Smart people buy drug company stock. Dumb people buy drug company products.
wessyboy....@yep.xyz
overloaded with ignorance of neurochemistry, fallacies about what
conclusions follow from what premises, groundless assertions,
breathtaking leaps of illogic, wishful thinking, appeals to authority,
and just flat-out horseshit that it's hard to know where to even begin
dismantling them.
It's just astounding that people believe this stuff. Scratch that --
it's astounding that people think this stuff even *means* anything.
Cortisol levels? Oxidative stress? Neurotransmitters? Huh? Do these
people just believe whatever they're told?
Christ. Basing your life around a cesspool of fantasy being passed off
as "science" is really not the best approach to living.
Here's the truth: no one has any idea how the brain works. No one has
any idea how psychotropic drugs work. There are no "mental illnesses."
Talking about "serotonin levels" as if you could put a dipstick in your
brain and measure them is laughable. Don't be such a bunch of suckers.
The relationship between consciousness and neurochemistry probably won't
be unraveled with another thousand years of research.
Just for starters (assuming anyone is willing to think): When SSRIs were
new, we were supposed to believe that they corrected the specific
"chemical imbalance" that "caused" depression. They were "selective."
Leaving aside the fact that (1) pharmacodynamic selectivity was
deliberately conflated with selectivity for mood states for marketing
purposes, (2) the causality between neurochemistry and consciousness
isn't even *slightly* understood, and (3) the phrase "chemical imbalance"
doesn't actually mean anything, we are now supposed to believe that these
drugs also "cure" "generalized anxiety disorder," "post-traumatic stress
disorder," "obsessive-compulsive disorder," "social anxiety disorder," an
d even fucking PMS for god's sake. Wow. That sounds *really*
"selective." What are the odds that the same "chemical imbalance" is
responsible for virtually every feeling that someone doesn't like?
How does "zero" sound?
Stop being such a bunch of idiots being led around by the nose. Smart
people buy drug company stock. Dumb people buy drug company products.
This is because there are always more dumb people than smart people.
--
ETF
wess...@wessyboy.dumb
Yes serotonin or lack there of is the only cause of human pain.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:16:18 -0500, in alt.support.schizoaffective Ralph
<hade...@nomore.spam> wrote:
>Speaking of stupid assholes the "Selective" is that it was "Selective"
>to seritonin not selective to depression you dipshit. With the obvious
>lack of intelligence used in your statements proves the lack of
>validity in your arguments. Begone you idiot.
---
I have a ten year old son who was diagnosed with ADHD
before the age of three. The more drugs they gave
him, the sicker he got. Bipolar by the age of six
then schizophrenia by the time he was almost nine.
We found out he was actually suffering from drug
induced mental and emotional deterioration after
being drugged for six and a half years. The doctors
knew the drugs had caused brain damage but didn't
bother to share that information with us and
continued to drug him. We intend to see that they
are held accountable for their mistakes.
Carol Hall
ConnieKat
mention brain to mouth filter. Wast hat a drug that dissolved it... or
something else...
So what Biochem stock do you recommend? You never specified that?
AMGEN is moving up steadily.
<wessyboy....@yep.xyz> wrote in message
news:vgcg9ugirbg7s6vcu...@4ax.com...
sup...@schizoaffective.org
<cbd...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I you don't seem to be in command of your own brain either...
Seroquel can help! http://www.serquel.com
chris
so true, so true!!!! hehe
"Ralph" <hade...@nomore.spam> wrote in message
news:2sfg9u42s92qjibdr...@4ax.com...
> That's not correct either. There's Dopamine, Neuroepineperine, and
> Trolls. :-) Too
Fuzz
are saying will never be heard by the majority of people who read this,
because the way you stated it in such a critical manner will bring up the
cockles in most people and they will automatically want to defy you and put
you down, as well.
You must think, what's the purpose of me stating this? Is it to express an
opinion? Is it to put others down? What is it? If it's solely to put others
down, then post in flamers or something.
