Martin Gardner vs. Buckminster Fuller : Is anal retentiveness a mental illness?

[Dr.CWho]

According to Martin Gardner, Buckminster Fuller was a pseudoscientist. Bucky, in Martin's eyes, didn't know what he was talking about, notwithstanding his development of geodesic architecture and other accomplishments. One would find Martin's psychological status to be that of an anal retentive, or one who is a chronic pragmatist. It's all Freudian, of course, still Freud permeates the foundations of many other noted psychiatrists, such as Karl Menninger or Skinner or Jung. Humans go through a series of changes in psychological profile as they grow older, but those who are cursed with some forms of mental illness are that way because they suffer from either a neurosis or psychosis stemming from psychological stagnation at an early age.

The anal stage of development is where the child is obsessed with its own functions and self needs. People who retain this state of development are known as anal retentives and often the anal retentive knows little of how to love in a mature manner because they didn't enter the Oedipal stage of development, then onward to adult.

Martin Gardner is just one such anal retentive. He is a classic example of someone who is so fearful of looking outside of the box that he rejects the ideas of other educated people who do step outside the box periodically. He called Bucky a "nutjob" because, in fact, Gardner is a nutjob, only one who clings to old fundamentals, like so many Christians, Jews and Muslims, who reject scientific findings for hand-me-down fairy tales.

Now we have a new type of carbon architecture called Buckminsterfullerene that baffles some, but intrigues the rest of us. In that, it seems clear to me that the reasons we are behind the times in where we should be scientifically, is because of the anal retentives that we simply should ignore if we want to get anything done.

I'm sure there are any number of competent shrinks out there that can help these poor lost souls that hamper scientific advancements...

[YT2095]

I think you`re full of shit

[Phi for All]

Moved to Speculations with a chance of winning your way out and into Psychiatry and Psychology if you don't pursue the implied attack on religion angle.

I think you`re full of shit

OK, funny, but wrong (at least the ad hominem part). Fifteen minutes in the corner with no lab equipment, young man. [/wrist slap]

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Dr.CWho, your statements in the OP give little latitude for discussion. The only question you ask is the title of the thread and the answer is well documented. Anal retentiveness is NOT a mental illness, it's a personality trait. Extreme cases might be considered obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) but I see nothing that qualifies in what you've presented about Gardner.

 

The conclusion to which you're attempting to jump, that anal retentives have hampered scientific advancements, seems to be derived from one source, Martin Gardner. You have failed to show Gardner's opinions of Buckminster Fuller hampered anything. Do you have any evidence that people didn't just ignore Gardner and that taking him seriously somehow put all of science "behind the times"? Why do you think we're not where we should be scientifically? Isn't that line of reasoning tainted with both Begging the Question and False Dilemma fallacies?

[Glider]

Is anal retentiveness a mental illness? You answer your own question. No it isn't. It's one of a the (proposed) stages of psychosexual development.

 

Freudian stages of psychosexual development are: Oral (0-1 year), Anal (1-3 years), Phallic (3-5/6 years), Latency Period (5/6 –Puberty), Genital (puberty – maturity). The anal stage is one of those that has sub-stages. It passes through the anal-expulsive stage into the anal retentive stage.

 

Broadly, the idea was that an individual had to successfully resolve the issues presented at each stage, or risk becoming fixed at the stage that was unresolved, which would then form the basis for the individual's personality type.

 

It's a bit crap though. Proposing a causal link between normal life events (i.e. not significant events like abuse or other severe trauma) at 1-3 years of age and adult personality is pretty much a waste of time. Most modern theories of individual differences don't take Freud seriously. Coffee-shop readers of pop psychology still do though.

 

The anal stage of development is where the child is obsessed with its own functions and self needs. People who retain this state of development are known as anal retentives and often the anal retentive knows little of how to love in a mature manner because they didn't enter the Oedipal stage of development, then onward to adult.

There is no Oedipal stage of development. The Oedipal complex (Electra complex for females) is said to stem from the conflicting emotions they feel at puberty towards their parents (same and opposite sex). Failure to resolve the conflict means getting fixed as an Oedipal (or Electral) personality type. This happens during the Phallic stage of development.

 

Anyway, short answer is no. Anal retentive is a personality type (according to Freud), not a mental illness. However, Freud's system of classification is flawed and of little use these days.

 

 

Moved to Speculations with a chance of winning your way out and into Psychiatry and Psychology if you don't pursue the implied attack on religion angle.

Aww dude, come on! How come anybody with nothing to say but who happens to mentions Freud gets to post in Psychiatry and Psychology? Freud has bugger all to do with modern Psychology. He's only taught these days because introductory Psychology courses have to include an element of history (where modern theory came from; myth and method kind of stuff).

[Phi for All]

Aww dude, come on! How come anybody with nothing to say but who happens to mentions Freud gets to post in Psychiatry and Psychology? Freud has bugger all to do with modern Psychology. He's only taught these days because introductory Psychology courses have to include an element of history (where modern theory came from; myth and method kind of stuff).

It would definitely be your call, doc.

 

I think everyone who speculates here should know that if they do a good enough job and pass our tests of fire that their speculation can get upgraded to more serious discussion.

[gcol]

Although the original post seems to have been ruled out of order (censored?)

There is, to me, an interesting basic question lurking there, i.e., what is the difference between a personality disorder and a mental illness. Perhaps though it is too close to home for some, touching on the differences between scientists and normal people. Scientists are not all mad, but some of them are arguably anally retentive. Then again, they can always work it out with pencil and paper. (joke)

[Phi for All]

Although the original post seems to have been ruled out of order (censored?)

