thelastpsychiatrist.com - Antispychotics and Lawyers. Adnotated.

You may have seen the advertisements on TV: "if you've taken Zyprexa and have diabetes, call us, the legal team at..."

Before you take your patients off of Zyprexa in a misguided attempt at warding off litigation, consider the following:

1. You can't be sued if there's no damage. In other words, you can't be sued because of the risk of diabetes, you can only be sued for diabetes. No damage, no lawsuit. If a patient gets diabetes, you catch it and act appropriately, you can't be sued. If you take reasonable care (note the weight every, say, 6 months; follow blood sugars every, say, year -- more frequently if there is weight gain), not only have you shown above standard-of-care practice, but you're going to catch the problem and fix it -- so no lawsuit.

2. The lawyers in these ads are trying for a class action -- against the company. Class actions are not about the severity of drug side effects. The class action requires that the company (Lilly) knew about the risks, but purposefully hid these risks from doctors and the public. (This is why there are no class actions against chemotherapy makers.) But if the company hid the info, then the doctor couldn't be responsible for the diabetes, because the risk was hidden. So the class action actually protects the doctor, in a sense.

3. Here's a puzzler: consider the following by-product of these advertisements. By soliciting patients who have taken Zyprexa and gotten diabetes, they are, essentially, telling people about the risk. So a patient who develops diabetes sometime in the future may not be able to claim he didn't know about the risk, as the risks have now entered the public discourse.i

Stop worrying about lawyers. Worry about loose practice.

———This is a very... loose approach at doing the work of the legal profession (from someone who, evidently, isn't qualified). This article would have worked a lot better as two sentences, "If you're a doctor, stop worrying about the USGistani cycles of self-payment, big or small. Worry about your fucking business instead." Which... well yeah, it's fucking naive. "What does the author wish to be true ?" "That there can be such a thing as anyone's business in a socialist state -- the problem of ideal social systems notwithstanding." Which is why it's naive, "the concrete car, ie a car made entirely of concrete, would be a great idea -- the uselessness of concrete for this purpose notwithstanding". [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - A not very happy observation about +/- being a woman. Adnotated.

I own erotica like Zeus owns Olympus »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another School Shooting -- Sort Of? Adnotated.

A student gunman remained on the loose Friday after shooting two students..." He's male. No motive known.i Classes have been cancelled. School is on lockdown.

The shooter is still at large," Carlos Holmes, a university spokesman, said at a press conference near campus. "Given the lessons of the past year, we cannot assume that he is not on campus.

The FBI is involved.ii And everyone wants to know: is this Cho all over again?iii

Before you answer, let me give you one single piece of information, that should be irrelevant, that turns out not to be.

If I tell you that the shooting happened at Delaware State -- formerly, "State College for Colored Students" -- do you still think it was a case of a "Cho?" Why or why not?iv

I'm not saying he is or is not mentally ill. I'm asking, why does the racial makeup of the students -- shooter and victims -- change the bias? Do we think blacks can't be mentally ill? Or that blacks are naturally violent? Or do we think whites -- and especially Asians -- would only be violent if they were mentally ill?v

When Cho went nuts -- no pun intended -- I could find almost no one, and absolutely no psychiatrist -- willing to consider the possibility that his behavior did not stem from a mental illness. If he had only been in treatment, none of this would ever have happened.

Now, when and if this shooter turns out to be black, will psychiatry make that same, very vocal, assumption? What about the legal system? And what happens when legal system asks for psychiatry's opinion?

———The motive for "friendly fire, incoming, from young male" is pretty much always going to be "naggy old women permitted to roam free". Learn to love either one or the other. [↩]Oh, really. Aren't you impressed ?

The pompousness of it too, like annoying little shits in junior high importantly announcing "you were told on!", with great theatrics.

But... whatever, tell the FBI I fucked his mom, I guess ? [↩]Depends. Is the Wunyabari O. Maloba Africana studies dude anything like Lucinda Roy ? Seems rather not, dood looks rather like a slightly more obnoxious Chowdhry, only there to get along while amiably parasitizing the system.

I'm sure you don't like to hear it, but this is pretty much the only variable. Set this knob to that, get that, set your knob to this, get this, meanwhile yak about anything and everything else to your heart's content for all the practical difference it'll make.

PS. Monica A. Coleman chick also looks like she'd have greatly mediated the situation, because no, it's not simply women. It's female uppity fucktards specifically, and yes, casual facial recognition's an excellent first pass heuristic with great predictive power, at least for now.

PPS. While the "I'm just here to wire money back to Nigeria" male parasite is not nearly as driving of campus shooting by young men specifically as the dumb old cunt "witch coven", it still is a major driver of adult man friendly fire, both type A and (I suspect, even moreso) type B -- not to mention, of course, type C (self harm). [↩]Yes. As long as it's a college, it'll be a case of "Cho", ie it'll have absolutely nothing to do with Cho and absolutely everything to do with the parasite load. [↩]No, "we" by which I mean Ballas' intuition of his audience correctly (if unconsciously, and therefore unverbalizedly) infer the parasite link ; they just also (mistakenly) imagine that "since most parasites are black, therefore blacks are less likely to be bothered by the parasites".

This doesn't happen to be true, incidentally -- at the selection level we're talking about (most kids aren't nearly socially cool enough, morally good enough or selflessly heroic enough to go on shooting sprees) there's no "black" or "white", there's only excellence (which is white). So yes, whites (and Asians) are likely to be over-represented among this particular selection of over-achievers ; but any individual over-achiever is still going to think, act and be white, rather than any stereotypically inferior "alternative". [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Round Of The Ultimatum Game. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - A not very happy observation about +/- being a woman. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Round Of The Ultimatum Game. Adnotated.

Let's see if it's fair this time.

My issue is simply that the Ultimatum Game, which supposedly shows a sense of fairness, and is evidence that this fairness is an evolutionary trait that was selected, doesn't necessarily show any of these things.

The premise is that when people play a round of the UG, they generally do not offer a 99/1 split but something more "fair" (e.g. 60/40) and people repeatedly refuse to accept deals that aren't "fair."

Ergo, it is fairness that this game tests, and fairness is what has evolved.

Even if we grant that 60/40 is the ordinary split, why does this mean it is fairness that has been selected for?

An easy counterexample is to rewrite the discussion in terms of envy: in the UG, people rarely offer 99/1 because they know it will be refused -- because they know the other person would just as soon shoot his own foot to spite his hand. And Player 2 would refuse anything less than 70/30 not because it's not fair, but because he is a jealous, deeply spiteful person who hates when other people have more, even if it is fair. Flat tax, anyone? No? Thought not.i

I rewrite this all as envy not to show that it is actually envy that the Game tests; or that envy is not evolved, or that even fairness is not evolved; but merelyii to demonstrate that the outcome of the UG can not be taken to be an example of any specific idea or behavior. People may choose the same results for entirely different reasons. Sales of guns are probably a good example of this.

The best we can say -- and even this isn't completely accurate -- is that the common choices of 60/40 have been selected for; that they multiply disparate and unconnected causes, yet by virtue of their overdetermination, this choice becomes the one humans pick. In other words, what has been selected for is the propensity to choose 60/40. Period. No cause can be inferred.iii

II.

Let's look at whether the Ultimatum Game and Prisoner's Dilemma actually measure fairness.

A. If it were indeed fairness that was being displayed, then fairness should be immune to the payoff. Whether the pot were a billion dollars, or 6 silver coins, the outcome should be the same. Within cultures, this is generally true. What matters is that the pot consist of something valued, that does not have a self-imposed maximum (e.g. chocolates wouldn't work because there's a point when you actually don't want any more chocolates.)iv

B. Fairness presupposes an ability to value something. You can't use a pot of dirt, not because it doesn't have any value, but because it is impossible to value consistently (e.g. it may have personal value to one or the other but not a general value.)v Also, you expect the representation of that value to be irrelevant, so long as we all know the value. The game can be played with pesos or dollars if I know the conversion rate.vi

C. The value of something must be economic. Not monetary, necessarily, but in the simplest possible sense, more has to be more and less has to be less.vii

But, sadly for the evolution of humanity and the hopes of millions who believe they are greater than their history, this is not the case.

III.

Imagine games with a pot of 3 cents, $3, 300 cents, or $300. Look at those carefully. If fairness was at issue, game outcomes should not vary substantially based on the pot. And, if they did, you'd at least expect very similar results for the 300 cents and the $3 pots; they are, after all, the same, and the players are likely not retarded.

This is the Prisoner's Dilemma, a slightly different game, but the difference is not important here.

Take a look at the results of "mutual cooperation." Not only are they very much dependent on the size of the pot, but they are dependent in a way which makes no sense at allviii: not based on the amount of money, but the size of the number. 300 (cents) was "bigger" than 3 (dollars.)

Note that the results of 300 cents were in every case more similar to the results of $300 then of $3. Their brains saw 300 cents and 300 dollars as more similar than 3 dollars. (1) I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: none of the players had had strokes.

The interpretation of nearly every UG and PD paper depends on assuming that the players are judging the value of the pot based on monetary value or its conversion, but it is quite apparent that they are (at least also) judging it using some deeper cognitive construct of "amount" or "size -- that here overruled monetary value.

A quick correlate from the stock market: people perceive Google ($300/share) as more expensive than Bank of America ($9) -- that $1000 buys you "more" BoA, even though it's the same $1000 invested either way, and, by most metrics, Google is cheaper.ix

Given that these cognitive distortions -- and who knows if they're distortions, or don't have some positive value after all? -- exist, how can we believe that a 60/40 split using a $10 pot is an example of "fairness?" Is our sense of fairness so weak (despite millennia of selection) that it can't withstand the presence of a few non-significant zeros?

How do you know these games aren't actually showing you the effect of a single cognitive constraint, and that constraint -- not fairness or cooperation -- is what has been selected for?

IV.

Even if these games did test fairness, why would we think they were defining fairness using Western standards -- which have existed only for a fraction of humanity's history, in only a small part of the world? People have had slaves longer then they have not had slaves, and had no moral problem with it.x Is that fair? If the ancient Romans played the Ultimatum Game, would the split be the same? Or, if it was, would it have the same meaning?xi

To assume the common outcome of 60/40 from a few studies applies to the general population independent of cultural effects; to assume the results are independent of the cognitive distortions of size, number, and value; and to extrapolate these results across different times in history -- is such madness as to border on religion. To then believe this all as the outcome of the natural selection of a single complex behavioral trait is religion.

And to be so mad as to believe we know the nature of this single trait -- to know the the character of the god Fairness -- brings us back to madness again.xii

1 Not only that, but there is a trend towards overestimating 300 cents -- why? Go ahead and imagine 300 cents. That's bigger than $300 -- bigger in terms of weight, volume, height, etc.

2 Consider a number line, with numbers labeled one through ten. Now extend the line, place the number 100. Now place the number 1000. Then 10000. Etc. The distance from 1 to 100 is more accurate than your distance from 100 to 1000, and 1000 to 10000. The larger the number, the more difficult it is to [mark] accurately.xiii

Similarly, consider getting punched in the face. The perception of the pain is related to [your] starting level of pain. A punch that is ten times as hard isn't felt to be exactly ten times as painful.xiv

Not only is the error greater with each successive increse; it turns out that in specific cases, the error follows a mathematically demonstrable progression, namely, that our perception of is proportional to the logarithm of of the stimulus difference.xv

P=k ln S/So, where So is the lowest possible perceived stimulus (Weber-Fechner law).

I'll let the awesomeness of that sink in for a moment. (3).

Turns out this law may only be applicable in certain cases. For example, the perception of stimulus is also related to other variables like distraction, temperature of the body, etc. And maybe a power function rather than logarithmic function is more applicable. All this is for another day.

3. But here's a perplexing little conundrum. Fechner's law shows that the perception of a physical stimulus is proportional to the logarithm of the magnitude of the physical stimulus. But our perception of magnitude itself -- our perception of numbers -- also follows such a logarithmic function. So choosing a number ("on a scale from one to ten") to describe our perception, that number itself is related to the stimulus by a power function. In other words, the mere act of attempting to quantify a perception adds an additional level of complexity to the problem.

———He has a point, in that what the ultimatum game actually "measures", after a fashion (it doesn't really measure anything) is the same thing "Gini indexes" and the assorted social pseudosciences wank measures : how implicitly equal do the goats feel, not to the other goats, but to the goat ideal. I said before,

You believe man to be the measure of all things. This is a purely religious belief, exactly identical, and directly reducible, to the notion that there's a magical teapot spinning in the sky.

You believe that you are man, in the strict and strictly laughable sense that everything is equal to everything else and thus therefore you see yourself as not merely a uniquely bent spoon, vaguely related to various other better implementations of an ideal spoon and thus twice removed from that ideal but instead fully and completely, in and by yourself, equal and idempotent to everything man is, ever was or ever could be. This is also a religious belief, I suppose, although more indicative of psychopathology than what usually is called religion - on the continuum between the buddhist chanting and the fanatic beheading this sort of nonsense is certainly past the fanatic, hapilly floating in a schizoid sea towards waxy flexibility.

When some schmuck, presented to another randomly chosen schmuck, decides the other schmuck can at the absolute outside most be 7/3 = 2.333333333 times better than him, what has happened is that he has capped an outcome. As actual specialists in the field (of risk assessment and risk management, which is all daytrading ever is) will readily say, "this isn't even wrong", as a distinct category from being wrong -- but it comes with some advantages! It is a lot easier not to mention immensely cheaper to move about in a world with capped outcomes. So what if it doesn't exist ?

Would you rather eat a cookie now or a bag of cookies later ? So what if the cookie doesn't exist ? In the now, the bag of cookies from later doesn't exist either. And yes, "waxy flexibility" is an oblique reference to schizophrenia. Because it has to be, derealization doesn't really go any other way.

PS. The reason first players display a wider spread than second players, which is to say the reason why first players will offer deals the second players will not accept has entirely nothing to do with "fairness" : both first players and second players use the same exact mental thresholds, 70/30 or whatever they are, but the first player figures he's got the drop on the other one. That's why he sometimes goes outside the bounds, he adds 15% or whatever he adds, accidentally widening the scope outside of social acceptability. Thus the experiment doesn't prove "fairness is an evolved trait in humans", it proves that humans, in common with cheetahs and all other savannah meat-eating predators, are hard-wired to try and exploit a perceived tactical advantage.

Wait, what... why are you crying ? Sorry, did I accidentally disexist your complicated theoretical facades for your hopes and dreams as to "society" and bla bla bla SkyMom ? Looky here -- women do not matter socially ; in the affairs of mankind women are objects, not agents, nor subjects. It's all, through&through, a story of men. Okay ? [↩]... "to assuage my own terrors on the topic. Hey, guise, wanna hear how I fixed some holes in the blablabla SkyMom theory that none of you even perceive ? No ? Why not ?!"

Just as long as you believe "fairness" is a thing as opposed to it being some nonsense invented by dagos mid 1800s (hey check it out, just as "nigger" became a thing!) like "altruism" or "acid rain" he's perfectly happy.

Are you still getting those acid rains where you live, by the way ? No ? How come ? Don't fucking tell me it's because "the world got together and followed the pantsuit indications" -- their own press at the time was claiming the exact contrary ; and then they stopped mentioning it, and then... guess what ? It got fixed! All by itself! As if it had never existed in the first place! Fancy that.

Who knows, maybe it was the hole in the ozone layer that fixed acid rain. That was totally real, right ? Hey, remember when the pantsuit press saved those whales ? Oh, wait, you were just using that "save the whales" expression, no idea where it came from ? Aww! See, you don't know your own history, and thereby you're missing out on such historic imperial glories! The journalists that saved the whales, fixed the acid hole, knitted back the rain layer, retconned "fairness" and "no means no" oh sorry, I mean "metoo" and "global warming" into five million years of exactly contrary record and so on. Isn't insanity a wonderful thing ? [↩]He'd be saying "Schelling point", if he were familiar with game theory enough to namedrop ; but he isn't. However, the Ultimatum Game stability is not related to Schelling points -- specifically because there is a reason for it.

Most people trying to fuck your daughter will attempt sticking their penis between her legs, not into her armpit. This isn't a Schelling point, this is like the Ultimatum Game. Meanwhile most kids in school trying to fuck your daughter will drop a pen. There's no objective reason to drop it, they could throw it in the air just as well. Dropping's just what they do -- back when your grandmother was still a virgin, after your granddaughter'd have had the clingwrap removed for her... that's a Schelling point.

PS. If you're curious, when there's reason not to do it then it becomes stotting. [↩]Wait, wait. There isn't a point where you wouldn't actually want more money ? You actually believe this ?

Do you know why you believe it ?

You believe it because you're poor, that's why. Not even "a little" poor, "kinda" poor, "arguably" poor. You're absolutely poor, you're so fucking poor your poverty's your only experience of the world, to the exclusion of all else. Do you know who, similarily, wouldn't think there's a point where you don't want any more chocolate ? Ever heard of Biafra ?

Funny thing, too -- because people in the past, such as for instance the famously poor Alfred P. Doolittle, nevertheless weren't quite as poor as you (nor, apparently, quite as illiterate -- you even ever heard "With A Little Bit Of Luck" before ?) Do you know what the (also eminently poor) father of the sold daugther says, in

Il corpo della ragassa ? That two hundred thousand is too much money. He wants the hundred thousand he asked for, no more. For him, two hundred thousand is a capital, he has to hassle with it, whereas a hundred thousand he can just spend, it doesn't matter. Do you understand yet ?!

And no, she didn't mind being sold. Not one bit. Meanwhile you... you're so fucking poor, yo momma only had you for lack of perceiving any better ways to occupy her spare time. You're not even worth selling, had she liked cats more you wouldn't even be here, poveraccio 'sgraziato. You're the poorest generation of poor fucks that ever lived. [↩]Yet if you take my pot of dirt Ima fairly shoot you right between the eyes (just, probably, from the back, so it'll be the exit wound). What's the value of a peppercorn ? [↩]Amusing enough, seeing how the dollar is absolutely worthless, both in theory as in practice ; as well as per the declarations of the scammers issuing it.

Why does Ballas want to believe the dubaloo is the only value ? Note that his idea isn't to make the dubaloo "the principal value" or "the best value" or anything like that -- nothing short of it being the only value suffices for his needs. Could it be specifically because he is so poor he has absolutely nothing else ? Is this belief in any way relatable to his belief that marriage is the only way, not the principal or even the best, but the only, absolutely must be only way ? And then what, having children, right ? And being poor, yes ?

African poverty is self-reproducting because of exactly the above completeness -- once the moron's found a cycle, the moron's also trapped, and permanently as far as he's concerned. One way to look at Columbian history is to say that the redskins were such fucking imbeciles, they spent millenia trapped in a little cycle until someone undertook all the expense of sending a technician over to knock them out of it. I mean... the Mexicans didn't go back to worshipping Montezuma once the Spanish left, did they ? So it was a case of their being trapped in a cycle, yes ? [↩]Somebody would benefit immensely from studying some basic set theory. Just sayin'. [↩]Makes plenty of sense : at small values (and yes, all life has an intrinsic notion of value, because calories) the signalling function exceeds the feeding function. There's a fucking reason the busker asks for 'spare change' rather than 'spare bills' : you don't associate coins with food and therefore are much more likely to cooperate.

Ever wondered why extremely poor people, such as for instance the sad fucks inhabiting our colonies in America, seem so invested in signalling above all else ? Doh. If they weren't so poor they'd find other shit to do ; but they're poor beyond measure, literally the poorest generation of poorfucks the world's ever seen. Numbers don't lie. [↩]For the curious - BoA is now 29.57 ; Google is now 1138. Before you get too excited with "it's the same thing god damned it!", Google also split once since 2009. In a decade, BoA would have tripled your money, while Google would have 7'd it. How's your portofolio been doing ? [↩]In no small part because there isn't any moral problem with it.

Moreover, "the time where people have not had slaves" is entirely imaginary, or in any case it absolutely hasn't started yet. I've had slaves for a while. [↩]Except the ancient Romans'd never have played that -- or any other game -- with anyone they did not know. [↩]Quite exactly right : the pantsuit cycle from madness to faith to madness again, I couldn't have said it better myself.

How many people do you know who carry this badge, by the way ? [↩]Wouldn't this then propose there should be a trend towards... underestimating 300 cents ? Ie, it's never "difficult" just like that, in general, it's always biased towards dekulakizing the larger numbers. The person asked to mark 1 to 10 will use half the paper for it, and then another half of the remainder for 1000 and then half of the remainder again for 10k, meaning 10k's worth about the same amount of paper as two and a half. [↩]This is nonsense ; a punch that is ten times as hard as a base punch will kill you. Experimentally, young women in reasonable shape will punch about 30 on their first innocent tries, and as high as 50 once taught the basic mechanics of how to punch. This is, definitionally, girl punches, meaning you might not feel them ; yet if someone hits you for anything above 70 you will definitely feel it ; and at 90 or so you're just about guaranteed to pass out.

Now go try and hit a 300, to say nothing of a 500... we're talking "being hit by a motorcycle" fare by now. [↩]Rather, that old arithmetic-geometric stimulus-perception thing. Check it out, I was aware of it in the notes above, even! Good thing this "science" hasn't made so much progress since decades ago, back when I was reading Romanian translations of Russian originals on the same topic -- it saves me having to do all that much work. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Man Gets Harassed At An Airport, This Time On Purpose. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another School Shooting -- Sort Of? Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Man Gets Harassed At An Airport, This Time On Purpose. Adnotated.

ma'am, this isn't the elevator

The story: man doesn't want to be full body scanned, checks the San Diego airport website to make sure they don't have them, they don't, gets there and -- surprise -- they do. Don't they update their facebook? They tell him he has to either have the porno shots taken or submit to a physical search of his "junk" (that would be penis), he refuses and asks to leave, and they threaten to fine/imprison him for leaving the terminal without getting naked.

