Leftists Really Should Come to Grips with their TDS

[Publius]

So if we agree peer review is not the final word on anything, whether or not it would be ridiculed is meaningless. Basically peer review is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. I love agreement.

Don't twist my words, we do not agree, not in the slightest.

So, you think you've got a clever one there, twisting the idea of peer review into some sort of intellectual sideshow? Let me tell you something: Peer review is far from "intellectual masturbation." It's a process where experts in a field critically evaluate each other's work. It’s not perfect—far from it—but it’s essential. Peer review isn’t about getting a gold star or a final, unassailable verdict. It’s about the scrutiny of ideas, the testing of hypotheses, the sifting through evidence. It’s the filter that weeds out the junk before it hits the public stage, the first line of defense against shoddy science.

Yes, it’s a starting point, and no, it’s not infallible. Flaws can creep in, biases can affect outcomes, and sometimes the system fails. But to dismiss it as nothing more than mental self-gratification? That’s not just ignorant, it’s dangerously dismissive. Peer review is part of a larger process—an ongoing, self-correcting journey towards understanding and truth. It’s the rough draft, the conversation starter, the beginning of a long road that science travels to reach conclusions that, while never final, are as close to the truth as we can get at that moment.

So, if you want to throw out peer review, you’re not just rejecting a step in the process; you’re rejecting the very foundation of rational inquiry. You’re throwing out the map and compass because the journey isn’t perfect. Don’t confuse the value of questioning with the absurdity of outright dismissal. Peer review isn’t the final word, but it’s damn sure better than the alternative—a world where any crackpot idea gets equal billing. You love agreement? Fine. But only if it’s agreement with the understanding that the road to truth starts with the rigorous testing of ideas, not the reckless dismissal of them.

 

[Publius]

It isn't any kind of word on anything except for publishers.

By 'publishers' do you mean the organizations that publish peer review papers, or the individuals who submit papers for publishing? That distinction is important. Either way.....

See #21.

 

[Yakuda]

Don't twist my words, we do not agree, not in the slightest.

So, you think you've got a clever one there, twisting the idea of peer review into some sort of intellectual sideshow? Let me tell you something: Peer review is far from "intellectual masturbation." It's a process where experts in a field critically evaluate each other's work. It’s not perfect—far from it—but it’s essential. Peer review isn’t about getting a gold star or a final, unassailable verdict. It’s about the scrutiny of ideas, the testing of hypotheses, the sifting through evidence. It’s the filter that weeds out the junk before it hits the public stage, the first line of defense against shoddy science.

Yes, it’s a starting point, and no, it’s not infallible. Flaws can creep in, biases can affect outcomes, and sometimes the system fails. But to dismiss it as nothing more than mental self-gratification? That’s not just ignorant, it’s dangerously dismissive. Peer review is part of a larger process—an ongoing, self-correcting journey towards understanding and truth. It’s the rough draft, the conversation starter, the beginning of a long road that science travels to reach conclusions that, while never final, are as close to the truth as we can get at that moment.

So, if you want to throw out peer review, you’re not just rejecting a step in the process; you’re rejecting the very foundation of rational inquiry. You’re throwing out the map and compass because the journey isn’t perfect. Don’t confuse the value of questioning with the absurdity of outright dismissal. Peer review isn’t the final word, but it’s damn sure better than the alternative—a world where any crackpot idea gets equal billing. You love agreement? Fine. But only if it’s agreement with the understanding that the road to truth starts with the rigorous testing of ideas, not the reckless dismissal of them.

Ok so you didn't write the following:

"No, peer review isn't the final word on anything,..."

Instead of complaining that I twisted the words you should write more clearly. If peer review isnt the final on anything why does it matter that it would be ridiculed by a peer review?

Do you know why decisions by the United States Supreme Court matter? Because unlike peer review they are the final word on things constitutional. Maybe try writing more accurately what you actually mean to say and we wouldn't waste so much time.

