|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 16:46:23 GMT -5
The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. Give us an example of a 4-year old who is raped and shows no discernible effect throughout his/her lifetime. I have no example of a child who has suffered traumatic sexual abuse and is without physical and/or emotional damage. I think if you check the references that I provided you will find that the researchers all agreed that traumatic child sexual abuse causes damage. And this was especially true when there was penetration involved. There are children who, while growing up, get splinters. It is removed by the parents and in a couple of days it is forgotten. There are events in a child's life that do not cause lasting damage. Getting a small splinter would be one such event. Now, looking at a splinter not being a memorable event and then countering that with "Show me a child who their leg broken and crushed by a log that didn't suffer ill effects" - what would it prove? Perhaps that all cases of injury to a child do not have the same impact?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 16:48:32 GMT -5
I am all about understanding. I actually find it somewhat unbelievable that you would say this in the same post where you said: Did the authorities conduct mental fitness tests on the child just because they felt like it or did they have knowledge that these experiences can be traumatic to children?The authorities (who ever you think they might be) did not conduct any tests simply because they felt like it or because they had some secret knowledge that these experiences indicated there was anything traumatic. They did not conduct any test on the child. I never said they conducted any tests on the child for any reason. He was not the patient. This is a fabrication on your part. Additional information, composed from whole cloth, in an effort to support your beliefs. I can see how by claiming you did not specifically state I had said there was testing that you might think it was appropriate to say, regarding the information I had provided, that there was testing. Really? Perhaps I have been derelict in my duty.Yes, please provide the information that states mental fitness in a patient can only be determined by testing.When you come back with the tests required to determine mental fitness we can move on with the discussion. I didn't fabricate this statement: "The determination of the staff was that both the mother and the toddler were mentally fit." If the toddler was not a patient, how could the staff determine he was mentally fit? For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". What tests did that staff perform to determine the "toddler's" mental fitness and arrive at the conclusion he was mentally fit? Very much. If the patient was not examine and measured against the standards for mental fitness, it would be professional misconduct. A professional staff shouldn't pull such determinations out thin air. I think it is pretty obvious. A diagnosis without measurement against an objective standard is a fake diagnosis. In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. I really wonder how this toddler could be determined "mentally fit" if he was not a patient, nor was there an objective and standardized measure of a sample of his behavior. Maybe they do things differently where you live but here. no professional would declare a determination of mental fitness without a psychological test. This is typical of your rabbit hole discussions. You have been caught with your pants down so you employ the rabbit hole tactic. Wearing your pants down in public is wrong, but according to you, not harmful to children so I won't complain about the sight. Famous quote by rational: Wearing pants or not wearing pants is of little consequence to a 4 year old.Where do you come up with stuff? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2014 18:09:20 GMT -5
Again you have distorted what I posted. The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. It has been my observation that children of that age group really don't care if people are wearing pants or not and I spend an extraordinary amount of time putting pants back on my grandchildren every time we get ready to leave the house! What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. This is not just my observation but in revisiting posts it is clear that it happens with many who post opposing views. Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
This does happen with many who post opposing views to his.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 4, 2014 18:53:06 GMT -5
I think if you check the references that I provided you will find that the researchers all agreed that traumatic child sexual abuse causes damage. Now we're making progress. All we need to do to keep you happy is add the word "traumatic". From now on we should speak of TCSA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:19:39 GMT -5
Again you have distorted what I posted. The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. It has been my observation that children of that age group really don't care if people are wearing pants or not and I spend an extraordinary amount of time putting pants back on my grandchildren every time we get ready to leave the house! What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. This is not just my observation but in revisiting posts it is clear that it happens with many who post opposing views. Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
That it happens with many who post opposing views.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
And a good day to you too m'am!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 4, 2014 19:28:15 GMT -5
I think if everyone were to take a deep breath, you'd see that you agree on the fundamentals:
1. CSA is always wrong 2. The degree of trauma and long-term effects of CSA varies widely, and the variance is due to any number of factors 3. Regardless of the degree of harm, CSA should be prevented when possible, reported when it happens, and the offenders dealt with accordingly
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 19:34:24 GMT -5
I didn't fabricate this statement: "The determination of the staff was that both the mother and the toddler were mentally fit." True. And no one said you did. The statement you fabricated was: Did the authorities conduct mental fitness tests on the child just because they felt like it or did they have knowledge that these experiences can be traumatic to children?You have the 'authorities' (I have no idea who that would be) conducting mental fitness tests either because they felt like it or because they thought there was damage. There were no tests administered.
