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!

His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.

None of which is relevant to the point under discussion. Harrowby told us that the McCann’s response was pretty much “textbook” – ie, consistent with the clinical understanding of how some grieving parents will do their best to arrive at a coping strategy. Your critique was that they didn’t look sufficiently like genuinely grieving parents to you, and you tried some alternatives cod psychological diagnostics on the fly.

What is it that you think you know that the people who study the subject, work with people suffering deep loss, and have their findings peer reviewed and published don’t know?

I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.

This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.

As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.

Straw man.

No it's not, it's just that you don't understand the subject matter so you erroneously think it's a straw man.

Second, I’d use it by deciding that the personal opinions of amateur observers probably offer less of value than the published research by qualified specialists on the subject, based as it will be on the study of representative samples of people who have suffered heart-rending loss.

You're totally missing my point and the point in general.

Are you saying people shouldn't give their opinions unless they are one of the assigned experts? Look at the mess the world is in which is all down to these so called wankers experts. You do realise I've just moved this on to one of my favourite topics - The EU.

No, it’s what you actually said and – so far at least – you’ve offered noting to suggest that what you actually said is “more than mere words”.  Expressing your intuited opinion on something is “mere words” until and unless you can provide a rationale to suggest that it’s anything other than that.

Are you saying these experts have a rationale for their opinions? How often have these experts said Mr Psycho-killer is safe enough to enter society again only for said psycho-killer to kill again? You what to use your rational approach to deal with the irrational - you're a fool - and that's why the Western world's shit is hitting the fan.

[Maeght]

You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!

His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.

I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.

Where does he say that?

This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.

As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.

So could you be wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

You didn't read his post and you're criticising me on my reply to him!!!

His "little he did" knowledge on the subject.

Your sentence didn't scan, and it failed in any case as an answer to the question you were asked - ie, why you though his humanity was "blind".

I've explained the textbook fallacy.

No you haven't because there is no fallacy. Textbooks describe the consensus positions on the phenomena they describe. No-one claims them to be all-encompassing, absolute etc but in practice they are more reliable guides to the facts than guessing (or as you call it, "intuition").

HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni.

Yes. Does that mean that the textbooks he remembers do not say that the McCann's response was consistent with that of genuine grief? Your only way out here is to find a textbook (or other research) that says that their response was abnormal. That at least would have some evidential value, whereas your personal intuition on the matter has none.   

This is what happens when someone comes in halfway through it. I'm now having to repeat myself. I was not referring to what one sees on the 'surface' - not physical stuff etc. It was just what I intuited. This hasn't changed from all the times I have seen them when they have appeared on TV over the years.

No it isn't. What it actually is is what happens when someone points out that your personal intuition has no evidential value whatever, even more so when that intuition contradicts the orthodox position.   

As I have said about psychology it is not an exact science, you can't study it in an academic way. Anyone who does is an idiot.

Did you actually mean to say that psychology can't be studied "in an academic way" there?

Really?

Well, there's a whole academic discipline that needs to pack its bags and find something more useful to do then I guess.

Do you want to tell them that your intuition means they're wasting they're time or shall I?

No it's not, it's just that you don't understand the subject matter so you erroneously think it's a straw man.

Yes is is. That's what "straw man" means. You criticise psychology for something it does not purport to be. 

QED

You're totally missing my point and the point in general.

Actually what I've done is to falsify rather than to ignore it, but ok.

Are you saying people shouldn't give their opinions unless they are one of the assigned experts? Look at the mess the world is in which is all down to these so called wankers experts. You do realise I've just moved this on to one of my favourite topics - The EU.

You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be listened to here. You can give your opinion on anything you like. Knock yourself out. Absent evidence or reason to support that opinion though, you cannot also expect others to respond with anything but a "so what?"

Are you saying these experts have a rationale for their opinions? How often have these experts said Mr Psycho-killer is safe enough to enter society again only for said psycho-killer to kill again? You what to use your rational approach to deal with the irrational - you're a fool - and that's why the Western world's shit is hitting the fan.

Yes of course they have a rationale. As you noted though, psychology isn't an exact science. We can all point to examples of people who have been released who shouldn't have been, but there are also many more cases of people who have been correctly incarcerated and correctly released. The fact of the very low incidence of "Mr Psycho-killer" should tell you that.

What method would you propose instead? All people with mental illness, who had expressed violent thoughts etc should undergo the "Jack Knave intuition test?" maybe? Perhaps you could use the Hogwarts hat to indicate "you're safe", "you're not" etc to add a little colour to events?   

[Jack Knave]

No you haven't because there is no fallacy. Textbooks describe the consensus positions on the phenomena they describe. No-one claims them to be all-encompassing, absolute etc but in practice they are more reliable guides to the facts than guessing (or as you call it, "intuition").

You think intuition is guessing? In that case there isn't much advantage in pointing things out to the blind.

And you think the consensus position is the correct one? Look at history and you will find this approach flawed, as I'm sure you would make clear to our theist friends when God was the consensus.

Yes. Does that mean that the textbooks he remembers do not say that the McCann's response was consistent with that of genuine grief? Your only way out here is to find a textbook (or other research) that says that their response was abnormal. That at least would have some evidential value, whereas your personal intuition on the matter has none. 

It was an opinion. That at least I'm allowed to air, am I not? Is this too hard for you to understand?

No it isn't. What it actually is is what happens when someone points out that your personal intuition has no evidential value whatever, even more so when that intuition contradicts the orthodox position. 

...and now I'm having to repeat myself again. It was an opinion. And orthodox positions have been shown to be wrong in the past; they aren't gospel. 

Did you actually mean to say that psychology can't be studied "in an academic way" there?

Really?

Well, there's a whole academic discipline that needs to pack its bags and find something more useful to do then I guess.