 

[Publius]

You made a false generalization. I provided you an example that falsified your claim. You were wrong, now get over it.


You're pivoting again, exactly as your TDS drives you to do. This should be all the red flags that you need.


You are a highly undereducated dullard who is making a rookie error. Take a moment to learn something. "Peer review" is a publishing term only and has nothing to do with science. The idea that "peer review" is somehow a part of science is very popular with scientifically illiterate morons, such as yourself.

Let me know if you are still confused.


Fleeing already, just to give yourself a running head start in anticipation of my response? Wow.

More of the same.

'know-it-all' 'smug certainty' 'intellectual dishonest', 'mental midget' non substantive rebuttals, etc..

Clearly, you are incompetent as a debater.

You refuse to engage, your only tactic is to dismiss arguments, and do it arrogantly without substance with delusions of self worth, which is a crusty shell you've ensconced your anemic brain into since the real world is too painful for you, as it would reveal who you really are, and you can't handle the truth.

You prove to me I was correct about you, that you are a petulant twit, smug prick, petty, small person, and a PHONY.

Your pseudo debate trick is to posture your reply and invent something about my 'fleeing' and 'refusing to debate'.

I got bad news for you, only a fool would engage in debate with a pustulent posturing mental midget like you.

And that would not be me, so off to ignore land you go, where you deserve to be.

You can have the last word, because it's predictable, just refer to the above as a reply, a boiler plated reply to all of your comments, all of which are boringly the same.

 

[Nomad]

You aren't expected to fully accept everything all at once. That first step is what is so critical. Go slowly. Go at your own pace.


At the onset of your therapy, denial and confusion will weigh very heavily. I get it. Work with your therapist and be satisfied with baby steps.

Good luck.

IBDaMoron is the biggest moron on JPP.

 

[Nomad]

Evidence? You think a partisan hack pysche who refuses to put his idea to the test of peer review, knowing he would be laughed at, is 'evidence', all the while you ignore the 70,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition to remove Trump from office because he is mentally wacko?

Tsk tsk, your Trump Delusion Syndrome really has gotten the best of you.

You are beyond help. Dismissed.

The real meaning of TDS.

Been saying it all along, ever since they first started in with that shit.

 

[IBDaMann]

By 'publishers' do you mean the organizations that publish peer review papers, or the individuals who submit papers for publishing? That distinction is important.

Publishing companies, i.e. publishers. A publisher of children's books, for example, will have peer reviewers provide feedback to the company on manuscripts and other submissions.

Scientists, engineers and researchers do not need anyone's permission or approval to publish whatever they wish to publish except for that of the company they seek to publish their work. If one particular publisher would rather not publish a particular work, the author(s) can go to another publisher.

 

[Publius]

Publishing companies, i.e. publishers. A publisher of children's books, for example, will have peer reviewers provide feedback to the company on manuscripts and other submissions.

Scientists, engineers and researchers do not need anyone's permission or approval to publish whatever they wish to publish except for that of the company they seek to publish their work. If one particular publisher would rather not publish a particular work, the author(s) can go to another publisher.

your point was what?

 

[Publius]

Ok so you didn't write the following:

"No, peer review isn't the final word on anything,..."

Instead of complaining that I twisted the words you should write more clearly. If peer review isnt the final on anything why does it matter that it would be ridiculed by a peer review?

Do you know why decisions by the United States Supreme Court matter? Because unlike peer review they are the final word on things constitutional. Maybe try writing more accurately what you actually mean to say and we wouldn't waste so much time.

There isn't enough information in that one sentence I wrote for you to draw your inference which is incorrect-- and my response was just to give you more information. yes I could have added that initially but it didn't occur to me you would draw an incorrect inference.

Your point about the Supreme Court is irrelevant to my point

 

[IBDaMann]

More of the same.

You're speechless. You backed yourself into a corner and now you're wondering how you can get out.

