Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Many of the tips could be read conservatively, I really do not think this is particularly deceitful, even if much of the APA is.)
(Liberal Tips: reply)
Line 62: Line 62:
The vast majority of the recommendations, perhaps restated for clarity, could be given by a well-meaning conservative and be valuable. But on their face, these recommendations are far more conservative than the organization is. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 22:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)
The vast majority of the recommendations, perhaps restated for clarity, could be given by a well-meaning conservative and be valuable. But on their face, these recommendations are far more conservative than the organization is. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 22:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)
: No, I don't think so.  Most of the recommendations are quite [[liberal]] and harmful, such as urging someone in crisis to become ''more'' self-centered.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 21:40, 3 January 2009

Second citation

The public school link is exclusively for American public schools but the citation was for Canadian psychiatrists. It only gave a percentage of those psychiatrists that prescribed "Atypical" antipsychotics (one particular kind of psychiatric drug) not the number of prescriptions for children compared to the total number of kids in Canada (which is immaterial since we are talking about American schools). It makes no link between public schools at all and these psychiatrists (which admittedly there probably is) but this does not state a number therefore this cannot be used as justification for the blurb.--Lynus 16:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Lynus, we don't take kindly to censorship here. Don't delete information. If you think something is deficient, then improve it by finding more information, not less. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)
How is this censorship when I am simply deleting a reference to an article that does not address the point it is making? I will certainly be glad to withhold on outright deletion and instead use the talk page but is taking a citation out of an article talking about crime statistics in America by citing Crime statistics in Singapore censorship? I really do not understand this Andy.--Lynus 16:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Lynus, Canada is similar to the U.S. on this point. But more importantly, you're wasting my time. This is a project for open-minded people to contribute knowledge or insights. You've done neither in what I've seen of your edits. Build the encyclopedia, or please leave. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 16:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)


First, I think that this article is not quantifying as much as doing a qualitative analysis. I think it is important for the readers to know the difference between the two and for the article to not misstate something. I have not changed it so we can discuss it.

Second, the references to Christianity are fine but they don't do much. It seems that that is strictly for Christians and therefore in order to make a broader essay we should include tips that include everybody. If these tips help in the conversion of someone then we would need to address issues that pertain to the unsaved. I will try to include some soon.

The public school blurb is just that, a blurb. Certainly a case can be made for the overmedication of children but to say that the "main" way that schools address these issues are drugs needs a citation. But even if it is the case that it is the "main" way, which I don't believe, shouldn't we include the other ways schools address these issues, more studying, encouragement, reward and punishment etc. The sentence is way to broad to encompass every teacher and school in the public system.--Lynus 14:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Do you think "excels" might be a better word than "thrives" in the opening line? Corry 11:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

How about "is obsessed with"? Human 19:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Maybe "delights?" --ToJones 19:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Physical fitness is a good thing. Mental fitness would be even better. I don't see how the alternatives would be improvements.--Aschlafly 19:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Right now it reads as if our society thrives off the quantifying of physical fitness, not off the actual physical fitness. I understand your point, but it is hidden within the second half of your second sentence. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be "Our society thrives on our physical fitness and mental fitness. To help us improve our physical fitness, we quantify our physical strength [then the list of how we do it]. It is long overdue to create a similar system for mental fitness: ----ToJones 19:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, good point. Will add now.--Aschlafly 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Rename second half?

The second half is approaches to improving mental strength? Maybe change section heading to reflect this? The way the article is now that section should be approaches to quantifying mental strength. Just change heading to "Approaches to Improving Mental Strength" ? ----ToJones 20:04, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Good suggestion. Will do.--Aschlafly 20:21, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Dog attacks

I'm not sure about the inclusion of "dog attacks" in the irrational fears bullet point. Assumedly if a dog is attacking you, you should at least be concerned, especially if the dog is big, snarling, and has big teeth. That's a pretty rational concern. Do you mean fear of dogs in general? I know a girl who had some incident with a dog when she was young and now is deathly afraid of any dogs, even chihuahuas! -Foxtrot 23:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I would argue that not wanting a large dog to chase you or not wanting to get shot are both very rational fears. I think you're trying to link gun control policies with lacking "mental strength," and I don't think it's a good comparison. There's a big difference between being afraid of being shot (if you were in a combat zone, wouldn't you be?) and believing that less guns in society as a whole would reduce crime. Corry 10:45, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
This obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear of dog attacks, or guns. There may be legitimate fears of flying in airplanes, but the "fear of flying" obviously refers to an irrational or exaggerated fear.--Aschlafly 12:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
That's fair- I have friends who are afraid of my little housecat, for example. Maybe a phrase could be included to discuss that the fear becomes debilitating in what would normally be a non-threatening situation. I think it would be good to leave out guns, however, because part of being taught how to responsibly use a gun is inculcating a certain fear and respect for the damage they can do. My father certainly drilled this into me as a child, and I think that it is irrational to have no fear of guns at all. While I can think of many situations where an irrational fear of something can alter normal behavior- refusing to stay on the thirteenth floor of a hotel, for example, I can't think of such scenarios with guns. Corry 13:04, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Irrational fear is worth getting rid of even when it is not "debilitating". People who have an exaggerated fear of dog attacks would much prefer not to have that fear, and improving mental strength is a way they can get over their fear.
Guns are analogous to dog attacks, and the same logic applies to irrational fear of guns. Some people are too fearful of guns even to use them in self-defense, and they pay too high a price for that.--Aschlafly 13:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)


I've always found Kipling's poem 'If' inspirational, and a great source of mental strength, with the (admittedly very major) caveat that the strength given by God and by faith is not mentioned. Bugler 18:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Do you have a cite to it?--aschlafly 18:18, 18 December 2008 (EST)

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm Bugler 18:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Liberal Tips

I know this is an essay, and as such should remain however the authors wish it to. However, the tips given by the APA are not actually particularly liberal (although there is no denying that the organization is). While it may not be useful to those in great distress, focusing on improving familial relationships, and increasing involvement in civic and religious groups is good advice that would benefit most liberals, who certainly could benefit from improved mental strength.

The vast majority of the recommendations, perhaps restated for clarity, could be given by a well-meaning conservative and be valuable. But on their face, these recommendations are far more conservative than the organization is. Sulli 22:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)

No, I don't think so. Most of the recommendations are quite liberal and harmful, such as urging someone in crisis to become more self-centered.--Andy Schlafly 22:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)