The other part of the story: he appears to be on the right of Tea Party and he had a secret video camera running, which makes some think that he did this all just to provoke the TSA/get publicity.i

After you pick a side and start yelling, take a moment and look at the big picture: an angry citizenry provoking a perceived oppressive government, manned on both sides by self-indulgent idiots who couldn't care less about the big picture. Yikes. If San Diego bloggers are driven to this kind of madness, you have to wonder what the Montana Militia is up to. It sure ain't blogging.ii

II.

Go back and read about how power is applied, top down, and protected, bottom upiii, and you'll be able to see that far from this guy making any dent in the TSA's monopoly on power, he helped them solidify it. He thinks this is civil disobedience, but it's not, his actions don't affect the workings of the PowersThatBe. What he doesn't understand is that the TSA didn't do this to him, a couple of guys who happen to be wearing TSA uniforms did it.

Back in the day, you were supposed to subsume your personal identity under the larger one represented by the uniform. The tradeoff was that anything you did in that uniform was the uniform's faultiv, not necessarily yours. Your superior took the fall; hell, he resigned immediately on principle.

But not in 21st century Narcissist America. Personal identity matters more than anything, even money and certainly more than honor ("huh? like shoguns?") The uniform is just something you add to your character sheet. "What, you think I'm going to let my job define me? Only TV and music gets to do that."

Well, if you're going to play it that way the government will, too, so that when uniformed people do something wrong it's the fault of a few bad apples, the system is otherwise ok. That's why uniforms have name badges: so we can identify the scapegoat.

So whether these TSA guys did everything by the book, or under the direction of a supervisor, or totally under the influence of drugs and spite, it will be a contained problem that will have nothing to do with the "good work" the rest of the TSA does every single day.v Heck, give them slightly more power, look at the kind of nonsense they have to put up with. Can we just make it a federal law that you have to submit to full body cavity search? Not because terrorists are wiley -- still no breast implant bombs? -- but because Americans are annoying. You know they are, right? Thanks.

Bonus: tighter enforcement of inconvenient laws always leads to an underground economy based on bribes. Thanks for the idea, Russia! We could really use the money.vi

———How fucking endearing is he, that he actually says this as if anyone will think it a bad thing. "And then you know what that slut did ? She lifted her skirt up, just so as to get some penis!!!" What are you, in third grade ?! Getting some penis and stomping the fiat government / posers & wannabes into the ground are physiological functions of the not-yet-braindead, wtf. [↩]Same thing the Mexican "Cartels" are up to : taking over the land. [↩]While this is true, it also has no bearing. The author wants it to be true, but his childish attempt at forcing will upon world reads very much like any other pantsuit blogger's : ineffectually interchangeable. What he's precisely saying, taking for instance that opening scene of The Professor (where some guy who reads was just told he has cancer) goes like "oh, go back and read about how organisms work, doc, how hurt comes to them, from outside, and how they defend themselves, from inside!" This theory works well enough, of course... except, of course, for cancer. Which is the point.

In reality, the "United States Government" is powerless ; all the decoration barely disguising the railroading process towards its necessary eventual fate. Have you ever seen what primitive societies eventually do to those goats they picked to decorate and worship for no apparent reason ?

Here's a simple heuristic to help solidify this point : criminals are stupid (if they weren't, they'd find better things to do with their time). When criminals flock to somewhere, whatever that somewhere is, it is not a good sign. Just like women are the social indicator of decay, and their bulking up a field is the exact equivalent of loose collagen bulking up a gash in the skin, just so criminals are the social indicator of change. Like cockroaches, you know ? If, as an alien, you were to observe cockroaches concentrating in that one black box, would you thereby think "the black box is powerful" or would you thereby think "the black box is about to be thrown out" ?

It's a cockroach trap, for chrissakes, it's not taking anything over. Nobody cares, nobody even pays that much attention. The societal role of the scapegoat is to assuage everyone's existential dread, but its immediate function is to throw out some human misery -- which is why a job working for the government doesn't appeal to you, yet it's what every scumbag you know does "for a living". [↩]This is a... naive, let's call it, recount of the backday. [↩]In whose book ?

You can be sure Qntra will report it correctly. Who reads anything else, and why do they ? What do people who misread Qntra (by reading supposed news outlets other than Qntra) want to be true ? And what happens to them ? [↩]The one point these den-daytraders always forget in their glib statements of this sort of thing is that an underground economy is always backed by teen cunt. Not that I mind. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Honor Killing That Isn't About Honor, And Even Less About Nietzsche. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Round Of The Ultimatum Game. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Honor Killing That Isn't About Honor, And Even Less About Nietzsche. Adnotated.

what a shame

KINGSTON, Ontario -- A jury on Sunday found three members of an Afghan family guilty of killing three teenage sisters and another woman in what the judge described as "cold-blooded, shameful murders" resulting from a "twisted concept of honor," ending a case that shocked and riveted Canadians.

Another killing that involves the words, "Muslim", "family", "daughters", "honor." And "Canada." Yikes. Do you really need the details? You do if you want to get it right. Otherwise, feel free to call it an honor killing and get booked on the Glenn Beck Show and Al-Jazeera on the same day.

[Canadian] Defense lawyers said the deaths were accidental. They said the Nissan car accidentally plunged into the canal after the eldest daughter, Zainab, took it for a joy ride with her sisters and her father's first wife. [The son] Hamed said he watched the accident, although he didn't call police from the scene.

The trouble is that Hamed watched the accident from inside a Lexus SUV that happened to be pushing the Nissan into the canal. Don't worry, the four women were dead long before they got in the Nissan for their joy ride. The prosecution contends the dad and the son conspired to do this, but of course prosecutors hate men of color.

In order for this to be an honor killing in the traditional sense -- note the words honor and traditional -- the purpose of the killing has to be to remove shame from the family. In this logic, an honor killing is not simply punitive but a selfless act, because it puts the murderer at risk of punishment (and grief) so that his descendants may live with honor. It is for the sons so that they can grow up and marry without carrying the shame of their mother or sister's actions; for the surviving daughters so they won't be thought of as whores like their sister.

So this would make perfect sense:

Prosecutors said the defendants killed the three teenage sisters because they felt they had dishonoured the family by defying its strict rules on dress, dating, socialising and using the internet.

The problem is that this isn't why the women were killed, it is the post-hoc rationalization for why they were killed.

II.

The prosecution said her parents found condoms in [younger daughter] Sahar's room as well as photos of her wearing short skirts and hugging her Christian boyfriend, a relationship she had kept secret. [Youngest daughter] Geeti was skipping school, failing classes, being sent home for wearing revealing clothes and stealing, while declaring to authority figures that she wanted to be placed in foster care, according to the prosecution.i

The daughtersii had been dressing western, dating, using the internet and disrespecting their old man [and brother] for a very long time -- across three Western countries -- without ever being murdered, not even once. The father didn't like these things, thought them abhorrent, beat the girls, but did not kill them. During all this, this honorable dad had no problem resigning his son to the fate of "brother of sluts", he wasn't worried his other daughters would be the "sisters of whores" -- or become corrupted themselves; nor did he appear mortally wounded by being the father of harlots.iii

In other words, this had nothing to do with honor. Why did this murder happen when it did?

III.

First, let's dispense with the religion: "He was not religious as some have said. I never saw him do prayer." You will observe a ubiquitous lack of religiosity in North American "honor killings" up until they are actually committed. Suddenly everyone finds God. That's the history of America: come here for the freedom; stay for the cash; and if things get hairy say only God can judge you.iv

What's necessary for this kind of a murder isn't a surrounding community that supports honor killings -- where in Canada are they going to live before some Molsen swilling hockey enforcer runs them down? -- but a group of people who validate that some behaviors are shameful; again, even if they abhor honor killings themselves. In other words, someone to crowdsource the superego. "I don't condone what he did, but I understand."

The family had first moved to Australia, where he would not have been able to commit this crime because:

[The father]Shafia did not appreciate the local Afghan women's support group reaching out to his wives.

These Australian Afghan women were supporting the women, not him. His wives were being "seen" by enough people as individuals, more than a reflection on him. So he left. When he got to Canada, he found this:

Despite the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, some in Montreal's Afghan community have trouble accepting that the deaths were murder. "The parents were building a house for the sake of their children. How could they go and kill them?" asked Victoria Jahesh, who works with an Afghan women's group in Montreal.

The key difference is that even while the Canadian group would never condone honor killings, the family is still viewed as his family, the women as his wives, etc. He (to them) remains the main character, it's his movie, everyone else supporting cast. I'm sure the group thought they were supporting the women in various ways, but the manner in which they understood the world -- for brevity let's just call it in this case patriarchal -- reinforced the very problems they thought they were alleviating. "A father loves his daughters," they would say. Yes, that's obvious.

IV.

"There can be no betrayal, no treachery, no violation more than this," Shafia said on one recording. "Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows ... nothing is more dear to me than my honour."

What could possibly have been so terrible? Such a betrayal? She had already had sex, lots of sex, condoms in her drawer in her parents house sex. Isn't that dishonorable enough?

No. What got her killed was this: she got married.

In the spring of 2009, Mr. Hyderi learned that [oldest daughter] Zainab was to marry her boyfriend [a Pakastani-Canadian]... The marriage to the boyfriend was annulled after one day, and another plan was hatched for Zainab to marry Mr. Hyderi's younger brother. But before that could happen, the Shafias set off on a summer road trip....

You know what happens next.

Marriage is freedom (weird, I know.) Marriage means she belongs to another man, he has no power over her -- unless she marries an approved castmember. And if she gets married to an outsider, then the next thing you know all the daughters get married, and he is left.......v

V.

I can understand (read: smell it from a mile away) the motivation of the father for killing his family, but in order for the son to have cooperated with this madness his father must have convinced him that what he was doing was right even though he himself knew it was wrong. From a theological perspective, that sin is worse than murdering his daughters, because he did the "devil's work" and corrupted his son's soul, pretending it was God's will.vi

When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he meant that God is not necessary for our morality anymore.vii When he says we killed God, he means that our science, skepticism, education, have pushed us past the point where believing in miracles is possible; but as a consequence of this loss we are lost, have no goals, no aspirations, no values. God was made up, but he gave us a reason to progress.

The resulting nihilism requires us to either despair, return back to medieval religion, or look deeper within us and find a new source of human values.

Yet... none of those things happened.viii

The post-modern twist is that we didn't kill God after all: we enslaved him.ix Instead of completely abandoning God or taking a leap of faith back to the "mystery" of God; instead of those opposite choices, God has been kept around as a manservant to the Id. We accept a "morality" exists but secretly retain the right of exception: "yes, but in this case..."x

Atheists do this just as much but pretend they also don't believe in "God". "Murder is wrong, but in this case...." But of course they're not referring to the penal code, but to an abstract wrongnessxi that they rationalize as coming from shared collective values or humanist principles or economics or energy or whatever. It's still god, it's a God behind the "God", something bigger, something that preserves the individual's ability to appeal to the symbolic.

"...but in this case..." Those words presuppose an even higher law than the one that says, "thou shalt not." That God -- which isn't a spiritual God at all but a voice in your headxii -- the one that examines things on a case by case basis, always rules in favor of the individual, which is why he was kept around.xiii

But the crucial mistake is to assume that the retention of this enslaved God is for the purpose of justifying one's behavior, to assuage the superego. That same absolution could have been obtained from a traditional Christianity, "God, I'm sorry I committed adultery, I really enjoyed it and can't undo that, but I am sorry and I'll try not to do it again." Clearly, Christianity hasn't prevented people from acting on their impulses; nor have atheists emptied the Viagra supplies.

The absence of guilt is not the result of the justification, it precedes the justification.xiv Like a dream that incorporates a real life ringing telephone into it seemingly before the phone actually rings, the absence of guilt hastily creates an explanation for its absence that preserves the symbolic morality: I don't feel any guilt...............................

.......because in this case...

VI.

But no one likes to see the consequences of abstract philosophy played out in a submerged Nissan,xv so I'll just offer you some advice. Rageful narcissists are the most violent not when they are insulted or attacked or hated but when they are abandoned to objective reality, the one that doesn't comply with their mirroring demands.xvi Such a person invariably is backed by an enslaved God, which means all things are possible.

If you do manage to leave, don't look back.xvii

———Yay sluts! [↩]That bottom right slut, the one with the bare shoulders is actually not even terrible, is she. [↩]Not sure I'm all that persuaded by this constructive argument ; try and apply it to Ballas' example from the previous article : Gacy had been sodomizing teens, tying them to tables, burning and whipping them, and then strangling and burying them for many years, and across three state lines. The police, legal system and government generally had no problem with dwindling population counts nor general pullulation in complete disregard of any community-held notion of decency, such that Gacy was never prosecuted, not even once. In other words, this had nothing to do with crime. Why did they pick him up when they did ?

Cool conspiracy theory, bro ; maybe next you explain why the coin toss fell the way it did, too! [↩]Not bad. If it actually worked as advertised we might even have a reason to not discontinue it. [↩]This is genuine, I'm sure. The idea of the girls marrying on their own power and away from the ecosystem very fundamentally violates what he no doubt imagined is his own (culturally-derived, but whatever) fix to the fundamental problem of marriage. In other words, had he known the daughters were going to do this, he would never have gone to the trouble of having daughters -- he'd have done instead something closer to what I do, namely fish out sluts.

He, like a good orc, thought he's going to America to steal, and then just as he was thinking he's stealing discovered... he was instead being stolen from! This is how the chumpatron of "America" works in the first place -- it attracts orcs with promises of "cash", only to then keep the daughters. Come for the gold, leave behind a soul, move towards the higher salary to where they pay the higher rents, etcetera.

The very natural response is "burn it all down". This natural response may appear pathological, but only to those who have accepted the system as necessary. If you've bought into the theory that "there is no option but to marry", which means "spend money you don't have to raise offspring you don't like and then give the wife the house when that's done" then yes, some other fellow's expectation that rearing children is a +ev activity, that he shows a profit at the end of the cycle will strike you as patently insane. The problem however is not a narrowness of perspective on the part of the killer -- it is a narrowness of perspective on the part of the psychiatrist! Turn the matter as you will, it is P's view of the chain of causality that is shorter than K's, making P's, and not K's perspective the narrower -- a situation which must of course be explicitly disavowed, which is why K isn't discussing the (obvious, but trite) narrowness of P's perspective while P's deeming nothing as important as K's (false, but subjectively a necessary belief) narrowness of perspective.

I suppose at this juncture I should ask if he's seen Equus. [↩]The problem with false, but subjectively necessary beliefs is that they produce this sort of slapstick. [↩]This is a little presumptious even without looking at the quality of the proposed interpretation, and even disregarding the theosadness earlier. Ballas shines when discussing biochemistry as relevant to neurofunction ; but very little qualifies him to declarative attempts upon the history of philosophy. [↩]Do not despair -- as Gacy once famously said, "I'm getting round to it." [↩]Gimpgod and your daughter in chains make a great pair, actually -- at least as far as decoration for my basement goes.

You're not gonna honor-kill anyone over it, though, are you ? Tempting as it may be ? Hm ?

Oh, don't tell me, let me guess. Your attempted murder's "doing science", unlike the other crazy fuck's. How close am I ? [↩]Not so secretly at all, but quite explicitly : there is no possibility of meaning outside of a structure of authority. [↩]Also known as... not giving a shit. [↩]An old theory. [↩]Indeed. Individuality prevails. [↩]He has a point -- if you're the sort that doesn't do it, you're not gonna do it irrespective of the available excuses ; and if you're the sort that's gonna do it, well... you'll do it, and you'll manage to pull an excuse out of a completely empty excuse recipient buried somewhere with no map. [↩]Actually, I would daresay most people would enjoy seeing said consequences in said Nissan more than they'd enjoy seeing a randomly chosen TV program. This is the great power of philosophy, abstract or otherwise : it is in fact more interesting to humans than average human life. [↩]You'd be surprised. For instance -- my throwing a fit has the power to change the weather. Numerous times, and with eerie regularity, I will stomp my feet and raise my fists at heaven, only for rain to cease within minutes -- or at least, so I believe. I even have witnesses [to this belief], as well as to my capacity to align green lights such that for as long as I walk, it turns green exactly as I step into the road.

In other words : the problem with objective reality is that it still bends to the will of gods. What now ? [↩]Rather, the reverse. If you're going to be looking back... [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Final Word On Cho's Mental Illness. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Man Gets Harassed At An Airport, This Time On Purpose. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Final Word On Cho's Mental Illness. Adnotated.

Hi. Not surprisingly, many peoples have not liked my Cho comments. Here's an examplei from a psychiatrist, and I responded with a comment there that I might as well put here.

As background, most people are yelling, "how the hell can you say this guy wasn't crazy? He was talking to imaginary friends, he thought he was an Ax, etc." As [a] point of fact, these weren't delusions because he knew they weren't true, but that's a side point.

Psychiatric pathology exists on a spectrum. It's not binary "ill" or "not ill," and impairment in one realm doesn't explain impairment elsewhere. A diagnosis does not define all of your existence, or even all of your actions.

I should not, however, have said he wasn't mentally ill. What I should have said was he was not insane: he knew what he was doing, he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he had the ability to control himself. So he is entirely to blameii, i.e., the mental illness, even if substantial, is incidental.

You might say, ok, he's not insane, but only someone with a mental illness would do this. It doesn't lessen his culpability, however.

Well, actually, it does: you can't execute the mentally ill, for example. Forget about your personal stance on the death penalty. Fact is, mental illness is rapidly becoming an exclusion to a sentence that everyone else is subject to. I know, it seems so righteous to say the mentally ill shouldn't be executed. Ok, here: it would mean you can be sentenced to death, but he can't. Does that make any sense, moral or legal?iii

Clearly, maladjusted and sexually frustrated college kids don't often go on rampages, so there was something in him that moved him to this. Perhaps that was the mental illness. But add up the body counts in the past twenty years. What's in common in mass murderers isn't mental illness, but frustration, impotence (metaphorical) and anger. Or are all those suicide bombers in Israel bipolar?iv

You'll say, "but he wasn't a suicide bomber." His mental framework had much more in common with a suicide bomber than with John Wayne Gacy.v

But let's put this aside and ask a different question, about us, not him: why do so many people want him to be mentally ill? Because its an explanation that doesn't implicate society, or themselves. It means the world can be divided into "us" and "them," which is always fun. It's the easy scapegoat that seems to be so obvious as to be unassailable.

And if it is mental illness, what do we intend on doing about it? My bias implies harsher sentences, societal changes, etcvi -- we can debate that later. But if it is all mental illness, then what? Do we lock up the "mentally ill" like we do pedophiles and terror suspects, before they even commit a crime, just on suspicion? And who decides who is suspicious? Psychiatrists? Do you trust every psychiatrist to be good at this? Or should it be the government?

Would you have been happy -- I mean this in all seriousness -- if George Bush had Cho arrested last year for being a terror suspect? Which part of that bothers you? It would have been legitimate, because he was dangerous. So is it that he was arrested before he committed a crime, or that George Bush did it? See? This is what you'll have to contend with with these policies.

Oh yeah. Treatment. You want to make "treatment" mandatory? Great. Tell me exactly who should decide who needs treatment, and for how long, and what kind. And tell me how this treatment is going to work -- what is the specific end point? -- and for how long, and tell me what we should do when the treatment doesn't work.

You can't just make this stuff up as you go along, enacting policies which are politically expedient but destroy the society. Ask Vladimir Putin. Oh, wait, bad example.

———I'm not linking it ; it's entirely substance-less cuntfluff. [↩]Nope. The only anyone to blame is the cunt coven at Virgina tech. [↩]Actually, these things aren't what you think them to be. [↩]Well, they sure as fuck ain't fat old women with delusions of self importance, are they now. You wanna make the world a better place, start hanging those. Nevermind the "reasons", you'll find reasons as you go along. Witchcraft. Heresy. Vagrancy. Gossiping. Nagging. There's plenty to choose from. [↩]There is absolutely no difference between some dorks "diagnosing" Gacy with "antisocial personality disorder" in 1968 and me "diagnosing" Lucinda Roy with "heresy" above. They're both nudely political acts of oppression, it's just that one just happens to target the wrong kind of people. Outside of the projection of political power, the cognitive content of either "diagnosis" is exactly null.

In fact, I could just re-use the ridiculously broad "antisocial personality disorder", and just shuffle around the specific rights of others that are being "systematically disregarded". Does Roy strike you as at all conscionable about her sheer impudence ? So there you have it : a history of writing bad poetry, low moral sense and going around derping about how things should be in her view. Check, check and check, 10 years in Anamosa. She can share a cell with Cornelia Giovanni.

What, you think I'm kidding ? I'm not fucking kidding.

As is typical in Antisocial Personality Disorder, the offender callously persists in disregarding prevailing social norms. Here, shamelessly displaying her complete lack of internalized guilt or any kind of conscience as well as complete disregard for risk or probability of success, the old woman is still attempting to manipulate the mechanism of her punishment towards her own, self-directed ends. [↩]Certainly -- pillories in every supermarket parking lot, for holding topless & bare ass middle aged women judged insufficiently polite by any respectable male of social influence and sufficient wealth ; and stocks by every urinal, for easy beating of the soles and urinating on the mouths of "poetesses"/"activists"/etcetera. You know they hadn't these "sprees" back before 1872, yes ? Well ? Are you going to go with evidence-based medicine or aren't you ? [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Diagnosis Of Schizophrenia, This Time With Cats. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Honor Killing That Isn't About Honor, And Even Less About Nietzsche. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Tuesday, 23 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Diagnosis Of Schizophrenia, This Time With Cats. Adnotated.

my boyfriend hates my cat but he loves my [pussy]The patient's family asks, "what causes schizophrenia?" And you give them the speech: "there are probably many causes: genetics, some say an in utero infection, or in the old days they said it was the schizophrenogenic mother." And then chuckle like you possess any knowledge that allows you such dismissive confidence. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying you have no idea if it's true.i

The problem is that those aren't all potential causes of schizophrenia, they are causes of different kinds of schizophrenia, none of which you are making any attempt to distinguish.ii

II.