That's pretty much it.

Do you want to tell them that your intuition means they're wasting they're time or shall I?

Could you? I'm pretty busy at the moment.

You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be listened to here. You can give your opinion on anything you like. Knock yourself out. Absent evidence or reason to support that opinion though, you cannot also expect others to respond with anything but a "so what?"

So what!

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

You think intuition is guessing?

Yes, of course. If you want to test your intuited beliefs against objective criteria to distinguish then from just guessing though then by all means try to do so.

In that case there isn't much advantage in pointing things out to the blind.

“Pointing out” something that’s just a personal opinion is an abuse of the term “pointing out”. All you're actually pointing out is that you happen to have an unqualified personal opinion about something.

And you think the consensus position is the correct one? Look at history and you will find this approach flawed, as I'm sure you would make clear to our theist friends when God was the consensus.

No, but I do think it to be more probably correct than the personal intuitions that happen to contradict it. If however those intuitions were consistently shown to be correct then they would become the consensus.   

It was an opinion. That at least I'm allowed to air, am I not? Is this too hard for you to understand?

No – I’ve already said that you are of course free to “air” it a much as you like, just as for example Sassy is free to air her personal opinion that the moon landings were faked. What neither of you are entitled to demand though is anyone else thinking your personal opinions are evidentially useful. 

...and now I'm having to repeat myself again. It was an opinion. And orthodox positions have been shown to be wrong in the past; they aren't gospel.

Gospel isn’t “gospel” either, but that’s a different matter. Yes, of course orthodoxies have been shown to be wrong in the past. That always though requires more than someone’s personal intuition to happen   

That's pretty much it.

Good grief. You’re right and the whole academic study of human psychology is wrong eh? Well, I’ll give you this – you sure don’t suffer from an overendowment of modesty.

Could you? I'm pretty busy at the moment.

Busy “intuiting” presumably?

So what!

So everything – you’re just wasting your breath until you can demonstrate that your intuition isn’t just guessing. 

Good luck with it though.

[Harrowby Hall]

I've explained the textbook fallacy. HH has never done psychology all he did was read a little at Uni

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.

Incidentally, Mr Knave, academic psychology, certainly in the UK and English speaking countries, is largely an experiment-based biological science - which does have links to philosophy, physiology, sociology and other academic areas. If your view of psychology has been determined by questionnaires in women's magazines - then you should question whether your perceptions have any validity.

[Aruntraveller]

I offer this not as any conclusive evidence but as anecdotal.

My partner and I have talked about this issue when it has appeared on TV or in the press.

My reaction has been that they were extremely unlucky and that they were innocent of any wrong doing by intent. And, like others on here I  think the only wrong doing is down to a small risk that we all take from time to time on various matters. That thought alone must be punishment enough for them.

My partners reaction is that they are, in some way, intentionally involved in the disappearance and he cites exactly the same sort of emotional responses displayed by Jack Knave (let me add that usually the partner does not jump to strange conclusions about issues).

I wonder if there is not something about their (the McCanns) demeanour that for some reason; in some people, triggers an instinctive mistrust. It's the only thing I can think of to explain some peoples responses over this very sad and tragic case.

[Maeght]

There may be, but I don't see anything odd in their behaviour personnally. I certainly wouldn't therefore firmly claim and protest their innocence based on that feeling, and engage in arguements about it on a discussion forum. My opinion is that they were not involved in any direct way but I don't know that for certain and accept that others have an alternative view and would be happy for my opinion to be challenged by facts - but not on the basis of someone claiming superior intuition!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Trent,

I offer this not as any conclusive evidence but as anecdotal.

My partner and I have talked about this issue when it has appeared on TV or in the press.

My reaction has been that they were extremely unlucky and that they were innocent of any wrong doing by intent. And, like others on here I  think the only wrong doing is down to a small risk that we all take from time to time on various matters. That thought alone must be punishment enough for them.

My partners reaction is that they are, in some way, intentionally involved in the disappearance and he cites exactly the same sort of emotional responses displayed by Jack Knave (let me add that usually the partner does not jump to strange conclusions about issues).

I wonder if there is not something about their (the McCanns) demeanour that for some reason; in some people, triggers an instinctive mistrust. It's the only thing I can think of to explain some peoples responses over this very sad and tragic case.

Oddly, there seem to be two completely different issues here that are being entangled.

The first is that the McCann's were in some way negligent or stupid, although there's no reason at all that I can see to think that to be the case.

The second is that some just don't like the cut of their jib, so on that basis alone think it's OK to make disgusting accusations about their supposedly deliberate involvement in the disappearance.

I find this tendency of some to join a witch hunt on the basis of no evidence whatever very strange and not a little unsettling. 

[Jack Knave]

“Pointing out” something that’s just a personal opinion is an abuse of the term “pointing out”. All you're actually pointing out is that you happen to have an unqualified personal opinion about something.

That wasn't what I meant. I was referring to your lack of understanding of psychology and human nature. And your blind insistence of your scientific rational approach to everything, even the irrational.

No, but I do think it to be more probably correct than the personal intuitions that happen to contradict it. If however those intuitions were consistently shown to be correct then they would become the consensus.

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

No – I’ve already said that you are of course free to “air” it a much as you like, just as for example Sassy is free to air her personal opinion that the moon landings were faked. What neither of you are entitled to demand though is anyone else thinking your personal opinions are evidentially useful. 

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

In fact show me that your posts are evidentially useful. 

Gospel isn’t “gospel” either, but that’s a different matter. Yes, of course orthodoxies have been shown to be wrong in the past. That always though requires more than someone’s personal intuition to happen

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

Good grief. You’re right and the whole academic study of human psychology is wrong eh? Well, I’ll give you this – you sure don’t suffer from an overendowment of modesty.

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.