See, here I have gone off, totally ignoring the message you were trying to
get across, and focused on the way you expressed it. It never pays to
assault others in an attempt to communicate an idea, which by the way, was a
good one.
<wessyboy....@yep.xyz> wrote in message
news:vgcg9ugirbg7s6vcu...@4ax.com...
Soc R Mom
Soc R Mom
nos...@nospam.com wrote:
> Paxil makes people fart.
>
>
Steve
$$$ are all these people understand!
<sup...@schizoaffective.org> wrote in message
news:9ofg9u8miios4tjjc...@4ax.com...
ConnieKat
So many messengers killed in vane!
"Fuzz" <plati...@ivwnetFU2.com> wrote in message
news:a7acul$niu$2...@news.chatlink.com...
deprofundis
by Carlo M. Cipolla, Professor of Economics, UC Berkeley
in Whole Earth Review, Spring 1987
THE FIRST BASIC LAW
The First Basic Law of Human Stupidity asserts without ambiguity that
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid
individuals in circulation.
At first, the statement sounds trivial, vague and horribly ungenerous.
Closer scrutiny will however reveal its realistic veracity. No matter
how high are one's estimates of human stupidity, one is repeatedly and
recurrently startled by the fact that:
people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to
be unashamedly stupid.
day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's
activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly
in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments.
The First Basic Law prevents me from attributing a specific numerical
value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population:
any numerical estimate would turn out to be an underestimate. Thus in
the following pages I will denote the fraction of stupid people within
a population by the symbol s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECOND BASIC LAW
Cultural trends now fashionable in the West favor an egalitarian
approach to life. People like to think of human beings as the out put
of a perfectly engineered mass production machine. Geneticists and
sociologists especially go out of their way to prove, with an
impressive apparatus of scientific data and formulations that all men
are naturally equal and if some are more equal that others, this is
attributable to nurture and not to nature.
I take an exception to this general view. It is my firm conviction,
supported by years of observation and experimentation, that men are
not equal, that some are stupid and others are not, and that the
difference is determined by nature and not by cultural forces or
factors. One is stupid in the same way one is red-haired; one belongs
to the stupid set as one belongs to a blood group. A stupid man is
born a stupid man by an act of Providence.
Although convinced that fraction s of human beings are stupid and that
they are so because of genetic traits, I am not a reactionary trying
to reintroduce surreptitiously class or race discrimination, I firmly
believe stupidity is an indiscriminate privilege of all human groups
and is uniformly distributed according to a constant proportion. This
fact is scientifically expressed by the Second Basic Law with states
that
The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any
other characteristic of that person.
In this regard, Nature seems indeed to have outdone herself. It is
well known that Nature manages, rather mysteriously, to keep constant
the relative frequency of certain natural phenomena. For instance,
whether men proliferate at the Northern Pole or at the Equator,
whether the matching couples are developed or underdeveloped, whether
they are black, red, white or yellow the female to male ratio among
the newly born is a constant, with a very slight prevalence of males.
We do not know how Nature achieves this remarkable result but we know
that in order to achieve it Nature must operate with large numbers.
The most remarkable fact about the frequency of stupidity is that
Nature succeeds in making this frequency equal to the probability s
quite independently from the size of the group.
Thus one finds the same percentage of stupid people whether one is
considering very large groups or one is dealing with very small ones.
No other set of observable phenomena offers such striking proof of the
powers of Nature.
The evidence that education has nothing to do with the probability s
was provided by experiments carried on in a large number of
universities in five major groups, namely the blue-collar workers, the
white collar employees, the students, the administrators and the
professors.
Whenever I analyzed the blue-collar workers I found that the fraction
s of them were stupid. As s's value was higher that I expected (First
Law), paying my tribute to fashion I thought at first that
segregation, poverty, lack of education were to be blamed. But moving
up the social ladder I found that the same ration was prevalent among
the white collar employees and among the students. More impressive
still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a
large university or a small college, a famous institution or an
obscure one, I found that the same fraction s of the professors are
stupid. So bewildered was I by the results, that I made a special
point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real
elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature's supreme
powers: s fraction of the Nobel Laureates are stupid.