Toxoplasmosis is an organism that lives part of [its]iii life relatively benignly in the intestine of a cat, gets pooped out, and then taken up by rats where it lodges in the brain, not benignly.iv That's the cycle, back and forth. It also can be taken up by humans, especially little fetuses.

Going from cat to rat is easy. But how is it supposed to get back to cat? Rats run away from cats, not towards them. Indeed, this is innate: even rats that have never seen a cat in hundreds of generations still freak out when confronted with cat odor.

There's been plenty of research observing that schizophrenics are more likely to have been exposed to toxoplasmosis in utero than normals. So what? So this.

Researchers took 60 rats, and infected 30 with brain munching toxoplasmosis (verified at the end by autopsy) and the other 30 with terrible, evil saline. And then they gave them a choice of scented cages to explore. The scents were either: their own, water, rabbit, or cat.

Comparing infected to non-infected rats, there was only one difference in their preference for cage exploration:

i.e. the infected rats are insane.

Note that the toxoplasmosis didn't make them more exploratory in general, only dispatched them to their likely doom. (No, it didn't interfere with their sense of smell.)

Taking the most active infected vs. non-infected mice, and watching them over multiple explorations, not only do they not avoid the cat cage, but they develop a preference for it over other cages.

One might say that toxoplasmosis is a chronic, worsening condition characterized by poor judgment...

The rats don't simply defy danger; they specifically want to die by cat. Rats can also get killed by minks, but minks don't hunt them. A similar study gave rats a choice of mink maze and cat maze, the infected rats chose cat -- they chose their specific predator.

It's a truly odd coincidence that while the cat is the mortal enemy of the rat, the cat is the natural home of toxoplasmosis. One might even be tempted to say that somehow the toxoplasmosis willed the rat to go against its nature. "That's dangerous talk around here, lefty, better mind your tongue." Apologies.

But the other way to look at it is

Studies investigating the neurological basis of anxiety, which often use the reaction of potential prey to cat stimuli as a model, have found that blocking the normally anxiogenic N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptors in the amygdala, and/or provision of serotonin (5-HT) antagonists, causes rats to approach cat odors "fearlessly," in much the same way that T. gondii-infected rats do.

So the rats become less anxious, more daring? Odd coincidence: the toxoplasmosis infection rate in 1974 was 22% for the Brits, 84% for the French. Maybe it makes humans chase pussy as well?v

Lafferty, in 2006, found rates of 45% in the French and 6.6% in the Brits. How have people changed since the 1970s? Maybe the reason "there are no real men" is because all the antibiotics have "sterilized" them.vi

III.

Let's assume that these studies show causation and not simply staggeringly awful correlations. The semantic problem posed here is that you could choose to label the toxoplasmosis as either "schizophrenogenic" or "anxiolytic." Both are equally valid, by which I mean completely meaningless. The only thing you know for sure is that it was caused by the toxoplasmosis.

Toxoplamosis is not a cause of schizophrenia, it is a cause of toxoplasmosis infection. The schizophrenia part never existed.

IV.

If all this wasn't troubling enough, there's this:

Following a similar model as above, a group of infected rats were also given the treatment for toxoplasmosis (pyrimethamine and Dapsone). Predictably, this cured the rat and stopped their crazy cat seeking behavior.

However, so did Depakote and Haldol, sometimes even better:

Look at this as the chance of being in the cat cage. a) is all behaviors, and b) teases them out. You can see that untreated rats like cat cages, treated rats don't.

What happened? There's the obvious behavioral explanation (Haldol treated the psychosis); though Haldol does also block toxoplasmosis growth and infection.

Which means if you gave Haldol to a "schizophrenic," and saw "improvement," you would not really know if it was blocking D2 receptors or killing parasites.

And what would you have assumed had the Depakote worked?

V.

No one says syphilis is a cause of schizophrenia, but the same people would say toxoplasmosis is. I hope you see there is no difference.vii

———You do however have the knowledge to say it's improbable. As a factual matter, at the time they thought schizophrenia was caused through pubescent-age nurture by a specifically schizophrenogenic mother, they also did not distinguish schizophrenia from autism. You surely see where this is going. [↩]It is evidently the opinion of ~everyone who ever had any sort of clinical experience, including myself as well as every actual bona fide clinician I ever talked to, that schizophrenia is in fact a bunch of things. Before you ask : no, I never was a practicing psychiatrist ; my knowledge of this is second hand, like my knowledge of most anything else. I was fortunate enough to be tolerated for years by the actual clinicians, as a sort-of peer, for purely social reasons. Because I'm intelligent and curious and remarkably easy to talk to, all sorts of people do in fact talk to me, and so among myriad other benefits I get to observe more clinical cases and hear more clinical commentary than the average student, notwithstanding I'm only there to take their teacher out to lunch. [↩]This guy has a lot of trouble with the it's/its distinction. [↩]It actually makes the rats seek out cats. [↩]Keks! [↩]Even keklier! [↩]This is a remarkably excellent article, huh. [↩]

« Wayne's World

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Another Final Word On Cho's Mental Illness. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Monday, 22 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Observation About The Current Election. Adnotated.

I can't believe that with all the anger most Democrats have against George Bush, they are this -- apathetic. Four years the Democrats had, to find and build the perfect candidate. To organize as a party and say, "never again!" and build a careful platform, encourage cohesion, work to bring in disgruntled Republicans...

Instead, they defaulted to Clinton, barely half-heartedly, leaving plenty of room for Obama to try. A young, never tested Senator -- there should have been no way he could have entered the race, let alone won. Not because he's not good -- but because, by now, the Democrats should have already decided who they wanted.

It's a lack of organization and commitment which will, unfortunately, lead to a loss in 2008.

I'd tell you this applies equally to Republicans -- it does. The difference is that this election, since at least 2006, was going to go to the Democrats. Republicans should have been preparing for 2012, or the Senate. But now...

Don't flame me. I'm not making a comment on the candidates' abilities, just on how the system should have worked, but failed. And the reason it failed is the same reason we're in a recession: lack of organization, and lack of commitment.i

———And the future has so much more in store! [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Education. Adnotated.

Wayne's World »

Category: Adnotations

Monday, 22 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Education. Adnotated.

Thanks, Jenny, you made it all possible

Thisi is the movie poster for An Education:

If this looks terribly adorable, then there are spoilers below. If not, then there are no spoilers below. Take a minute and think it over.

The movie is about a 16 year old girl in 1961 Britain, in her final year of "gymnasium" or A-Levels or sixth form or whatever they call it over there, wanting to "read English at Oxford."

Her father, an unsophisticated, stuffy, and concrete man, wants her to go to Oxford. Period. Not learn Latin or study mathematics or play the cello -- which he insists she do -- but do those things solely because they will get her into Oxford. He relaxes in a suit and tie and drinks only on Christmas. In other words, he's an American parent.ii Yes, just like Amy Chua, which is why your reactions to them are identical.

She wants to go to Oxford, too, but is perplexed and resistant to the purposeless of her life so far. Is the only point of cello just to impress the Oxford interviewer? She wants to live, read books and listen to jazz, go to Paris and Rome, eat good food in restaurants. That's a quote.

It helps that a) she is extremely pretty with not one single hint of threatening sexualityiii -- so that women in the audience can identify with her; and b) super-intelligent and witty, so that the same women can assume that because of a), they are also b.) It also give the male audience a comfort zone -- since she's not sexy, there's nothing creepy about me liking her. The absence of sexiness is vital to the misunderstanding of the movieiv, and to its appeal. We'll come back to this.

This is a movie about teenage rebellion, in the past.v Whenever teen rebellion is depicted in present day, it's teen becoming worse. When teen rebellion is depicted in the past, it's teen trying to be better. NB: movies are made by adults who have kids.

So our mythic hero receives The Call to Adventure. I'm going to try to describe it in the most neutral language possible, so as not to influence you, but I'm going to fail. Sorry in advance.

As she's standing in the rain one day, a man, about 35, in a purple sportscar drives up and offers her a ride home.

At first it's platonicvi, but gradually they fall for each other. He is sophisticated, worldlyvii, eventually takes her to Paris, loves the Pre-Raphaelites, likes both jazz and classical, is the perfect gentleman. He has two equally worldly friends, a coupleviii, and the three of them introduce her into a world full of life. The one she longs for.

But at the midpoint the plot twist comes: he's a thief. And a slum lord. And married. And now we get to see that she's been tricked into throwing her future away for something that isn't real.ix

The question for you reading this right now is whether this is a "plot twist," or is this "duh"?x The movie makes his duplicity be the reason the relationship fails.xi But the relationship was doomed immediately, duplicitous or not, from the moment this psychopath pulled up in a sportscar and asked a 16 year old to get in.xii Of course I understand why she'd fall for it, but that doesn't mean the audience is supposed to fall for it. In my imagination, the audience is looking at each other like wtf? seriously?xiii But if the internet is any guide, people reacted to this as if it was a puppy rescue on CNN.

"So what, if I see a 16 year old standing in the rain in my suburban neighborhood, I can't give her a ride home?" It's very simple: if you're nervous about it, for her sake let her catch a death of cold. Just because bin Laden was married to a 16 year old doesn't mean it's okay for you.xiv

I've watched the movie twice to be sure I'm not insanexv, though admittedly this is not a valid test. Yes, they slowly drop small hints that he's not who he seems, but I am certain that in the beginning, the viewer is not supposed to detect anything wrong with their relationship. The only reason I assumed that the three of these sophisticates must also be cannibals is because I, me, can't believe that three adults who lure a 16 year old girl into their fold wouldn't obviously be cannibals.xvi My personal bias.

The point I am making here is that this is decidedly not the bias of the filmmakers, and that is very, very, very creepy.xvii And lazy.xviii Didn't they see Twilight before they shot a remake of it?

II.

If David's arrival on screen is creepy, the father's presence is nothing short of preposterously offensive.

The movie wants you to see that he only cares about appearances, not her soul. He is the worst, utterly the worst, thing a Hollywood director can imagine: he is bourgeois. Here's a media protip: the words "bourgeois" and "American" are always completely interchangeable.

In being this, he is blind to his daughter's true nature and an accessory to child rape.xix He grills and insults some poor teen who asks her out, but because David is a higher class person, he doesn't try to find out anything about him, doesn't ask if he's on a list, lets him take Jenny out late and on overnight trips. He practically shaves her vagina for him.xx The father never even asks David's last name. In fact, his only reservation about David is that he is... wait for it... Jewish.xxi Oh, no matter, David charms the anti-semitism right out of him. Yes, it was that easy.

Naturally, when it is discovered that David is married, her dad gets angry. He wants a confrontation, so he mans up: "right, if you won't do it, I will. I'm still your father."

"Oh, you're my father again, are you?" she says in the only line that makes sense in the whole movie. "What were you when you were encouraging me to throw my life away? Silly schoolgirls are always being seduced by glamorous older men, but what about you?"xxii

That's your life lesson. The unique problem of raising kids is that not only will they hate you for not letting them do stuff, they will hate you for letting them do stuff they later regret. Choose accordingly.xxiii

III.

I don't blamexxiv 16 year old Jenny for falling for the charismatic and sophisticated older man, of course I get it. And, to a point, I am not even surprised that the parents fell for him either; they wanted "the best" for their daughter, and he looked like the best. I can't do anything about misreading a stranger.

But what is their fault is that they misread Jenny. They never listened to Jenny's words. They may be good or bad people, but they failed as parents in this specific way.

Every time she explains why she loves David, or why she wants to marry him, or leave school, she says something like this:

"I want to read books, and listen to jazz, and go to Paris and Rome, and eat good food in restaurants."

None of those things are descriptions of David. She may think she loves him, but to anyone who listens to her words it's clear she loves the world he offers. That's not a reason to love anyone, in fact, it is proof you do not love him.xxv However much the parents want her to "marry well," they should have heard these words and realizedxxvi that she didn't love him and that it inevitably wouldn't last. That was their responsibility. David, if he was any kind of man, should have noticed and let her go.xxvii And any intelligent women seduced by the prospect of a man's new world should describe her happiness in three sentences and count how many times his name comes up, and then return the ring.xxviii

IV.

The movie pulls off a clever trick: even after you learn David is a cad and a liar, you don't really ever hate him. And that's because you all Anglos have forgotten how to hate.xxix You think your lack of hate is a evidence of your own sophistication and maturityxxx; just as Jenny doesn't hate himxxxi, she goes beyond him, you do, too. But you're not being honest.

Imagine the exact same movie, everything the same, but filmed entirely from his perspective. He sees a girl in the rain, and makes his move. Now you easily hate him, now you see him as a bad person. So why the change of heart?

Similarly, if Jenny had been portrayed as superintelligent and witty but also as extremely hot -- that single change and no other, e.g. played by Megan Fox, you would have immediately detected the corruption at the center of the movie and stoned David and his purple car.

So the reason you don't hate him in An Education is because you are deliberately not seeing reality objectively, you are choosing to see it entirely from her eyes, or have so identified with her that they are your eyes, which makes David merely a supporting character.xxxii That inability to value people as individuals, good or bad, to appraise their worth independent of yourself, is a characteristic which is excusable in a 16 year old girl, and inexcusable in anyone else.xxxiii

V.

It's evident to me that the filmmakers did not understand the true meaning of the tale they were telling, and I soon discovered why: they were telling a tale that had already been told by someone else. Lynn Barber, a writer for the Observer, wrote the original storyxxxiv about her own experience as a 16 yo Oxford wannabe falling for an empty Tiffany's box. The stories are very similar, except for their final lines. This is how the movie ends:

So I went [to Oxford], and I probably looked as wide eyed, fresh and artless as any other student. But I wasn't. One of the boys I went out with -- and they really were just boys -- asked me to go to Paris with him. And I told him I'd love to see Paris. As if I'd never been.

You can imagine her winking at a knowing audience.

Here's how Barber's story ends:

What did I get from Simon? An education... My experience with Simon entirely cured my craving for sophistication. By the time I got to Oxford, I wanted nothing more than to meet kind, decent, straightforward boys my own age, no matter if they were gauche or virgins. I would marry one eventually and stay married all my life and for that, I suppose, I have Simon to thank.

Barber grew up.xxxv Jenny didn't. But the movie thinks she did. The movie is called "An Education", but Jenny didn't get one. She is like so many other women who have deceived themselves into thinking they are wise. She's still in her movie, ready for a sequel, same as the original. Jenny won't ever be happy; fortunately for her, she's not real.xxxvi

———The picture above is from the Grunwick strike, cca 1977, as he correctly notes in the title. The strike itself was unsuccessful, and fizzled out by mid-1978.

The strikers were mostly female, immigrants, from East Africa and Asia (and called "strikers in saris" at the time). The sarisuit in charge was one Jayaben Desai, whom I suppose he's calling Jenny. Here she is :

Nude Jayaben Desai nakedly shining through any pretense to the contrary.

Always remember, chitlins : dressing poorly doesn't get you out of being a slut. You're still a slut, just, a poorly dressed one.

PS. In all fairness, she was also famous (though to a lesser degree than for those low hanging udders) for coming up with memorable phrases. For instance, when she led the walkout at Grunwick, she memorably said

Now wait a moment, someone must attack Gonzalez. The man with the brick, come over here at once and knock him a bit about the head.

which, you must admit, is as fine advancing of the socialist ideals as one could possibly hope for. [↩]There's no "American" anything. [↩]This is a complete contradiction in terms. Think about it. [↩]The absence of sexiness is actually vital to your misunderstanding of your entire life, as well as any and all parts of reality -- which is why you didn't see the ugly, low hanging tits on the pantsuit until I showed them to you, and can't unsee them now that I have.

Yet sexiness is never absent ; repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed ; the supposed absence of sexiness is never an actual absence, but always a presence : it is the signal left behind when purposefully misreading experience.

Here's how reality looks naturally :

REALITY

Now here's how reality looks "in the absence of sexiness" :

REALITY

Substract an A.

Substract a T also.

That's three lines instead of one, and you're calling them "the absence of vowels", but they're not the absence, they're the deletion : deliberate, ulterior, and yes disavowed.

You delete parts of reality after the fact, and then pretend like you didn't -- but then again, if you didn't do this, how could an ugly Klein Zaches lead you about by your nose and pay you "golden" leaves for your trouble ? For as long as you believe movement is everything (including "the future"), you're stuck with this. [↩]For some reason these always gotta happen in England. [↩]This "at first it's platonic" bullshit device... Forget about it, the whole premise of mating from the female side is that her person's inconsequential and her current life not worth continuing. Absent those two pillars, you know what ? Go fuck the dogs. They don't care. [↩]And magically alone...

It's not that this never happens. It's that this is strictly impossible. [↩]Riiight, riiight, a couple, because totally, that device works towards the author's sterilizing intention, and not how it actually works in reality.

I know this story is bullshit, not because the couple-friends of the "sophisticated" etcetera would have fucked her on the first date ; but because they'd have expected her to strip naked, and sent her on her way once she "platonically" wallflowered. It's like expecting people to have washed -- do you send someone packing whose BO is visibly altering the color of your food ? Well, sophisticated people do exactly the same thing, it's just, they have entirely different standards from yours. [↩]How the fuck is a slum lord not real and what's more real than a slum lord ?!

Nuts, these people, "oh, the world as imagined by wallflowers doesn't exist, hurr durr" what the fuck.

This is why you make the colts strip, too. It's not that you want to fuck them -- why the fuck would you ?! It's that they need to ditch their historical dumbmind aside. I personally prefer introducing it just as naturally and matter-of-factedly as their "platonic" bullshit goes : "oh, yeah, I forgot to tell you, all females indoors are naked here, take it off", while the sluts who actually live there are doing just that. It is after all her fault and her failing, that she's not up to speed with society, and society (=me) is not about to make any adjustments for her sake. "Oh, that's not how you roll where you're from ? Okay, I guess ?" Who the fuck cares how she used to roll, seriously now. [↩]Apparently, it's neither. For me, it's accidental self-humiliation moment, that point in the life of the boy recounting his sexual history where inadvertence makes it obvious the whole "history" is imaginary. What now ? [↩]The actual reason "the relationship" fails is that he as imagined by her is not satisfying to her -- which is why she will take off her clothes in my livingroom. Not because I will be satisfactory, but because I am inimaginable. [↩]Ahahaha what ?! [↩]What does the author want to be true ? [↩]And why not ? Notice the slide, by the way -- which gives away exactly the confirmation for the foregoing note.

Nobody was talking of fucking marrying her, dorky! All that's on offer is some education, in the sense of sexual usage. [↩]There's nothing wrong with fucking a teen or tweenty. Everyone has, get over it. Seriously, it's okay to forgive yourself.

PS. This suggests a followup to one of the interview questions. [↩]Dude gtfo, even if you eat it you don't actually chew it off, what cannibals. [↩]Yeah, well, so maybe set foot outside the midwest sometime.

No, two weeks all inclusive at the McHilton-Donalds reservation nominally in India or whatever doesn't fucking count. [↩]Dude gtfo, who cares about your idiotic bias ? What next, some niggers from Delhi are gonna say my dismissive view of their worldview is "lazy" ? And what, since I have no intention of marring their hairy daughter, also "lazy" ? Shut it. [↩]A sixteen year old's a child like my dick's a licksicle : in the world of sexual play only. [↩]This is exactly as it should be. That is the only thing "higher class" means, or could possibly mean : when you deign to bless their daughter with a crumble of attention, they fall over themselves to shave her vulva for you.

Imagine this weird world Ballas inhabits, populated by him and children with hairy vaginas. [↩]Wait, what, his last name was Suss or what gave it away ? [↩]This only line that to the author makes sense is fucking insane. If anything a teen could ever do could conceivably amount to "throwing their life away", there'd be no adults. Moreover, what the fuck does it matter he's married, what, their ideal was that he marries her ?! "O wait, no, that's not what we mean... we mean that being married and only looking for a fucktoy makes him bad, but had he not been married and looking for a wife... that... that... that'd actually have made him worse". Fucking shut it. [↩]No dude, the dilemma of talking with idiots is that they've pre-decided a pile of bad and a pile of good, which are the same pile, and now in the bad aspect all alternatives are "worse' and in the good aspect all alternatives are "better", and they're the same fucking pile!