Clearly, you are incompetent as a debater.

... yet you obsess over how you can defeat me and you wonder how I am able to bitch-slap you around the forum.

Have you considered just thinking through an argument and providing a rational basis for what you claim? That works often. Your insistence that your opponent sucks at debate and your claims of "self-puffery" only go so far.

You refuse to engage, your only tactic is to dismiss arguments,

I'm here waiting for you to actually resume being coherent. You made a post just yesterday that had a complete sentence. Can't you just build on that success?

... that you are a petulant twit, smug prick, petty, small person, and a PHONY.

Is this as good as your arguments get?

And that would not be me, so off to ignore land you go, where you deserve to be.

So, you are forfeiting like Angela Carini after 46 seconds. I'm sorry for being too overpowering with my unfair advantage. You may cry in the center of the ring now.

You can have the last word,

That's right. This way we won't close with gibberish.

The internet is not safe for you. It is overrun by differing views. It requires bravery, not cowardice. It's not a place for you.

 

[Trumpet]

The denial amongst leftists is that their TDS can't possibly be real. It would be petty, embarrassing and it would mean that they are WRONG. Well, the best thing any leftist can do for himself is to address his most serious debilitations, and TDS is as debilitating as any disease, rendering one totally irrational, compelling utter dishonesty, and often reducing one to complete incoherence.



Editor's note: Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. Author of the acclaimed 2011 book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," Rossiter here offers a new and eye-opening analysis of those Americans growing increasingly hysterical over the presidency of Donald J. Trump, a condition often labeled "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

Research in child development over the past few decades has revealed a process of growth to adulthood far more complex than anything envisioned by earlier theories. Recent work in neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology have provided new insights into how we think, emote, behave and relate as infants and toddlers interacting with our earliest caretakers. Those insights, in turn, help shed light on how we eventually understand the adult world.


It is not news, of course, that the foundations of adult competence are laid down in the earliest interactions between an infant and his mother. She is, after all, his first and most important connection with a world he must eventually comprehend. But the nature and quality of that connection are both profound and subtle in ways we did not suspect in earlier inquiries.

The child's interaction with his mother begins with her willingness and ability to engage him, bond with him and enable his secure attachment to her. The child brings to this relationship certain genetically determined dispositions – his own abilities and limitations – for connecting with her. But it is in that most basic relationship that he must begin to understand a complex world of psychosocial interactions, and what he learns there will strongly affect how he relates to others as an adult.

Unfortunately, some individuals who do not complete this difficult task well enough develop personality disturbances that cause significant impairment in coping with life's challenges. Many of these disturbances are formally catalogued by psychiatrists as personality disorders, but occasionally such impairments get labeled informally by laypersons as "derangement syndromes."

One such syndrome has been especially prominent since the 2016 presidential election. Certain kinds of reactions to the victor of that event have earned the label Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS. A close look at it can be instructive.

Like past versions (Bush Derangement Syndrome, for example), the TDS is notable for its intense subjective distress. Persons suffering from a TDS experience high levels of agitation and fear about their own safety and about future prospects for a good life. The sufferer may also fear more broadly for the survival of whole nations and even for life on our planet. In fact, it is not unusual for a patient with a Trump Derangement Syndrome to predict apocalyptic events in the near future. These expected disasters are attributed to the predicted actions of Donald Trump in his role as president of the United States. In that role he is seen as an especially destructive individual bent on wreaking havoc on a highly vulnerable world.

You are living in your own sphere of reality located far out in outer space.

 

[IBDaMann]

[Peer review] is a process where experts in a field critically evaluate each other's work.

Too funny. Nope. Asking someone took over your work is simply asking someone to look over your work. Sometimes it's called "soliciting feedback" or "seeking comments or questions." Peer review is something else; it's a publishing term.

but it’s essential.

It's essential to some publishers, but is never required for science or research.

It’s about the scrutiny of ideas, the testing of hypotheses, the sifting through evidence.