Certainly not censored, and not really out of order, just misplaced and poorly supported. This thread was originally started in General Physics for some odd reason.

There is, to me, an interesting basic question lurking there, i.e., what is the difference between a personality disorder and a mental illness. Perhaps though it is too close to home for some, touching on the differences between scientists and normal people. Scientists are not all mad, but some of them are arguably anally retentive.

I've often heard that the best accountants and administrators have a bit of OCD or they couldn't be effective. The same should hold true for anyone who has to do repetitive, exacting work.

Then again, they can always work it out with pencil and paper. (joke)

Probably a #2 pencil.

[iNow]

what is the difference between a personality disorder and a mental illness. Perhaps though it is too close to home for some, touching on the differences between scientists and normal people. Scientists are not all mad, but some of them are arguably anally retentive. Then again, they can always work it out with pencil and paper. (joke)

 

Just recall, as Glider stated above, anal retentiveness is a stage of psychosocial development (as proposed by Freud), and does not fit into either the personality disorder or mental illness categories as they are presently used and defined.

[gcol]

But Glider was largely dismissive of Freud's relevance to modern psychiatry, consigning him to an historical sidenote. The question of judgemental classification still remains.

 

It is in human nature to classify things, and the nature of things classified to protest and squeal at being, in their opinion, unjustly classified. I suggest that any system begins from an initially prejudiced point of view.

[Glider]

There is, to me, an interesting basic question lurking there, i.e., what is the difference between a personality disorder and a mental illness. Perhaps though it is too close to home for some, touching on the differences between scientists and normal people. Scientists are not all mad, but some of them are arguably anally retentive. Then again, they can always work it out with pencil and paper. (joke)

The differences have always been a bit hazy, but there has been some recent work on the topic. “ Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ‘deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations’; they represent ‘either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others’ and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind.” (Kendall, 2002). (see here)

 

But Glider was largely dismissive of Freud's relevance to modern psychiatry, consigning him to an historical sidenote. The question of judgemental classification still remains.

 

It is in human nature to classify things, and the nature of things classified to protest and squeal at being, in their opinion, unjustly classified. I suggest that any system begins from an initially prejudiced point of view.

I think it’s the ‘judgemental’ part that most people (including Psychologists) squeal about. There is a difference between making observations and making judgements.

 

Freud’s methods were flawed and as there is so little evidence to suggest that infants universally go through five fixed stages of psychosexual development (as Freud proposed), there are no grounds to make the assumption that adult personalities stem from fixation at any of these stages.

 

In any event, the lay-usage of the term ‘anal retentive’ seems usually to be based more on the word ‘anal’ than any in-depth understanding of the term. It’s simply become a pseudo intellectual way of calling somebody an asshole.

 

There are better models and measures of personality available and these generally avoid classifying people as ‘this type’ or ‘that type’. Rather, they concentrate on a number of reliable personality traits and then measure the degree to which people possess these traits.

 

For example, the Five-factor Model (Otherwise known as the Big Five) has established five reliable factors in personality: Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Neuroticism. Each of the factors is a category made up of constituent traits (i.e. relatively stable, long-term characteristics). For example, Agreeableness encompasses traits such as compassion and tendency towards cooperation.

 

The Big Five as a measure of personality has several strengths. It is empirically based (e.g. Goldberg, 1993). It has high test-retest reliability, a number of the factors have a biological basis and there are a number of meta-analyses that confirm the predictive power of the model (predictive power is crucial to any measure of personality).

 

However, rather than classifying individuals, it assumes these five factors are universal, and all individuals possess all of them, but in different proportions. Imagine a mixer board with slides for each of the factors where each person has all factors, but the slides are in different positions for each person. It’s not a perfect model and there are some criticisms, largely to do with the fact that the Big Five does not explain all human personality (e.g. religiosity, gender traits, sense of humour etc.), but it is fairly robust as far as it goes.

 

I've often heard that the best accountants and administrators have a bit of OCD or they couldn't be effective. The same should hold true for anyone who has to do repetitive, exacting work. Probably a #2 pencil.

Again, OCD is a clinical classification for a characteristic that everybody possesses. We all have obsessive-compulsive tendencies to a degree (e.g. many people develop little rituals in their daily lives that would cause anxiety if they did not perform them), but it’s only when they begin to interfere with normal function does it achieve clinical status.

 

However, even OCD can be explained by the Big Five model. People who measure high on the conscientiousness and Neuroticism factors have a tendency towards obsessive-compulsive behaviours, but as I said, it’s only when these begin to interfere with normal function would they meet the diagnostic criteria for OCD.

 

People who have to do exacting and repetitive work, often on their own, would ideally (according to the Big Five) score high on conscientiousness and low on extroversion and openness.

[iNow]

through five fixed stages of psychosexual development (as Freud proposed)

I said "psychosocial," didn't I?

 

 

"Honey... time to brew some more coffee."

[Glider]

I wouldn't worry about it. According to Freud, everything had a basis in sex (or parents, or both). To be fair, he was very clever, and a lot of the ridicule he comes in for is due to people unfairly viewing his work through 21st century eyes. If you look at it in the context of the time, it makes more sense.

[Psyber]

ICD and DSM [the US equivalent] are both a bit rigid and old in their thinking. DSM in particular was designed to pin down diagnostic groupings very narrowly for research purposes and was never intended to be all inclusive in the way Lawyers and Insurance companies try to use it.

