Fallible wrote::smoke:

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:Yeah...you're not actually a psychoanalyst though, are you.

I might not be technically qualified but I know a fair bit about it I reckon...

Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Are you suggesting I take no action whatsoever?

Fallible wrote:
Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Oh; ok then - how's this: I know FUCKING LOADS about it...better?

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote::smoke:

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:Yeah...you're not actually a psychoanalyst though, are you.

I might not be technically qualified but I know a fair bit about it I reckon...

Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Are you suggesting I take no action whatsoever?

Explain to me how this question logically follows from what I wrote.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:
Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Oh; ok then - how's this: I know FUCKING LOADS about it...better?

If you think that's better, you managed to miss the point.

So nobody's conclusions should carry any weight whatsoever unless they carry the SPECIFIC relevant proffesional qualification?

Fallible wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote::smoke:

Keep It Real wrote:

I might not be technically qualified but I know a fair bit about it I reckon...

Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Are you suggesting I take no action whatsoever?

Explain to me how this question logically follows from what I wrote.

Oh yeah fair enough; That was a non sequitur by be.

Fallible wrote::smoke:

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:Yeah...you're not actually a psychoanalyst though, are you.

I might not be technically qualified but I know a fair bit about it I reckon...

Oh, you reckon. Fair enough, then. I submit that we dispense with the whole medical standards thing and just employ psychoanalysts from the pool of people who know a fair bit about it on their own recommendation. That should work out fine.

Yep, I reckon it would.

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Is this the same woman that you have known for less than a month
Do you not think that it is a bit too early to be psychoanalysing her

Its been pretty much non stop contact for that whole month - if a psychoanalyst had that many hours contact
with a patient and was unable to make a diagnosis I would personally consider them pretty damn incompetent

You are not a psychoanalyst though are you

Also do you know what people in glasshouses are not supposed to do

My house is made of bricks.

surreptitious57 wrote:You are not a psychoanalyst though are you.

I am not a qualified psychoanalyst.

Neither was Sigmund Freud.

Keep It Real wrote:So nobody's conclusions should carry any weight whatsoever unless they carry the SPECIFIC relevant proffesional qualification?

Why don't you just address what I said, instead of fabricating comments to reply to?

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:You are not a psychoanalyst though are you.

I am not a qualified psychoanalyst.

You're not a psychoanalyst. Unfortunately you can call yourself one without consequences. And that's something else wrong with mental health provision in this country.

meh

Fallible wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:You are not a psychoanalyst though are you.

I am not a qualified psychoanalyst.

You're not a psychoanalyst. Unfortunately you can call yourself one without consequences. And that's something else wrong with mental health provision in this country.

OK - how about amateur psychoanalyst or part qualified psychoanalyst (I have a half a degree in psychology and you need a degree to train)? Any good?

Any good for what? Diagnosing someone with a personality disorder? Do you even know what a psychoanalyst's remit is?

You are not medically qualified to be a mental health professional
And you are also too judgemental to be objective in your opinions

Your thought processes are regularly erratic and you are constantly seeking validation from others
You get very agitated when no one posts in any of your threads and you say things you regret later

You have insufficient willpower and low impulse control and no obvious goal in your life
Yet you are in spite of all of that essentially a good person with a strong moral compass
You would help anyone if they genuinely needed it and without expecting reciprocation

You also despite your obvious lack of qualifications have much knowledge of psychiatric disorders
With the exceptions of Shrunk and Fallible you probably know more about them than anyone else
So as long as you are being objective and non judgemental your contributions can be appreciated

Something to bear in mind, KIR - I can tell you now, without fear of contradiction, that Shrunk would not touch this with the proverbial ten foot pole. Given that the only one of the three of us who is qualified to diagnose personality disorders wouldn't even attempt a diagnosis under these conditions, that should be a message to you that you probably shouldn't either.

surreptitious57 wrote:You are not medically qualified to be a mental health professional

This is true - I am not a professional...yet.

And you are also too judgemental to be objective in your opinions

I disagree with this actually. Judgemental is a tricky word - and I'm not sure what it's primary meaning(s) are still.

Your thought processes are regularly erratic and you are constantly seeking validation from others

They're only erratic when I'm drunk. It's funny what a little love and physical intimacy can achieve when it comes to sorting somebody out. I don't seek validation from others much these days actually, I think I'm a decent human being full stop and I know me best.

You get very agitated when no one posts in any of your threads and you say things you regret later

When I'm drunk...I wouldn't describe post no.2 in the iatrogenics thread as being agitated; nor do I regret it.

You have insufficient willpower and low impulse control and no obvious goal in your life

Willpower? There's a dirty nonsensical word if ever I saw one. Low impulse control? Only when I'm drunk. I aim to decrease pain, increase pleasure and perpetuate life for conscious organisms....nebulous or what but still....also - being a little hypocritical there aren't we sur?

Yet you are in spite of all of that essentially a good person with a strong moral compass

Thanks m8.

You would help anyone if they genuinely needed it and without expecting reciprocation

Goddamn tootin'

You also despite your obvious lack of qualifications have much knowledge of psychiatric disorders

Psychology.

With the exceptions of Shrunk and Fallible you probably know more about them than anyone else

There's also that nunnington fellow who posts from time to time.

So as long as you are being objective and non judgemental your contributions can be appreciated

The lady in question has done so much for me and she'll always have a special place in my heart. She's suffering like mad because of her psychological illnesses and I just want to help heal her. I really am dispassionate about her romantically speaking at the moment and am being objective imo.

Fallible wrote:Something to bear in mind, KIR - I can tell you now, without fear of contradiction, that Shrunk would not touch this with the proverbial ten foot pole. Given that the only one of the three of us who is qualified to diagnose personality disorders wouldn't even attempt a diagnosis under these conditions, that should be a message to you that you probably shouldn't either.

Well, that's a bit of a red herring I think, because I've had 100s of hours alone with her in person whereas Shrunk of course has not.