从《杀无赦》到库布里克：心底里的蛇(原创)

Bed Potato

原帖由 dave9181 于 2007-4-22 04:16 发表

first thing first: clarification
i dont have the ability to type chinese in the school. so, i must appologize for typing english( this leads to the condition that anyone who attack me on my english typing related kind of things would be just viewed as coward )

O.K., let's play this in damn English.

refresh my memory, i recall that LZ said  "从心理学角度上来，我们有“合理化”的倾向" so according to him, rationalization is the common attribute shared by anyone in the society,  but later, from the article he cited, it says "Rationalization is primarily found in cases of neurosis" so basically, he cited an article which is against his point. dont you read?

About your argument, LZ ALREADY gave you an answer on floor 7th -- please look at the last paragraph in the article he cited -- which clearly mentioned "Rationalization in psychology" (also pls read the examples in it carefully, don't tell me those cases are not supportive to LZ's points), for your convenience, i quote this paragraph as below:

" ....

2. Rationalization in psychology

In psychology, rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).For an example, consider a person who bought one of the first home computers in 1980 primarily motivated by the excitement of playing with a computer. If he felt that his friends would not accept "having fun" as a sufficient reason for the purchase, he might have searched for other justifications and ended up telling them how much time it was going to save him in doing his taxes. "

You see, this paragraph is talking about normal person's rationalization behavior, and you just over-look it. Or you may not really knowing them at all, though you repeatedly claim that you "know" some Psychology.


moreover, in the psychology field, we use a totally different concept to categorize the behaviors LZ tried to describe,
rationalization is more a clinical psychology terminology which means it is the concept used by applied psychology not psychology, yeah, i kown this remind you of all the hard time youve got in your pathetic life, but with all due respect, i encourage you to seek help from professionals.
LZ
if you happen to be an mental challenged person at large, i hope you report to the local authorities asap

You talked like a psychiatrist, not saying whether those realy psychiatrists would agree with you or not, but i guess you may have seem them very offen. Wait a sec., did you say you have an appointment with your"dealer" the other day ? Is that your dealer or your shrink ? We wonder.
Psychology is a science that is developing in many different branches and theories, you might go through some psychic text books, but simply by qutoing a few names and titles does't mean you know all about it. LZ's caticle is not all about psychology, but it clearly stands itself. Next time you show us your own article and let's see if it stands.

[ 本帖最后由 Bed Potato 于 2007-4-22 13:12 编辑 ]

sendoh

土豆能告诉我，上面那一大封鸟语是什么意思吗？我没什么文化，也没去过加拿大

Bed Potato

那意思就是有人去过加拿大呗。

咪发索

前几天去过斗门乡下，但一想既然众生平等，没有血统的高低贵贱．那地方也不能分三六九等。所以没去过加拿大的我也就不自卑，不感觉去乡下要被歧视了[s:97]

sendoh

咪版差矣，如果觉得自己去加拿大心理不发生变化，那这几天的坛子上不会有这么多莫名其妙的纷争

有时怕就怕自以为的高人一等

去加拿大的好像还有赖某人，见过海外电视台的专访，说到其的耗丝之类的事，不由得我不想起近几天某些人说的自己的什么比起人家的耗丝如何如何……

dave9181

QUOTE:
first thing first: clarification
i dont have the ability to type chinese in the school. so, i must appologize for typing english( this leads to the condition that anyone who attack me on my english typing related kind of things would be just viewed as coward )

O.K., let's play this in damn English.

refresh my memory, i recall that LZ said  "从心理学角度上来，我们有“合理化”的倾向" so according to him, rationalization is the common attribute shared by anyone in the society,  but later, from the article he cited, it says "Rationalization is primarily found in cases of neurosis" so basically, he cited an article which is against his point. dont you read?

About your argument, LZ ALREADY gave you an answer on floor 7th (okay floor 7th, you teacher should have failed you in grammar, they must feel really awkard, at this point. or should i say ridiculous)  -- please look at the last paragraph in the article he cited -- which clearly mentioned "Rationalization in psychology" (also pls read the examples in it carefully, don't tell me those cases are not supportive to LZ's points), for your convenience（for your information), i quote this paragraph as below:

" ....