The problem with dealing with idiots is that if you refuse to smack them one upside the head to switch their states for them, you can spend forever going from worse to worse still. Which is why you must, you must hurt stupid people acting inconveniently. [↩]Blame ?! What fucking blame, she must do this. She must, or else she's not really a human being, like mongoloids and oligophrenics generally. Blaming the 16 yo girl for falling tits up and knees apart at the faintest whiff of wealthy, debonaire, sophisticated, worldly etcetera is like blaming 16 month olds for seeking tit. [↩]This is pretty contorted, to say nothing about self-serving. Every woman who ever lived and loved a man, loved the world he offered. That Jenny's too moronic to express things better than the narrow perspective and poor vocabulary her weak memory and the slowness and concreteness of her thought processes permit... well... that's no problem of David's, nor does it impugn her love for him. Women are eminently capable of truly loving men they neither understand nor are capable of describing, that's actually pretty much the definition of womanhood. [↩]The only thing that can be realized by listening to teens is that they're fucking stupid. The proposition of basing action on teens' words is preposterous. [↩]Go where the fuck ? Ok, so he lets her go. What now ? How is she supposed to ever grow up, if David lets her go ? What, goddess Inca is gonna download adulthood into her brain "when the time comes", magically, just like that ? Are you people fucking insane ? [↩]And then spend the rest of her days doing what ? Eating ramen and writing the same story over and over again for the USG's Dept of Hiring Spinsters ? Raising cats and playing with cereal boxes ? Are. You. People. Fucking. Insane ?! [↩]No dude, it's because nobody thinks a precious cuntlet's quite so important, the whole world has to be reorganized around her. [↩]No, it's evidence of her insignificance. [↩]Idem. The girl doesn't think herself all that important, which is exactly as it should be.

PS. What does an author, who just "broke the law" and "did the bad", want to believe about the object in the cookie jar ? Not that it's just a cookie, whatever, everyone has one whenever they can be bothered, right ? The exact opposite, yes ?

This is how you psychotic idiots fucked your environment beyond all possible recognizition. First, you accepted insane notions of ethics, sin, wrong, etcetera. Then, you proceeded to try and live. And then, to justify the "costs" of living with insanity, you began misrepresenting everything. A cookie can not just be a cookie anymore, it has to be more than that. Much, much more than that. So much more than that, in fact, to justify the incredible sin of eating a cookie. What sin is that ? Oh, a great and immense and utterly imaginary sin. So how much greater does the cookie have to be than a mere cookie ? Oh, great and immense and utterly imaginary plus one.

And now you are here : let us sit and discuss the equation

great and immense and utterly imaginary < great and immense and utterly imaginary + epsilon

Figure out whether it is balanced or not and what all that "means" to "us". What do you think ? What values of epsilon ? Is coke > pepsi or not ? McCain or Osama ? Campbell's soup can to the left or Campbell's soup can to the right ? Magic! Magic! Magic! [↩]Or because it's easier to see the low value of a girl in general when it's not overwhelmed by significant sexual value in particular. [↩]But these aren't people, these are characters, in a movie.

Is the inability to distinguish people from characters in a movie more or less inexcusable in anyone than the inability to judge a mate's value in "abstract" terms, ie, unrelated to oneself ?

Not to put too fine a point on it : I get it, you fucked a teen. Good for you. No, nobody's all that impressed with it, because, objectively, it's not that big of a deal. Yes, I'm aware you're aware, but no, the transparent attempt to trade imaginary ethics violations for marginal increases in perceived hotness ain't gonna change anything. I'm not about to be more impressed with your sexual exploits for your harping as to their extreme sinfulness anymore than I'm going to be more interested in buying a used car for the salesman's harping about its extreme cheapness. [↩]Gimme a fucking break, original. What original ? This is the mode of defloration for the species' best and brightest since the dawn of time, by which I mean : if this isn't how you lost your maidenhead, you were a boring teenager. [↩]No, actually : Barber learned to lie for a penny. Which she does. [↩]I have a send-off here, but.... honestly, Ima take pity on the fool. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Army of Narcissists? No Way. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Observation About The Current Election. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Monday, 22 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Army of Narcissists? No Way. Adnotated.

A tremendous examplei of the societal narcissism I wrote about in my Time article with the funny cover. If there was any one organization that I would have thought was in direct opposition to narcissism it would be the military, yet here it is, being specifically promoted.

I understand the practical necessity of this approach, of course; trying to tap into a listless and apathetic populace who get their current events from clips of the Colbert Report on YouTube -- they can't even be bothered to find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, let alone enlist. But mark my words, when a military cannot effectively appeal to any higher beliefs at all, and must resort to patronizing illusions of self-fulfillment only, then this society cannot last.ii

Look at the evolution of the slogans, and tell me I am exaggerating (from Army Times)

“Today’s Army wants to join you”: 1971-73.

“Join the people who’ve joined the Army”: 1973-1979.

“This is the Army”: 1979-1981.

“Be all you can be”: 1981-2001.

“An Army of one”: 2001-2006.

Look at the grammar, the semiotic connotations. A question for the historians would be whether or not a civilization in decline was aware that it was declining; and if not, what did they think was going on?iii

But perhaps all is not lost. The Army just announced their new recruiting motto, which has apparently tested quite well: "Army Strong."iv

-----

As an aside, the "Army Strong" campaign was created by the Army's new advertising firm, McCann Erikson. They're responsible for the MasterCard "priceless/there are some things money can't buy" campaign. Of course, this cost the Army one billion dollars.

I'll go back to psychiatry now. v

———I ended up using his tiny post stamp of an illustration because after perusing thousands of USGstani agitprop images (which mostly consist of the red star repeated ad nauseam) I could not actually locate another verson. As it turns out,

"Army of One" was a relatively short-lived recruiting slogan. It replaced the popular "Be All You Can Be" and was replaced in 2006 by the new slogan "Army Strong".

Apparently even they could figure it out -- perhaps by reading TLP, considering this article was published December 26, 2006.

[↩]Doh. [↩]The US was never and never was a civilisation. [↩]It stood for a little over a decade, but recently they're "Warriors Wanted", as fucking if. [↩]I was always kinda background worried that my Trilema articles are all over the place, "value" or "quality"-wise, admitting such could be measured. But this guy, he's got at least ten times the variance, I guess I really had nothing to worry about. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Into Your Soul. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Education. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Monday, 22 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Into Your Soul. Adnotated.

the most crucial thing to understand is that the arrow drawn above is exactly 180 degrees off course

On the Opie & Anthony radio show, comic Amy Schumer told a sexy story.

She was 18, and was out with friends in NYC wearing "a miniskirt and a tube top -- my uniform back then." At the end of the night they pile into a cab. Amy sits in the front.

The cab driver was "gross, like the cab driver on MTV." "This was back when I used to do dangerous things, sexually," and littered throughout the story were exasperated sighs, like, "I can't believe I did those things." I sympathize, believe me I do.

So what does a drunk 18 year old coed do in the front seat of a cab that's worth sharing on the radio? She extends her leg over towards the cabbie...

At this point I should tell you that the title of this Opie & Anthony segment is "Amy Schumer Gets Fingered In A Cab" so of course I already know what's going to happen, which is why I'm parked behind a church. But this surprises me nonetheless:

GUY: So you let the cab driver touch your vagina?i

AMY: No -- I took his hand and made him touch my vagina.

That's right, she didn't let this all happen, she made it all happen, on purpose. She wanted to get fingered by this filthy, ugly, dangerous cab driver.ii

So while her drunk friends are passed out in the back, she's riding his "disgusting finger" towards an orgasmiii and trying not to moan too loudly. 10 or so blocks later she climaxes, immediately feels horrified by herself, gets out of the cab, pays, and runs into her apartment.

At the end of this story, everyone, including Amy, started to play the popular game Why Would She Do That? -- was she molested as a child, was it self-punishment?iv But according to the Textbook Of Psychoanalysis, every event in your life is reprocessed as a story, and every story has five Acts. Acts II- IV are the rising action, climax, and falling action; Act V is the denouement: what was the result of all this? Taking this literally, Amy's orgasm is Act III. Getting out of the cab and feeling disgusted is Act IV. What's missing from her story is Act V. So if you're brave enough we're going to play a different game, a game with real winners and real losers, and that game is Guess What Happens Next.

I.

There's a criticism among male comics about female comics, that they only have to look good in a skirt and talk about blowjobs and they can get away with not being funny, and I want to be clear that when comics make this criticism they are talking about Amy Poehler, not Amy Schumer. Amy Schumer is very funny and very quick. The funniest thing about Amy Poehler is nothing.v

But why is there even a market for sexy but unfunny female comics? The answer is that it's hot to hear a sexy girl talk openly about sexvi, and the only safe way a woman can talk openly about sex is..... as a joke, as parody.vii

If you heard this as a feminist criticism you have missed 50% of the fun: men can't safely hear about sex from a woman except as a joke, or else they are labeled as perverts by women, who are still unsure of their (sexual) place in this free for all we call Nowadays. "I want to tell you about last night but I don't want you to judge me or appear interested." Huh? Nowadays can be exhausting, but they were also inevitable.

In America, everything is a commodity, everything has a price.viii So when post-gold standard capitalism gets access to everything except the secret desires of women, it will necessarily create a mechanism to get them, too, i.e. some media to take the bullet as pervert so women can be free to talk in exchange for men quietly listening in. It took a decade but the system worked: Howard Stern was the inevitable synthesis of feminism and Reaganomics, which is a sentence you will never read anywhere else.ix

Which is why as Amy is describing putting the cabbie's hand on her vagina, this happens:

DAN: So, were you... prepared to receive him?

AMY: What do you mean?

DAN: I mean.... were all systems a go?

AMY: You mean was I wet? How wet do you have to be to slide a finger in?x

Thing is, this is satellite radio, Dan can be as vulgar and explicit as he wants, no FCC. And he knows this, he works there. You could say it's a hold over from the broadcast radio days, except Dan was never in broadcast radio, which means one of two things happened, both of which are the same: 1. He was reflexively imitating the style and language he learned was allowable for sexy talk with female strangers, e.g. FM radio Howard Stern; 2. his own mind had used a distancing language -- sound like someone else -- so as not to appear to be the pervy guyxi wanting to know if her box was wet enough to penetrate.xii Feminists, note carefully that the female is allowed to be graphic, but the males in the room still feel they have to censor themselves around her.xiii Where do you think that censorship is coming from?xiv Amy?

There is a group of you who will read this and feel enraged by a double standard, in front of men women get to be sexy, talk about sex, flaunt it, but men can't introduce the topic, can't ask questions, can't pursue -- can't even look -- because then they're labeled as predators.xv If you're in this group you don't get it. The censorship doesn't come from women, it comes from you. If you feel like you can't ask her about her sex because you'll sound like a repressed stalker, you are, in fact, a repressed stalker. You're not going to kill her, ok, fair enough, but you aren't going to leave her alone, ever. If Trina rolls bleary eyed into the cubicle and says, "wow, I got totally plowed by this guy last night" not only are you not going to get any coding done that day, but you will make it impossible for her to ever get any coding done or keep her cell number because of your subtle pushes for more stories and passive aggressive inquiries about her relationship status and near constant innuendo.xvi "Cubicles. Blech. You know what job I'd be good at? Riding a backhoe."

So, radio fans, if you hear a woman tell you she got fingered in a cab, you're being offered a chance to see inside your soul: what do you think next?

If you think, "I sooooooo want to come on her tits," you're normal.xvii Also a pig, but a normal, 21st century pig. Sigh. We've been trained to be aroused by imitation. "Well, men are visual creatures." Let me guess, you heard that on TV, big surprise. Your deepest desires come out of a box, against your nature. Tell me, which is more arousing: watching a porno with the sound off, or listening to a porno without the video? Yeah. I love staying in hotels, too.xviii

Men aren't visual, they are trained. Back when men were the labor force TV told them to be visual so they could buy some crap, but when women started taking over the labor pool they told women to be visual, too, or did genetics suddenly decide male chest hair was out starting exactly 1989, the year the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History Of The World graduated college? People don't think visually, the system has trained them to think visually. Most of the world uses computers for words, right? Yet it seems never to occur to anyonexix to do what is the most obvious thing in the world, ever:

Duh. But now that I've told you you still won't do it, the infrastructure is against you. So even though the world is coded in 8.5:11 it is experienced in 9:4, and the system facilitates the sheeping, not the shepherding. You want to change that? Good luck, you're not cool enough to have a followingxx and the moment it occurred to Steve Jobs his pancreas was detonated.

Back to Amy: so normal= "come on her tits"; abnormal, unhealthy but sadly the norm Nowadays would be to turn Naughty Amy's Barely Legal Ride Along into something masochistic and think: why not me? Why does this slut allow herself to get fingered by some ugly cab driver yet I can't even ask about it? Which is the answer to your own question. You are operating from a position of self-loathing which you then project as a judgment onto everyone else, and she can sense it. And you can sense it, which is why you self-censor. See? You're not all bad.xxi

II.

That women can't talk as openly about sex is really a subset of a larger difference, which is that while both are allowed to do anything they want, only a man can identify with it. Women must distance themselves from it, more or less depending on situation. When a man has sex it is a reflection of who he is; for women it has to be something that happened.

Say you're lucky enough to have the most wonderful of all experiences, the menage a trois. Right on. "Umm, dude, I've had threesomes and they're not that great. They're actually pretty awkward." Um, dude, you're not doing them right, they have to be sisters. So afterwards the guy will tell... everybody. And for the rest of his life. Any future girlfriend will hear about it within the first month of dating: Things That Make Me Cool. The woman may tell her friends, but she's not going to tell guy friends, and certainly not bring it up to potential boyfriends, and it sure as hell never reflects on her character. "It happened, but it's not who I am."xxii

The thing is, in any MFF, there are three people who could be telling you the story, yet the narrator is alwaysxxiii a penis. He had a threesome, the supporting cast say they "were in a threesome oncexxiv." Assuming you live in a town where X number of threesomes happen every year and there's no repeatsxxv, then there are twice as many women with a history of menages than men. Yet despite being the majority, it's the man's story to own and the woman's to disavow.xxvi

You could play it the other way and say, well, some women do repeat, but then in that case those individual women have had more threesome than guys, more experience with them, but they're still not allowed to own it, and if they do it's still at a distance: "I don't know, it just kind of happened."xxvii The only time you'll hear a guy says those words is if you're his girlfriend and he just cheated or you're the police and he's holding a head, and that's not a joke but a description of the motivator: shame.

But the point isn't simply that women do it but disavow it. I just told you a fact which, as a man, you must disavow yourself in order to continue dating.xxviii In order to see the world as ordered, you have to pretend that very few women as compared to men have had threesomes.

There are, of course, an unusual few women who "own" it, talk freely about their sex without shame, but unless they are comics they run the risk of inviting stalkersxxix and anyways, no matter how much they are otherwise liked or respected, people will still whisper quietly to each other: "what happened to her in her life that made her do these things?" Sexy women, you have a choice: you're either a slut, or broken.xxx

III.

Someone in the studio suggested that Amy's behavior was the result of childhood molestation.xxxi Jim Norton, a comic, explained it as "self-punishment." Jim's perspective is unique because he is a recovering alcoholic and a current sex-addict, frequently detailing his relations with hookers, transsexuals, etc. He would know, right?

The problem with this kind of backwards analysis is that it tries to universalize a behavior into its cause. But the fact is that people get fingered by ugly men in cabs for all kinds of reasons, including they just like it. Last Tango In Paris was about a beautiful young woman who was inexplicably drawn to a billy goat.xxxii It happens. No, you're thinking of Streetcar Brando. This is 1972 Godfather Brando.

baaaaaah

"Aww, older men can be sexy." I guess, if you're even older than them.xxxiii

Modern and pop psychology spend a lot of time taking a behavior and tracing it back to a single source -- genetics, trauma, whatever -- but there's no money there, the money is in the meaning, what they do with it. So Norton's an addict. Do you want to know how he got that way or what he does with it?xxxiv

Before, the experience of addiction was entirely subjective, is it messing up your life? Now, it's been objectified, the subject's relationship with the drug is no longer relevant, it is the fact of the drug that is relevant.xxxv The obvious example of this sleight of hand is that there's alcohol use and alcohol abuse, but there's no such category as cocaine use, even though the vast majority of its ingestion has nothing to do with addiction. The reinforcement is from the outside to comply with this idiocy: say you party down one weekend, then a random drug test at work, oops! So two things can happen, Guess What Happens Next: you could tell the truth that the coke was on her ass and how could you not? doesn't make you a bad person; or pretend/admit you're an addict and agree to go to rehab. So it's unanimous? You keep your job at McDonalds and the system gets another data point confirming it is right. I hope the parallel between this and anything written by Solzhenitsyn is immediately obvious, if not, read anything by Solzhenitsyn. The Matrix doesn't need you, but it will offer you a free pass if you help get the other batteries in line.

Note that when scienticians talk about, say, the increase in alcoholism, they never go back before WWII, otherwise they'd have to label most ancient Greeks, all Vikings and everyone in colonial America as alcoholics.xxxvi "Well," they'll explain, "it wasn't until then we started rigorously treating people as data points." While I'll accept that an amount of alcohol does the same damage to your innards regardless of what kingdom you're born inxxxvii, there's something sneaky about the current kingdom getting to be the sole judge of what is addiction and what isn't, but we rarely complain unless the addiction is the internet and the kingdom is China; and the reason we don't complain is that the system has cleverly made it very easy for us to abuse it selfishly when we want to, which was the plan all along. But it doesn't make it right. Sorry, wildman, you can't judge a person based on two generations of observation of a single culture that happens to be driven by TV.

The interesting thing about addictions -- include gambling and sex and internet and "dangerous behaviors" and whatever else you want -- is that they all share something in common. Allegedly this thing is dopaminergic pathways to the striatum and etc, but saying that gets you nothing. It's astounding that the layperson chooses to think in these terms which though they are true are utterly meaningless, utterly unactionable, until you remember, oh, of course, in narcissism believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you and the latter is about everyone else.xxxviii

Slightly off topic but here's an important example: say you yell every day at an/your eight year old girl for sloppy homework, admittedly a terrible thing to do but not uncommon, and eventually she thinks, "I'm terrible at everything" and gives up, so the standard interpretation of this is that she has lost self-confidence, she's been demoralized, and case by case you may be right, but there's another possibility which you should consider: she chooses to focus on "I'm terrible at everything" so that she can give up. "If I agree to hate myself I only need a 60? I'll be done in 10 minutes."xxxix

It is precisely at this instant that a parent fails or succeeds, i.e. fails: do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) the drudgery of boring, difficult work with little daily evidence of improvement, or do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) about 20 minutes of sobbing hysterically and then off to Facebook and a sandwich? Each human being is only able to learn to prefer one of those at a time. Which one does the parent incentivize?xl

If you read this as laziness you have utterly missed the point. It's not laziness, because you're still working hard, but you are working purposelessly on purpose. The goal of your work is to be done the work, not to be better at work.

For a great many people this leads to an unconscious, default hierarchy in the mind, I'm not an epidemiologist but you got it in you sometime between the ages of 5 and 10:

<doing awesome>

is better than

<feeling terrible about yourself>

is better than

<the mental work of change>

You should memorize this, it is running your life. "I'm constantly thinking about ways to improve myself." No, you're gunning the engine while you're up on blocks.xli Obsessing and ruminating is a skill at which we are all tremendously accomplished, and admittedly that feels like mental work because it's exhausting and unrewarding, but you can no more ruminate your way through a life crisis than a differential equation.xlii So the parents unknowingly teach you to opt for <b>, and after a few years of childhood insecurity, you'll choose the Blue Pill and begin the dreaming: someday and someplace you'll show someone how great you somehow are. And after a few months with that someone they will eventually turn to you, look deep into your eyes, and say, "look, I don't have a swimming pool, but if I did I'd drown myself in it. Holy Christ are you toxic."

"Well, my parents were really strict, they made me--" Keep telling yourself that. Chances are if your parents are between 50 and 90 they were simply terrible. Great expectations; epic fail. Your parents were dutifully strict about their arbitrary and expedient rules, not about making you a better person. "Clean your plate! Go to college!" Words fail me.xliii They weren't tough, they were rigidly self-aggrandizing. "They made me practice piano an hour every day!" as if the fact of practice was the whole point; what they did not teach you is to try and sound better every practice. They meant well, they loved you, but the generation that invented grade inflation is not also going to know about self-monitoring and paedeia, which is roughly translated, "making yourself better at piano."

"You don't know how hard it is to raise kids," says someone whose main cultural influence in life was the Beatles. The fact that you will inevitably fail in creating Superman is not a reason not to try. Oh: I bet I know what you chose when you were 8.

The mistake is in thinking that misery and self-loathing are the "bad" things you are trying to get away from with Ambien and Abilify or drinking or therapy or whatever, but you have this completely backwards. Self-loathing is the defense against change, self-loathing is preferable to <mental work.> You choose misery so that nothing changes, and the Ambien and the drinking and the therapy placate the misery so that you can go on not changing. That's why when you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, you don't immediately crank out 30 pushups, you open a bag of chips.xliv You don't even try, you only plan to try. The appearance of mental work, aka masturbation. The goal of your ego is not to change, but what you don't realize is that time is moving on regardless. Ian Anderson wrote a poem about this, you should study it carefully.xlv

Coincidentally, four days after Amy told her story I heard Howard Stern railing about an uncle who liked to play golf. "It infuriated me that he never took a lesson, never tried to get better. He was happy just playing, he didn't care if he got any better. It made no sense to me. How can you enjoy something and not want to get better at it?"xlvi Answer: some people are happy with par. He isn't, which is why he succeeded. The retort is, "well, I don't want to have to improve on everything, some things I just want to mindlessly enjoy." I sympathize, but I also own a clock, and there are only 24hrs in a day. Look on how many of those hours go to true self-improvementxlvii vs. mindless enjoyment, and despair.

That hierarchy you learned -- and yes, it was learned in childhood -- applies to everything, including addictions. Addiction may be biological, but no one ever claims that getting clean is biological. "When I hit 45, my testosterone levels fell which also lowered the dopaminergic activity in the reinforcement pathways of the brain, so I was able to get off dope." Wait, is that true? HA! No.xlviii It's a decision, made at that time in those circumstances. I know it's a hard decision, but like every other decision in life it is ultimately a binary one. Biology is pulling you towards 0, learning pulls you towards 1.