This idea was hard to accept and digest but too many experimental
results proved its fundamental veracity. The Second Basic Law is an
iron law, and it does not admit exceptions. The Women's Liberation
Movement will support the Second Basic Law as it shows that stupid
individuals are proportionately as numerous among men as women. The
underdeveloped of the Third World will probably take solace at the
Second Basic Law as they can find in it the proof that after the
developed are not so developed. Whether the Second Basic Law is liked
or not, however its implications are frightening: the Law implies that
whether you move in distinguished circles or you take refuge among the
head hunters of Polynesia, whether you lock yourself into a monastery
or decide to spend the rest of your life in the company of beautiful
and lascivious women, you always have to face the same percentage (in
accordance with the First Law) will always surpass your expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE THIRD (AND GOLDEN) BASIC LAW
The Third Basic Law assumes, although it does not state it explicitly,
that human beings fall into four basic categories correspond to the
four areas I, H, S, B, of the basic graph (See figure 1). If Tom
takes an action and suffers a loss while producing a gain to Dick,
Tom's mark will fall in field H: Tom acted helplessly. If Tom takes an
action by which he makes a gain while yielding a gain also to Dick,
Tom's mark will fall in area I: Tom acted intelligently. If Tom takes
an action by which he makes a gain causing Dick a loss, Tom's mark
will fall in area B: Tom acted as a bandit. Stupidity is related to
area S and to all positions on axis Y below point 0. As the Third
Basic Law explicitly clarifies:
A stupid person is a person who caused losses to another person or to
a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly
incurring losses.
When confronted for the first time with the Third Basic Law, rational
people instinctively react with feelings of skepticism and
incredulity. The fact is that reasonable people have difficulty in
conceiving and understanding unreasonable behavior. But let us abandon
the lofty plane of theory and let us look pragmatically at our daily
life. We all recollect occasions in which a fellow took an action
which resulted in his gain and our loss: we had to deal with a
helpless person. We can recollect cases in which a fellow took an
action by which both parties gained: he was intelligent. Such cases do
indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflection you must admit that these
are not the events which punctuate most frequently our daily life. Our
daily life is mostly made of cases in which we lose money and/or time
and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness and good health because of
the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to
gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment,
difficulties or harm. Nobody knows, understands or can possibly
explain why that preposterous creature does what he does what he does.
In fact there is no explanation- or better, there is only one
explanation: the person in question is stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Most people do not act consistently. Under certain circumstances a
given person will act helplessly. The only important exception to the
rule is represented by the stupid people who normally show a strong
proclivity toward perfect consistency in all fields of human
endeavors.
From all that proceeds, it does not follow that we can chart on the
basic graph only stupid individuals. We can calculate for each person
his weighted average position in the plane of figure 1 quite
independently from his degree of inconsistency. A helpless person may
occasionally behave intelligently and on occasion he may perform a
bandit's action. But since the person in question is fundamentally
helpless most of his action will have the characteristics of
helplessness. Thus the overall weighted average position of all action
of such a person will place him in the H quadrant of the basic graph.
The fact that it is possible to place on the graph individuals instead
of their actions allows some digression about the frequency of the
bandit and stupid types.
The perfect bandit is one who, with his actions, causes to other
individuals losses equal to his gains. The crudest type of banditry is
theft. A person who robs you of 100 pounds without causing you an
extra loss or harm is a perfect bandit: you lose 100 pounds. In basic
graph the perfect bandits would appear on a 45-degree diagonal line
that divides the area B into two perfectly symmetrical subareas (line
OM of figure 2).
However the "perfect" bandits are relatively few. The line OM divides
the area B into two sub-areas, B1 and B2, and by far the largest
majority of the bandits falls somewhere in one of these two sub-areas.
The bandits who fall in area B1 are those individuals whose actions
yield to them profits which are larger than the losses they cause to
other people. All bandits who are entitled to a position in area B1
are bandits with overtones of intelligence and as they get closer to
the right side of the X axis they share more and more the
characteristics of the intelligent person.