 

Psychiatrists are now forgetting about Bipolar Disorder type I and type II et cetera, and talking of "Bipolar Spectrum Disorders", just as "Autistic Spectrum Disorders" is replacing fixed categories like Autism and Asperger's Syndrome.

 

OCD appears to have a strong association with the genetically determined depressive tendency carried by 8% of the population.

 

PS: Freud, Jung, etc. are all a bit passe in the modern, post-human genome, world of today.

[Dr.CWho]

Anal Retention as Mental Illness

 

To the first flamebait response.... (YT2095) If your invisible friend is all you see on your monitor, then we're here to be understanding...

 

To Phi,

Thanks for the heads up. From the 1st impressions scenario: It might be a bit more graceful to a

newcomer if your "downgrade" forum was split say like "Speculation, hypotheses and emerging

theory" and "Dante's Inferno for pseudoscience." One doesn't confuse with polite questioning the

negative rhetoricals, sarcasms,et hoc genus omne... The differences should be obvious.

(Off topic: I don't do Pons and Fleishman type science. I wish to report findings to an active

group of researchers like myself. If what I said in astrophysics belonged here, then everything

else in astrophysics should be here as well, because all are based around some limited known

facts and anything about them is speculation. Even gravity cannot be proven as attraction; one

only need change the plus to a minus and vice versa for gravity to be the result of bombardment

by gravity as a pushing force. The Cavendish experiment then works only with fluid dynamics in

the equation. That is just one such speculation, but it is certainly not pseudoscience.)

 

Glider,

Interesting input

 

Leaving Freud out of analysis is like leaving Keplar out of estimating the rings around Uranus.

 

I'm not a shrink, but I know a couple and a number of other nursing and MD staff, some share

bouillebais with us here every so often, since you can't get that and a game of chess anywhere

else in Anderson that I know of. A neurosurgeon acquaintance of mine is interested in seing my

first model of this quasi-perpetual-motion device I mentioned earlier. I plan to get into some of

that in here later because I want some feedback and ideas for part of it...

Most of what I know of psychology is from reading, usually while on a travel assignment, or

from observations in both socialization and engineering situations, as well as doing business

with companies of varying size.

There resides three areas that demand behavioral analysis out of someone who prefers solving

problems with machines and so, in the process of manufacturing engineering assignments, I've

found that anal retentive behavior (ARB) aligns with self destructive behavior, like Menninger

would describe in Man Against Himself. It is a product of fear and paranoia and I've seen it

scuttle companies, products and people's lives, sometimes the ARB person. The worst part of it

is the anal retentive has often been raised by a passive aggressive or actively abusive parent,

possibly emotionally in some way or another, so is cautious about jumping right in, sink or

swim. This maybe backed up by another parent who exhibits ARB.

 

Anal retentive behavior, even as you defined it in more advanced terms, is still a factor of

personality and personality affects our behavior. The point Is that there are quite a few more

mentally ill people out in society, who irresponsibly harm others through ARB, then essentially

hide the evidence. Wars aren't started by mature, creative people; they are started by ARB types.

An ARB on a review team can hurt hundreds of thousands of people, because they poo poo an

innovation. I've seen this happen.

Yes ARB is a mental illness. It borderlines on schizophrenia, in my experiences of observation.

I've seen it cause depression in both the ARB type and others around him or her. I've watched

divorces occur over the products of just such depression. This is from a non-psychoanalyst, but

rather from a general practicing scientist who started out as an engineer often in industrial

engineering positions where watching people and machines to find the weakest link is par for the

course. Examples are Starcraft, Grummen-Olsen and Gunnite Corporations.

Starcraft was run into the ground by Leo Bontreger essentially clinging to obsolete production

methods. These are my observations from meetings where my job was lie to them on paper, but I

wouldn't compromise myintegrity to do that, so I gave bad news, with recommendations and the

fear surfaced in Mr. Bontreger's face, because the figures I held backed up the company that was

there to show them they were running in the red. I offered a method that would spend about 1/4

million and fix the problems with some overhead conveyors. That didn'thappen, though it was

possible, then Starcraft went down... Bontreger was the first head to roll... People often make

their worst mistakes at the hands of overzealous pragmatists that react out of fear for their own

job. At Starcraft, the company I was contracted through was losing fame because I wasn't

fudging the time study. A classic ARB type took the helm after my first boss went on to a

smarter job opening and proceeded to fire me. As irony would have it I ended up job boss over

him at Grummen-Olsen on a military project. I figured killing him with kindness was the

payback since we worked for the same agency. The point being made is that ARB is as serious as

panic attacks in their self destructive nature. Menninger made quite a few case references in

what I've read to tacit neurotics that turn psychotic and self destructive. We've all seen too much

of this in the 21st century. One causes someone's demise then commits suicide to amend or gets

a gallbladder removed and all pain is relieved, for example.

Watching people work is one thing, but I've found that the way to get the best readings of time is

to become a part of the process, to keep the subject at ease, then do many repetitions. The ARB

type lurks in the background thinking the subject isn't samrt enough to know he's there. My

approach is to not insult the subject's intelligence and they very cooperatively forget me into the

background except that I might tweak their process if I think it's effective to increase their

cooperative output. I pck their brains and the subject is almost always ready to unload, so I can

take in, albeit rarely include it in a study, some inuendos that might give me insight into getting

people to work together or somewhere else. ARB types cancel my orders for fatigue mats for

press operators knowing it keeps people more efficient so pays back over the years, even to the

effect of keeping employees that would stay if working conditions were better. Getting involved

in the people does more good when an engineer has more support from the ones holding the

purse strings.