2. Rationalization in psychology

In psychology, rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).For an example, consider a person who bought one of the first home computers in 1980 primarily motivated by the excitement of playing with a computer. If he felt that his friends would not accept "having fun" as a sufficient reason for the purchase, he might have searched for other justifications and ended up telling them how much time it was going to save him in doing his taxes. "

You see, this paragraph is talking about normal person's rationalization behavior, and you just over-look (nobody except  those extremely losers talks like that it. Or you may not really knowing them at all, though you repeatedly claim (what your tense) that you "know" some Psychology.


moreover, in the psychology field, we use a totally different concept to categorize the behaviors LZ tried to describe,
rationalization is more a clinical psychology terminology which means it is the concept used by applied psychology not psychology, yeah, i kown this remind you of all the hard time youve got in your pathetic life, but with all due respect, i encourage you to seek help from professionals.
LZ
if you happen to be an mental challenged person at large, i hope you report to the local authorities asap

You talked like a psychiatrist, not saying whether those realy psychiatrists would agree with you or not, but i guess you may have seem them very offen. Wait a sec., did you say you have an appointment with your"dealer" the other day ? Is that your dealer or your shrink ? (okay i got a really hard time understanding this sentence, but eventually, i managed to figure out the meaning, of it, plz use the word retreat, you dont understand what does "shrink" means indeed)   We wonder.
Psychology is a science that is developing in many different branches and theories, you might go through some psychic text books, but simply by qutoing a few names and titles does't mean you know all about it. LZ's caticle is not all about psychology, but it clearly stands itself. Next time you show us your own article and let's see if it stands.QUOTE
首先我第一句话就说了 我再学校，没法打中文，所以先到歉，我很不喜欢用英文，尤其和中国人，但学校没有条件，想回帖，必须用，但你是不是没有条件打中文？ 还是崇洋媚外。我看你的东西真的费了点劲儿，语法错误呀（帮你在文中标出,天啊标不完，只能调几个了），哎。。。 现在被你逼的没法，以面你说我不会英文我只能用英文回复了，满足你的崇洋媚外之心

there is no surprise, that you misunderstood my points, you must be really really obsessed with those electronic dictionaries, but plz if you have to type it in english, or according to your words " play this in damn english", do it right, or at least get some proofreadings from any one who actually studied the "damn" english

FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY (NOT FOR YOUR convenience)

Obviously, LZ used two different definitions to define the term "rationalization" the first one has at least some kind of citations, or bibliographies, so i accept the validity of it, and all my discussions was based on this point. as the second one has no demonstration of its credibility, i refuse to discuss it, think about the Mozart effect, and you will know how far would a media goes without scientific research

if you have ever read my postings( dont say arguments unless you wanne it to look like a freaking essay) you would find that i am not denying that LZ's theories do exits in the certain field of applied psychology, (wath this word carefully, applied psychology) i am doing my minor degree in psychology, not applied psycholoy, why you tried so hard to mix these two different fields? or you just dont know the difference??

for my car, okay, if you go to the car forum of jdbbs, you would find something, and if you wish to take it little further, for instance, some written documents, i am afraid you have to pay a little price, how about, you give up your holy role as an admin, if i manage to proof that i was at my dealership yesterday, okay, i understand, cowards are always afraid of risks even a little would be sufficient to scare the shit out of them.

编辑不好了，所以我再原文的开头和结尾 加了 QUOTE 字样，

[ 本帖最后由 dave9181 于 2007-4-22 17:05 编辑 ]

dave9181

原帖由 sendoh 于 2007-4-22 14:30 发表
咪版差矣，如果觉得自己去加拿大心理不发生变化，那这几天的坛子上不会有这么多莫名其妙的纷争

有时怕就怕自以为的高人一等

去加拿大的好像还有赖某人，见过海外电视台的专访，说到其的耗丝之类的事，不由 ...

呵呵继续，继续
看看你怎么攻击加拿大这个背景

只可惜你除了赖某人，别认谁也不关注，正所谓物以类聚， 连看东西都得看自己同类的

8868888

莫非楼上的已经是香蕉了?

dave9181

原帖由 8868888 于 2007-4-22 17:02 发表
莫非楼上的已经是香蕉了?

莫非楼上的已经成了马桶？ 外白内黄？

sendoh

你省省吧，像什么似地逮谁咬谁
攻击加拿大？我为什么要攻击加拿大，虽然因为有你这样的在那里，但也不能抹煞我对加拿大的良好印象
我不关注赖某人关注谁？关注平秃子？还是关注你这样的？

8868888

原帖由 dave9181 于 2007-4-22 17:06 发表


莫非楼上的已经成了马桶？ 外白内黄？

     乱咬吧,我对你这种人渣免疫.PS:我相信你父母和我是一样的.[s:97]

8868888

从此帖看来:这个dave9181个人修养和他的受教育程度不能划等号.

月光下的迦太基

原帖由 sendoh 于 2007-4-22 17:09 发表
你省省吧，像什么似地逮谁咬谁
攻击加拿大？我为什么要攻击加拿大，虽然因为有你这样的在那里，但也不能抹煞我对加拿大的良好印象
我不关注赖某人关注谁？关注平秃子？还是关注你这样的？

他知道平秃子是谁?[s:14]

无求无得

Mr. Dave,

I do not know your name but allow me to call you “Dave” just for convenience.  I do respect your knowledge on psychology and I fully understand the point you are trying to make.  I have never systematically studied psychology as you did, and my knowledge about psychology is all limited to a few articles I’ve read before.

