Difference between revisions of "Talk:Disturbed character"

Revision as of 01:21, December 26, 2013

Problems

This article has a great many things seriously wrong with it. First, there is no clinical definition of "disturbed character"; there are just a great many terms applied to a great many character and personality problems. To pick out the phrase "disturbed character" as though it is meaningful in its own right is wrong.

There are numerous problems of grammar and usage. Perhaps the most notorious is the sentence

"In 1886 he joined Pasteur's adversaries who tried to discredit his method of antirabies vaccination whenever a death of patient occurred and who were ready to unleash hostile campaigns in the French press that was always looking for scandal and in the scientific press, that had gained an important position in society since the first half of the nineteenth century."

This sentence is astoundly long, goes all over the map, and has dangling pronouns and subordinate clauses all over the place. Who had gained an important position? Pasteur? Clemenceau? Pasteur's adversaries in general? The French press? The scientific press? If one divides one's writing into sentences of reasonable length, one can focus each sentence clearly.

Also

"Instead of using underhand means, Pasteur showed science in action, personified the march of progress and at the same time his aggressive adversaries were consumed by envy and "cast into the shadowy realm of the wicked", along with archaic opponents of Pasteur's method."

might be a compound sentence, or a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. One can't just mix these things willy-nilly.

Also, are you saying that Clemenceau was a disturbed character? I think that's what you are saying, but no connection is made, making the whole section something that doesn't seem to fit in with the topic of the article.

Also, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was a hot topic at the time, but the people supporting it were not necessarily evolutionists. Darwin's theory of evolution had only been published 5 years prior; there wasn't time for battle lines to be drawn on this issue. In fact, Darwin didn't comment on spontaneous generation until 7 years later. Evolution should be left out of the argument.

And who was the "Tiger"?

I've fixed some of the more egregious stylistic errors, but I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute.

SamHB 22:28, 15 December 2013 (EST)

"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. PeterKa 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Still problems

I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".

Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:

• Lee Oswald
• Sirhan Sirhan
• James Earl Ray
• Charles Manson
• Timothy McVeigh
• John Hinckley
• Charles Whitman
• Seung-Hui Cho
• Eric Harris
• Dylan Klebold
• James Holmes
• Adam Lanza
• Karl Pierson

I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.

So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?

• If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
• If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis? to the exclusion of anyone else?

As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's Origin of Species. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [1], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.

SamHB 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)

So I guess terrorists would count too. RKelly 21:07, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Thanks for fixing grammatical errors, greatly appreciated.

Ad. "relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means" - I suggest that you read the books in sources first, and do changes only afterwards (cf. "I'm not really an expert, either on psychopathology or on its relationship with the Pasteur/Clemenceau dispute"). You seriously distort the meaning of the term by introducing the folkloristic views (cf. "Common speech and folklore are"), if it is so important for you, I suggest you can make your own 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page.

In particular, the source does not regard disturbed characters as "serious" defect [it uses other more explicit terms for such categories] let alone neurotic [which is more on opposite end of personality-diapason as explained there in]. It is quite opposite, there are enlisted ways how to deal with disturbed character personality types to effectively mitigate their negative impact on society and bring change in their thinking and behavior patterns. In contrast to them, people with serious defects are portrayed as almost impossible to get changed.

As for your list, whether these people qualify for something depends on personality details evaluated against criteria. You however claim these details are not important hence I have nothing to say about them.

However, even then the answer to question what definition I'm using is easy. The definition is in article 'disturbed character' right from the first line, just read it. Should you have problem identifying it, it starts with words "Disturbed character is a personality type applied to people who are often unencumbered by qualms of conscience and passionately pursue their personal goals...lack self-restraint when it comes to acting upon their primal urges...They have too little conscience...resist making concessions to societal demands, may have some antisocial tendencies, and may have diminished capacities for experiencing genuine shame or guilt..." You have there even 'Brief Summary of Problematic Patterns of Thinking of Disturbed Characters', just have a better look.

As for question "where do you get it" - I'm not sure how the page displays at your computer, but at mine there is clearly the 'References' section. Please let me know if there is problem displaying it at your computer, I can try to send it/let you know other way then.

Ad. "how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?" - you have to first show me the source which:

• defines who 'everyone' is
• defines the way this 'everyone' use it.

Ad. "why...do you name only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?"

Because:

• To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic
• Example is something or someone chosen from a group in order to show what the whole group is like; that's the very nature of example(s) - you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena
• The article is not finished, it is first stage and I plan to add few more examples later on, don't be afraid.

Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.

I hope this helps.--AK 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.

I suggest that you read the books in sources first

No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read In Sheep's Clothing or Character Disturbances, though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to In Sheep's Clothing, does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a tag search for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".

You however claim these details are not important

What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.

You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is

No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.

To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic

Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only one such person?

you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena

Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?

While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...

There is no description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.

Supported by sources?

Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".

SamHB 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)

Ad."I give up."