So I assume now you are ignoring the fact that you made up the idea of testing because you thought that is what should have happened. And now you are questioning the working protocol of a residential treatment facility? Maybe this would be a good point to ask how much time you have spent working with patients in the mental health field.
As I indicated more than once, the child was staying with the mother at the facility because there was no other option and the mother's stay was thought to be short term. In general, that is what the staff on a psychiatric unit does. Interact with the residents, talk to them, observe their behavior, and base evaluations on their experience. And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol?I am not sure I can explain it in any more detail. Are you operating under the assumption that when a patient is admitted into a unit there is a battery of tests that are administered to determine that the patient is suicidal? Some test that is administered to help the staff know whether it will be necessary to restrain the patient? The staff doesn't pull the determinations out of thin air. They are trained and experienced in evaluating patients. It is one of their functions. It would seem obvious. I am sure there are people who post here who, prior to the conclusion of their therapy, are given a battery of tests to see if they can be considered 'cured'. Do these tests have names? That must be the difference. Having a 4 year old sit and take a standardized test would be much better than observing his behavior. For professionals trained and experienced in observing and evaluating patients - well, I guess they should start learning how to administer tests. There were no tests administered. Despite your claim and your diversion to question the actions of the doctors and staff involved and shift the discussion to your expert knowledge of the various protocols in place in world class institutions, there were no tests administered by the 'authorities' or by anyone else. Patient evaluations, in residential settings, are accomplished primarily through observation and individual therapy. A patient is considered mentally fit for discharge when the staff members involved reach that decision. You made up the bit about the test. And now you are trying to spin the story saying that there must have been tests administered because you could not possibly be in error. Just like you stated that "the mother was greatly impacted negatively by it" when this was not the case. You jumped to a conclusion that was not supported by the facts. Let's draw on your expertise. What would make it wrong to a 4 year old? Why would a four year old care if another person was wearing pants or not wearing pants? How traumatic would it be to see a man in the park not wearing pants? Where is the trauma?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:39:47 GMT -5
True. And no one said you did. The statement you fabricated was: Did the authorities conduct mental fitness tests on the child just because they felt like it or did they have knowledge that these experiences can be traumatic to children?You have the 'authorities' (I have no idea who that would be) conducting mental fitness tests either because they felt like it or because they thought there was damage. There were no tests administered.
So I assume now you are ignoring the fact that you made up the idea of testing because you thought that is what should have happened. And now you are questioning the working protocol of a residential treatment facility? Maybe this would be a good point to ask how much time you have spent working with patients in the mental health field.
As I indicated more than once, the child was staying with the mother at the facility because there was no other option and the mother's stay was thought to be short term. In general, that is what the staff on a psychiatric unit does. Interact with the residents, talk to them, observe their behavior, and base evaluations on their experience. And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol?I am not sure I can explain it in any more detail. Are you operating under the assumption that when a patient is admitted into a unit there is a battery of tests that are administered to determine that the patient is suicidal? Some test that is administered to help the staff know whether it will be necessary to restrain the patient? The staff doesn't pull the determinations out of thin air. They are trained and experienced in evaluating patients. It is one of their functions. It would seem obvious. I am sure there are people who post here who, prior to the conclusion of their therapy, are given a battery of tests to see if they can be considered 'cured'. Do these tests have names? That must be the difference. Having a 4 year old sit and take a standardized test would be much better than observing his behavior. For professionals trained and experienced in observing and evaluating patients - well, I guess they should start learning how to administer tests. There were no tests administered. Despite your claim and your diversion to question the actions of the doctors and staff involved and shift the discussion to your expert knowledge of the various protocols in place in world class institutions, there were no tests administered by the 'authorities' or by anyone else. Patient evaluations, in residential settings, are accomplished primarily through observation and individual therapy. A patient is considered mentally fit for discharge when the staff members involved reach that decision. You made up the bit about the test. And now you are trying to spin the story saying that there must have been tests administered because you could not possibly be in error. Just like you stated that "the mother was greatly impacted negatively by it" when this was not the case. You jumped to a conclusion that was not supported by the facts. Let's draw on your expertise. What would make it wrong to a 4 year old? Why would a four year old care if another person was wearing pants or not wearing pants? How traumatic would it be to see a man in the park not wearing pants? Where is the trauma? Obfuscation and rabbit holes. It's your story, you provide the facts. You have established that you have not told the whole story and in fact are prepared to be misleading about it. Your example case becomes rendered meaningless when this is done. I see that I have managed to foolishly waste my time on this as you continue to head down blind alleys to salvage whatever it is you are trying to salvage. Try again sometime when you are prepared to be upfront and provide relevant information on your stories which are told to lead the reader in the direction you want them to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:45:17 GMT -5
