From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: ex
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:30:22 -0500

Sex Addiction, Anti-Social behavior, Psychopaths ... drivel. 

Our psychologists have too narrow a vision of the universe. All too
much of their 'theory' is referenced to the existing society and
its standards and mores. This is error. This is the ideal tool of
totalitarians.

Just what is a 'sex-addict' ... how do you differentiate their
behavior from that of others ? I have read the letters here. The
truth is that you reference the behavior of a 'sex-addict' only
against the so-called 'standard' of the de-facto culture. This
point of view is far too narrow.

Just who is a 'sociopath' ? Are they any person that fails to 
feel and think what the current majority BELIEVES they should
feel and think ? Alas, this is true. 

In a relative universe, just what does one refer to when formulating
a 'standard' ? Therein lies the problem. The current society, with
all its belief-standards and its cultural traditions is too narrow.
By the common reference seen here, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, 
Franklin ... they all could have been branded 'mal-adaptive'. Since
they advocated posiitons that involved physical violence to resolve -
how would you judge them now ? 

A 'sex-addict' is not 'sick'. He/she wants maximun sexual satisfaction.
Whether this involves deceit of coercion of their ideal sex-objects
is purely a cultural determination. From a strictly Darwinian point-
of view, the 'sex-addict' will probably contribute more to his/her 
gene pool than even the typical polygamist. Do they claim that
they "don't care" if they get AIDs ? No, they are not being 
irrational. What they mean is that they really don't expect to get
a  disease ... and your seemingly excessive concern, which is 
supposed to modify their behavior, is spitefully rejected. 

Human behavior is not purely rational. We are all driven by deep 
emotions and biological imperatives. To brand some person as
'disturbed', 'insane' or 'in denial' simply because their
personal behaviors and beliefs can be shown to be illogical
is to totally mis-understand our human reality.  

None of this would be relevant if the 'science' of psychology
was not contributing so much to the formulation of public policy. 
Laws and regulations are created with the testimony of psychologists
in mind. Psychology, in general, is NOT A SCIENCE. The experimental
parameters are too broad and ill-defined. The proofs are not real
proofs at all but instead cooberating opinions. At this time, 
psychology is really on the level of phrenology and the reading
of tea-leaves. Another century of study will be needed before
psychologists and psychiatrists should be studied enough to offer
opinions worthy of incorporation into leagal writ. 

To base opinions on the current 'ideal' culture is simply to
narrow a base for decision ... and far too subject to manipulation
by involved political entities. A broader perspective is necessary
lest the psychologist simply become another tool of the power elite. 

Ours is NOT an ideal culture. Our opinions are NOT the most
enlightened of all those possible. A very substantial RANGE
of behavior should be considered 'normal' ... enev when those
ideas/behaviors are not 'PC'. 

Get off it. Move away from the 'Sci' sections. Psychology is
a great glob of gobblydegook served-up in the trappings
of enlightenmnent, 

-- Jim Mason