Midland School District Vice President Clint McCance in Arkansas has shocked the school district by responding to a campaign to end bullying of gay students with a hateful (if not gleeful) Facebook commentary on gay teen suicides. Using the terms “queer” and “fag,” McCance promised to disown his own children if they are gay and refused to mourn the death of “sinners.”
McCance appeared to relish “the fact that [gay people] often give each other AIDS and die.” His diatribe was in response to the “Spirit Day” campaign that recognizes the problem of bullying of gay students and encourages students to wear purple to remember young people who committed suicide because of such bullying. McCance would have nothing of it, writing “Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”
He then later wrote this little loving note for his children: ““I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.” Would not be welcomed “in his vicinity”? What does that mean? He actually does not have the authority to “run off” gay people from his vicinity.
Then he shared his personal celebration of the death of gay people:
No because being a fag doesnt give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”
Of course, “enjoying” the fact that some people have a long suffering illness and die is an admission of mental illness. Of course, what is most striking is how McCance uses religion to justify such hate. His pride in his instilling his beliefs in his children is a chilling thought of prejudice being passed down as a prized family legacy.
Source: CNN
Jonathan Turley
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E. writes
“As I have written elsewhere, as a function of human brain biology, religion is the name of the brain activity relating to what is not understood; whereas science is the name of the brain activity relating to what is understood.”
A couple paragraphs later he writes,
“There are no avoidable mistakes (or accidents or events), thousands of years of human claims to the contrary, because it is only possible to know for sure whether a mistake (or accident or event) was avoidable if it was actually avoided; so all actually avoidable mistakes are actually avoided, and the only mistakes (or accidents or events) which actually happen are the ones which, when they happened, were actually unavoidable.
My research findings will be forever refuted when one person truthfully describes one mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened and also truthfully describes any achievable process through which the mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened could actually have been avoided.”
I would like to point out that if you believe your first assertion then you must know that science has already done so. (A la Schrödinger’s cat)
Modern scientific theory “suggest[s] that these objects [exist] in ever-evolving superpositions without ever collapsing into a single reality, even though our reality suggests otherwise.”
In addition, we understand it to be true that a single event can be viewed by multiple observers where each observer experiences mutually exclusive outcomes, each of which is verifiably true. This phenomenon is neatly addressed in Brian Greene’s book ‘The Elegant Universe’ pages 34 through 37.
Perhaps these points don’t address the more phylosophical aspect to your argument, however I feel they quite aptly address your request for “any achievable process through which the mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened could actually have been avoided.”
It had 3. Think I could repost it as two posts?
JoshOnPC,
If your comment had more than two links, it will most likely remain in moderation Limbo.
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.”
-Plato
I have to remind myself at times…
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
I posted a comment I believe will address the issue to which you speak, unfortunately it is pending moderation, probably due to the linking to articles demonstrating current scientific thinking regarding the addressed subject. I believe once it is approved you will find there are specific refutations of your theory.
It is truly a wonderful experience for me to learn what I am, for, on infallible authority, I finally know that I am a human mammary gland. Thanks for telling me.
Then there is gender bias, for my dictionary has another definition of the synonym for human mammary gland, and it is a stupid person. Why is a mother’s feeding a young baby stupid, why is the gland that allows such a baby to thrive stupid?
Is the chain of thought here that I, as a human mammary gland, am inextricably stupid, and that all human mammary glands are stupid, and therefore, that all women are stupid. I, for one, categorically reject that notion of womanhood. There has yet to be a stupid woman in my close family.
On the other hand, if I am stupid, surely I am too stupid to write cogently, and therefore, I am unable to avoid writing stupidly because I am stupid and therefore my stupid writing is writing I was unable to avoid, because of being stupid, and my working hypothesis is validated!
It was my observation, before I started junior high school, that humanity seemed to be guided mainly by adamant ignorance and intransigent stupidity, neither of which were any sort of personal or biological or social fault, but were simply a direct consequence of how much human evolution yet remains to happen. And that is a situational, and not a dispositional, attribution.
I neither seek nor want pejorative/hostile/judgmental/derogatory responses, and what I have written is not, in my intended meaning, derogatory in any way, albeit, I do admit to having a struggle with picking the words to use because it is my sadly consistent observation that human language(s) have developed in ways that tend to preclude, terribly distort, and/or conceal accurate communication of my actual scientific-social-biological concerns.
