Anyone else think all psychiatrists and psychologists are idiots?

>argumentum ad populum
found another idiot

OOOOOH HE GOT THE LOGICAL FALLACIES UP IN THIS BITCH

Attached: wojak_01.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg (710x823, 136K)

The ones who are idiots are the ones who legitimately think they can cure a person's shit life by referring them to therapy and giving them meme pills like Prozac.

Then there is the ones like the one I have who knows my situation is hopeless and knows the pit I've fallen into is impossible to escape. So he just gives me benzos and stimulants to make things more bearable down here.

You misunderstand. I wasn't saying: 'everyone says psychs are smart, so it must be true'.

I was saying: 'If you only meet dumb psychs the real problem is more probable to lie with yourself'.

nah, anyone who doesn't think all psychs are idiots and anyone who voluntarily goes to psychs, is either himself an idiot or has very little experience of psychs

Sounds like you wasn't able to find a good psych. Sorry Man.

I didn't misunderstand shit, you fuckwit. I know what argumentum ad populum means, you don't. It's broader than what you suggested, fuckwit.

I think they're charlatans.

Let's remember how psychiatry started as a discipline. Back all the way up to Freud's generation. Psychiatrists were men who got paid to talk to wealthy and unhappy people, with special emphasis on *the interpretation of dreams*.

Men have performed that task for a living for millennia. And they have *always* been charlatans. Witch doctors or priests of Aesculapius or Joseph conning Pharaoh or Father Confessors.

When the Enlightenment and, after it, advances in science made it unfashionable to admit a belief in psychics or the occult, those charlatans needed a new scam. And so they decided to play "scientist dress up" to try to muscle in on the new dominant social paradigm. And they have made up one non-falsifiable fantasy doctrine after another, to be able to point to continued "advances" in their "science".

At least the people engaged in pharmacology practice rudimentary science. The "therapists" don't practice it at all. They're con men, getting paid to assert (utterly without foundation) that they have special expertise in listening to people with disposable income (or insurance) talk about being sad.

I don't think it is that much broader. And I don't see my statement working in it. Could you explain it to me?

Only thing I wanted to say:
I know a couple of people that met good psychs. And had good therapy from them that actually helped. Some had to look for one or two before they found one that worked for them. I was just saying not ALL psychs can be dumb.

it's too subtle for you

You calling me dumb instead of adressing the issue. That's some solid reasoning fallacy meister.

Psychologists are gay fags that give you meds that are designed by real scientists and talk to you abiut your feelings. The entireity of the "science" can be done by a machine and some pharmacists and chemists