Nevertheless, I want to make my point that my article is just an article on the subject movie, and is NOT a thesis on psychology.  Do you believe that, to be able to quote anything about psychology in one’s article, one should take all formal courses on psychology, rather than merely referring to other articles available on the website?  If this is the only way allowed, I think there will be no such thing as "article" or “prose” in this world, and nobody will ever write anything on any subject except for those who are truly enjoyed in making scientific studies.  

What I am trying to say in my article is that human beings do have a tendency to justify their deeds even though these are wrong.  If you do not think “rationalization” is the right word to use, here is my apology.  However, is it true that we all have this tendency? Is it true that we tend to looking for reasons and justifications behind our wrong doings? I think this tendency has something to do with self deception, with lying in the mind either consciously or subconsciously, with the pleasure of allowing only convenient thought slipping into the mind.  Harold Nicolson, in his “On Telling the Truth from Small Talk”, had an excellent description on this tendency, and I do not believe he had made a scientific study before writing his article.

When I read your comments, I smelled a scent of uneasiness as if you were trying to take vengeance on this forum.  I hope this was not the case but your words really made me felt that way.  You might believe that you have been treated unfairly, that someone has been unreasonably picky on you.  However it does you no good by blindly attacking each innocent person in this forum (Sorry if the words I choose sound offensive to you, but I believe this is the impression most people got).  

Whether or not you have been treated unfairly, I do not quite agree with your reaction. It is unfair to the victim you choose as well. You might think that “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is the synonym for braveness, but I would rather see a person acting calmly and rationally even though he believes he is unfairly treated, and only such action would I call “brave”.  By acting like the way you have been, you are loosing the support from neutralized people, and are turning more and more people against you.

I think by nature you are a reasonable and intellectual person otherwise you would not make such an academic and linguistic achievement in Canada.  I perceive that you have certain talent and you could have used this talent in better ways than fighting here.  I have one word for you and I hope you truly listen to me: Let not the snake of anger fold your eyes.  Anger is the quickest way to darkness.  If you ever watched "Star Wars" series, you know what I mean.

[ 本帖最后由 无求无得 于 2007-4-22 22:55 编辑 ]

Bed Potato

原帖由 dave9181 于 2007-4-22 16:53 发表
QUOTE:
首先我第一句话就说了 我再学校，没法打中文，所以先到歉，我很不喜欢用英文，尤其和中国人，但学校没有条件，想回帖，必须用，但你是不是没有条件打中文？ 还是崇洋媚外。我看你的东西真的费了点劲儿，语法错误呀（帮你在文中标出,天啊标不完，只能调几个了），哎。。。 现在被你逼的没法，以面你说我不会英文我只能用英文回复了，满足你的崇洋媚外之心


有趣，是谁先搬出这些鸟语来的？
上几门心理学课，扔出几个理论名称，你就认为能对别人的文章指手画脚了？
打字错误你自己又不是没有，我都懒得到你的鸟文里面去找，自己回头好好看看吧你。

there is no surprise, that you misunderstood my points, you must be really really obsessed with those electronic dictionaries, but plz if you have to type it in english, or according to your words " play this in damn english", do it right, or at least get some proofreadings from any one who actually studied the "damn" english

FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY (NOT FOR YOUR convenience)

Obviously, LZ used two different definitions to define the term "rationalization" the first one has at least some kind of citations, or bibliographies, so i accept the validity of it, and all my discussions was based on this point. as the second one has no demonstration of its credibility, i refuse to discuss it, think about the Mozart effect, and you will know how far would a media goes without scientific research

Have said this much, you still don't make yourself clear how LZ is wrong. You may have your theory (lucky for your professor), yet LZ also can find his theory to back himself up. So far you are just simply emphasizing the theory on your side, but that does't mean you are right. Apparently the second part in LZ's citation is a strong proof against you, and you just put it away as some thing made up by the media. Yet how can you prove that is made up by media ?

if you have ever read my postings( dont say arguments unless you wanne it to look like a freaking essay) you would find that i am not denying that LZ's theories do exits in the certain field of applied psychology, (wath this word carefully, applied psychology) i am doing my minor degree in psychology, not applied psycholoy, why you tried so hard to mix these two different fields? or you just dont know the difference??

LZ said some thing in Psychology, which must base on its general sensen. No matter Psychology or Applied Psychology, they mean the same to most of the people. Like normal people would say " i need to eat some food", nobody -- except for some freaks -- would say i want to eat some carbohydrate and protein.

for my car, okay, if you go to the car forum of jdbbs, you would find something, and if you wish to take it little further, for instance, some written documents, i am afraid you have to pay a little price, how about, you give up your holy role as an admin, if i manage to proof that i was at my dealership yesterday, okay, i understand, cowards are always afraid of risks even a little would be sufficient to scare the shit out of them.

Well, here comes your car again, drive your car carefully and treat it well.

[ 本帖最后由 Bed Potato 于 2007-4-22 19:58 编辑 ]