My last reply to you on the subject because you have continued to draw on statements from months ago as your main point of arguement. Yes, I have taken the class in which I got an A. Also I have a BA in psychology so I have dealt with the subject a lot more than you probably think. 

I did say generalizations are useful and a part of our psychy. Did I not?  My point is when they are taken to far as my previous statements did . So if all you want is for me to admidt I previously made poor generalizations than I will say I have. I do take care not to use generalizations that go too far most of the time. Like I said stick to the present topic because that is what is most relivant now.

Indeed that was the case.

Previously unretracted statements that contradict what your saying now very much was part of the present topic.

Now that you've retracted them though, I have no real issue at hand.  Though if you were unwilling to, it essentially invalidates your entire arguement.

The one thing that really bugs me more then anything is fairly obvious intellectual dishonsety.

As far as off topic goes... any plans to go furhter into psychology degree wise?   I realized half way through my BA that basically every main branch of psychology has near identical therapy treatment records essentially invalidating them all making the research and teaching fields pretty useless.

While I didn’t explain it initially, my first comment was primarily driven by how certain movements are portrayed than anything else. No matter how much violence or vandalism is displayed by the occupy group they will always be portrayed as a peaceful protest. No matter how much anti-Semitism is demonstrated, how many sexual assaults, or how little ethnic diversity is demonstrated by the occupy group they will always be portrayed as a tolerant and inclusive group. No matter how much material wealth they display in terms of their fashion and electronics, or how many expensive trips the members have gone on, they will be portrayed as impoverished victims of un unfair capitalist system.

When you contrast this with the Tea-Party movement who was portrayed as (nearly) violent extremists moments away from violent acts without evidence, racists without evidence, and the affordable middle-class clothing was used as proof that they were plants it becomes clear that much of the media is extremely biased.

As for my second comment, most of the time the hard-left (communists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists) protests riots and violence soon follow. Making a generalization about these political groups that they tend to be violent extremists is fairly grounded in fact and it is not unfair to these groups to classify them as such. 

Just on the bolded ...

I don't know if it was true or not, but in school my statistics professor used to make the comment that studies had yet to demonstrate that psychoanalysis was more effective than a placebo for most recognized mental illnesses; and he repeatedly used psychology and sociology as fields that are based on lying with statistics.

Psychoanlys is mostly the psychology of Sigmiend Freud. Which is considered by most current psychologists as being an absurd form of psychology. All sciences lie if they can using statistics and it is used especially as a strategy in marketing. Pschology isn't my main focus it is biopsychology,neuro science. I also have a BS is biology. Anyway I consider most psychology to be mostly wrong and based on subjective beliefs of the psychologist that forms the theories. That is why biopsychology is the better science because it is far more objective. 

I wouldn't say sociology was based on lying with statistics, though there are a certain number of people who do so to keep their beliefs alive.

As for Psychology... in truth the value of a professional psychologist seems to be having an unjudging person as support that you can feel free to unload all of your complaints and insecurities on while they work through their problems.

There is a lot that can be taught on how to be a good therapist...  and they need a lot of training to spot the correct diseases and such... but stuff like pschoanalysis can actually be harmful as the psychologist may end up leading people down the wrong path, mistaking the cause for the problem as something it isn't because it's a "classic case of such and such." (For those who have non permanent diseases obviously.)

Making them think they have problems they don't have.

To use a recent example.  Dissosiative Identity Disorder doesn't really exist naturally.  All the evidence shows it's basically a disease caused by psychologists accidently (hopefully)"teaching" people to assosiate different moods and feelings with differnet personalities.

The book that set it off ironically, Sybil was recently found to be based on a fraud.

This is generally why though Freudian psychology is looked down opon in the psychological community in general compaired to the other fields.

Often described as a psychological pyrmaid scheme with a common comment often being that "Freudian Psychologist's patients are mostly people who want to become Fruedian psychologists".  

Since it's suggested that Fruedian's go through psychoanalysis themselves.

Other fields are better at actual treatment, though roughly as good as each other.

In general psychology ironically probably do better scrapping 80% of the theory and focusing just on the diseases and therapy treatments... all of the psychological paths all seem to be pretty poorly supported currently.  Even all the expirmental forms of psychology seem to be woefully inaccurate.

let me point out what actually happened here:

a guy was corssing the crosswalk while a car was trying to get through the intersection, the driver holds the car horn down and pushes his car right up against the protester. it looks like the protester is nugged back by the car and falls, catching himself on the hood, then hits the hood of the car. a second later the driver stomps on the gas petal, running the guy over.

the other protesters nearby swarm the car, which any decent human being would do - that guy didnt deserve to be ran over. once the police got there they took the drivers information and let him drive away in his car while protesters were calling for police to arrest him. i think the guy got off easy, its not everyday that youre allowed to drive home after you run someone down in your car.

I read an interesting article a couple of months back about why riots break out. It was written in response to the London Riots, by the Adam Smith Institute.

http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/culture/%22war-or-class-or-some-combination-of-the-two%22/

It's not directly linked to this thread, but I figure some of the guys here will have some interest in it.

I actually made that statement well before that actually happened. When I offered the link, there was a good 30 minutes before they began reporting on the mercedes incedent.

ive been watching the protests a lot and live quite close to where theyre taking place and havent heard anything about it, do you think you could send me a link to a story about it?