Unfortunately the individuals entitled to a position in the B1 area
are not very numerous. Most bandits actually fall in area B2. The
individuals who fall in this area are those whose actions yield to
them gains inferior to the losses inflicted to other people. If
someone kills you in order to rob you of fifty pounds or if he murders
you in order to spend a weekend with your wife at Monte Carlo, we can
be sure that he is not a perfect bandit. Even by using his values to
measure his gains (but still using your values to measure your losses)
he falls in the B2 area very close to the border of sheer stupidity.
Generals who cause vast destruction and innumerable casualties in
return for promotion or a medal fall in the same area.
The frequency distribution of the stupid people is totally different
from that of the bandit. While bandits are mostly scattered over an
area stupid people are heavily concentrated along one line,
specifically on the Y axis below point O. The reason for this is that
by far the majority of stupid people are basically and unwaveringly
stupid-in other words they perseveringly insist in causing harm and
losses to other people without deriving any gain, whether positive or
negative.
There are however people who by their improbable actions not only
cause damages to other people but in addition hurt themselves. They
are a sort of super-stupid who, in our system of accounting, will
appear somewhere in the area S to the left of the Y axis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE POWER OF STUPIDITY
It is not difficult to understand how social, political and
institutional power enhances the damaging potential of a stupid
person. But one still has to explain and understand what essentially
it is that makes a stupid person dangerous to other people-in other
words what constitutes the power of stupidity.
Essentially stupid people are dangerous and damaging because
reasonable people find it difficult to imagine and understand
unreasonable behavior. An intelligent person may understand the logic
of a bandit. The bandit's actions follow a pattern of
rationality:nasty rationality, if you like, but still rationality. The
bandit wants a plus on his account. Since he is not intelligent enough
to devise ways of obtaining the plus as well as providing you with a
plus, he will produce his plus by causing a minus to appear on your
account. All this is bad, but it is rational and if you are rational
you can predict it. You can foresee a bandit's actions, his nasty
maneuvers and ugly aspirations and often can build up your defenses.
With a stupid person all this is absolutely impossible as explained by
the Third Basic Law. A stupid creature will harass you for no reason,
for no advantage, without any plan or scheme and at the most
improbable times and places. You have no rational way of telling if
and when and how and why the stupid creature attacks. When confronted
with a stupid individual you are completely at his mercy.
Because the stupid person's actions do not conform to the rules of
rationality, it follows that:
one is generally caught by surprise by the attack;
even when one becomes aware of the attack, one cannot organize a
rational defense, because the attack itself lacks any rational
structure.
The fact that the activity and movements of a stupid creature are
absolutely erratic and irrational not only makes defense problematic
but it also makes any counter-attack extremely difficult-like trying
to shoot at an object which is capable of the most improbable
unimaginable movements. This is what both Dickens and Schiller had in
mind when the former stated that "with stupidity and sound digestion
man may front much" and the latter wrote that "against stupidity the
very Gods fight in vain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOURTH BASIC LAW
That helpless people, namely those who in our accounting system fall
into the H area, do not normally recognize how dangerous stupid people
are, is not at all surprising. Their failure is just another
expression of their helplessness. The truly amazing fact, however, is
that also intelligent pep;people and bandits often fail to recognize
the power to damage inherent in stupidity. It is extremely difficult
to explain why this should happen and one can only remark that when
confronted with stupid individuals often intelligent men as well as
bandits make the mistake of indulging in feelings of self-complacency
and contemptuousness instead of immediately secreting adequate
quantities of adrenaline and building up defenses.
One is tempted to believe that a stupid man will only do harm to
himself but this is confusing stupidity with helplessness. On occasion
one is tempted to associate oneself with a stupid individual in order
to use him for one's own schemes. Such manoeuvre cannot but have
disastrous effects because a) it is based on a a complete
misunderstanding of the essential nature of stupidity and b) it gives
the stupid person added scope for the exercise of his gifts. One may
hope to out manoeuvre the stupid and, up to a point, one may actually
do so. But because of the erratic behavior of the stupid, one cannot
foresee all the stupid's actions and reactions and before long one
will be pulverized by the unpredictable moves of the stupid partner.
