|The problem with the OP is that he was hot off a class of Intro to Psych 101 and he thinks he's smart know. lol. I honestly wouldn't waste your time trying to explain yourself, HGF--aside from a couple interesting people, most on here don't know sh*t.|
What's the matter with you ? I am trying to start a basic philosophycal (sp) debate which is very common in psychology, and that is special to me because I went from an alma mater, who's teachers were radical behaviorists, to a more pluralistic one, I eventually started discussing with my teacher since he was more fond of the dynamic approach and that's how this topic came to be.
If I told HolyGrenadeFrenzy to slow down, it wasn't because I was insulting him or making remarks about his comments, nor because I wasn't understanding him, it was because I thought he was talking about something else that deviated from the debate I wanted.
I wanted this debate to be more of a debate on which theory is more valid if we take into consideration the philosophy behind science, if we consider the struggle between Positivism & Constructivism, that's it.
So really Candarelli, If you got a chip on your shoulder, if my comments annoy you, then really, don't bother to post, it's as simple as that.
|The trouble with the OP here is that he is quick to jump to conclusions about others and their intentions.|
That doesn't mean that I thought that what you said was invalid at all, I simply expected a more theoretical argument.
|NOT ONCE did I ever insist anyone take my word for anything, here. I gave my opinion and suggested other manners of touching on other areas of the field of psychology to find his answers.|
Be cool man, I don't think I slapped you in the face when you made your post, did I ?
Really, I apologize for any misinterpretation that came from my second post, I "rebutted" (if there's any word tot that) what you said because I thought you were leading the debate into a more clinical and practical discussion, when the purposes of this debate where better placed, in my opinion, at the theory, perhaps I should've clarified that in the opening post ?