I seek merely to share an understanding of mine, derived from my pre-doctoral, doctoral, and post-doctoral work, and do so on the chance that someone, somewhere, may sometime find it of some practicable use. For those who find it not useful, and I cannot know in advance who is which, please pretend that I do not exist, if you find that beneficial in your life process.
Words, so I always find, are tools for symbolic communication of meaning, and the relationship, in any given person, between meaning and symbolized meaning is the result of life experiences in which meanings are communicated symbolically. Thus, to me, every person has a unique set of associations between words as symbolized meaning(s) and the meaning(s) symbolized in words. Dialogue, as proposed by Bohm, Factor, and Garrett (op.cit., in prior posting of mine) may be a feasible process for developing shared meaning(s) which are actually accurate enough as to be helpful to people and thereby helpful to the structure(s) of human society.
For those who did not notice, I did earlier state that I am autistic. I find Robert Feldman (previously cited) is likely right, that unrelenting honesty is at the core of the communication difficulties people of the autism spectrum tend to experience when attempting useful communication with people not of the autism spectrum.
It is not ever my purpose to hurt anyone.
Lastly, Bonnie, I agree with your comment. Thanks!
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
“Lithium pharmacology refers to use of the lithium ion, Li+, as a drug. A number of chemical salts of lithium are used medically as a mood stabilizing drug, primarily in the treatment of bipolar disorder, where they have a role in the treatment of depression and particularly of mania, both acutely and in the long term. As a mood stabilizer, lithium is probably more effective in preventing mania than depression, and may reduce the risk of suicide in certain bipolar patients.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_pharmacology
rcampbell – Yes, thanks for the suggestion. There is a jar of decaf coffee in our pantry. On the cap, is printed, “BEST BY 25 AUG 2007” and that leads me to wonder whether people think better if they have been drinking decaf coffee. If so, I have been really derelict in my duty if the scientific truth is that decaf coffee is the med I need to adjust, from not drinking it to drinking it at least fast enough that it is not rather full three years after the “BEST BY” date.
Methinks that decaf has not helped, now that I have tried it. I am not thirsty, but I was not thirsty before drinking it.
Decaf did not work, because I have yet to receive from anyone the one example of an event which happened which, after it had happened, could have happened differently. Does decaf tend to make people delusional, so they readily accept time-confusion (as in the first stage of Erik Homberger Erikson’s epigenetic chart of psychosocial developmental crises (time confusion correlates, in Erikson’s epigenetic system, with mistrust)? If so, it did not work for me… I still trust people, though I trust some people to regard me with what I have a hunch just possibly may be some sort of pejorative (name-calling, like the name “decaf,” prejudice. I also trust some people to reject my scientific work before they undertake the risk of understanding the work accurately.
Goodness, gracious, I make such a simple, child-like request, the sort of request a very little child might make, the sort of request I did make as I began to learn words during the age period of traditional infancy.
Please, anyone, tell me of one, only one, instance of a real event which actually happened which will refute my bioengineering work.
Only one.
Please.
Only one, please.
I patiently await the scientifically valid refutation of the work I do as a scientist/engineer. How long shall I have to wait?
Please… One counter-example that actually refutes my work.
Only one, please!
One will be enough!
Quote from the late psychiatrist, Dr. Abraham Low, “If my patients had patience, I would not have patients.”
If I am impatient, will I soon become inpatient?
So, I wait, patiently, and not inpatiently.
One, just one…
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
JBH, Ph.D, PE:
“Can’t give even one specific, truthfully told, instance of an event which actually happened which, after it happened, could actually have happened differently?”
****************
Why, yes I can! Since you’ve posted your latest wordy missive, I can say categorically that you are a boob. Had you replied cogently, there would be some doubt and things would have happened quite differently. Now if I instantly went insane after reading your missive I could have thought it quite cogent and provocative which is a quite different reaction than the one I actually had. Sadly for you, I didn’t and I don’t.
I grew up in a protestant church; and, I remember there was much speculation about St. Paul being gay. I wonder what McCance would do if that were proven to be true. I also believe that God is a God of love not hate.
Hey, doc, ever thought about decaf?
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E. writes
“As I have written elsewhere, as a function of human brain biology, religion is the name of the brain activity relating to what is not understood; whereas science is the name of the brain activity relating to what is understood.”
A couple paragraphs later he writes,
“There are no avoidable mistakes (or accidents or events), thousands of years of human claims to the contrary, because it is only possible to know for sure whether a mistake (or accident or event) was avoidable if it was actually avoided; so all actually avoidable mistakes are actually avoided, and the only mistakes (or accidents or events) which actually happen are the ones which, when they happened, were actually unavoidable.