 

In all that there are some of my findings.

 

Religious implications: Sometimes comparisons of such cannot be helped. Even focusing on

problematic areas can be painful, still the pain once felt is over and the healing can begin.

 

Now about Bucky and Gardner...

 

Gardner was unfair and his review was classic ARB. Bucky made some great geodesic domes.

Today we need those domes more than ever. How much greenhouse gas would be collected if in

Bucky's day we had built domes over the cities? That was his vision never to be... a dome over

Manhatten. Think of what that could have meant.

Not long ago I was shown some interest in a concept to build 90 kilometer square into spherical domes over

Madison County here in Indiana to prevent the escape into the atmosphere of farm emissions and

the cities as well. It's a 300 billion dollar project, people. If it's privately funded, then there are

problems of the county level opposition, still if the state helps out there would be far more

opposition.

 

That's enough thought food for this post.

 

Thanx for the responses. It'll help me get to know you all a bit ARB types and creative nerds

(like me )alike.

 

(If you want to be insulting then my email is available...)

 

Yes. IMO, ARB is a form of mental illness. God love you; Get help.

 

 

Also, I didn't notice the psyche boards. I would think there would be good reads there.

 

Dr.CWho

[Glider]

Anal Retention as Mental Illness

 

Leaving Freud out of analysis is like leaving Keplar out of estimating the rings around Uranus.

Possibly, but leaving flawed and inaccurate models out of discussions of Psychology and personality can only be helpful.

 

Forgive my brutal editing, but I’m only interested in the psychological aspects of your post and so most of your business anecdotes are not relvant.

 

I'm not a shrink, but I know a couple and a number of other nursing and MD staff, ...

Most of what I know of psychology is from reading, usually while on a travel assignment, or

from observations in both socialization and engineering situations, as well as doing business

with companies of varying size.

I don’t think that really qualifies you to take an outdated proposed stage of psychosexual development and turn it into a personality type and apply that type to other people.

Anal retentive behavior, even as you defined it in more advanced terms, is still a factor of

personality and personality affects our behavior.

It is true that personality is predictive of behaviour, it is not true that ‘anal retentive’ is an accepted personality type with any predictive power at all.

The point Is that there are quite a few more

mentally ill people out in society, who irresponsibly harm others through ARB, then essentially

hide the evidence. Wars aren't started by mature, creative people; they are started by ARB types.

An ARB on a review team can hurt hundreds of thousands of people, because they poo poo an

innovation. I've seen this happen.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? Do you have any empirically based classification criteria for this ‘ARB’ type?

Yes ARB is a mental illness. It borderline on schizophrenia, in my experiences of observation.

Bullshit.

 

I've seen it cause depression in both the ARB type and others around him or her. I've watched divorces occur over the products of just such depression.

So ARB is a factor in depression and divorce too?

 

This is from a non-psychoanalyst, but...

But nothing. Psychoanalysis is a Freudian school of therapy. It’s a bit crap and not very effective. Psychoanalysts aren’t necessarily even Psychologists. They’re often just people who’ve done a course in psychoanalysis.

 

...rather from a general practicing scientist who started out as an engineer often in industrial engineering positions where watching people and machines to find the weakest link is par for the course. Examples are Starcraft, Grummen-Olsen and Gunnite Corporations.

What you’re doing is observing a behaviour that pisses you off and giving it some pseudo intellectual label in order to convince others that the behaviour is wrong. For all its basis in reality, you might just as well call it ‘navel fixation syndrome’.

 

As I said previously, you are one of those who are using the term ‘anal retentive’ as a euphemism for asshole. I don’t care that you consider all the people you list below assholes. You might even have good reason, but don’t try to tell me that any of this has any grounding in Psychology.

Starcraft was run into the ground by Leo Bontreger essentially clinging to obsolete production

methods. These are my observations from meetings where my job was lie to them on paper, but I

wouldn't compromise myintegrity to do that, so I gave bad news, with recommendations and the

fear surfaced in Mr. Bontreger's face, because the figures I held backed up the company that was

there to show them they were running in the red. I offered a method that would spend about 1/4

million and fix the problems with some overhead conveyors. That didn'thappen, though it was

possible, then Starcraft went down... Bontreger was the first head to roll... People often make

their worst mistakes at the hands of overzealous pragmatists that react out of fear for their own

job. At Starcraft, the company I was contracted through was losing fame because I wasn't

fudging the time study. A classic ARB type took the helm after my first boss went on to a

smarter job opening and proceeded to fire me. As irony would have it I ended up job boss over

him at Grummen-Olsen on a military project. I figured killing him with kindness was the

payback since we worked for the same agency. The point being made is that ARB is as serious as

panic attacks in their self destructive nature. Menninger made quite a few case references in

what I've read to tacit neurotics that turn psychotic and self destructive. We've all seen too much

of this in the 21st century. One causes someone's demise then commits suicide to amend or gets

a gallbladder removed and all pain is relieved, for example.

 

Watching people work is one thing, but I've found that the way to get the best readings of time is

to become a part of the process, to keep the subject at ease, then do many repetitions. The ARB

type lurks in the background thinking the subject isn't samrt enough to know he's there. My

approach is to not insult the subject's intelligence and they very cooperatively forget me into the

background except that I might tweak their process if I think it's effective to increase their

cooperative output. I pck their brains and the subject is almost always ready to unload, so I can

take in, albeit rarely include it in a study, some inuendos that might give me insight into getting

people to work together or somewhere else. ARB types cancel my orders for fatigue mats for

press operators knowing it keeps people more efficient so pays back over the years, even to the

effect of keeping employees that would stay if working conditions were better. Getting involved

in the people does more good when an engineer has more support from the ones holding the

purse strings.