"All this happens at age 8?!" Think of how many years you've since practiced that hierarchy. "So after childhood, you're screwed? You can't change?" Oh, no, people change all the time, once they figure out how they're sabotaging themselves. Now it's your turn.

IV.

So the thing that addictions -- drugs, internet, sex, etc -- all have in common is that they displace and replace something else. If you think of yourself as containing an amount of stuff, or energy, or emotion, addiction isn't in addition to that, the total amount of emotion and energy stays constant. The nature of the emotions change, but the overall quantity of anger+sadness+happiness+ etc is the same. The addiction replaced something, and you can't get rid of an addiction unless something replaces it.

Broadly speaking, addiction replaces one of two things: human connection or change. Jim Norton frequently complains that his sex addiction prevents him from pursuing a show or writing scripts, but the verb is wrong: the sex addiction allows him not to work on scripts. Doesn't he want a pilot? Sure. But this way he doesn't have to do the mental work of change and eventually he can die. "Is he afraid of success?" No, why would he be? The more invested you are in your "self" -- not happy with, but invested in -- the more you will resist the potential of change. "Self"-loathing means there is a strong "self" that you loathe, and that self doesn't want to disintegrate.xlix

In the other category is human connection. What I don't mean is that a person lacking human connections turns to addiction, ha, you don't get off that easily: what I mean is that the addiction satisfies the same needs as human connection, but better. It bypasses the <mental work> of maintaining human connections. Say a married guy becomes an alcoholic, and this pushes his wife away, which of course makes him drink more. The problem now is that if he stops drinking, his wife doesn't automatically come back, right? She's pulled away as much as he's pushed. I'm sure she wants him to get clean and etc, but the energy math doesn't balance: he goes sober, the relationship may improve, but there's still a gap, still some emotional connection lost. Ergo: he cannot give up drinking.

More optimistically, the only way he is going to stop is: a) they split up; b) they double down on each other and talk MOREl to each other, more than they do now, maybe that means that he skips rehab in order to go to couples therapy. "But the problem isn't the marriage." It is now.

This idea of having a finite "amount" of emotion seems preposterous, and weirdly it's usually most preposterous to the people who don't believe in soul or God or whatever yet also don't want to believe we are finite human beings with finite capacities.

Anyway, here's a very real example of it. Two wives are talking, "after ten years of marriage, we don't cuddle anymore. He used to always hug and kiss me, and now...." And the standard interpretation is kids + work + age = lost a connection, took it for granted, relationship is worse than it was. And then she sees her newlywed friends or anyone on ABC and they're constantly touching each other. Sigh. So maybe you misread one of my posts or studied Deepak Choprali for a decade and think, "ok, I'll just DO it, I'll just force myself to touch/kiss/cuddle and then behavior will lead emotion and we'll connect again." You try it and-- -- it feels fake.lii

Eventually the marriage ends, and you tell your friends: "when he stops touching you, it's the first sign."

That may be the interpretation, and if you're merely dating it probably is the interpretation, but there's another to consider: all that touching/cuddlying is now more appropriately given to the kids, it is more correct for them, and so doing it to an adult seems fake because it IS fake. You can't touch a 5 year old the same way you touch a 40 year old, not unless you're a [TBD priest/football joke here]. The point isn't that your relationship is worse, the point is that it is different because it has to be different because otherwise you would explode. What remains is for you to figure out some new, adult way to "touch", whether that's backrubs or a bondage mask I have no idea, but your love has to grow up or else you will think you've fallen out of love. "How can you incorrectly think you've fallen out of love?" How many times have you incorrectly thought you were in love?

V.

I'm not judging Amy, at all, but her story is so representative of what countless women go through, the "I can't believe I did that" repeated 1000 times, so I hope she won't mindliii my using her story to make a point about how we frame our experiences for the very specific purpose of NOT changing.

It's not possible to overstate the importance of interpreting everything as a story -- by which I mean, you don't know the full story unless you know all of the acts. If one is missing, it is on purpose.

To be clear, as Amy was getting fingered in the cab, it wasn't happening as a storyliv; but she's telling it to us as a story, with a beginning and an end. But the beginning and ending she chose are arbitrary, she chose them for a reason. She said the beginning was when she got in the cab and the end was when she got out of the cab, which sounds expedient, but you should be very, very suspicious of the way you frame a story because the goal is almost never to help you understand it but to make you be able to live with it. The goal is identity preservation. Make sure you stay the main character in your own movie.

So even though I have no idea why she wanted to get fingered by a cab driver, I have heard this type of story before, I know the structure, and I know the payoff is in Act V, which she conveniently forgot to mention.

There are people who like doing dangerous sexual stuff, and people who don't, and those who don't are divided into those who never tell anyone and those who do tell someone. I already knew Amylv was in the latter category because she was telling the story on the radio, and people usually tell stories about things they are ashamed of for one reason: absolution.lvi

The thing is, we are ten years later, and according to Amy herself not much has changed -- i.e. she still finds herself doing things she wish she didn't.lvii Again, I am not judging her, I am only explaining a very common phenomenon. So in order for more stories like that one to occur in her life, there had to be an Act V in that story that allowed future repetition; and that Act V would be hidden -- she would always tell and remember the story without that part.

Which is why Guess What Happens Next is a rigged game, I knew exactly what was going to happen next at the beginning of the story: she'd run and tell the story to the one person in her life who had, simultaneously, full power of absolution and zero power of punishment, and if she was 28 that would be a therapist but at 18 it could only be one person: her mother.lviii

Psychological detectives take note: Amy would not have mentioned that she told her mom, she thought the story was finished, except that someone accidentally asked what she did next explicitly. Yet it is the key to the whole story.lix

Telling mom may seem like madness but remember, the goal is always NOT to change. Imagine what would happen if she didn't tell mom: she'd either repeat these behaviors in a death spiral until she discovered meth and flamed out; or would be so guilty she never did it again. Mom recites the necessary spell to protect against future change and allow for repetition:

MOM What were you thinking? You're not like that! You're not that kind of person! You're so much better than that!

AMY Thanks, mom, I feel a lot better.

END SCENE.

Every time you crowdsource the superego a piece of you is split off as bad keeping the rest of you intactlx as good. "I'm not a bad person, I just did a bad thing."

Women who engage in "dangerous behaviors" (NB: for gays and women this ALWAYS refers to sex, for hetero men NEVER)lxi and then tell people about them are not punishing themselves, at all.lxii "But it makes me feel so bad about myself."lxiii That's the hierarchy, that's the point. Two hours of sobbing hysterically and then off to Facebook and a sandwich.lxiv Thanks, mom.

People will do whatever has worked for them since childhood, which in this case is split off unpalatable pieces of themselves and disown them, protecting the rest. "I did that, but it's not who I am." When "it" is really bad you move to Step 2: find someone who can substitute for your atrophied superego to confirm "you're not like that", and you're good for a decade of emotional stagnation and the following crazy sentence: "I've changed a lot in ten years." Ha, yeah -- wait, you're serious? Dude, no one who is not you agrees. No one. Ask anyone. Not even your therapist. "That's not fair, my job isn't to judge." You're hired.

The downside of this, apart from candidalxv, is that you train yourself to think of all events and behaviors as happening to separate parts of yourself -- you don't fully own them -- which means that when something good does happen you can't own that, either. Everything will come with self-doubt. "That was good, but I was lucky/right place/other guy died/connections, otherwise it wouldn't have worked."lxvi

VI.

I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, "ok, all this is fine.... but why did she do it? Why did she get fingered in a cab if she didn't want to?"lxvii

You're thinking, "I don't want to hear about how everything is interpretable through the artificial paradigm of narrative structure--" as if it was me and not your god who made it this waylxviii, as if I was better able to invent a convenient fiction that happened to apply to you rather than describe a process that's been used for millennia. You think you're the first? You think no one but you has lived your life?lxix Do you think you are so unique? Do you think I just took a guess? This isn't the first time this game has been played, there've been over 100lxx generations of Guess What Happens Next and it is the exact same answer every single time. All of this has happened before and it will happen again.lxxi

But you want "why", you're drawn to "why" like you're drawn to a pretty girl in the rain. Let me guess: she has black hair, big eyes, and is dressed like an ingenue. "Why?" is the most seductive of questions because it is innocent, childlike, infinite in possibilities, and utterly devoted to you.lxxii

"Why am I this way? Why do I do what I do?" But what will you do with that information? What good is it? If you were an android, would it change you to know why you were programmed the way you were? "Why" is masturbation, "why" is the enemy, the only question that matters is, now what?

But you want "why". Ok, here we go.

The clue is that she did this at the end of the night. "Is it because she was drunk?" I'm drunk now, and I'm in an air taxi, and no one is fingering me. No.

You will observe that most of your "I can't believe I did that" behaviors are at the end of the night, the end of the day, the end of the party, the end of the storylxxiii, which means the narrative has less in common with a porno than with the last chip in the bag or the last swig out of the bottle -- there are a billion possible reasons why you started the bottle or plowed through the bags, but that very last one has only one unique motivation, and it is in understanding that last one that you will or will not change your future.

When you're in a casino and you blow $50 on the slot machine, pull, pull, pull, pull, pull, pull, each and every time you're hoping that this will be the one that hits, and once in a while you get a little something -- it is the randomness, the suddenness, the unpredictability of that even tiny reward which keeps you pulling through your bankroll. "Variable ratio schedule." Sound right? Well, none of those $50 have anything to do with the cab ride.

But then you're done, tapped out, and you turn to go but.... wait a minute............................ you have one token left. Stop now, look at that one, look carefully at it, it is your contract with the Devil, it is the selling of your soul. What is its value? Look at it, it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you think -- which means what you are about to do has already been decided.

You could pocket that last one. Go home with something other than nothing. Or, you could play that last one with superstitious hope, praying and bargaining that if you hit you'll X/Y/Z. But neither of those are what you think, right? Instead you think, "whatever" and you put it in the machine -- NOT because you think this time it will pay off -- be honest with yourself, you know that that initial optimism of game play is gone -- you do it precisely because you know it will fail -- you are throwing it away, on purpose, so you can walk away from the machine "clean", finished, so you can play-act at catharsis. "This is the last one!" you cry, like you're yelling out "it is accomplished!" The final suffering, look for a brand new me in a few days.lxxiv And unlike Amy's cab ride, you are turning this experience into a story in real time, you are writing the ending as if someone else is watching, as if it were a reality show or you were offering a voice over, you are constructing that experience, saying your lines, as the last Act of a story being told to an imaginary audience, a god, your future self, the balance of energy in the universe -- The Big Other.

And you think you're done but what you don't realize is you're only done Act III.

That's the last chip in the bag -- "whatever, might as well." That's the last swig, "I'm never drinking again." That's selling your stocks into a downturn, that's your sexual history, throwing it away one more time not because this time the guy is going to be great but because it's not going to be great, it's a sacrifice to the volcano.

You throw it away, on purpose, because it's not worth holding on to it, you've already disavowed it as useless, evil, pointless, hopeless -- it is the last remnant of a part of you you want gone. You play that last coin, drink that last drink, eat that last chip and throw your vagina at a billy goatlxxv -- all of those are the splitting off of a piece of yourself that you then can leave behind. The act is the "physical expression of an intrapsychic process" -- you are acting out what you wish were true, like a rape victim scrubbing herself clean. "That's not me- -- anymore." If only it were that easy. I sympathize, you have no idea.

What's most sad about it is that you might have been right -- it might have worked -- except that instead of making that be the end of the story you drag it out for one more Act, and ensure that the pattern repeats, ad nauseam. You don't want the story to end. It's not a great story, but it's the one you know, the one you understand, and you'd rather have 500 pages of repetition compulsion than take a chance on Once Upon A Time. Writing is hard, I know. I know.

"How can any of this even be real?" you ask, hoping that since I drink and since I don't sleep therefore I must be insane. Never mind that: focus on the words. Since you reinterpret your life as a story, then your entire book has already been written, give me Acts I-III and the beginning of IV I can tell you the ending. Ok, maybe in your story you [wrote] it's a job and not a whale, or you choose a car not a trainlxxvi, or maybe it's "Reader, I married him" or "there's something we need to do as soon as possible" -- minor details, the ending always flows logically from the beginning -- and if you're young enough you'll even think you'd be satisfied with a tragedy as long as it's dramatic enough. Don't sweat it, it's the age. But if I'm permitted I'll offer you one final prediction, you'll either take this as a warning or remember that you don't believe in all this crap: if you are looking for the perfect climax but have no knowledge of the resolution, if you do not write your story towards an ending, then your life will default to the one ending that will terrify you more than any other possible: "He could not refrain from going on with them, but it seems to us that we may stop here."lxxvii It is inevitable.

———It's a vulva. Vagina inside, vulva outside, god damned rural retards. [↩]Dude, get the fuck off. I had to look up the name, as I never heard of this Amy whatever, and the five minutes I wasted on it didn't turn up anything substantial whatsoever ; it's my conclusion that she's yet another one of those only-girl-at-cichlid-club, that all the dweebs court by default. I do not appreciate the retarded girly pseudosexuality, and the whole thing sounds to me like one of those Nedeflorena stories of "almost, tee-hee".

What the fuck is a dangerous cab driver supposed to even be ? Cab drivers are the fucking victim class, a dangerous cab driver's a lot like a sexy accountant. [↩]Of course, of course, the nail of all fake stories of female sexual adventureness gotta be the orgasm, because guess why. [↩]Because she didn't do it, but she'd still like to be on TV, which is kinda what radio is, rite ?

I find I also "climax" exactly as the cab's pulling onto my block so I can run off like a little boy... oh wait, that's not how anything ever goes, at all. Hm. [↩]Whatever, they fucked Brad Daemonn or what's his name, the ugly fuck with the absent gaze / mongoloid forehead. That "Flock of Seagulls" guy, as Tarantino aptly called him. [↩]No, actually : the answer's that "comics" aren't there to be funny, they're there to be entertaining, which is a very different thing -- and which also explains why most of them, the very vast majority of them get away with not being funny. Because they're not even remotely fucking funny, what the fuck. You think US stand-up acts are funny, what the fuck are you, twelve years old ?

The role exists in all societies and in all cultures, though usually the people being entertained are sitting around tables eating and drinking, rather than huddling in an auditorium like complete idiots.

We're sitting there, like idiots being entertained without a piece of cake!

It's what it is. [↩]What's the definition of "safe" here contemplated ? [↩]Yeah, everything. Well, "everything", at any rate, which'd be why you can't buy anything worth buying over there. [↩]Except for the part where Stern predates both and "feminism" exists entirely as an epiphenomenon of the Glorious Revolution, of which Gia Carangi, Larry Flint, Pete Walker or Howard Stern were minor satellites (sorted descendingly by degree of magnitude). [↩]Wait, she had an orgasms from... sliding a finger in ?

It only now even occurs to me to ask, but... has this woman even had an orgasm before ? [↩]No, actually, he still comes across creepy as fuck. [↩]You can penetrate irrespective of that. Try it sometime, it's fun. [↩]Oh gimme a break, they're playing a society game, what "allowed".

All join hands 'an circle eight, circle eight an' hand aroun' when you're home wheel aroun an' promenade to town. Left allemande corner left, wave the ring and in and out, cut and in till' home again.

Sound familiar ? Well good, 'cause thats all the fuck you louts ever do over there, it's like a perpetual barn raising since 1819 or some shit. [↩]Europe.

An Europe that never existed, not even back in the day such strange improbable idea of it was formed in its sad colony. [↩]So ?! Da fuck else you want to be anyway ?

O noes, anything but that briar patch, please oh please. [↩]That sounds terrible. [↩]If I came continuously for the whole interval between this article's original publication and the date of its adnotation, she'd still be so far down the trough nothing'd reach her.

What the fuck do I care about some ugly fuck in a NY cab ?! I bet she doesn't even have any tits. Do you know how many times I've said "nah, too short" in Minsk ? [↩]Is this a trick question ? Honestly kinda depends on the situation, am I being wrong ? [↩]I wouldn't bet too much of that daytrading money on this universal quantification. [↩]Keks. [↩]And besides, "she was '''18''' then", which is why all the trained, 2nd tier interest in young sluts. Maybe if they're young enough they won't know ? [↩]Are you fucking kidding me ?! [↩]I... would be careful with that universal quantification ? Seriously now... [↩]Once my foot, most girls I publicly fucked (oh oops, sorry, it's not usually MFF but MnF, what can you do) ended up taking it back home, to try it with their boyfriend too! Oh, oops... [↩]There's always repeats. It goes like so : first, she fucks with us. Then, she takes it back home to try it with the boyfriend too. Then the circle is complete, she's got the data she needs -- the boyfriend's out. By which I don't mean necessarily that we'll ever fuck her again ; but she's sure as fuck not passing on any tuna anymore, either. [↩]Disavow nothing. [↩]What the fuck is this dude talking about ?! [↩]Why the fuck would you do that ?! [↩]In the immortal words of Tom, "would that be physical, or just a mental state" ? [↩]Sexy women, come to the slave side. Not only we have cookies, but we mostly eat them while making fun of those "people". [↩]UStards are fucked in the head. What the fuck inane subculture is this, where they get three cards for anything, and keep playing those three cards in random order no matter what the fuck happens ?!

Maybe it's the result of bogon warming, have you thought about that ? Hm ? [↩]Dude... it was about how much billygoats everywhere would like to live in a world where such could possibly have happened. The message of the thing was exactly

It might never happen that you've seen, but it happened that one time in, you know, Paris, so don't kill yourself just yet. Hang it out a while, how bad can it get ? And besides... you'll always have Paris.

like some kind of advertising for VHS-America, "buy USG's corporate bonds" sorta deal. Which is why it's so important that he rapes her irl, which is why he did. [↩]Check it out, he fell on the exact fucking scene. How... coincidental.

Wanna bet that he has no fucking clue as to what went on in the backstage, on and about the set, while they filmed that scene ? "I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress, I wanted her humiliated" and all that ? I guess I have another putative interview question, don't I. [↩]Honestly, not really. [↩]They're just trying to squeeze that UGC out of themselves somehow. It is folly, but then again what do they know. [↩]Funny, they do the exact same when they talk of "global earworms". [↩]Very much not the case, which is why Caucasians and Samoans don't have the same problems with it. [↩]You know ? [↩]Noob slavegirls try this alllll the time. It doesn't work, with me, but the fact that they do try it means that it works somewhere else. [↩]From experience, it takes about 2.5x the time it took to learn (and about a degree of magnitude more beatings than'd have sufficed for a preteen) to unlearn the "crying hysterically" habit. Yet it can be done -- which is part of why you gotta start with women under 25 : by the time she's 30 she's had > 18 years to reinforce it, now multiply that by 2.5 and add to 30. [↩]If the engine's not in gear, pushing the gas results in revving. if the engine's in gear, pushing the gas results in gunning, especially if pushing to the floor. Yet if the engine's in gear while the car's suspended (ie, the wheels not touching the ground), well... [↩]For one thing, if you ever wonder "omg, how is MP so productive", it's because I absolutely never do this.

For the other thing, yes, lots of people do it -- a circular mental process that doesn't proceed from inputs to outputs, definitively, but constantly circles back, taking its outputs for inputs or adjusting the inputs by reviewing the outputs.

Make a very simple rule yours : that there shall be no circular trees! [↩]Yet they don't fail me. [↩]You know, I'm rather impressed with this theory of his, I think it has great predictive power not to mention it organzies empirical experience quite well. [↩]Jethro Tull ? Whatever, I'm not looking that up. [↩]I don't try to get better at sex, either. Why the fuck would I ? [↩]This cult of the self-improvement is counterproductive. How about you know, just do things from cause and correctly, and nevermind all the fret ? Hm ?

"My master is a great man : when he eats, he eats ; when he sleeps, he sleeps."

Try it sometime, it might... selfimprove you lol. [↩]Sounds a lot like the whole "higher power" thing, except his is called "testosterone levels" for some reason. [↩]Quite exactly -- self-loathers aren't less self-absorbed than run of the mill obnoxious dweebs ; they're generally even more self-absorbed. [↩]This "more" is always auto-"understood"/misunderstood in terms of volume, as a matter of bulk, "all talk's the same talk anyway, we'll do two hours instead of one hour". They should talk more in the sense of deeper, which is why he should be doing the talking with a belt, and she should be doing the listening in welts. There's a huge societal cost to ... [↩]All these fucking references this dude makes... Who the fuck is Deepak Chopra and who the fuck even gives half a shit, I keep looking up these shits that exist on wikipedia only and it's... some dork who thinks he's indian and writes books. Motherfucker.

Where does he even hear of all these nobodies ?! [↩]So beat her. [↩]Holy shit dude, she's a public woman, she doesn't "mind", she doesn't even notice anymore, that's what she's fucking for, use her, by all means, go ahead. What, you didn't want to assume ?

Fucking whiteknights. [↩]Or at all. [↩]Holy shit this guy, seriously, he drives around Chicago and imagining he's having relationships with the voices he hears... what, "Amy" is gonna be upset at you for making fun of her dumb ass or something ?

Fourth interview question is born. [↩]There's only one possible story "Amy" could ever tell for absolution, and it goes like this :

I was an insecure, ugly, untalented and kinda dumb kid, and I've been running from it for all my life, doing all sorts of stupid shit in the process, mostly in the vein of pretending I'm an entertainer, which I suck at. I'm sorry.