I think if everyone were to take a deep breath, you'd see that you agree on the fundamentals: 1. CSA is always wrong 2. The degree of trauma and long-term effects of CSA varies widely, and the variance is due to any number of factors 3. Regardless of the degree of harm, CSA should be prevented when possible, reported when it happens, and the offenders dealt with accordingly I'm good that. It is consistent with my point of view on the issue. I am not sure though that you will find unanimous agreement on those three points. I would add a fourth. 4.When it happens, appropriate assistance should always be made available to the victims.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2014 19:45:41 GMT -5
Obfuscation and rabbit holes. It's your story, you provide the facts. You have established that you have not told the whole story and in fact are prepared to be misleading about it. Your example case becomes rendered meaningless when this is done. I see that I have managed to foolishly waste my time on this as you continue to head down blind alleys to salvage whatever it is you are trying to salvage. Try again sometime when you are prepared to be upfront and provide relevant information on your stories which are told to lead the reader in the direction you want them to go. See what I mean about CD folks? Around and around he goes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:47:31 GMT -5
Obfuscation and rabbit holes. It's your story, you provide the facts. You have established that you have not told the whole story and in fact are prepared to be misleading about it. Your example case becomes rendered meaningless when this is done. I see that I have managed to foolishly waste my time on this as you continue to head down blind alleys to salvage whatever it is you are trying to salvage. Try again sometime when you are prepared to be upfront and provide relevant information on your stories which are told to lead the reader in the direction you want them to go. See what I mean about CD folks? Around and around he goes! Lol. This is right out of the rational manual to ask for the facts! I will try that around and around thing next time rational asks for the facts!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 19:49:04 GMT -5
I think if you check the references that I provided you will find that the researchers all agreed that traumatic child sexual abuse causes damage. Now we're making progress. All we need to do to keep you happy is add the word "traumatic". From now on we should speak of TCSA. And that would be a short sighted solution and implies that only traumatic abuse should be considered. The problem is that when all child abuse is considered to be equal and all victims are treated as if they experienced trauma regardless of what actually happened, the damage from the 'treatment' can be more detrimental to the 'victim' than the incident itself. A solution is to prevent child abuse and treat the victims for any damage that they experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:52:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 20:44:47 GMT -5
I think if you check the references that I provided you will find that the researchers all agreed that traumatic child sexual abuse causes damage. Now we're making progress. All we need to do to keep you happy is add the word "traumatic". From now on we should speak of TCSA. Now you realize that we need to agree on the meaning of the word trauma.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 21:03:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 22:06:18 GMT -5
Now we're making progress. All we need to do to keep you happy is add the word "traumatic". From now on we should speak of TCSA. Now you realize that we need to agree on the meaning of the word trauma. That's setting a mighty high expectation!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 22:48:47 GMT -5
Obfuscation and rabbit holes. It's your story, you provide the facts. I have provided the facts. You seem to not like the events as I related them and either added or changed details.Not sure what part of the story I have not related nor what I said that was misleading. Is it because you decided the staff must have tested to determine mental fitness?It wasn't done. I related the story and you decided to change parts that did not fit what you wanted.No, you have tried time and time again to distort the facts to meet your needs and I have stuck with the facts as I told them. This started from the beginning when you suggested that I adjust the age of the child to 1 year and you would accept it.As I have invited you every time you take this tact to avoid having to say you were in error, show where I did not provide all of the relevant information from the very start. Where did I not answer any question you might have had? I could make a list of all of the places that you have jumped to erroneous conclusions and stated things that I did not say but that would be of no benefit. You claim I withheld information? What information? You claim I misled? In what way? You dodge and weave but when asked to provide anything to back up your claims - nothing. Where was I not upfront with the information? What relevant information did I not provide?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2014 23:00:58 GMT -5
See what I mean about CD folks? Around and around he goes! Lol. This is right out of the rational manual to ask for the facts! I will try that around and around thing next time rational asks for the facts! It is certainly true that one can't accuse you of striving to use facts! A rational manual of facts is certainly more reliable than the subterfuge use of tricks that too often seems to be your manual.