 

In all that there are some of my findings.

Ok, so, a bunch of people have done a bunch of stupid stuff (in your opinion) that has pissed you off. That’s fine. We don’t really care. It’s obvious you have a grudge against them (justified or not) but this isn’t really the place to vent your spleen against them.

 

This is a science forum and you need to present something relevant rather a list of complaints about the unfair treatment you’ve had at the hands of people who wouldn’t listen to your wisdom, wrapped up in some made up psychobabble as an attempt to justify your belief that these people are assholes.

 

Religious implications: Sometimes comparisons of such cannot be helped. Even focusing on

problematic areas can be painful, still the pain once felt is over and the healing can begin.

What?

 

Now about Bucky and Gardner...

No. No more.

 

Yes. IMO, ARB is a form of mental illness. God love you; Get help.

I say again; Bullshit.

 

Also, I didn't notice the psyche boards. I would think there would be good reads there.

 

Dr.CWho

You might want to read up on some actual Psychology beforehand. I’ll be watching for you.

[Dr.CWho]

Do you have any evidence for any of this? Do you have any empirically based classification criteria for this ‘ARB’ type?

Bullshit.

 

What you’re doing is observing a behaviour that pisses you off and giving it some pseudo intellectual label in order to convince others that the behaviour is wrong. For all its basis in reality, you might just as well call it ‘navel fixation syndrome’.

 

As I said previously, you are one of those who are using the term ‘anal retentive’ as a euphemism for asshole.

 

You might want to read up on some actual Psychology beforehand. I’ll be watching for you.

 

 

Well, at least you haven't totally made this into a strawman.

 

Do you know the meaning of emerging science?

 

This has nothing to do with anything that makes me angry. If anything it makes me sad to see what humanity has come to. It makes me sadder to see that all the "psychotechnicians" can do is forego analysis, go straight to the chemistry set and circumvent the repercussions when say the side effects of Ziprexa, for example, harm the patient's frontal lobes and give him or her diabetes. I can understand that from the shrink's perspective, why get to the real problem, which is often a person's inability to "go forth boldly" or simply to help them find a good attorney to sue the source of their perturbations, why do that when it's easier to reduce the person's capacity to care about the cause?

 

Using ARB type saves typing.

 

Then, of course, you have the Transactional Analysis guys out there, like Dr. Phil... To understand what's truly wrong with someone or simply what's bugging them, takes some listening and getting to know them. Phil targets in on one small aspect that "pisses him off" and neglects to acknowledge what caused the behavior in the first place.

 

Well, Glider, If I were your patient, I'd likely have fired you by now and gone to someone who is more of a scientist. I'm a scientist. I rarely discuss anything as such an absolute, rather discussing the possibilities and probabilities.

 

It's just possible that I'm on track and that it "pisses you off" to have someone inject some thought that indicates you may have taken a wrong turn onto some captivating but dead end tributory. Sometimes generalists can do that, of course the GP is looking at everything in the box because he is thinking outside the box.

[Glider]

Well, at least you haven't totally made this into a strawman.

 

Do you know the meaning of emerging science?

 

This has nothing to do with anything that makes me angry.

Of course it doesn't:

Starcraft was run into the ground by Leo Bontreger essentially clinging to obsolete production methods. These are my observations from meetings where my job was lie to them on paper, but I wouldn't compromise myintegrity to do that, so I gave bad news, with recommendations and the fear surfaced in Mr. Bontreger's face, because the figures I held backed up the company that was there to show them they were running in the red. I offered a method that would spend about 1/4 million and fix the problems with some overhead conveyors. That didn'thappen, though it was possible, then Starcraft went down... Bontreger was the first head to roll... People often make their worst mistakes at the hands of overzealous pragmatists that react out of fear for their own job. At Starcraft, the company I was contracted through was losing fame because I wasn't fudging the time study. A classic ARB type took the helm after my first boss went on to a smarter job opening and proceeded to fire me.

Nope, nothing there that sounds like bitterness or anger.

 

If anything it makes me sad to see what humanity has come to.

Because, of course, you know so much better than the rest of them.

 

It makes me sadder to see that all the "psychotechnicians" can do is forego analysis, go straight to the chemistry set and circumvent the repercussions when say the side effects of Ziprexa, for example, harm the patient's frontal lobes and give him or her diabetes. I can understand that from the shrink's perspective, why get to the real problem, which is often a person's inability to "go forth boldly" or simply to help them find a good attorney to sue the source of their perturbations, why do that when it's easier to reduce the person's capacity to care about the cause?

I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you saying you have been prescribed Zyprexa? Is a person's 'inability to to go forth boldy' a well defined clinical condition? Is suing the source of purturbations an effective treatment for puturbations? (IMO it sounds more like what an angry person would do to whomever he considered the cause of his problems).

 

Using ARB type saves typing.

And thinking. There are still no grounds to consider 'anal retentive behaviour' a personality type or even a class of behaviour. For all practical purposes (in the context you use it) it's just an insult to a buch of people who have pissed you off. You're calling them assholes. That's fair enough, but don't wrap your opinion in pseudo-Psychology to give it more weight. It may well be justified, but it's still only an opinion. Don't try to make it sound like a diagnosis.