My research findings will be forever refuted when one person truthfully describes one mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened and also truthfully describes any achievable process through which the mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened could actually have been avoided.”
I would like to point out that if you believe your first assertion then you must know that science has already done so. (A la Schrödinger’s cat)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/original.html
Modern scientific theory “suggest[s] that these objects [exist] in ever-evolving superpositions without ever collapsing into a single reality, even though our reality suggests otherwise.”
In addition, we understand it to be true that a single event can be viewed by multiple observers where each observer experiences mutually exclusive outcomes, each of which is verifiably true. This phenomenon is neatly addressed in Brian Greene’s book ‘The Elegant Universe’ pages 34 through 37.
http://books.google.com/books?id=okv_O0Xhl9gC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=physics+train+brian+greene&source=bl&ots=rgbJl2aHJv&sig=0ynlBHsk4bAFOA4kIZyz-aPz-1o&hl=en&ei=I9nJTKCiN4S0lQf28MDWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Perhaps these points don’t address the more phylosophical aspect to your argument, however I feel they quite aptly address your request for “any achievable process through which the mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened could actually have been avoided.”
I choose to regard the following quotation from Albert Einstein, “Out of My Later Years”, Philosophical Library, New York, 1950, to fall within copyright law fair use provisions. From page 5,
“Of what is significant in one’s own existence one is hardly aware, and certainly it should not bother the other fellow. What does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his life?
The bitter and the sweet come from the outside, the hard from within, from one’s own efforts. For the most part I do the thing which my own nature drives me to do. It is embarrassing to earn so much respect and love for it. Arrows of hate have been shot at me too; but they never hit me, because somehow they belonged to another world, with which I have no connection whatsoever.
I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity.”
I am, in almost every respect, thoroughly unlike Albert Einstein. I have yet to accomplish anything that “really matters.” I am a nobody with a bunch of meaningless experiences which, being autistic, I cannot communicate with others who I find are lacking in essential autism. I have earned no respect and have earned no love for the work I do as a bioengineer.
Yet, somewhat as Einstein wrote, arrows of hate have been shot at me throughout my life by people who seem unable to understand me because, as I observe. they are first unable to understand themselves.
I life in human society without forming judgments of others, and so also simultaneously live in the delicious inner solitude which is pure delight in infancy, as in youth, as in adulthood, and were there to ever be such a thing, would be pure delight in years of maturity.
My writing here, as elsewhere, is of my research, for I use a research method which is different than the one many scientists assert to be their theory-in-use. I simply live my life as I would were I not doing research, and I make the observations I would make were I not doing research, and, in the ordinary course of my life, the observations I make form patterns, and those ordinary course of my life patterns are the research. This, I do not use deception in my work, even though I am vividly aware of the possibility that other people will interpret my life as being deceptive, and such interpretations can never be in my locus of control, and hence I have no responsibility for them, and never know what my response abilities will be until after my ability to respond as responded.
My hypothesis to be tested, is simply that no one will be able to truthfully describe any event which actually happened and also truthfully describe how the event could have happened differently than it happened. The null hypothesis, for me, is that someone will accomplish that task, and my work will wisely and forever be rejected, and that would make my personal life much easier, because I could simply, in clear conscience, quit the work I do and patiently or impatiently or inpatiently, wait for my mortal life to end itself in whatever natural way that may happen.
Until then, I find I have work to do, and this is how I am now doing it.
Observe, if you will, that, to avoid deception or the appearance of deception, I have clearly and verifiably identified myself; I do not use pseudonyms as a defense against having someone inform me of my being mistaken about any aspect of my work, or my life experiences.
The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing has an accessible record of my PE registration. The online catalog of the main library at the University of Illinois at Chicag has an online-accessible record of my dissertation.
It seems to me that I cannot be successfully taught to be afraid of being truthful, whether or not anyone else understands me or my life.
So many people I encounter try to tell me about me, without actually knowing me; while I tell others about me because I am the only person I know whom I know well enough to tell anyone about. If you try to ell me about me, I learn nothing about myself and nothing, really, about you, either. If I tell you about me, and if you tell me about you, we can actually learn from each other.
One mistake actually made, could actually have been avoided? Only one will do. Only one.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Can’t do it, can you?
Can’t give even one specific, truthfully told, instance of an event which actually happened which, after it happened, could actually have happened differently?