Nope. Like I said, the scientifically illiterate have the WACKIEST notions about "peer review." It's anyone's guess as to when leftists first got the bizarre idea that passing documents around for comments is something other than passing documents around for comments, but I just chalk it up to leftists being the stupidest fuqks on the planet. The testing of hypotheses occurs after science has been published, not before. It's called the "scientific method," not "peer review."

You really should have sent your post to me for comments before you rushed to post it willy-nilly.

It’s the filter that weeds out the junk before it hits the public stage,

Nope. The scientific method is applied after science hits the public stage.

What is obvious is that you have no idea what science is. It would appear that you think science is a guy in a lab coat. Too funny.

Yes, it’s a starting point,

In science, "peer review" plays no role. In science, the scientific method is the final stage and is ongoing until the model is shown to be false.

Flaws can creep in, biases can affect outcomes, and sometimes the system fails.

... then you aren't talking about science. Science is discarded if there is even a single tiny flaw/mistake/error.

So, if you want to throw out peer review, you’re not just rejecting a step in the process; you’re rejecting the very foundation of rational inquiry.

Too funny. If you throw out peer review, publishing will still survive and science will be totally unaffected.


I recommend learning what science is.

 

[Publius]

You're speechless. You backed yourself into a corner and now you're wondering how you can get out.


... yet you obsess over how you can defeat me and you wonder how I am able to bitch-slap you around the forum.

Have you considered just thinking through an argument and providing a rational basis for what you claim? That works often. Your insistence that your opponent sucks at debate and your claims of "self-puffery" only go so far.


I'm here waiting for you to actually resume being coherent. You made a post just yesterday that had a complete sentence. Can't you just build on that success?


Is this as good as your arguments get?


So, you are forfeiting like Angela Carini after 46 seconds. I'm sorry for being too overpowering with my unfair advantage. You may cry in the center of the ring now.

That's right. This way we won't close with gibberish.

The internet is not safe for you. It is overrun by differing views. It requires bravery, not cowardice. It's not a place for you.

Sorry, I don't feed trolls.

 

[Publius]

Too funny. Nope. Asking someone took over your work is simply asking someone to look over your work. Sometimes it's called "soliciting feedback" or "seeking comments or questions." Peer review is something else; it's a publishing term.



It's essential to some publishers, but is never required for science or research.


Nope. Like I said, the scientifically illiterate have the WACKIEST notions about "peer review." It's anyone's guess as to when leftists first got the bizarre idea that passing documents around for comments is something other than passing documents around for comments, but I just chalk it up to leftists being the stupidest fuqks on the planet. The testing of hypotheses occurs after science has been published, not before. It's called the "scientific method," not "peer review."

You really should have sent your post to me for comments before you rushed to post it willy-nilly.


Nope. The scientific method is applied after science hits the public stage.

What is obvious is that you have no idea what science is. It would appear that you think science is a guy in a lab coat. Too funny.


In science, "peer review" plays no role. In science, the scientific method is the final stage and is ongoing until the model is shown to be false.


... then you aren't talking about science. Science is discarded if there is even a single tiny flaw/mistake/error.


Too funny. If you throw out peer review, publishing will still survive and science will be totally unaffected.


I recommend learning what science is.

Sorry, I don't feed trolls.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sorry, I don't [show intellectual fortitude].

FTFY.

You tipped your king before the game even started. You just wanted to save yourself some time.

 

[Publius]

FTFY.

You tipped your king before the game even started. You just wanted to save yourself some time.

 

[MAGA]

Sorry, I don't feed trolls.

Then you may as well pack your shit and hit the road because this entire forum consists of nothing more on either side.

 

[IBDaMann]

[meme omitted]

I feed trolls. I'll feed you. Would you like a pellet?

 

[IBDaMann]

[humiliated]

Of what material is your bridge made?

 

[AProudLefty]

This thread is bizarre.