Much appreciated, at least we can conclude that you are able to accept reasonable arguments and the 'Disturbed character' personality type does not apply onto you as you clearly do not passionately pursue your personal goal with indifference to others and you do not exhibit self-focused/self-centered thinking. Thanks for that.

Ad."Your article should be moved to essay space"

Here I cannot agree, I apologize for any inconvenience, I believe if anything should be moved to essay space, then it would be "Common speech and folklore", not sourced information.

Ad."they are good books for laypeople"

I believe Conservapedia is i.a. for laypeople too, at least I have seen many comments where authors of articles have been asked to bring given content from high-level style down to earth. Nevertheless, the author appears to be expert on manipulators and other disturbed characters. He earned his degree in clinical psychology at Texas Tech University and has studied disturbed characters for over thirty years. I believe that is quite long time span to be entitled to write something on given subject.

Ad."Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book."

That's exactly what the article does. The reading of the book is recommended only to people who are trying to distort the definition of the term by introducing the contradictory characteristics wrt. sourced meaning, such as 'serious defect' and 'neurotic' - it should help them to understand why it is not good idea to mix them into the article.

Ad."I notice that the first URL you gave, to In Sheep's Clothing, does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all"

The URL refers to the book; if the pages mentioned do not contain phrase "disturbed character", please let me know; there must be something wrong with that edition and I can send you the scan of mine where it is clearly stated.

Ad."your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a tag search for the page"

That's surprising news for me and the URL I have chance to evaluate does not support this hypothesis. As far as I can evaluate the facts, the "tag/character-disturbance/" and "tag/disturbed-character/" are directly part of Dr. Simon's web page, at least when you click for example at 'character disturbance' directly at his pages, it navigates you to that page (~tag/character-disturbance/) without any search engine to intervene.

Ad."I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. ..."

I'm fine with that, you can write essay about your views or as I already suggested 'Disturbed character (folkloristic definition)' page and then we can have disamb.page. I have no interest to place any restriction to your creativity effort at Conservapedia, just pls. do not ascribe a meaning to term that is discouraged in the sources. BTW, the article does not claim that Dr.Simon wrote about Clemenceau, please try to read it again more thoroughly to eliminate this misunderstanding.

Ad."I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition."

See my previous point.

Ad."Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?"

I'm not able to comment on Timothy McVeigh as I have no data on him. However as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion.

"There is no description that follows. "

Well, the observational evidence confirms that your sentence tried to distinguish [IMHO correctly] pre-Darwinian evolutionists by stating "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word," and then there was the following description: "in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence". Originally I was about to leave this note, but then I realized that it is meaningless because these positions were common for both groups as explained in my previous post {Darwinians also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [starting at so called first replicant] came into existence}.

Ad."You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind."

You must have missed it, while it is true that the information is not directly in text, the sources [at the moment 3 and 4] are quite clear, just focus more attention on them, there are even actual quotes:

• "The Comte de Buffon was a French evolutionist";
• " Clemenceau ... in the domain of physiology and general science he was a convinced evolutionist..."

I expect that whoever needs to verify this information would be able to do so in the references.

"Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed"."

See my previous point [Buffon]; their Lamarkian/Darwinian beliefs are irrelevant to this article, if it is topic of your interest I really encourage you to read the book, and even contact author should you get clarified their evolutionary beliefs directly by his historical research. I use only Clemenceau in the example and the question whether he was disturbed was addressed in one of my above points. If you suggest to add Buffon as well, that's maybe quite well possible/good idea, I just would need to study more about him as I have not expected there might be such suggestion and I do not have that book with me at the moment to investigate right away whether he might meet the criteria [for character disturbance]. I just recall there is quite few pages where he is mentioned.

I hope this helps as explanation, thanks in advance for your understanding --AK 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

Moderation

Hey everyone - a series of extremely unfortunate events lead my computer and phone to have NO access to CP - Sam I only reverted you on main page talk because that's not really the place to go for such problems. But AK Sam is right, the article as it stands now is skewed - we definitely need more examples if that section is going to stay. One is ridiculous. I'd also like a more definitive definition. I'm worried about how broadly used this classification is - is this a diagnosis? Your writing is fine - you lay it out fine, and I do see the definition, but I'm still confused as to how widespread this classification is used.--IDuan 16:25, 20 December 2013 (EST)

Renaming the page

OK; I think I understand what's going on, and why we disagree about the use of the phrase "disturbed character". The page wasn't really about that phrase; it was about Dr. Simon's books. He uses that phrase in his books. It was never his intention that his use should supplant the more common use of "disturbed". In fact, in the introduction to the first book, he mentions a (manipulative) person saying "are you saying I'm psychiatrically disturbed?" So he clearly recognizes the common use of the term.

While I haven't (yet) read the books, I've read various online reviews and commentaries, and Dr. Simon seems to be a good writer, and they seem to be good books. What you've written is, for the most part, a description of the principles in those books. Therefore, I am recommending that the page simply be renamed to "George Simon".