Few folks I have ever met have the education and mental capacity to do high-dimension-space, complex-variable, tensor calculus, and few who can do that whom I have yet met can sort out how to apply such calculus to the way actual decisions, as depolarizations or lack of depolarizations, occur at the post-synaptic membranes of the synapses in a human brain.
What I write is funny? Tell that to someone who tried to turn on the water to take a shower, and, instead, smelled diesel engine exhaust fumes. What I write is funny? Do you believe that consensus defines reality? Tell that to the people who survived escaping from Sobibor.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look on the Internet for “David Bohm” and “Donald Factor” and “Peter Garrett” and “Dialogue – A proposal,” and read the first paragraph. Can you disprove their view about a possible “deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought”?
I would find it funny, were it not for the terrible tragedy I find my life has encountered, the human tragedy of deception and dishonesty as documented by Robert Feldman in his book, “The Liar in Your Life.”
My life was significantly affected when I had the chance to talk with Thomas Kohut at a scientific conference a few years ago. His dad, Heinz Kohut (author of such works as, “The Analysis of the Self,” and, “How Does Analysis Cure?”) was the only one in his close family to survive World War II because Heinz recognized the danger to life in time to escape the Nazi Holocaust, and his close relatives did not do so. According to Thomas, his dad did everything he could imagine doing to get others in his family to leave in time, and had no success at all. It seems to me that what we believe really does matter in terms of the quality of life we can experience.
Perhaps I can use simpler words…
One event which actually happened, and how it actually could have happened differently through an actually-achievable process, both truthfully told, and my research is worthless garbage, and I will welcome all the ridicule and name-calling
that can ever come my way. And, if it is shown to exist, I will profoundly apologize for my manifestly obvious stupidity.
Only one truthfully told instance is all it will take, and I will promptly concede to groupthink.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
A Virginia attorney licensed to hold paramount the public safety? Where is that so stated; I cannot find it. What I do find, on the Virginia Bar Association web site, in the Mission Statement, is, “committed to serving the public and the legal profession by promoting the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and excellence in the legal profession; working to improve the law and the administration of justice; and advancing collegial relations among lawyers.” No mention there of holding the “public safety paramount,” words found in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers, to which code, I adhere in my engineering work.
Sincerity is not Truthfulness. So I state as a neurological-biological fact, and do so without deception.
I perused the Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct to learn whether attorneys in Virginia are indeed licensed to hold paramount the public safety in a manner comparable to the way I am held as an engineer. A careful computer-based search of the entire language of said Rules of Professional conduct applicable to attorneys practicing in Virginia came up with exactly zero instances of the term, “public safety” in said Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. Methinks, if t’ain’t in the rules, then t’ain’t in the rules.
I seek no combat, no derision, no “name-calling.” I seek to learn whether anyone can, using valid (demonstrably truthful) scientific methods, cite so much as one actual instance of an avoidable accident which actually happened and which was therefore not avoided. See, for instance, Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, Thomson Reuters, St. Paul, 2009 – page 156. Citing thousands to perhaps hundreds of thousands of internally-consistent human error does not constitute citing one actual avoidable accident which was not actually avoided.
I ponder whether a central human enigma may not be found within the philosophical self-reference difficulties which result from humanity studying itself.
I worked for over twenty years at Cook County Children’s Hospital, in Chicago, in Pediatric Cardiology, and I observed thousands of children who were going through the traditional infant-child transition, and I consistently observed children developing a form of amnesia for pre-infant-child transition life experiences, and, as a bioengineer, I take such amnesia to be suggestive of brain trauma. Neurologist Robert Scaer (The Trauma Spectrum, and The Body Bears the Burden: Second Edition) documents the brain damage of time-corrupted learning as well as any biologist or neurologist I have yet found.
University of Massachusetts-Amherst psychologist Robert Feldman, in, “The Liar in Your Life,” Twelve, Hachette Book Group, 2009, states on page 258, “There’s a dirty secret I’ve been trying to avoid emphasizing in this book, but its about time we faced it. All of us are liars. Yes, that means you. And yes, it means me, too.” Feldman also states, on page 73, “Parents of children with autism often report that their children are simply incapable of lying. While at first glance unrelenting honesty might be seen as a virtue, in fact it is at the heart of the social difficulties children with autism experience.” Also, on page 73, “Consider the irony of the situation. Honesty in children with autism is viewed as a manifestation of their disorder. Subsequently, autistic children who were originally unfailingly honest but have begun to show signs of lying effectively are considered to be showing improvement in their condition.”