The misquoting & avoiding something by deception, -the use of artifice is a strategy you used in a dialogue with me
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 4, 2014 23:04:41 GMT -5
Now we're making progress. All we need to do to keep you happy is add the word "traumatic". From now on we should speak of TCSA. Now you realize that we need to agree on the meaning of the word trauma. This will be a tough one. The definition of trauma differs among individuals by their subjective experiences, not the objective facts. People will react to similar events differently. In other words, not all people who experience a potentially traumatic event will actually become psychologically traumatized.Childhood antecedents of exposure to traumatic events and post-traumatic stress disorderStorr CL, Ialongo NS, Anthony JC, Breslau N Makes Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle seem certain!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2014 0:12:35 GMT -5
Now you realize that we need to agree on the meaning of the word trauma. That's setting a mighty high expectation! I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2014 1:15:38 GMT -5
Now you realize that we need to agree on the meaning of the word trauma. This will be a tough one. The definition of trauma differs among individuals by their subjective experiences, not the objective facts. People will react to similar events differently. In other words, not all people who experience a potentially traumatic event will actually become psychologically traumatized.Childhood antecedents of exposure to traumatic events and post-traumatic stress disorderStorr CL, Ialongo NS, Anthony JC, Breslau N Makes Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle seem certain! Settling on such a definition is also complicated by dealing with a bunch of people who think they know more about the meaning of words than the dictionary does.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 6, 2014 17:33:00 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used.
Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing.
Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond.
Do you have a distortion to point out?
Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years?
Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol?
Do you have the protocol for discharge?
Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names?
Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 6, 2014 18:45:34 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used. Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing. Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond. Do you have a distortion to point out? Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol? Do you have the protocol for discharge? Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names? Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?Zzzzzzzzz....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 6, 2014 22:05:12 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used. Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing. Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond. Do you have a distortion to point out? Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol? Do you have the protocol for discharge? Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names? Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?Zzzzzzzzz.... I know. You after being accused of distorting and omitting data and asking for some examples and not getting a response, I thought I would request the the information. And then being told that the staff was, in essence, acting in an unethical manner, I wanted to know what the correct actions would have been. And then there was the matter of the tests. So I thought I would put the request out there and see if there were some answers.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 6, 2014 22:24:01 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used. Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing. Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond. Do you have a distortion to point out? Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol? Do you have the protocol for discharge? Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names? Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?Zzzzzzzzz.... OK, Gene wake up!
You try to have a serious dialogue with CD. See what happens when you counter what he says! Or even try to hold him to what he himself says!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2014 11:21:14 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used. Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing. Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond. Do you have a distortion to point out? Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol? Do you have the protocol for discharge? Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names? Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?Any response to support your claims and accusations, @clearday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 19:40:39 GMT -5
There are some outstanding questions. I realize that it is easy to overlook some questions during a discussion. There were other questions but the ones about testing and the claim that releasing a patient without standardized testing was unethical made me wonder what protocol the institutions Clearday was familiar used. Clearday: For parents to subject him to a mental fitness test and write him off as "just a toddler" is remarkably irresponsible. Clearly refutes the claim that no one mentioned testing. Clearday: What is frustrating about discussing things with rational is that he cannot bear opposition and frustrates it with a litany of obfuscations, rabbit holes, and distortions. Rational: Point out a distortion and I will respond. Do you have a distortion to point out? Clearday: The point isn't about his recollection. The point is that an event at 4 years old, it was considered the most formative event of his life. This is not unusual at all. These are highly impressionable years. Rational: All childhood years are impressionable. I was asking how you arrived at the point of saying 4 was one of the most impressionable years? Do you have information supporting your statement that 4 is one of the most impressionable age?
Clearday: For mental fitness, the subject needs to be tested for "relatedness", "competence", and "autonomy". Rational: And what tests does the protocol at the facility you are familiar with use to determine these factors? What is the discharge protocol? Do you have the protocol for discharge? Clearday: In order to do a determination of a psychological state, there must be an objective and standardized measure of a sample of behavior. That, my friend, is called a psychological test. Rational: Do these tests have names? Do you have some examples of these tests and at what point they should be administered?Any response to support your claims and accusations, @clearday? No.
|
|
|
Post by Magic-8-Ball on Jul 11, 2014 21:15:05 GMT -5
Any response to support your claims and accusations, @clearday? No. The Not Unexpected Response
|
|