And the absolution's right here : STFU, Attention Whore Culture. [↩]And TLP still finds himself acting like a dweeby kid getting no nookie. [↩]I know, right ? Pro tip : baby isn't describing her anal rape/deflowering to Mom for absolution ; she's doing it for sexual domination. Mom&baby shared the very arid trough of a shy, withdrawing, silent or otherwise distant and disinterested male, and the experience mostly shaped baby, and her future relationships. So now that she's older, she's bringing home the bacon, sexually speaking, to her aging Mom whom she loves very much -- after all, they've been through so much (in women, this always = so little) together! If they weren't so squeamish she'd actually feed Mom some. [↩]The reason "Amy would not have mentioned" is the same reason you don't go bragging in general. If someone asks you what did you drop in the church till last you might offer the sum, but sure as hell you don't go about announcing it, yes ? Same principle.

PS. What does the author want to be true ? How does it conflict with the actual Amy, her actual sexual committments and outlook ?

You know... there's a reason Ballas is listening to her on the radio while I don't give enough of a shit (too old, too short) to pick her up. No, that reason isn't coincidence ; that reason is that I don't give the first fuck as to what's true, I have no specific preference, anything whatsoever can be true for all I care. I'll just use it as is & in situ, I don't want it to go any specific way. [↩]Isn't this kinda contrary to what "intact" means ? [↩]And there's an excellent biological reason for that. [↩]Indeed not. They're trying to keep themselves from being depressed, by enacting revolution. Why did you think jewish chicks / redheads are such sluts ?! [↩]I know, right ? It makes you want to say that around every Ballas available, doesn't it. [↩]The giveaway is that Amy isn't sobbing. She's looking through you, distractedly. Ever seen Dark Horse ? [↩]Nonsense, you can get candida from the weather, quite literally. The last place on the -- lengthy -- list of places you get candida is the orgy room. [↩]Why is this problematic again ? Of course "otherwise it wouldn't have worked". Duh. [↩]Dude, she's a teen. She wants to, and she is supposed to want to, have that cooch out in the open, fondled, probed, poked and sploodged. What the hell ? It's how it works, it's what it's for, what the hell do you want ? She's doing science with her cunt, which is the natural function of the damned thing in the first place. [↩]Speaking of which. [↩]This is an excellent question, made all the more amusing by how unprepared it catches the dorks. They really thought so! [↩]Numbers expressed in thousands. [↩]Because cunts run on perl. [↩]He has a point, nobody asking "why" ever intended to change (in the wider sense, of act). With exceedingly rare exceptions the asker's just looking for some kind of excuse to discard the whole stack -- which is why kids ask it so often. They're not "curious as to how things work", they're trying to produce a list out of the endless pile of nonsense they have to deal with that is sorted by importance. That's how childhood learning works, it's not that they ask why and you explain why and they understand why and now know shit. It's that they ask why and you explain why and they score your explanation for relative importance implied upon the subject of the why and move on. The resulting sorted list is then, sorted and sorted and sorted again, what you misinterpret as "knowledge", but in point of fact until they start doing things on their own they know nothing. Eventually they may start deploying the only productive form of this question, "why are you doing it like that [rather than like this]", but it'll never happen very often mostly because it's the sort of question that requires a very specific audience. [↩]I thought the theory went they're at the "end", which is a false end, because the real end is deliberately cut off. If this is true, they'll always be at the end no matter when they happen. [↩]This is a pretty strong figure, the phoenix gambler -- if he didn't cleanly go through one bankroll, how could he really start over later ? [↩]He didn't know. [↩]Presumably, Anna Karenina ? I dunno, just going by the final quotation. [↩]This is Dostoyevski, Notes from the underground. No idea why it's supposed to be so terrifying, but anyways. Is he implying that the necessary correlate of a disinterest in "purpose" aka "writing towards an ending", as a transparent proxy for pantsuitism in general (and, presumably, USG in particular) is a correlate of suicide ? Because honestly... leaving aside how it's ridiculous, it does expose the fundamental problem of the author's relationship with his parasite.

I wish I knew how to turn this into an interview question for him.

PS. And what is so terrifying about suicide, anyway ? This weird ass-backwards nonsensical subculture calling itself "America" I'm dealing with here, built out of "drugs are cool" and "suicide is terrifying" and telling each other they really really wanna fuck children and whatever the fuck else. It's alienating, it's absolutely like watching worms watch porn. "Omg wormdude, did you see that chitinous horn on her ? And the sludge translucency, o wow!" God damned it, who thinks like that! [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - AM Radio Kids. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - An Army of Narcissists? No Way. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Sunday, 21 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - AM Radio Kids. Adnotated.

When you don't understand a problem you apply the solutions that you do; his Dad's solution was to find ways to train his mind to be focused, to concentrate, and to use logic, so his Dad had taken to making simple patterns with M&Ms, and if the boy could figure out what the next color was, he could have all the M&Ms. That was his approach to behaviorism, though he gave the boy all the M&Ms anyway, so he sucked as a behaviorist, too.

And at first the father was stunned, incredulous, at how terrible the boy was at this game. Not only would he not pick the right one, sometimes he picked a color that was not even involved.i

It was as if the only pattern he saw was "straight line."

But over two months they had gotten somewhere, gotten past ABABAB; and then there was this ; and the boy looked at it, and with all the confidence in the world grabbed an M&M and waved it in his father's face. "Blue!"ii

"No, no, take a look at it. One red, then green, two reds, then green, three reds, then green, then...?"

"Red!"

"How many reds?"

"Green!"

"No, try again. One red, green, red red, then green, red red red, green, then...?"

"Fo -- three!"

"No, you almost had it--"

And the boy shoved his fingers into the air, switching them as he waved, first one, then two, then three, all the while yelling "two!"

but his fingers stopped at four.

"No, not two, look, you have it--"

The boy did it again, fingers waving, he was about to say something else wrong, but he paused, he was confused, he looked at his fingers, then the clock, then a bowl of apples -- the fingers were showing four but his brain was saying something else, what did that mean? but he couldn't get the answer out.

The father watched, the boy's lips fought between an "f" and a "th", then he lapsed into a grimace; his fingers showed four, he stared at them, he tried to put one down but his body rebelled and forced them back up, like he was resisting an unseen Jedi Master trying to control his body movements.

There he sat, drenched in the right answer, his body and his lips and his fingers were all telling him the right answer, but his brain was picking something else, he couldn't get it.

"How many fingers do you have up?!"

He looked, his lips moved silently as he counted his own fingers. "Four?"

"Four! Right, buddy!"

He smiled, looked at the M&Ms, then messed them up with his hands. "Vree vre vre vre vre!"

"Stop! What are you doing...?!" Too late. As M&Ms clacked on the floor, the boy looked up a little afraid. "Umm...mmmm." Then, as he saw his father's rage build, he said quite clearly: "how about I clean them up and we make another pattern?"

They are AM radio kids, you spend hours in your car trying to tune in a station but it's all static, once in a while you think there was a word there, or a phrase but that's it, and you turn the knob, push it, cover it with your hand to block out sunspots -- you know it has information, you know it's there, but you can't get the thing to tune in.

And hours of this, you've driven 90 miles down an empty night road with one frustrated hand on the wheel and the other hand on the radio knob, a quarter millimeter often enough to get in a syllable, or lose it, just as you're about to scream and give up, suddenly, a full sentence comes through, perfect, "there's a very good chance that today it might rain, so bundle up" -- you are stunned by the clarity and completeness--iii and then it's gone again, back into static. You try everything, you even smack the side of it but you know that's not a good ideaiv, it never fixes it and eventually it won't work at all.

These are AM radio kids, the content isn't the problem, the problem is the reception, the problem isn't the broadcaster, the problem is you. AM radio works fine, but with so much other interference competing for the same box, but you want it now and clear, on your timetable, well, what did you expect?v

———He has a rgrgrgy or whatever here, but I ablated it because it's distracting : when describing you can leave things ambiguous, which is much better, but when you illustrate you have to pick a certain color to play the role of "wrongness", which is stupid. [↩]And the father's first impulse was to beat the shit out of the kid, and that first impulse'd have been the correct response, too. But the father never responded correctly, and then "didn't understand the problem", and was stunned & incredulous at just how terrible his offspring was at responding correctly. [↩]It's a stupid way to spend your time ; I personally blame the sexless youth. [↩]It's a perfect idea, smash it until it either works as expected or dies, thereby giving up the pretense to an existence it can't satisfy. [↩]Perfect reception, all the time, or else. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - All Girls School Or Coed? Which Is Better? Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Into Your Soul. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Sunday, 21 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - All Girls School Or Coed? Which Is Better? Adnotated.

"Graduates of all-girls schools show stronger academic orientations than coed graduates." What?

The study is one of the largest of its kind. It also addresses a crucial flaw in many other studies, by comparing single sex schools to coed private schools, eliminating the "private is better" confounding variable.

6500 womeni from 225 single sex high schools compared to 15000 women in 1200 coed private high schools, across the country. It also separates out the Catholic schools, and controls for race, income, etc, etc.

62 percent of s-s students spend 11 hours or more per week studyingii, compared to 42% of coed school's female students.

81 percent of s-s women graduates rate themselvesiii "above average" or in the "highest 10 percent" for academic ability, compared to 75% of coed women graduatesiv.

60 percent of s-s women rate themselves "above average" or in the "highest 10 percent" with regard to intellectual self-confidencev, compared to 54 percent of coed women.vi

48 percent of female graduates of s-s women rate their math ability "above average" or in the "highest 10 percent" compared to 37 percent of coeds.

Two seconds spent staring at this lead to the obvious question: are they better students, or worse students who are also delusional?vii If they spent 11 hours or more studying, was it worth it?viii

Higher SAT Scores. Women who attended single-sex schools tended to outscore their coeducational counter-parts on the SAT. Mean SAT composite scores (Verbal plus Math) are 43 points higher for single-sex graduates.

I'm not sure if that was meant to be a joke or not. 43 points may be a lot (which it isn't) but it's hardly reason for a group of students to have such a bloated sense of self-esteem that they consider themselves in the top 10% (I look forward to your emails.) Or, the reverse: 43 points is hardly a reason for another group of students not to have an bloated sense of self-esteem.

Clearly, there is merit in fostering intellectually curiosity and ambition, but things like this:

Single-sex graduates also report more time talking with teachers outside of class, where 37 percent of single-sex graduates reported spending three or more hours per week meeting with teachers apart from class

Seem to me a solid reason to home school.ix

My point here is not to disparage single sex schools, there may be/are excellent reasons to send a kid to a single sex school.x It simply appears, based on this, one of the largest and most important studies on the question, that self-esteem goes up disproportionately to any concrete metric of achievement.xi Contrasting opinions/information are welcome. I am entirely ambivalent on the question of same-sex education; my own was vigorously no sex, with the resultant negative effects on my own self-esteem. Now I write a blog. Plan accordingly.

———What were women doing in all-girls schools ? [↩]Eleven hours per week ?! Holy shit what happened to the sixty hour week! What the fuck is this, a hospital ship !? [↩]Self-ratings, always good for a chuckle. [↩]Holy shit how can 70-80% be above average, let alone in the top decile ?! What the fuck are these dumb cunts "studying", Obnoxious Impudence 400 ? [↩]What the fuck is that ?! If you rate yourself highly urinarily self-confident you're saying you believe that you believe you won't pee the bed, and if you rate yourself highly intellectualy self-confident you believe what ? That you're stupid, as per the oldest definition of stupidity, "the idiots think they know everything while intelligent people are full of doubt" ? What sort of functionally illiterate nonsense is this! [↩]Yeah, how about "it's easy for dumb cunts to think they're maybe not as dumb while among themselves, without seeing any males to compare with". You know, much like white kids think they're pretty good at science for as long as they don't have to go to class with any azn kids. I bet you girls born and raised in Boise, Idaho who also go to highschool there think themselves pretty debonair and cosmopolitan and whatnot, as compared to girls born and raised in Boise, Idaho going to highschool in Chicago. What the fuck provincial nonsense is this ?! [↩]Better question : what sort of moron makes a study about academic achievement on the basis of self-reporting ?! Who the fuck permits this nonsense to be published ? What does it say about some study, to have been published in the same place as this imbecile atrocity ? You realise that everyone who ever went to UCLA is now utterly fucking suspect, yes ? Because this will be all that comes to mind, "oh, you hung out with those morons for four years". Explain this away if you can, I'm all ears.

Imagine yourself at UCLA. This is where bold research and real-world solutions happen. This is where the movers and shakers are housed. This is where the next generation of education and information studies professionals are being prepared to address some of the most pressing challenges.

Nope, not doing it. Try something else. [↩]Moreover, what do they even think "studying" means ? Maybe they're doing their nails -- as long as they're doing each other's nails it's practically Sociology, neh ? Just as good as anything in the Boas school, anyways. [↩]Seriously. What's the idea here, that those really sad butch dykes preying on all-girls' schools are somehow better than the baseline dr. Talcs of the world ?! Gimme a break. [↩]Yes : mental retardation.

If your child isn't mentally retarded, sending him to study among a group of same-age idiots selected by any other criteria than the purely academic is pure folly. I went to highschool in the single thirty-strong class at that level for the entire country -- thats 30 seats for about 700`000 people in the age range, putting each of us comfortably in the top 0.005% academically, by nominal criteria. Nobody was there because they were a girl, or because their parents witnessed the right Jehova, nor because anything the fuck else nonsense. Yet you know what ? Nobody really thought all that much of themselves, either! Principally because nobody gave a shit, and secondarily because absolutely everyone understood nominal criteria aren't even remotely as important as school administrators'd like them to be, and go about pretending they are.

In a word : nobody among an "objective" elite of kids above one percent of the one percent -- yes, get that, by the time you take the one percent of the one percent smartest best & greatest kids you're still merely halfway there -- spent very much time figuring out whether they "feel" like they're in the top 10%, nor likely would have said yes if asked. They might have agreed with your math if you showed them the math, but they likely wouldn't have agreed with their own math if they had to figure it out in isolation -- mostly because among all the kids they knew, they still figured kinda around the midmark (obviously, by virtue of their not knowing all that many idiots, very skewed social group). And besides, what the fuck difference does it make, among a set of kids who haven't yet done anything, who is the tenth of a % grade better than who !? They're fucking grades, devised by intellectually inferior people for their own fucking needs, how the hell is anyone going to figure the morons coming up with exam questions are gonna meaningfully order the smartest kids in a generation ? The ordering of the smartest kids is a harder problem than the being the smartest kids! By far! And those adults weren't the smartest kids back when they were kids anyway, because if they had been they'd be working in "International Trade" and "Computation Technology" research, not fucking Education Inspectorating.

All-girls "schools" are glorified repositories for mongoloid females, nothing more and nothing else. [↩]Self-esteem goes up in direct proportion to socio-cultural isolation, which is how the patently idiotic population of North America ended up with its otherworldy notions of itself, both in the overall and in groups however selected. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Little Bird Told Me. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - AM Radio Kids. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Sunday, 21 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - After You Shoot Three Women, Who Should You Call? Adnotated.

dressing the part The rule in media is that if they mention your middle name you killed someone, so Thomas Franklin May is nominally guilty.

His ex-wife put out a restraining order against him, so he drove out to where she was and shot her in her car. She was 36. He also shot a nearby 63 year old woman and a 94 year old woman, I assume so they wouldn't turn into Agents.i

It's hard not to judge a book by its cover when the book is wearing a big America # 1 t-shirt and a Harley Davidson cap even if that is the mandatory uniform of Alabama and he drives a Jeep. Why is this idiot in sneakers?ii

Police did not release a motive. "We really don't know what's in a person's mind when they do something like this."iii

Yes we do, same thing every time: "It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks."iv

About three hours later, when city officers already had left campus, a man driving a white Jeep Liberty with the same tag number police had released as the suspect's pulled into the parking lot where the shootings occurred. Photographer Todd van Emst, who was taking photos of the scene for The Associated Press, said the man asked to use his cell phone. Van Emst said the man gestured and said he "did all this."

Uh oh, someone broke the fourth wall. It's hard to believe that a man with a white Jeep Liberty needs to drive back to the scene of the crime to make a call; and anytime anyone asks to borrow your cell phone you should assume they're running a short con, duck. No, Thomas Franklin May chose to go to the media. Did he think they'd be sympathetic? Doubtful. They'd let him go? No. He loves the liberal media? It's Alabama. He went because he figured they'd do what he needed them to do: soft ball the bad guy and publish his side of the story.

The media will drop a blonde in a war zone without a moment's hesitation, but what they don't like is a gunman out of context, and this guy was way the hell out of context. So rather than sitting him down to figure how this can be Bush's fault, they called the cops.

And then this happened:

After members of the media called 911, police arrived within minutes, knocked the man to the ground and handcuffed him, van Emst said.

If it takes you minutes to drive to somewhere to knock someone down, you probably didn't need to knock him down. Not that May didn't deserve it, but in truth knocking him down was van Emst's right, not the police's. Read that again. The police have a partial monopoly on power because they promise us to use it judiciously, when necessary -- but we often forget that we humans retain a special right for scenarios, like the scenario of a homicidal maniac in a white car (protip: if not female or Asian = INSANE) coming up to ask to borrow your cell phone. That guy you're allowed to hit, if you can.v

The point here is not that the photographer should have tackled him. The point is the more police get to use our right of force, the more we become afraid, or even forget, to use it ourselves. The result is that the tenuous duopoly of force becomes a monopoly. Rates will go up.vi

II.

But as much as May's outfit reveals a lot about his thinking, it also affects his thinking, or do women not feel any change in personality when they wear Louboutinsvii? Well, while you ponder that link exchange take a look at the Navy Seal arresting May -- that's standard police attire. What the hell kind of town is Opelika that the cops wear sneakers because they expect to be doing a lot of running? That guy came dressed for Two Men Enter One Man Leaves, and goddam if he's not going to get a front incisor as a souvenir for his kid.

This is the full, uncut banner picture at the top of the website of the Alabama Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol Divisionviii:

Where's the highway? Is this steganography?

Note that this banner is for the state police's website, i.e. this is their idea of public relations. I don't fault them for preparing for Red Dawn, but why tell us this is who they are? If this is who they want us to think they are, how will their actions mirror this desire? Not to mention recruit the kind of people who think 24 is a training video which it was, until season 4, then it kind of got weak.

Listen, I've been to Mobile about a thousand times, and every time I've wanted air support. Parts of it are tough, I get it, and off topic I will mention that if you're married in Mobile it is 100% certain one of you is cheating. But all that paramilitary gear is after the crime stuff -- it helps them catch the bad guys but does not Protect & Serve you from the bad guys. (Note that this guy already had a protection order against him.) Where your head is at, how you carry yourself, who you think you are all affect your behaviors, and vice versa (vee-kah ver-sah.) Get dressed.

I get the police's position. There's such a huge anti-police, anti-government philosophy that cops don't know if a guy is going to squirt them with a bottle of HIV just on principle, so if there's a homicide suspect who is still standing you make him not be standing, and then you can explain he has the right to a totally ineffectual public defender.

Thomas Stupid May is going to get what's coming to himix, because this is, after all, Alabama. But May was in uniform. What would they have done if he was wearing an America Is #965868 t-shirt?x

———Maybe he just didn't like old women. [↩]Rather than all this fashionista nonsense, the important point here is that "the court system" just lost a huge stack of chips in the Casino called life. Who the fuck cares about some redneck's shoes, when the whole SOPS just took a big fat thick arrow to the asshole ?

"Get a restraining order" is a procedure that now comes with few extra milimorts' worth of "get shot in the face for your trouble", as per the available actuarial tables. Are the fees and the hassle involved still worth it ? You be the judge, though in any objective sense the answer's a resounding no -- especially if the reason you're contemplating the maneuver sounds anything like "being an annoyingly uppity bitch beclouded by a screen of old women".

Not what you wanted to hear ? Why, what is it that you wanted to be true ? [↩]Typically, small children as well as beginner slavegirls similarily pretend to "have no idea" and "not understand" etcetera. Once the firm, experience-derived conviction emerges that the beatings will continue, however, they universally if uniformly change their tune. So, I'm guessing, sooner or later teh self-imaginary "we" will start knowing, seeing how there's no way in fuck the shootings are ever gonna stop. [↩]Oh, you mean, the very fuel powering the entire pantsuit thing ? Shocking. [↩]Yeah, because some AP photographer (=faggot) pencilneck is totally knocking down a dude in a white whatever. That's why he drives a Toyota to work, every time he can start it in the morning. What is this, some alt-reality where journalists are not-barristas or something ?! [↩]Dude get the fuck out, van Angst over there is overwhelmed if he has to get a lizard off the microwave, what the fuck "knocking down" bullshit is this! Even knocking up seems squarely outside his league ; down ain't ever happening, not in this life. [↩]Dude's linking partialobjects.com/2011/04/the-red-soul-of-christian-louboutin/, a site that was abandoned cca 2011, which also offers an interesting crumbtrail to one Brittany Workland, some dancing chick from Boise. Who was just about 18, or thereabouts anyways. Naughty naughty ?

Anyways, here's the article (I'm not gonna pictures, they're just a bunch of pretentious crap anyways) :

The Red Soul of Christian Louboutin

Posted on April 3, 2011 by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged christisan louboutin, sex, shoes.

The New Yorker profiles Christian Louboutin but not the shoe.

So what's the story with the red sole? In 1993 he had designed a pink shoe with a black sole, thought something was missing. He took the nail polish away from his assistant and painted the sole.

Does the red sole change our relationship to the shoe? What does the same shoe with a black sole lack?

The red serves several purposes. It is, of course, a distinctive marker, a brand, "that renders an otherwise indistinguishable product instantly recognizable."

It is an explicit gift to men, a peek, a signal. A woman who wears the show [sic] is telling people she's taking auditions, and though it's unlikely she'll pick you, you're a fool if you don't do a cold read. Louboutin said, "this red sole was a bit of a green light."