The simple fact, as I can fathom it, is that I am autistic in such a manner as to have always been “simply incapable of lying,” because I have never been able to go through the traditional infant-child transition; this apparently because of the way in which I am autistic.
My being autistic does not make my work scientifically valid; yet my being autistic may make my work necessary. Nonetheless, unless or until someone can truthfully demonstrate an error of consequence in the work, what truth can there be to the claim, totally unsubstantiated by anything other than the beliefs my work refutes, that there can ever actually be an avoidable event which, after the fact, was not actually avoided.
The notion that I am “narrow-minded” is plausibly a testable hypothesis. On a shelf above the computer I am using for this writing are a bunch of books, for brevity, I will name only the author and title of some of them:
Harold Kushner, ”
When All You’ve Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough,” Ian Barbour, “Religion In An Age of Science,” Sallie McFague,”Models of God,” Walter Elsasser, “Reflections on a Theory of Organisms,” Emanuel Swedenborg, “Life on Other Planets” (John Chadwick, tr.), Herbert J. Muller, “The Uses of the Past: Profiles of Former Socities,” C. G. Jung, “The Undiscovered Self,” Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” Joseph Hallinan, “Why We Make Mistakes,” Marshall Rosenberg, “Nonviolent Communication,” Jodie Blanco, “Please Stop Laughing at Me,” David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD, “The Eye of the I: From Which Nothing Is Hidden,” Walter Elsasser, “The Physical Foundation of Biology,” Fritz Redl & David Wineman, “Children Who Hate” and “Controls From Within,” Benjamin Hoff, “The Te of Piglet,” Jethro K. Lieberman, “The Litigious Society,” Alice Miller, “Banished Knowledge: Facing Childhood Injuries” and “The Untouched Key: Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness,” Albert Einstein, “Out of My Later Years” and “The Meaning of Relativity: Fourth Edition,” H. Allen Smith, “The Age of the Tail,” Briskin, Erikson, Ott, & Callanan, “The Power of Collective Wisdom and the Trap of Collective Folly,” Andrew Napolitano, “Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When The Government Breaks Its Own Laws,” David B. Hart, “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies,” R. D. Laing, “The Divided Self,” and, if I were to mention every publication in my personal research library, the list would contain something like 15,000 entries. I was reading at college level and above when I was eight years of age, and I have been working at what I do as a scientist since I first understood anything about World War II, well before I arrived at the typical age, circa 18 months, of the commonplace infant-child transition.
Other people are free to “call me names” as they choose. I choose to call no one any “names,” because I have learned to avoid making the fundamental attribution error (which assigns personal responsibility for situational factors which are outside the person’s locus of control). The name calling during the first three days of kindergarten, at Columbia School, in Seattle, Washington, from about a third of my classmates, was so intense as to lead me, on the way home after the third day of kindergarten, to not dive under the wheels of a Seattle electric bus at the northwest corner of Ferdinand and Rainier, by pulling my left hand from my mother’s right hand, and I did not dive under those bus wheels to escape the name-calling (to the tune of “A Tisket, a Tasket,”) “Cry Baby, Bri Baby, Brian is a Sissy, repeated and repeated and repeated during recess. I recognized that my diving under those wheels would hurt my family “thousands of times” more than the other children could ever hurt me, and I never even twitched as a first actual step toward making that abuse-terminating dive. Instead, I instantly forgave the other children, for I immediately understood that they did not understand what they were doing to me and I did understand.
Once again, I fully recognize, as much as I think full recognition is possible for anyone, that the viewpoint given to me through my life experiences contrasts starkly and profoundly with what the mythical “most people” seemingly believe.
Once again, I ask, with nothing but simple decency in mind, can anyone tell me of even one event, which, having actually happened, could actually have happened differently by describing an actually achievable process through which what actually happened could have actually happened otherwise?
Yes, I have read thousands of written works which attest to my view being wrong, and I have read thousands more of written works which attest to reality being defined by consensus. Plausibly, I know about “the standard story” about as well as anyone might. Alas, I always find “the standard story” to have the core nature of contradicting itself. These contradictions, in my personal experience, have always taken the form of violations of one or more of the “laws of intelligible thought,” to wit, “the law of identity,” “the law of non-contradiction” (which some writers have named “the law of contradiction”), “the law of the excluded middle for dichotomies,” and “the law of rational inference.”