This is clearly summarized in the Fourth Basic Law which states that:
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at
all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or
associate with stupid people always turns out to be costly mistake.
Through centuries and millennia, in public as in private life,
countless, individuals have failed to take account of the Fourth Basic
Law and the failure has caused mankind incalculable losses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIFTH BASIC LAW
Instead of considering the welfare of the individual let us consider
the welfare of the society, regarded in this context as the algebraic
sum of the individual conditions. A full understanding of the Fifth
Basic Law is essential to the analysis. It may be parenthetically
added here that of the Five Basic Laws, the Fifth is certainly the
best known and its corollary is quoted very frequently. The Fifth
Basic Law states that
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
The corollary of the Law is that
A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
The result of the action of a perfect bandit (the person who falls on
line OM of figure2) is purely and simply a transfer of wealth and/or
welfare. After the action of a perfect bandit, the bandit has a plus
on his account which plus is exactly equivalent to the minus he has
caused to another person. The society as a whole is neither better nor
worse off. If all members of a society were perfect bandits the
society would remain stagnant but there would be no major disaster.
The whole business would amount to massive transfers of wealth and
welfare in favor of those who would take action. If all members of the
society would take action in regular turns, not only the society as a
whole but also individuals would find themselves in a perfectly steady
state of no change.
When stupid people are at work, the story is totally different. Stupid
people cause losses to other people with no counterpart of gains on
their own account. Thus the society as a whole is impoverished.
The system of accounting which finds expression in the basic graphs
shows that while all actions of individuals falling to the right of
the line POM (see fig. 3) add to the welfare of a society, although in
different degrees, the actions of all individuals falling to the left
of the same line POM cause a deterioration.
In other words the helpless with overtones of intelligence (area H1),
the bandit with overtones of intelligence (area B1) and above all the
intelligent (area I) all contribute, though in different degrees, to
accrue to the welfare of society. On the other hand the bandits with
overtones of stupidity (area B2) and the helpless with overtones of
stupidity (area H2) manage to add losses to those caused by stupid
people thus enhancing the nefarious destructive power of the latter
group.
All this suggests some reflection on the performance of societies.
According to the Second Basic Law, the fraction of stupid people is a
constant s which is not affected by time, space, race, class or any
other socio-cultural or historical variable. It would be a profound
mistake to believe the number of stupid people in a declining society
is greater than in a developing society. Both such societies are
plagued by the same percentage of stupid people. The difference
between the two societies is that in the society which performs
poorly:
the stupid members of the society are allowed by the other members to
become more active and take more actions;
there is a change in the composition of the non-stupid section with a
relative decline of populations of areas I, H1 and B1 and a
proportionate increase of populations H2 and B2.
This theoretical presumption is abundantly confirmed by an exhaustive
analysis of historical cases. In fact the historical analysis allows
us to reformulate the theoretical conclusions in a more factual way
and with more realistic detail.
Whether one considers classical, or medieval, or modern or
contemporary times one is impressed by the fact that any country
moving uphill has its unavoidable s fraction of stupid people who
manage to keep the s fraction at bay and at the same time produce
enough gains for themselves and the other members of the community to
make progress a certainty.
In a country which is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people
is still equal tos; however in the remaining population one notices
among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with
overtones of stupidity (sub-are B2 of quadrant B in figure 3) and
among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of
helpless individuals (are H in basic graph, fig. 1). Such change in
the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens
the destructive power of the s fraction and makes decline
wessyboy....@yep.xyz wrote in message news:<vgcg9ugirbg7s6vcu...@4ax.com>...
ConnieKat
"Pete" <d...@dada.com> wrote in message
news:da-1EB323.06...@news.fu-berlin.de...
: In article <9ofg9u8miios4tjjc...@4ax.com>,
: sup...@schizoaffective.org wrote:
:
: > I have a ten year old son who was diagnosed with ADHD
: > before the age of three.
:
: What does that have to do with farting?
: --
: <^> <(???)> <^>