A few quick comments:

• I did not mean anything negative by saying that the books were "for laypeople". Those are the kinds of books that general-knowledge wikis should be discussing.
• "I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers". This was to show that the common phrase "disturbed character" applies to mass murderers. We've all seen the headlines after some mass shooting, about how the person was a "loner", and "couldn't relate to people", etc. etc. In other words, "disturbed" by societal norms. Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber. 168 dead. By far the worst of the people on the list. Needless to say, I retract what I said about such people. Given that we are talking about Dr. Simon's books, the wider use of "disturbed" is irrelevant. Dr. Simon was writing about manipulative "wolf in sheep's clothing" people that we encounter in our everyday interactions. I'm sure there was no chapter about how one should react to the discovery that one's husband is a mass murderer.  :-)
• I also believe that the Pasteur/Clemenceau/de Buffon issue has no place in a discussion of Dr. Simon' books. I seriously doubt that Dr. Simon mentioned these people or this issue. He seemed to be writing about manipulative people one encounters in modern life. (If he did write about this controversy, please accept my apology.)

So here's what I suggest: Take the material about Pasteur and Clemenceau, and make a new page, titled something like the "The Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy". Or put it into a section of some existing page about abiogenesis or whatever. Include the reference to the Debre book. If you think their beliefs on Lamarckism are relevant to their dispute, by all means put that in. Here's the connection as I see it:

In the mid 1900's what science (well, it was called "natural philosophy" at the time) knew about biological sameness and diversity was mostly that, as far as anyone could tell, life came only from life, and each species only reproduced its own species. This left at least two important questions unanswered:

• How did it start?
• Even though reproduction only leads to the same species, how does one explain the uncanny similarities among different species? There is some deep similarity among horses, cows, pigs and dogs. Not to mention humans. How does one explain this?

Now it is extremely important, when studying these topics, always to keep in mind that scientists always must proceed from the information available to them at the time. These people didn't know what we know now about DNA, and adaptation, and mutations, and Potassium radioactivity, and macro- and micro-evolution, etc. So the mysterious similarities between horses and cows were indeed mysterious, and were the subject of intense curiosity. So the rise of things like Lamarckism come as no surprise. People though about these issue with great intensity. And that included abiogenesis. Is it absolutely true that life comes only from life, or only 99.999999999% true? That makes a big difference. It's still debated today. The history of science is extremely fascinating.

Scientists were looking for any unifying theory that they could possibly find. Scientists do the same thing today about dark enrgy, dark matter, string theory, brane theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, etc. Someday people will look back and be amazed at how misguided 99% of that was. We just don't know which 99%.

So, yes, the issues of abiogenesis and the "tree of life" were usually thought about together. And a thoughtful discussion of how these issues played out in the debates of the 19th century would certainly be a good thing. But just saying that those who opposed Pasteur's theories about life-only-from-life were "evolutionists" is a monumentally gross oversimplification. I know you can do better. SamHB 14:00, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Notable

Guys this topic isn't notable - fork it into the George Simon article; leave the example out.--IDuan 14:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Which topic, please clarify. If you mean 'disturbed character', then please advise what criterion you are using, the argument Ipse dixit (ca 'because I said') is not the best one, IMHO. You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?--AK 15:43, 21 December 2013 (EST)

One more note, I do not like the bastardization of the article you did and I was thinking whether you both are not some saboteurs here at CP that do more activities on talk pages and destroying the articles than being productive and creative. I've remembered there was a rule applied to such users and now it seems I'm not the only one having that impression, just have a look: "It is implicit given that it is a news story, and the change is also verifiable by researching other stories. Are you more interested in what the truth is, or in debating debate tactics? Please give it a rest - I count more than 50 consecutive talk-page edits from your account, which is far more than the 90/10 rule would typically allow.--Aschlafly 21:30, 7 December 2013 (EST)" I strongly agree with this opinion.--AK 15:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

This is a terrible article

This article is an embarrassment. I understand Conservative is a friend of a friend of the author - so be clear that that is why it's being allowed. There's no notability here - it's an article about a supposed personality diagnosis that one author has used in his book - and then the author attempts to ascribe that diagnosis to a person - with no sources supporting that diagnosis claim - only his decision making.--IDuan 21:58, 21 December 2013 (EST)

The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. Conservative 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)

again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--IDuan 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)

This is a terrible approach

I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: "you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan" [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also Truth at Wikipedia. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach hypocrisy: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at Hearsay_society#Notable_examples, there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--AK 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)

The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--IDuan 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)

Ad. The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.

I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.

• This erasing edit of yours testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called schizophrenia (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
• In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from Kerkut’s student syndrome ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" planet Vulcan, to establish homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’". You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated neo-gnostic elite and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
• You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what end justifies your means, at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
• Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use false analogy. We do not say here "John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder" but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:

• limits
• confrontation
• and most especially correction. For example, this article could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.

"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"

• You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:

Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?

Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.

• If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
• As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP canvassing: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--AK 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)

"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - even per your definition of psychology as more of an art than an exact science - probably is all you can say. But again, per your "special relationship" with User:Conservative, I'm stepping back from this article, because he seems very interested in you getting credit for work on Conservapedia.--IDuan 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)