Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkStar]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but I'm curious

Is Primal Scream Therapy an effective way of dealing with stress and repressed anger?
Asking on the neuroscience side if this


For those who don't know and can't guess, what I've seen is Primal Scream Therapy is re-enacting a traumatic event and releasing the anger usually in the form of violent uncontrolled screaming

I don't think it would help but I could be wrong

I'd guess that it would be useless or slightly worse than useless because that's how most "let it out by punching stuff" activities actually are. There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.

[Il Palazzo]

stuff

Eh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.

[iceball3]

stuff

Eh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.

I honestly agree with you, Palazzo-...

This is a test of the Shitstorm Early Warning Broadcast system.

Oh dear. .

* iceball3 hides in her bunker.

[i2amroy]

There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.

This right here. Quite a few studies are actually showing that holding in your anger is the better thing, mentally, to do over time.

[TheDarkStar]

There's also the fact that "repression" doesn't happen.

This right here. Quite a few studies are actually showing that holding in your anger is the better thing, mentally, to do over time.

Oops, I used the wrong meaning of repression. There's the idea of repression where painful memories are "blocked" subconsciously which doesn't happen, but you and Cryxis are talking about the idea of keeping anger inside rather than expressing it,

[Lagslayer]

stuff

Eh, I guess somebody has to say it: That's sheer crackpottery, that is.

We mustn't challenge the dogma, now.

[Helgoland]

Sure, but please do so with some proper mathematics instead of waving around rubber words like 'infinitisemal'.

[Lagslayer]

Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.


I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.

[Helgoland]

Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.

I'm not talking about an experiment, I'm talking about a theoretical framework. Your (I'll omit the air quotes) concept contradicts most if not all of modern physics - is it asking too much that you at least sketch what a replacement would look like? (Also what additional phenomena your concept would explain, or where your concept would give a great simplification of the mathematics involved in explaining various already-explained phenomena).

[iceball3]

Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.


I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.

Except that without experimentation or mathematics to back it, the concept is conjecture at best and pseudoscience at worst. We aren't worldbuilding here.

[Lagslayer]

Please forgive me, but I do not possess millions of dollars for the equipment to weigh subatomic particles. I guess I should just take their word for it.


I'm pitching a concept. For fuck's sake, that site actually claimed to know exactly how the 4th dimension works.

Except that without experimentation or mathematics to back it, the concept is conjecture at best and pseudoscience at worst. We aren't worldbuilding here.

How much stock do you put in the official experiments? The experiments conducted by looking at things countless billions of miles away; the experiments trying to divine the secrets of things billions of times smaller than an atom, using electrical blips we also cannot directly observe. Experiments all being conducted with our relatively primitive technology, based upon assumptions of assumptions of things we can't directly observe. Who's really doing the world-building, here?

I'm not talking about an experiment, I'm talking about a theoretical framework. Your (I'll omit the air quotes) concept contradicts most if not all of modern physics - is it asking too much that you at least sketch what a replacement would look like? (Also what additional phenomena your concept would explain, or where your concept would give a great simplification of the mathematics involved in explaining various already-explained phenomena).

I'm not a physics major. I didn't even take it in high school (I took AP biology instead). I'm not trying to prove anything, because I don't have the equipment or clout to do so. I'm merely providing an alternate explanation as to how we reached the observations we have now. Just because an explanation fits the perceived conclusion does not mean that it is what happened. In my quest to understand the popular theories and formulas, I found the whole thing rather loopy. Trying to internalize it, I worked my way to a simpler explanation, one that more closely fits a model minus the loopy weird stuff. My biggest beef is how is is so insisted that the measurements of something so tiny, or something so enormous and so far away are so perfectly accurate. So it's really just about a couple of small bits, but bigger assumptions are being based upon it before the dust has settled.

[Putnam]

Also, it all seems based on the assumption that gravity requires mass, which is wrong.

[Darvi]

How much stock do you put in the official experiments?

More than in the theories of some random internetperson, I'd wager.

[Lagslayer]

Also, it all seems based on the assumption that gravity requires mass, which is wrong.

That's based on the assumption that light has no mass, and yet, is affected by gravity, which I am bringing into question.

[wierd]

@lagslayer

Astrophysics has a notoriously large error bar on its observations. This is because we simply cant just fly up there and set probes up around, say-- the bullet cluster-- and get reliable data. We instead have to work with data that has undergone transformations, to try and understand the transformations.

Normal high-energy physics has a very low error bar, because the equipment is right there, and able to gather very high quality data.

The former uses the research and experimentation of the latter, to refine and help reduce the error bar it has to deal with.  I can't imagine a single astrophysicist that WOULDNT want to send experimental platforms to various celestial objects of interest to gather data and help refine/test theories.

So, to answer your question--  How much do I trust the experiments--  For astrophysicists, the error bar is too large to stamp "Definitive" on it.  For particle physics-- The error bar is often less that 6 sigma. That is, the error is less than .000001% (and is actually getting EVEN TIGHTER as better understanding allows manufacture of better testing apparatus!)

It is VERY hard to kill off General Relativity, The Standard Model, and co.  This is because these theories have held up to observations so rigorous, that if these theories were not at least on the right track, they would have been thoroughly disproven by now.