 

Then, of course, you have the Transactional Analysis guys out there, like Dr. Phil... To understand what's truly wrong with someone or simply what's bugging them, takes some listening and getting to know them. Phil targets in on one small aspect that "pisses him off" and neglects to acknowledge what caused the behavior in the first place.

Okay. What's your point? You've tried transactional analysis and it didn't solve your problems?

 

Well, Glider, If I were your patient, I'd likely have fired you by now and gone to someone who is more of a scientist. I'm a scientist. I rarely discuss anything as such an absolute, rather discussing the possibilities and probabilities.

Why would you think I'm in a position to take patients? What do you think I am? I'm not a therapist or a counsellor. I'm an Academic Psychologist (i.e. psychological scientist) and Chartered Health Psychologist.

 

I've never written anything that would lead you to assume I was in a position to take patients, so I get the impression that you don't really know what a Psychologist is, or does, outside of the stereotypical lay perception of all Psychologists as Freud clones, getting people to lay on big leather couches, talking like Dr. Ruth and charging people extortionate fees for a chance to unload their woes.

 

It's just possible that I'm on track and that it "pisses you off" to have someone inject some thought that indicates you may have taken a wrong turn onto some captivating but dead end tributory.

It's possible, but not sufficiently probable for me to worry about it.

 

Sometimes generalists can do that, of course the GP is looking at everything in the box because he is thinking outside the box.

To 'think outside the box' you at least have to be able to define the box. As far as Psychology goes, I don't think you can.

 

You haven't shown that you know what a Psychologist is, or that you can tell the difference between a Psychologist, a Psychiatrist or a therapist or a counsellor. Further, your 'pop Psychology' use of 'ARB' as a personality type that you use to insult people who have obviously pissed you off tells me that you have no choice but to think outside the box because you can't even find it.

 

Your story is becoming clear, but this is still a science forum. The issues you have with your previous employers and the problems you may have had with any subsequent attempts at dealing with those issues are still not really relevant here.

[Dr.CWho]

It's amazing to read your drivel that exhibits not only failure to properly comprehend what I'm saying, but it's laughable when now you want to pigeon-hole me into your own label. It's just too bad if your armchair psychoanalysis failed this time. Regarding me, you haven't a clue. I'm attempting to give some rebuttal onto self-myopathic eyes. So far you have failed to provide an argument against the subject and that seems to make you so angry that if you can't mount the subject attempt to mount the poster. Not workin' here...

 

Maybe this will give you more to work with. Stuff people have a right to be angry about, but getting angry just puts a body in a bad mood... :

 

Hey, Glider,

I see the forums unfortunately allow vulgarity. What about free speech?

 

Why does someone always have to be angry in order for them to speak out? Isn’t it enough to be affected by some injustice or to watch it happen to others? Couldn’t it be that some initial anger has dissipated and that a person simply wants change?

 

I have no reason to be angry at much of anything save perhaps occasionally ruining dinner if the ingredients cost enough. Getting fired usually is a form of success in my book. It means I angered the other guy so much he couldn’t think straight, then eventually regrets it. Somewhere along the line that guy goes home and hates it.

I love to go home. There’s usually a lot of hands on work to be done there or in the research facility or shop. Being home frees my time for other opportunities. If someone wants a urethane pattern or mold made to .0015 they come see me. If they need a Blanchard grinder cheaper they come see me... If they want a house designed, they come see me, if they want to know where a species resides within or without the standard deviation, they come see me... Some come for chess, some discussion about some things, (such as anal retentiveness as a psyche problem leading to more than one psychosomatic illness to include some forms of depression i.e. chronic sadness and, with somewhat less consensus among respectable voices, schizophrenia or maybe about time and space) and some for bouillabaisse or just to see what’s up with my research.

Presently I have developed an emulsion that extracts the visual spectral molecule of (so far about 30) some species of flora, most intense in the petal. This means resurrecting some really impressive hues that can be tweaked with certain Lewis reagents or metals in a catalytic usage to enhance or interrupt the reaction at a certain point. I have a whole series of blues from a common local plant. I have an aluminum acid red and will be continuing on to (if all goes anything like the rest from last year) reds from berries and cherries that should be compatible with human flesh. The gals out there should thank me, because right now the reds in kool-aid and women’s make-up among other things is from a South American bug’s blood. Cocchinea. Wish me luck gals that I can make an FD&C worthy replacement. All seems promising thus far...

No. I’m not angry (in fact I think most social atrocities have become hilarious). Most ill founded insults and inappropriate rhetoric just makes me laugh at the purveyors of such though I mostly resist the urge to lower myself to the defamers’ level and slap back.

 

God granted me the right type of understanding and mixture of circumstances to seed the mother of invention frequently. I take notes. I act accordingly. So what’s the matter with all these cowards in the scientific fields who can’t stand up to their bosses? Can’t get over the “gotta-have-a-job” (GHAJ) syndrome? Fear of the boss? Just that I guess. Both courage and cowardice have their own positive and negative rewards, but dauntless arrogance surely will have tacit requiem eagerly awaiting attention. From the many examples I’ve seen, ARB types are rarely awaited by anything genuine.

 

Anal retention, as a discussion here, truly was spawned from another post I was reading that seemed to inquire about the issue. I simply thought it was ironic because just a bit earlier someone (an LPN) who was first hand aware of some of the examples I gave, was agreeing with my hypothesis that ARB should be classified as a mental illness. This forum is only a broader slice of opinion and I’m curious as to the opinions of others about ARB as a mental illness. ARB types may have difficulty responding simply because they remain in denial. Perhaps this is the first time anyone presented such a theory (theory because it has yet to be nullified.)