It is a gift to the women. "The red soles offer the pleasure of secret knowledge to their wearer," i.e. lingerie.

They also scuff easily, which serves Louboutin just fine but is itself a code: either you save them for special occasions -- hence signaling to others that it is a special occasion -- or you replace them often, which signals that you can replace them often, which means you can replace the men as well.

That Louboutin shoes are stiff and uncomfortable is part of the appeal. Louboutin hates the word "comfy." "You're abandoning a lot of ideas when you are too into comfort." But the discomfort is a small price for your body being forced erect, elongated, calves and butt up. And just as importantly the woman knows that, feels the artificiality of it. It is making me sexier. Louboutin, in fact, is uninterested in the shoe as a walking device:

There is a certain height where you just can't walk with them. But, you know, you can do other things," he says, not elaborating. "Some shoes are very, very, very high, so they might not be dedicated to walk[ing], but so what."

So what, indeed, she's not supposed to walk in them, she's supposed to be seen in them. She has no interest in going anywhere there's no chance someone might not want to carry her in his arms.

Interestingly, Louboutin hasn't ever run an ad campaign until 2009, when he ran a series of campaigns showing the shoe as art:

Spring/Summer 2009

Fall/Winter 2010/2011

which is the only way to advertise it. But whose shoes are these? Do they belong to a real person? Does the painting reveal their use? No, and it couldn't. High heels are already sexualized, fetishized, and Louboutins doubly so. In order for them to remain a code for female sexuality they must remain abstract and unattainable. It's fine to know that Jennifer Lopez was wearing them, it's not fine to think of them as the shoe Jennifer Lopez wears. They're not her shoes; she's their model. Once a fetish becomes linked to an actual identity, it is no longer a fetish.

Just as the sexy nurse fetish survived a whole lot of less-than-sexy nurses, it was killed 0in the 90s by the abrupt appearance of male nurses. Now, nurses are an S&M fetish. The Louboutin can be worn by anyone but can't be thought of as being worn by anyone; if it's seen on a commoner (or a man), it has to be seen as incongruous -- "what's she doing in those?"

And so, always abstract. Louboutin even teamed up with Professor of Insanity David Lynch for this NSFW photoshoot aptly titled, "Fetish." Or Louboutin's directorial debut "Psycho-logic," a Psycho remake has the woman killed(?) in the shower by a cloaked man wielding a spiked heel. She crawls across the carpet and dies,(?) waking up to heaven -- the Hollywood Louboutin boutique.

Does a woman who wears clogs (which Louboutin hates) feel different when she wears the stilettos? Does she feel under the power of something else? The shoes are drive, they want what they want.

Freud though the fetish calmed castration anxiety by substituting for the missing penis, but Lacan thought it was more subtle: a substitution for the absence of something. There is no penis here, announces Kim Kardsahian, but I'm interested.

Boooo-oooring. [↩]The site, amusingly, no longer serves the image in question. [↩]Accountant-looking guy got life without possibility of parole on May 21, 2014. Amusingly, this is actually a worse outcome than death.

The reality is that people sentenced to LWOP have been condemned to die in prison and that's what happens: They die in prison of natural causes, just like the majority of people sentenced to death.

[...]

No one sentenced to life without parole has ever been released on parole, in California or in any other state. Prisoners sentenced to LWOP actually remain in prison for the rest of their lives and die in prison. All sentences, including the death penalty, are equally subject to clemency from the governor. However, no Democratic or Republican governor has ever granted clemency to a prisoner serving an LWOP sentence in California, and no such prisoner has ever been released on parole. The last time a governor used his power of executive clemency in a murder case was more than 30 years ago, when Ronald Reagan commuted the death sentence of a mentally ill inmate to a life sentence.

Death in prison is a swift sentence: Victims' families prefer LWOP

Because death is different and mistakes cannot be corrected, a death sentence results in years of mandatory appeals that often result in reversal. In a sample of 350 death sentences, 118, or nearly one-third, were reversed in part or in whole. Further, nearly 60 percent of the cases in this sample were still in various stages of appeals as of 2002. For each of the last three executions in California, more than 25 years had been spent in appeals before the executions finally occurred. The current average for appeals is 17 years -- and getting longer every day.

Unlike death penalty cases, however, LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.

California has the largest death row in the country with more than 660 prisoners. But more than four times as many prisoners have died of other causes while awaiting execution than have actually been executed. In contrast, when prisoners are sentenced to prison until death, they begin serving their sentence immediately. LWOP allows victims' survivors to move on, rather than keeping them trapped in decades of court hearings and waiting for an execution to occur.

For these reasons, the survivors of murder victims often feel that the death penalty system only prolongs their pain and does not provide the resolution they need, while the finality of LWOP sentences allows them to move on, knowing justice is being served.

[...]

Prisoners condemned to die in prison are not given any special treatment and, in fact, have less access to programs than other prisoners. They are housed in high security facilities with few privileges, far away from any relatives, and in crowded group cells. Ironically, people on death row are provided much more comfortable single cells and sometimes gain celebrity and attention just by being there.

The death penalty is significantly more expensive than condemning a person to die in prison. Simply housing prisoners on death row costs California tax payers an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year, above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population, which adds up to $59 million a year. The price tag for California's new death row is $336 million. All of those costs would be avoided if the people on death row were sentenced to die in prison and moved to the general population.

Viewed another way, we spent $250 million to carry out the sentences of the 11 prisoners executed between 1977 and 2002, money that could have been spent on other public safety programs, if those prisoners had been sentenced to die in prison instead of executed.

Lulzy, huh. Go for the death penalty, irrespective of what your "counsel" says -- he's too dumb to know his ass from his face, which is why he's paying law school college debt from a public defender's income. Here :

May's attorney, William Whatley, said he and May's co-attorney, Todd Crutchfield, were satisfied with May's sentence.

"We're happy that the judge upheld the jury sentencing in this case to have life in prison without parole," Whatley said.

Morons. [↩]Nothing. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Final Thought On Cho's Mental Illness. Adnotated.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Generational Pathology: Narcissism Is Not Grandiosity. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Sunday, 21 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Advertising's Collateral Damage. Adnotated.

John Mayer is a jerk, right?

It's an axiom of academic deconstructicons that advertising is a window on society, but it's more accurate to say advertising is society's window on you.i And, looking at it this way, it becomes evident that society thinks you're an idiot.ii Allow me to elaborate.

You've probably never seen this ad, not because it isn't played constantly, but because your mind self-defensively blocks traumatic images from consciousness. Stop acting like a 3rd grade girl at japanese horror marathon and force yourself to look carefully.iii

I feel like I need to watch The Little Mermaid to detox. Ok, let's go through it, were all the key demos represented?

Hot yoga chick in lululemon? (Cut to windchimes): Crazy stalker ex-GF? Esse w/ hopping car? Serial killer w/ mobile killing station? Extra gay gay guys with tattoos and accessories -- (they sell skulls)

It's easy to think that the ads are designed to draw in the demo shown in the ads, but that's not the way advertising worksiv, and consequently that's not how America works. If you're watching it, it's for you. These ads play heavy during late and late late night talk shows: the target is boring middle aged white people.v Blackberry isn't targeting gays and limber blondes, it's pretending they are already on board so you don't feel like a dork without a touch screen.vi

In other words, the target is the uptight khakis and Polo salarymen who are otherwise tempted to defect to the iphone/Android as a last ditch attempt at reassuring themselves that the person they were at 20 is still alive in there, underneath the carbgut.

And you can't be subtle with that demo, the message has to detonate like an Athens mailbomb. Here's another Blackberry ad, showing a completely unposed, random human being talking about how he uses the Blackberry to promote his business:

I heard that, yo. But the phone is white and he talks white, so he's ok. "Oh my God, you're such a racist jerk, and a misogynist and a homophobe." Umm, would you mind calling back on a landline? Your iphone is breaking up.

It is an irrelevant coincidence that minorities already purchase more blackberrys than iphones.vii It doesn't matter to the Dave Mathews fan what they actually buy, what matters is what the image of them buys, and that image, because it does not exist in real life, has to be communicated, not observed. Hence ads.viii

The point isn't that the iphone isn't cool, or useful, or a superior productix, the point is that the demo blackberryx is worried about are the ones who secretly worry their phone also brands them. Cool= black and gay, even if you hate black and gay, which you do, which is why they're in the ads. You hate them because you're envious of their freedom, affluence, seeming lack of responsibility, their easy dialogue with sexuality or power, their casual wardrobes.

Hence also the gay guys. You might think gay decorators with bead bracelets are not ideal aspirational images for office workers, but that's why you're in sales and not marketing. What matters is the image: how awesome would it be if your sexual proclivities could be an overt 90% of your identity?xi Add also the evident self-care, self-absorption, and throw in a partner who doesn't nag and is willing to play along. "Sounds ideal," he replies as he pours utility coffee into an 8oz styrofoam cup. That ideal (we are told) buys Blackberrys, so it's okay if you do, too.

"What planet are you on? Heteros already broadcast their sexuality!" Oh no they don't, not the ones who drink light beers, ask them. Ask them if they don't feel like they have to keep their sexuality suppressed all the time, that they "can't even compliment a woman on her dress" without a trip to HR. They think gay men get a pass on displaying lust, not to mention getting their own parade. It is this perception that makes flamboyant gay men the correct casting for advertising directed at people who cringe at the sight of flamboyant gay men. They know you better than you know yourself. Strike that: they know the lies you tell yourself better than you.xii

As a marketing strategy this is, of course, doomed to failure. Your Dad can't tell you he's cool, he has to show you he's cool, and he can't because he's your Dad, end of story. Blackberry can't commandeer images to push their agenda, anymore than your Dad can put on a Raiders cap sideways and say, "yo, yo, yo, all my homies agree that abstinence is da bomb!" He has to come at you as Dad, because that's what he is, regardless of what he says he is, anything else is immediately dismissed as a trick.

Blackberry's only chance is to invent an awesome phone, which they can't because they're Canadian (too drunk to do science.)

II.

But Blackberry's market penetration isn't my concern. What interests me is the collateral damage of these ads, of advertising in general.xiii All ads which sell a product inadvertently sell another product, and that product is identity, and they sell it better than their own product. Using these images won't/can't convince you that Blackberry is cool, but they have inadvertently convinced you that these images are cool, that these are the standards of cool. Pick and choose what parts you envy. "Not me! I think for myself!" Of course you do, of course you do.

———So it is, at that! [↩]Well, not anymore than the horny dog humping your leg thinks you're its bitch. Society doesn't think, it's not an agent, it doesn't have a brain. Society just is, much like a garbage dump just is. You can't say "the garbage dump really loves garbage", because there's no agency involved. It's not the case there was a plot of land that was a garbage dump and because of this pre-existent being it attracted garbage therefore fulfilling itself. The place called a garbage dump got called a garbage dump after all the garbage got dumped there. It's retrospective labeling not projective realisation that's at work.

Society is just the shit that's left behind after enough hominids cease being people, and consequently it's not so much that society thinks all its component dregs are idiots, but rather that the existence of society in the first place is predicated on a sufficient concentration of perambulatory dregs. It's a safe bet, so to speak, that if the dog's humping you you're a bitch, much like it's a safe bet that if society's advertising at you, you're an idiot. [↩]There was a youtube link in here, but I'm not embedding youtube crap, so you'll have to do without. [↩]Anymore

That's not how advertising works anymore, because economy died.

As the economic utility, marginal productivity, capacity for extracting/enacting meaning upon the environment and in general mental health of the population crossed the event horizon (also represented as 0 on a graph), the substance, appearance, functioning and meaning of economic mechanisms changed.

Consider the more approachable example of gastric or pancreatic enzyme secretion. These substances aid in the digestion of food ; but should a stab wound open the gastric pouch into the abdominal cavity, or should gallstones block physiologic effluence, the very same enzymes now digest... the body! Exactly similarily, back before winning/losing (the two are, contrary to what you might've heard, perfectly indistinct) the Great Patriotic War, back when people still clung to their sanity and therefore were capable of extracting meaning from the environment and therefore capable of imposing meaning upon the environment, this capacity was also enacted into phenomenology and in so being enacted it necessarily had a rate of enactment, and therefore advertising attempted to signal and organize activity.

But not anymore. [↩]Male boring middle aged white people. [↩]Absolutely, the idea of the add isn't "hey, come over, there's others just like you here", but contrairiwise, "it's okay to stay, those other kinds of people you've never actually met are nevertheless also here, just around that corner". Sorta like how orphans' night clubs show pictures of girls : not to attract the girls. To make the sausages at the sausage fest more comfortable while they #nohomo together. [↩]But still interesting. How come minorities are always and everywhere and all the time fucked in the head ? Always in the slower boat, at the lamer party, always taking water, always scrounging... [↩]Absofuckinglutely. [↩]The iphone wasn't, actually, a superior product, not at any juncture in its marketing history.

Patent medicine also wasn't a superior product ; notwithstanding it's been "reinventing" itself into exactly the same fixed forms since before the 80s. The 1880s. [↩]He means, "the demo RIMM, the makers of BlackBerries, are worried about". [↩]Which is why "gay" aka boring dorks pretend so insistently "everyone else" cares oh-so-very-deeply about their gayness, all the stories of "oppression" and "struggle" are transparently if insistently testimonials, to that only important point -- that all other people not merely give a fuck (which they don't), but care, and deeply (which they absolutely also don't). Because if all other people care about the boring dork being gay, therefore the boring dork won't ever have to tell a joke -- a boring story about how a waiter once will do just as well (by which we mean, just as poorly). [↩]I can definitely see it. After all, you sell cocaine to churchgoing teenagers by displaying twentysomething sluts naked in hotel rooms. [↩]It still should be banned. [↩]

« Kalvaryja, Minsk

thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Final Thought On Cho's Mental Illness. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Saturday, 20 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Advancing Paternal Age And Bipolar Disorder. Adnotated.

There is considerable evidence that advanced paternal age raises the risk of autism.i It appears that the same is true in schizophrenia.ii

Bipolar disorder, however, is an entirely different matter.

Conclusions Advanced paternal age is a risk factor for BPD in the offspring. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that advancing paternal age increases the risk for de novo mutations in susceptibility genes for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Not so fast.iii

First, it is necessary to remind everyone that doctors -- let alone the layman and the media -- do not generally read these studies, they read about them (like you're doing now.) The few who do actually see the article will rarely go past the abstract. That means that the abstract, and even more importantly the title, are the only information conveyed.

What becomes "known" in the field is a meme, a feeling, a gestaltiv, and in this case it goes something like this: "I have heard there is a lot of data on autism -- experts on autism seem convinced -- and now I see there is a study about bipolar, so I guess we are discovering that advanced age plays a role in psychopathology. Probably the sperm is bad."

Awesome. Suitable for happy hour conversation and Dateline NBC.

Back to the conclusion's last sentence. This should properly read, "Advancing paternal age, or some factor it represents, is associated with an increased risk..."v

Worse, while this is an article about paternal age, it also slyly reinforces in your mind the authors' bias that bipolar is a "neurodevelopmental disorder" that may be caused by genetic mutations. See? For them, the "hypothesis" is the part about the advancing paternal age. The axiom is that bipolar is a genetic disorder.vi

I'm not saying it isn't a genetic disordervii, I'm saying there isn't nearly enough evidence to be able to say that the advanced paternal age represents a genetic variable.viii

Does advanced paternal age really increase risk for bipolar?

The data showix that men over 55 had a 1.37 times greater risk of having a kid with bipolar than Dad's who were 20-24. There was an even stronger association for those kids who had an early onset (before age 20) -- 2.6 times greater risk.

The problem is that "advanced paternal age" could actually be a proxy for a lot of things: early maternal loss (children whose mother died before their fifth birthday had a 4.05 times increased risk of bipolar), or maybe even birth order. Maybe there are reasons why the youngest born may be more "bipolar" than the oldest born.

There isn't enough/any evidence to determine if birth order is or is not relevant. But neither does this study contribute any more than "X is associated with Y, but we don't really know what X represents or even what Y is."

———Though I suspect through nurturing failure, rather than genetic influence. [↩]Through a similar mechanism, for the portions of "schizophrenia" that are environment driven, rather than organic. [↩]The problem with advanced paternal age is social, not medical -- pantsuitism is impossible in the context of traditional mating, which has older females grooming younger females for mating with the thin sliver of powerful males (who coincidentally also happen to be older). So pantsuitism attempts to terraform the context.

And besides, it shouldn't be possible for the mother fucked up -- not because the great Inca likes women particularly, but because individual female fucking up is a good metaphore for The Great Mother In The Sky being a fuck-up, and Inca can't have that. It's subversive, you see, women fucking up is this religion's equivalent of a farting bishop. [↩]What becomes "known" in religious circles is what was aforeknown, they don't discover things other than as clothing for their pre-existing mental structures. [↩]... on the basis of a very small, and remarkably poorly conducted study... [↩]Keks. [↩]"Bipolar" is a "disorder" because they didn't know how better to wiggle out of the simple fact that it's not a disease. [↩]There is however more than enough evidence to categorically and definitively say that unruly old cunts shamelessly neglecting their ~only social function are impudently whining about paternal age in lieu of getting the fuck back to doing their job. [↩]The three datas show. What fucking data is that, you expect me to believe your notion derived from looking at three trees apply to trees ? Why, "because they're all trees" ? Get the fuck out of here, n > one million or shut the fuck up. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Diagnosis Of Schizophrenia. Adnotated.

Kalvaryja, Minsk »

Category: Adnotations

Saturday, 20 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - According to Time, The World's Most Influential Person Is.... Adnotated.

You don't know who moot is ? Moot is the red pill.

From the issuei:

It should be obvious that the poll was rigged: moot got his followers to vote him up.ii Even if that isn't obvious, a search on "Time influential people" gives up half a dozen articles explaining precisely how the poll was rigged.iii

Why would Time leave the poll up -- let alone publish it in the print edition long after it is known the poll was rigged?iv

I.

If this is an online poll, can one actually argue that the results are invalid? It's based on votes, and more people voted for moot. More people were influenced by moot enough to vote for him. Right?

This is just like a medical study, which is why so many people misinterpret medical studies. The poll does not measure who is influential. It measures who people believe is influential. So did the poll accurately measure what it was supposed to? Yes. So does it matter that you don't like the results?v

II.

But it wasn't so simple as moot running the best campaign. moot and his friends hackedvi the voting so that people could vote multiple times (for moot). So no, it wasn't a valid poll.

So back to question one: if it isn't valid, why does Time still decide to publish it? Or did they really not know?

III.

Ok, let's everybody settle down. Time published it because it knows readers will be smart enough to ignore moot at #1, and just look through the rest of the poll. Right?

Time knows Americans are smart. No, no, no, not the Americans more than 200 miles inwards from the coasts -- they're all idiots, of course. I'm talking about the real Americans, the urban post-nationalist Americans who know we are eventually going to have a one world government, like on Star Trek, if we can just get global warming under control. They know Rick Warren isn't more influential than Angela Merkel, obviously. The point is to use the poll to discuss what's wrong with the landlocked Americans that they think Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel. And what does that say for our (read: not their) society?

The debate that will ensue will confirm for them that they are deeply interested in the world, that they are intelligent, that they have valuable and valid opinions. That they know better.

Time published the poll precisely so we could look down on it, "that's who those idiots picked as most influential?"vii

IV.

All this would be would be fine for Time if it was just the #1 spot that was rigged, not the entire poll:

"Marblecake Also The Game." Don't worry about what it means.viii Just realize 4chan's people voted simply to make it spell out "marble cake also the game." In other words, Rick Warren is more influential than Angela Merkel because they needed an R before they needed an A.

V.

So the question stands: does Time not know, or not care? Not know would be awesome, and by awesome I mean absolutely terrifying, that a major international news magazine with their own journalists would not be aware of... the internet...ix

Not care would be amazing, and by amazing I mean (again) absolutely terrifying -- that a major magazine would be so contemptuous of its readers that it would not cancel the poll, or at least explain what happened.x Because the poll, as it stands now, is now who 4chan -- not anyone else -- thinks is influential.xi

But they don't care. Not at all. They still might not actually know, either -- but they clearly do not care. They do not care because the poll actually isn't about who people think is influential; the poll is actually a tool for Time to tell you who is influential and who isn't.xii They already know who is influential and who is not. They decide, they have already decided.xiii Because they are smarter than you.xiv They will tell you who is influential and who is not; they will tell you what is good and what is not; and they will not tell you anything that you don't need to know, e.g. reality.xv

It doesn't matter if the poll was hacked or not, all that matters is that any 100 names appear in some order so that Time can then say, "see? This poll is wrong, whatever it says. Here's what's right."

That's why none of the pictures that lead this story

actually are of moot.xvi Or anyone in the poll, for that matter.xvii

———Why the fuck does he do this "screen capture certification" nonsense ? Somehow it's "more truer" if, instead of typing it out, he first types it out and then photographs it ? Wtf broken mental processes are these! [↩]How the fuck is this "rigged" ?! Last I heard, getting your followers to vote for you is how the whole utopia is supposed to even work. Was there a silent hardfork somewhere or what exactly ?

Note how transparently and self-obviously it is an utopia (ie, a system nobody actually lives in, notwithstanding the loud organized groups pretending otherwise) -- not even for a second and not even in the most minute and inconsequential crinkle of his daily life does even the loudest Jehova "witness" believe Jehova's a thing. Ballas doesn't go "they voted and therefore m00t's boss", he goes "they voted and therefore the election was rigged" for the very fucking obvious reason : democracy isn't a thing, exactly in the way and exactly for the reasons your "relationship" with your favourite pornstar isn't a thing. [↩]Except not. A "search" ie, asking Google to tell you what to think will produce more of the same, in the author's own words,

dkljglfkjlsd ;lk;df ggggt e test htoerugoieuoger dfkljdflkd

Three burly cops="violent predator." Do I need to tell you what his criminal history is? If I told you that Rocco has a history of burglary but no prior rapes or sex offenses, would that make you suspect him less? No, because we all understand how a cheerleader might end up dead. Well, how did you come to understand that?