Instead of “name-calling” and/or its ilk, how about dealing with my expressed concern as though it might just happen to be of scientific and societal/personal merit?
J. Brian Harris
“I was medication-compliant as a psychiatric inpatient because, if I were not compliant, I would be discharged and would not be able to continue the field work for my thesis by being a valid psychiatric patient,”:=(
For my part I didnt understand anything J.Brian Harris ect ect ect said…..thank god
JBH,Jr:
Now that was funny!
To those who may “believe” that my ongoing work as a Registered Professional Engineer about public safety aspects of the structure of human society is indicative of delusional thinking, I absolutely agree. Where I part company with the views of a seeming majority of people is in determining what is, and what is not, actually of delusion.
There is a profound “irony” in the suggestion that I am not “doin’ my meds rite.” As is described in some fair detail in my doctoral dissertation (Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective – University of Illinois at Chicago, 1998), I did much of the field research for my thesis while living as an iatrogenic-blunder psychiatric inpatient; I was put on a variety of psychotropic medications because the psychiatrists and psychologists under whose care I came were very certain that my beliefs about learning and about mistakes were of schizophrenic delusionality.
The dissertation may be found at present on the Internet at:
harriselectronicservice.com/files/Internet_Version_20051225B.pdf
Regarding the dissertation, and based on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which I regard as plausibly giving greater standing as persons to fictitious persons (i.e., corporations) t than to actual, living persons, I no longer grant actual personal rights to corporations. Thus, I here identify the various hospitals (corporations of one sort or another) identified only by Capital Letters in the dissertation.
“Hospital A” was the University of Illinois Hospital, 8 East psychiatric unit and the 8 West surgical unit, in Chicago, Illinois.
“Hospital B” was the now-defunct Forest Hospital, in Desplaines, Illinois.
“Hospital C” was the now-defunct Charter-Barclay Hospital, in Chicago, Illinois
“Hospital D” was accurately named, The Austen Riggs Center, in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
“Hospital E” was the Medical Psychiatry unit of the University of Chicago Hospital, in Chicago, Illinois.
There are numerous typographical errors in the dissertation because I was allowed about half of the mandatory time for the writing and defending of my dissertation. One such error is on page v, where the line starting with “2.14” would properly read, “Hospital B, first time”
I was medication-compliant as a psychiatric inpatient because, if I were not compliant, I would be discharged and would not be able to continue the field work for my thesis by being a valid psychiatric patient, albeit one made valid through iatrogenic blunders of diagnosis. As told in the dissertation, my neuropsychiatrist at the University of Chicago took me off all the psychotropic medications, and my tested IQ skyrocketed from such as I could not add 5 and 6 to where I was at the level of, to use 1930s psychiatric jargon (I was born in 1939), a high grade moron, and was deemed capable of again living at home.
Had I not taken the psychotropic medication ride about as far is it can be taken and leave a person alive, I might be disconcerted by the suggestion that I check my meds. As it happens, I am an intensely serious scientific researcher, and I am intensely serious about getting my work done ethically, morally, and scientifically in truly decent and accurate ways.
The classical time-corrupted-learning-based response to what may be a dramatic paradigm change in science research is the ad-hominem attack. Remember Galileo Galilei?
I put my dissertation on the Internet in 2005, and have told quite a few folks that it is there and have asked people to show me any significant error in the methodology or findings. All that has yet come my way have been forms of the ad-hominem fallacy.
As for the Latin legal maxims, I did take Latin in high school, and I do have, within easy reach, my copy of “Handy Dictionary of the Latin and English Languages; With an Appendix of Latin Geographical, Historical, and Mythological Proper Names, David McKay Company, Philadelphia, 1950.
I am absolutely serious about my plausibly-cutting-edge work regarding socialization trauma as a form of child abuse, and the effects of socialization trauma on the structure of human society, and the effects of the structure of human society on public safety (the public being comprised only of individual persons).
Ad-hominem arguments are, as I observe, the essence of the notions which underlie the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence. If the only direct responses I get to my carefully considered views are of the ad-hominem sort, I shall take that to be a hint that my work may be even better, as a scientific paradigm change, than I may have dared to hope.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer No. 34106-6
Wisconsin Certified Master Electrician No. 660912
Life Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Member:
National Society of Professional Engineers
Association for Psychological Science
Biomedical Engineering Society
Autism Society of America
Autism National Committee (AutCom)
Missed mespo’s posting.
Thanks for taking care of that, in short order. I was momentarily exhausted… 🙂