 

Glider, you say “no”, with a reasonable argument. Honestly I haven’t even taken the time to check out your profile, but you ask who am I? Someone who has interned enough by having to overlap into the areas of psychology in industrial situations to design manufacturing methods around a variety of personality clashes and where two big security guards armed with tazers and chlorpromazine injections aren’t available. Ergonomics must include the worker’s peace of working mind. An engineer has to decide when to eliminate some or all of the human factors, so in reality has to position a working team cooperatively. It’s like being an analyst working with a dysfunctional family. Factories don’t have quiet rooms, they have unemployment lines, so typical employees have a lot bottled up inside them. Jobs that reduce this bottled up tension keep employees longer. That should be a clue in itself. Correcting the cause of a situation eventually leads to a healing. Nortriptylene and Paroxetine only diverts thinking and perhaps only for a while... A shrink who would prescribe it for a child should be removed from the gene pool...

Most shrinks get their observations in mental hospitals or in one hour sessions. The former is the least in touch with the real world, where the latter is possibly somewhat less wrought with fiction. On the job or at home are where people show their metal. ARB types show it by hiding it.

 

(And consensus is still that ARB is ok...?)

 

Does ARB mean a*****e? It doesn’t have to.

 

Does ARB mean someone who fears letting go of their own security to check on another’s? It doesn’t have to.

 

Does it mean life with an obfuscated ability to reject the unethical? (Think about that a moment...) Not if the ARB type learns to take responsibility and courageously carry the umbrage of just what their fears have done not just to others but to themselves as well.

 

I would think there should be a good medication for ARB. Booze seems to help some ARB types come out of their shells or even closets. Maybe chloral?

 

Questioning religions? Ask about Jonestown or Waco or Heaven’s Gate or Heritage USA and Jim Bakker or Anton LeVay or kids gone postal over religion or ask Irshaad Manji “Why question religions?” or, I suppose, Mel Gibson. The latter of those directing a film that depicts the results of anal retentive behavior on the religious front in the Pharasees. Some who are a little spunkier fight to limit “the anal retentive human factor” in themselves... or break out of it completely... to thumb their nose at the nay sayers and rise to their heart’s desire... (I suppose “Flashdance” should be heard here in the background...) Perhaps what we should question is not a person’s color but the color of their religion. Is it benign or malevolent ? White or black? Chauvinist or egalitarian? Outreaching or... well, anal retentive. Organized or free? Violent or peaceful? America is based upon religious freedom and upon liberty. So why are there priests and policemen? Ah! But talking of America or any of those other people is eponymous...

 

Eponymous references were quasi-frowned-upon somewhere... It’s a sin now to say something that amounts to saying “hey I noticed you are from such and such...” in some other wording? Some places have laughable histories or monuments, efforts, et hoc genus omne. Eventually East Berlin’s wall came down (to Pink Floyd no less...) If one considers that China, prior to Westerners colonizing, thought the world was flat till the late 1700's, but also that it was foursquare and China was the center of the universe. Many Chinese drew a sigh of relief when Mao died and the “Long March” pretty much died with him. The problem now is trusting their products... it’s tough to make jokes about toddlers getting lead poisoning or toothpaste carrying bacteria from a country we have grown to trust. I’m afraid Americans get bamboozled that way a lot...

 

I figure if this thread only rates the alley cats, then a little humor should be involved.... but what’s funny about people locked into their own selves so much that they end up hurting others... or themselves. It’s no crime to commit social suicide, but it isn’t what could be considered great mental health either. How many are out there who are actually like Mao? How many are out there who actually liked Mao?

 

Was Hitler an ARB type? Is Bush an ARB type? Is Hilary Clinton an ARB type? It’s tough to include actors, because they are just acting, although some are indeed type-cast. Is Britney Spears just overcompensating for self-repression? Most of us get our ya ya’s out once in a while and can use some good sense about it. Most ARB types I’ve known go silly bonkers on 3 beers or become very aggressive. Is there a difference? Megalomaniacs... ARB types. 3 beers and you may as well forget about getting a few sentences to a story going comfortably when some ARB types “loosen up” a bit. (One thing I do like about the online forums... I post U post, back and Forth, et hoc genus omne...)

 

Why would someone like me be angry about chances to have such observations? Bored? That’s a different story. ARB types are often boring. I’m sure shrinks make careers around ARB types and the drug manufacturers would like to as well. I’m a somewhat skilled chemist, but, even with hair half down my back, drugs aren’t my forte. Ely Lilly is sure missing a wide open market if that’s their bag.

 

I’m not angry, just opinionated. Condoning chemical solutions to any situation that is treated with barely any true essence of scientific methodology? No. Disgusted? A bit. Concerned about the importance of the hierarchy of scientists above scientific truth? What conscientious scientist wouldn’t be? Just like white collar crime in business, there is a much more queer “white coat” crime among scientifics. Why would a scientist lie? Why would true findings be hidden? Because such findings would hurt their job? That was the point I was making about Starcraft, especially, without the slightest fear of libel suits being tossed at me. Scientists don’t make good criminals, of course other scientists working under the auspices of government grants don’t have the guts to challenge the one who hands out the paychecks, so most perps in the scientific arena don’t get caught save by an outsider to that food chain.

It seems like the scientific “hire”archy has been wagging the dog long enough...

 

Silence the infidels...