There's no "explaining precisely" included, which is why the core dump guy doesn't include the precise explanation. There's in fact no explanation at all, there's some vague innuendo in a thick sauce of words, words, words, and this even before we consider the history problem. As it turns out, USG.Google only thought worth its while to maintain a value for the "please Massah, tell me what to think about Time influential people" pointer a little while back in 2009, which is a full decade ago by now. The "gives up" in the present tense promised within the article has meanwhile been invalidated by time, on top of being invalidated by having been invalid in the first place.

This is how the UStard goes through life : pretending to be part of teams that never heard of him, pretending to be living in worlds that don't actually exist, and so following. All that pretense must get pretty heavy in psychological terms, which may well explain why they never ever amount to anything -- and that even after they redefined "amounted to anything" in purely meaningless group terms of "was elected President".

Oh, and boy-howdy let me tell you how fucking pleasant it is to have become able to reference TLP articles in discussions of TLP articles from the very Trilema, where things can be found and proper selective linkage is available and everything else. [↩]The obvious explanation would be, "because they think they can pretend to be in on the joke", or rather, "because they imagine they can actually turn the joke around such that we're no longer laughing at them, but with them". Which even "works", after a fashion (ie, within the Utopia) : their 0-information readership can not laugh otherwise than with Time, with Google, etcetera ; while the non-0 actual agents, the sort of people who have no use for Google and "rig" polls, well... they're not Time readers anyway, certainly not in any real sense. They may "read" Time with their whores, to laugh at it, but they sure as fuck aren't about to start shaving because Time tells them to. It's very easy to distinguish these two groups, by the way : the latter set doesn't go about saying things like "core dump" without an inkling of what the fuck it means, just because it "sounds cool" ; and they also dont go around "building houses" through piling up random debris that happens to be blue. [↩]Actually no, which coincidentally confirms the statements above : there wasn't any explanation, either proferred or understood, either precise or otherwise. That Ballas can't distinguish between having had an explanation and not having had an explanation is a subsidiary problem, but in any case : what happened was that

Give computers the vote. They're cheaper than women, even!, which is exactly the sort of thing that happens when "I get a new haircut" and at any and all myriad interfaces between the Republic of men and the... "empire", let's call it, why not, of cattle we use. [↩]Right, "hacked". It's the contemporaneous term for "magic", that "you are not expected to understand this" of yore, most beloved by all the bleaters who really had no business being there in the first place. Think about it, if you will : there are two kinds of people in any college seminar (or there used to be, at any rate). The ones who were happy to hear YANETUT, hurray, less of this overwhelming shit to have to memorize by rote, and the ones who became desperate when they heard YANETUT, because holy god the only reason I'm here in the first place is completeness, if there's broken links in the chain I might as well leave, permanently. Could just as well sit at home, I have broken chains there too, and plenty of them. [↩]I am unpersuaded by this inbred theory. [↩]And why not ?

Marblecake denotes an elaborate sexual perversion : if, after a man anally penetrates his sexual partner and ejaculates inside, the bottom then shits on a plate, the resulting fecal-seminal mess is marblecake. Marble for the marbling (sperm coagulates) and cake probably for the phonetic similarity with the ancient (Latin and otherwise) root for shitting -- caco, cacare (note, for instance, that the cum biscuit's a biscuit, not any kind of cake). Marblecake also connotes variously, the term is peppered throughout 4chan history, such as for instance the MarbleCake group (named for gathering on #marblecake) who came up with the first Scientology video message, the first few protest themes etc.

The game denotes a timekilling behaviour of 2010s latchkey generation, whereby they try to... not think of "the game". That's the whole thing, if you think about it you lose and must announce this loss (and, of course, everyone is playing it all the time by default, as a matter of ingroup convention). If I weren't travelling I'd release another pic of that set, only reading "You lose the game" or something... but whatever, maybe later. [↩]This isn't "the internet", this is the Republic. Confusing the two is awesome, and by awesome I mean... well, you know how the original dodo bird confused European explorers and trees ? That kinda awesome, which is to say awesome for the European explorers. [↩]No, actually, they're exactly this contemptuous of their readers. Socialism breeds socialist institutions, whadda ya want ? Can't both be a man and not be a man at the same time, you gotta pick one. [↩]Absolutely not, at all. The poll, as it stands now, is simply displaying that Time will readily pivot into submission to the Republic, in preference to submission to the criminal organisation pompously calling itself "The United States Government", on the well oiled rails of the shared contempt for the... "readers", whatever you call them, the walkers, the breathers, the "general public". Time's merely tryna survive in this game. [↩]Well that actually makes no fucking sense, now does it. Time's gonna tell you Dwayne "the Game" Marblecake is influential ? [↩]Ummm... what does the author want to be true ?

Subsidiary question : why does the author spend so much time watching tv / surfing USGistani "news" websites, anyway ? [↩]Oh gimme a fucking break. [↩]Which'd be why the "precise explanation" that wasn't came from... Google ?

No, seriously, wtf. [↩]Well, they didn't know how to spell "m00t" and so couldn't find anything in Google.

Unlike all the imperial attentionwhores, most republicans don't usually give the first inkling of a fuck about "having their picture in the paper". [↩]Or anyone "the readership" can even name, for that same matter. [↩]

« Odd Comments and Strange Doings in Unix

Proper html linking : the crisis, the solution, the resolution & conclusion »

Category: Adnotations

Friday, 19 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Acadia Gives Up On ADP-104 -- Maybe It Shouldn't Have. Adnotated.

The headline says almost everything: Acadia shares plunge more than 50% on study data for schizophrenia drug. Turns out the drug didn't work at either of the two doses tested.

They should have called me first: their study was flawed.

High plasma levels of NDMC (ranging from 1200-4230ng/ml), approaching those of clozapine itself, have been observed in humans given clozapine. Moreover, several investigators have shown that the degree to which clozapine is converted to NDMC predicts clinical outcome on multiple measures of cognition, negative and positive symptoms, as well as quality of life. It is noteworthy that the ratio of NDMC to clozapine, rather than absolute levels of either clozapine or NDMC, was found to be the best predictor of a positive clinical outcome. This observation suggests that certain pharmacological properties of clozapine may actually counteract beneficial pharmacology of NDMC.

That's the premise. But the premise is wrong, the blood levels and the ratio of NDMC to clozapine are coincidences, they have nothing whatsoever to do with clinical outcome.

The authors try also to make a case that D4 blockade may be involved, or at least cause an "atypical" profile (e.g. low EPs, etc), but Thorazine and Haldol are potent D4 blockers, so there.

I am also aware of the considerable ink and paper spent describing the contributions of serotonergic pathways, but it is categorically true that there does not exist a drug that is a pure 5HT antagonist -- take your pick of subtype -- that works as an antipsychotic.

It is so far without exception that every efficacious antipsychotic has power of significant D2 blockade. Or, said another way, there does not exist any antipsychotic that lacks significant power for D2 blockade. Whatever the contribution of other receptors, it is overwhelmed by the presence, or absence of D2 blockade.i

Going from there, the single most important question that can be asked of any antipsychotic is: at what dose does this drug cause significant D2 blockade? Whatever the answer is, it is again certain that at a dose less than that, it will fail to provide any efficacy.

The article shows nearly equal D2 antagonist activity for clozapine and for NDMC, and one can conclude dosing will be similar, e.g. 300-500mg/d.

Unfortuantely, NDMC is also a partial agonist at low doses; so the dose needed for D2 blockade will be higher.

Acadia, the drug company, tested NDMC at 100mg/d and 200mg/d. It failed. This is a lot like saying one tested clozapine at 100mg, found significant side effects but no reliable efficacy, and canned it.

Acadia should try again. I am sure they worry that the side effects will get worse, but they won't.ii

———The one contribution of bio-psychiatry to the field was the observation that schizophrenia mostly (or, if you believe in schizophrenia classification -- the major types by incidence) show remarkably high neurotransmission of dopamine. Disrupting the dopamine function does then result in a-state-that-isn't-typical-schizophrenia-anymore, it is true, but this is a little bit like saying "disrupting the normal sexuality of school-age children results in something that isn't typical school-age sexuality anymore". [↩]The problem with all neuroleptic drugs (a heading which includes all major tranquilizers) is that you eat most of the downside -- in both side effects and organic damage -- starting at very low doses ; while any sort of benefit (either imagined or otherwise) only appears at significantly higher doses, typically once the liver's capacity for disposing of the poisons in question is finally overwhelmed. It's a lot like being a public slut : by the time you're naked on your knees, nobody at the party's gonna think much worse of you if you actually swallow a few loads, and certainly nobody's gonna think any better of you if you don't. So... exactly as he says : once you've taken a few miligrams, might as well hake the whole half gram, for all the good that'll do you.

A lot of other psychoactives work exactly the same way, incidentally. By the time you've taken a few miligrams of cocaine (ie, the first few doses), might as well also take it by the gram (ie, the last few doses). Yes, it's true that it causes organic damage, but by the time you've given yourself a cocaine habit most of the damage's been done already anyway. [↩]

« Birds, birds, birds, just lookin' for some sugar... birds, birds, birds, just lookin' for a crumb... ta na na na na na

thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Case Study On Why Policy Changes Fail: Pharma Paying Docs. Adnotated. »

Category: Adnotations

Thursday, 18 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Academics Hide Drug Company Payments. Adnotated.

And with good reason.

An article in The Independent asserts Dr. Joseph Biederman, Harvard guru of ADHD and child bipolari, received over $1M in consultant fees and didn't report it to Harvard;ii it then implies this is why kids are overmedicated, etc.

Wrong. A thousand times wrong. It could not be more wrong, it is dangerously wrong.

Believe me, I am no friend of Biederman's. But the money is a red herring. If you want to be angry about the specific ethics of a psychiatrist receiving Pharma money, fine, but I am telling you it is not worth the Senate time, not worth press space.

The real money, the real problem that goes unmentioned is the money that goes to universitiesiii, in the form of research grants. Biederman may have pocketed $1M, but I'm sure he was awarded much, much more for clinical trials -- money which he didn't get any of, which went to Harvard.

We aren't overmedicating kids because Biederman told us to; we're doing it because Harvard told us to. And Harvard told us to because that is what they are getting money to study.iv Biederman is just the nanobot that does it.

If Biederman never existed, nothing would be different. You read his resume, you think, wow, he's a big player. You don't realize that if he didn't exist there would be some other person in his exact position, who would also have become a Distinguished Professor, won awards, written 450 publications, etc. The machine was already in place, his slot was going to get filled; his mind didn't discover anything, those results were coming no matter what, those publications were already going to be written.v

The money isn't corrupting him into thinking childhood bipolar is underdiagnosed -- he truly believes it. The reason he believes it is his entire professional existence -- his whole identity -- is predicated on believing it. He's not a scientist, he's a priest.

He starts out as a young academic. He lands a spot in a research group that studies X, so he studies X, later he branches out into X+Y, or goes to Z, etc, eventually he finds himself a niche. And he believes in that niche, he believes in his data, no matter what it says. You can't convince him he's wrong because it isn't science and it isn't even a bias -- it's identity.

That's how an entire nation of psychiatrists could have been deluded into prescribing Depakote for maintenance when the data itself says not to do it. It's belief, not money, "we believe bipolar is a kindled disorder..." Hell, if Harvard believes it, what chance do the rest of us have?

What he doesn't see because he is too small to see it is that that niche exists only because there is grant money for it. That's the real bias. He internalizes an artificial system because it gives him identity and identity is more important than money.

It's not just Pharma -- NIH is worse. If NIMH wants to study the biological causes for childhood bipolar, then we will all agree that these causes exist "we just haven't found them yet." But if NIMH decides to study the social causes of childhood bipolar, then those causes exist, and the biological ones don't. The question is how does NIMH decide what to study? Culture. When a culture decides to study something, the results don't matter -- the decision to study it affirms it a priori.vi

Do you think that all those psychoanalysts from 1899-1974 were all retarded? No understanding of biology, a bunch of clowns, morons? They were brilliant, but that was the time, that was the culture, no matter what data you had to the contrary you were still going to be wrong and they right. Get it? People blame psychoanalysis, but the specific problem is paradigms, which are agreed upon because they have serve some other purpose -- not science, not truth -- and change only when that other purpose disappears, or the paradigm fails it.

If we just want to punish a few high ranking psychiatrists -- and for what? hiding money from Harvard so it doesn't take a 20% cut? -- it will do nothing to stop the anti-humanism zamboni that's trying tovii smooth out all the kinks in society.

Data are irrelevant, here's the paradigm: child bipolar is underdiagnosed because society needs it to be.

There is still massive wealth inequality, racism, resentment, unrealistic expectations of life and a gross sense of entitlement -- in short, narcisissm -- that we have no solutions for except to hastily pathologize it all and hand it to the psychiatrists. They can keep us all confused for a decade or two until we have another world war, discover cold fusion, or the aliens come.

The problem isn't that money influenced Biederman; the problem is that even money won't be able to influence him.viii

Do you know why Biederman hid the money from Harvard? Because he can't believe he's being paid so much money for something he would have done for free. Until you change that groupthink, that blind faith, nothing else will change.

———If this isn't child abuse, what is ? [↩]Harvard wanted a cut, is the entirety of the problem, like any street pimp with a disloyal whore Harvard's pissed off, and set the goons out to put the word on the street. [↩]By which he means, hedge funds masquerading as universities. What, you thought harvard's a university ? Wrong ; could not be more wrong ; dangerously wrong.

Harvard's a scam, scamming everyone out of everything. It scams impressionable youths (while putting out no nookie!) out of their post-tax, pre-interest earnings ; then it turns around and, on the basis of having managed to scam a really choice pile of idiots, scams more idiots out of their life's work, because no, this Biederman moron wasn't sitting around one day thinking "how could I get myself in a position of sexually molesting children ?!". He was contrariwise, sitting around, like any "optionality" wanker, wondering "how could I matter in the world" when Harvard came to him and said, "hey, wanna abuse some children for us ? we'll pretend like you matter in the world if you do". And so Biederman... well... what could he do ? Besides, not like they were asking him to finger little girl twats or anything like that.

But you see... they're way the fuck more "advanced" (= perverse) than that. They didn't want him to feed the poor kids a steady diet of wonderbread, baloney, Helman's mayo etcetera with no alternatives, either. That's more advanced child abuse, it's true, because the misfortunate child so abused will carry on his body the scars of childhood mistreatment her entire life. Fingering leaves no traces, you don't even have to wash it off, whereas the extra inch of height you lost out on through parental sex abuse in the form of wrong diet is perfectly indelible, take as many showers as you want it'll still be there with you until the day you die. But... pretty much every parent already does that, and Harvard has to stand out, it can't simply fuck over children in obvious, or common ways. It has to come up with something special, and boy howdy has it!

Then Harvard turns around, and on the basis of having scammed all these idiots of the two different kinds, pretends to be a university. Because, their logic goes, "education is sexual abuse", which of course it is, and the chumps it captured are in fact sexually abusing each other (nevermind that while all education is sexual abuse, not all sexual abuse is education, typical "error" of the scammer), and so... who could accuse them of not being an University ?

Me, that's who. Scamming a bunch of retards into sexually abusing each other while you steal one set's money and the others set's life&work dun make any of these sad chumpatrons pompously calling themselves "Harvard" or "Princeton" or "Stanford" or "MIT" etcetera anything more, or anything besides. [↩]Not quite, seeing how Harvard owns the nominally "private" corporations doing the production (aka, Gossnab), through the usual process of that "ownership" in socialism. The simplest way to think of the "Ivy League" loose confederation of chumpatrons would be in the terms of Gosplan, which is precisely what they are. [↩]Yet another Ballas gem of shimmering perfection. Yes, exactly so, the man gets it. [↩]Recall the whole

One can't fault the FDA for striking a balance between safety and efficacy. They voted nearly unanimously "Yes" on its monotherapy efficacy in GAD and MDD-- they agreed it worked; but they didn't want it being used as commonly as Prozac, so voted unanimously "No" on safety. So no monotherapy approval.

Now re-read that, in context if you wish, and then explain to me : why does the paragraph start with "one can't fault" ? What does the author want to be true ?

Yes, he knows what he's talking about, "you can't convince him he's wrong because it isn't science and it isn't even a bias -- it's identity." ; yes identity is more important than anything. For whom ? [↩]And for what ?

To make the life of future zambonis easier ? Tyvm, but... [↩]Quite exactly ; there he sits, that dumb cocksucker like ten million other dumb cocksuckers just like him, waiting to "give the opportunity". [↩]

« Apocatastasis

Birds, birds, birds, just lookin' for some sugar... birds, birds, birds, just lookin' for a crumb... ta na na na na na »

Category: Adnotations

Thursday, 18 July, Year 11 d.Tr.

thelastpsychiatrist.com - Abusive Teens Force Their Girlfriends To Get Pregnant! (Don't Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story). Adnotated.

The girls, aged 15-20, reported

their abusive partners were actively trying to get them pregnant by manipulating condom use, sabotaging birth control use and making explicit statements about wanting them to become pregnant.

I'm not sure it's particularly surprising to anyone who works in a city that boys are actively trying to get their girlfriends pregnant, but that's not what this is all about. The implication, of course, the soundbite, is that abusive boys are using impregnantion specifically as a means of abuse. In other words, the abuse is the point; hitting, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and forcing pregnancy are all tools for that purpose. If the guys weren't abusive, they wouldn't be trying to impregnante their girlfriends.

Interestingly, in any discussions about this article I've seen, the criticism is the small sample size of the study -- 61 girls interviewed. 53 used. But that's not the flaw in the study, the flaw is in the way these results were reported in the news. In fact, only 14 of the girls reported that this was happening. A quarter.

"We were floored by what these girls told us," Dr. Milleri said.

Really?

If this article had been titled, "75% Of Abusive Boyfriends Aren't Trying To Impregnante Their Girlfriends; Many Still Wear Raiders Caps" would we be talking about this? 25% is pretty low. But it's actually lower than that:

Participants had varied responses to these pregnancy-promoting behaviors, including some sharing the same desire to become pregnant

Wow, it pays to RTFA.

Keep in mind that the pregnancy is supposed to be a means of abuse and control. It's not supposed to be an example of a guy really, really wants a baby. (I'm not saying that this is a valid reason for sabotaging contraception, but I am distinguishing it from an intended abuse of the girlii.)

Of those 26%, how many were being impregnated because the boy legitimatelyiii wanted a baby? What percent were doing it for access to welfare/money/services/get to move in?iv In how many cases did the girl want to get pregnant herself? Or was at least ambivalent about it?

I have nothing against the study, I'm all for investigating abuse patterns of likely future narcissists, but the reporting of these studies takes on a life of its own. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, what matters is that this soundbite is stuck in your headv, and it informs your thinking about society.

And again, of course: even when someone shows you this is wrong, or you get new information to the contrary, the new information doesn't replace the bad information, the new information sits next to the bad information. Instead of one study you've misunderstood, you have two studies you contrast.

——— Here's betting that Dr. Miller's female, and hasn't seen any in a long while, and would really really like some ; but she won't put out (read : eat cunt) because "reasons" aka goange in her own head, preferring instead to fritter her life away pointlessly making up transparently wish fulfilling stories while at "work", and in the process transforming the workplace into a "workplace".

How about, instead of pretending to be a woman, and pretending to be working, and pretending to have gone to college, and all the rest of the steaming pile of shit & pretense, Dr. Miller just humbly assumed her true condition, and lived the rest of her days happier, if quieter ? [↩]The whole problem here, and moreover the whole ideological fault line between the red pantsuit and the blue pantsuit in this context, is that the latter wish to make their "women" mental construct strictly incapable of usage ; any usage at all, which strikes the former as untenably nutty. That's what the discussion is all about, not some derpy article nobody reads (and, I suspect, nobody even wrote, let alone researched) but simply that "woman has no use". That typically useless females cluster to one side of the "argument", while on the other all sorts of homemakers tend to gravitate is... well, let's say it's not coincidental.

In the end, it's a debate between snails and sparrows as to whether mushrooms or worms are food -- leaving aside the smooth absence of any possibility of resolution, the whole thing proceeds apace on the firm ground of the complete inability of either "side" to even hear the other. What exactly could a barefoot woman that can make bread say to a woman that can't get "her articles" published that'd convince this latter she's not entirely useless ? Oh... wait... [↩]What the fuck does this even mean, "the male legitimately wanted a baby" ? The only possible legitimation is marriage, and these are specifically not married sets, so what legitimacy is being discussed ? Whether the boy thought he wanted a baby from some woman independently of the woman in question ? What the everloving fuck sense does this make ?!

There's no legitimacy in sexuality, get over it. [↩]Forgetting the all-important, by very far dominant, "get a shot at a good chunk of unearned wealth two to three decades down the road". Pretty much the only time a solid earner can be dumb enough to marry one of these is then and there. [↩]Stuck my foot.

The thing in the head was there from before ; it's aching even now between Dr. Miller's legs. Soundbytes stick to it like anything does, if you strip her naked and roll her through flour -- guess what ? Flour'd have stuck to her... head. [↩]

« thelastpsychiatrist.com - 8 Characteristics of Family Annihilators. Adnotated.

Apocatastasis »

Category: Adnotations

Thursday, 18 July, Year 11 d.Tr.