Quote:
Originally Posted by Anika
I did grasp exactly what you are saying. I am just not fully in agreement.
|
Ok, I apologize, I thought you didn't understand what I was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anika
As I understand you do not have Bipolar you have ADD/ADHD ?
|
Honestly, I do not know, in fact I haven't even been officially diagnosed as ADHD, although I am 100% positive I am. My psychiatrist believes that I may be Bipolar, however I personally do no believe so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anika
I believe it is more than genetics, and chemicals, repression who knows, for those who don't repress? Still I don't know.
|
Yes, no, maybe so, who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotCrazyLikeYou
Here's how science works:
Step 1: Collect Data
Step 2: Develop a theory that fits the data
Here is how pseudo science works:
Step 1: Develop a theory
Step 2: Force all data to fit the theory
|
Unfortunately, not only do I not have the assets to acquire data, of any sort, aside from statistics and information already available, I also do not even know what kind of data would be useful in aiding my theory. Thing is, this isn't
only science. Hell, its almost not even science at all. It's
psychology.
"The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from
describing human behavior to
explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion."
---Sigmund Koch
Yes, my theory is completely theoretical. With no supporting data. Considering not even the psychiatric community, whom do have the assets to acquire data, haven't yet developed a theory regarding the cause of Bipolar disorder, especially not one with data, I don't necessarily believe I am wrong in making an attempt. Even if relevant data could be acquired, which even that is a question of its own, would that data even be useful in developing a theory? This is where the line between science and psychology blurs and it is up to us humans to figure it out. That is why I developed my theory using, at least in my opinion, simple logical reasoning. Call it pseudoscience. Call it pseudo-psychology. Call it
wrong. It makes no difference. The purpose is the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissa.recovering
I think it's fantastic that you have created a theory on the subject, as it's a very interesting and relevant one. However, I'd have to disagree with it. It seems far too generalized - expecting everyone with Bipolar Disorder to have had issues with repressing emotions during their childhood. It's just not realistic. I think with all mental illnesses, some had difficult childhoods with emotions repressed, and others didn't. We can't lump everyone into a certain category.
|
Thank you, and yes, after reading the responses, I would have to agree with you. The theory
is far too generalized. Mainly because of, yes, the assumption that everyone with bipolar disorder has had repressed emotions during childhood, which can be seen as a logical fallacy largely because of the generalization itself and the degree to which it is true or not. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this is completely theoretical, it was rather hard to avoid such a generalization but I would have to agree with you. We can't lump everyone into a certain category.