[Glider]

It's amazing to read your drivel that exhibits not only failure to properly comprehend what I'm saying, but it's laughable when now you want to pigeon-hole me into your own label. It's just too bad if your armchair psychoanalysis failed this time. Regarding me, you haven't a clue. I'm attempting to give some rebuttal onto self-myopathic eyes. So far you have failed to provide an argument against the subject ... snip ....It seems like the scientific “hire”archy has been wagging the dog long enough...

 

Silence the infidels...

There's 15 minutes I'm never getting back.

 

You say I have 'failed to provide an argument against the subject'. What subject? What is the subject of this rambling monologue? I say ARB is not a recognised personality type, you provide a disjointed diatribe relating to your personal life experiences.

 

This is a science forum. It's not appropriate for you to use it as a personal soapbox. If you have an opinion on something science related that you wish to discuss or debate, please state it. If you merely want to write a personal journal concerning your own life experiences, please do it somewhere else, because nobody can participate in this.

[Dak]

The anal stage of development is where the child is obsessed with its own functions and self needs. People who retain this state of development are known as anal retentives and often the anal retentive knows little of how to love in a mature manner[...]

 

glider: ignoring the fact that freud isn't (i dont think) legitimate psycology anymore, isn't the above incorrect even by freud's theories?

 

i.e., wasn't it that freud thought that, because the anal pseudosexual stage was designed to make you poo in the corner, rather than all over the place, it was fundamentally about hygiene, so anyone who becomes 'fixated' at the anal stage becomes overly fastiduouse about hygene/neatness, and just in general in all aspects of their life. and also it gets confused with the genital stage, so, not to put it too finely, people who are anal retentive like it up the bum?

 

or am i just confused?

[gcol]

I don't think you are confused, but people who like it up the bum and think it perfectly natural to do so, will say you are as part of their defensive strategy.

 

Ignore them, you know where they are coming from. It is fundamental, really.

[Glider]

Yes, even ignoring that fact, the above is incorrect.

 

 

It's essentially to do with way in which parents approach toilet training (punishment for getting it wrong, Vs reward for getting it right). Freud believed that the infant's 'libidinal energies' were concentrated on the anus and bladder at this stage. The infant has to successfully navigate the anal stage or risk becoming fixed as an anal expulsive personality (messy, overly generous, low conscientiousness, destructive) or an anal retentive personality (obsessive, orderly, perhaps repressed). Whether or not an 18 month old infant has 'libidinal energies' is questionable.

 

I have to admit, I'm not sure about the possibility of a link between anal retentiveness and liking it up the bum. It's a bit beyond my scope of research

[Dr.CWho]

Interesting, Dak... (I'm about out of time today, so I'll respond more in depth in a few days...)

 

Glider,

The problem is you are building a strawman out of my intended meanings of the post. The thread is not about me, but you are arming your strawman in just that way. Now the thread is becooming about you.

 

I'll repeat: These are observations. I'm a pretty happy camper about most things... so worry about the discussion...

[Glider]

Interesting, Dak... (I'm about out of time today, so I'll respond more in depth in a few days...)

 

Glider,

The problem is you are building a strawman out of my intended meanings of the post. The thread is not about me, but you are arming your strawman in just that way. Now the thread is becooming about you.

For me to create a strawman would mean I'm taking an opposing position to your argument. You haven't presented an argument, just a blog.

 

The only thing I have an issue with is your insistance that ARB is a personality type or a valid behaviour classification. I say it isn't. I say it's a pseudo-psychological, made-up term that you use to describe people who have done things you disagree with. That's not a strawman.

 

As far as the discussion on ARB goes, it's for you to present some supporting evidence for your assertion that it is a recognised behaviour/personality type.

 

I'll repeat: These are observations. I'm a pretty happy camper about most things... so worry about the discussion...

These are observations concerning your personal history (about which, which by definition, other members of this forum can have no knowledge). The only part of your blog open for discussion is your misunderstanding of personality types.

 

Again, it is for you to show how what you post can form the basis of a discussion or debate or is in any other way relevant to a science forum. Just present a case.

[Dr.CWho]

It's not about me, Glider. Get used to it and yes you are building a strawman. I've provided quite a few references outside of my own observations. Maybe I should discuss the nature of Nietzsche...

 

Dak,

Back to you a bit earlier than thought...

 

The thought about the anal stage of development is interesting. Perhaps Freud isn't as obsolete as some of the modern "drug pushers" think.

 

The further of that thinking relates, I would venture, to the nature of one's toilet training. What do you think happens when a child is forced to learn the potty mission at barely one year? It seems you are referring to normal development and that would make me question kids at four or six that are still in diapers. It seems that either the forced or the totally free-form method would have some negative ramifications in later life.

 

It seems the former would be forced to grow up too quick or perhaps might resent the prodding parent's gender, where the latter would be constantly expecting everything handed out on a silver platter. An example would be John Lennon's second child. (I don't remember his name... not Julian; Yoko's child) I haven't followed anything beyond Goldman's book, so if you know more, maybe we could learn from such.

 

Note to those in question of this issue:

I'm leaving the religion out of this from here forward. The references I made were to finish the original comparison. There's never any prejudice or "recruiting" of such here, but I hope it can be read into all of this that I respect people's rights to freedom of speech and religion. (I noted a "welcome to creationists" somewhere and I subscribe to such and firmly believe the Bible, still I believe that often the word "day" defines "era" and somewhere I read in Hebrew it can also mean "year.") 'Nuff said there...