Exactly this tbh.

When you start thinking about the motives of most threads you'll find they're equally selfish.

But this was disguised as not being one!

Ah ha! We must capture this imposter, then. To the Bethmobile!

Tenenenenenene!

Then you missed the point of the discussion you were participating in. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to think about things from a perspective other than the narrow one which you were apparently taught to use when looking at the world?


If you were in a conversation with a biologist about a similar topic, and you said "eating disorders are caused by trauma" and they said "no they're not, they're caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, nyah nah! You're wrong! You svck! I have a Masters degree in neuroscience!" then you'd be equally annoyed with them. Being imperialist about one field or another of knowledge doesn't get us a better understanding of any particular topic - it does quite the opposite.

As for how you acted - I understand that there's professional you and personal you, but they're not totally seperate. And if your degree didn't teach you to have a certain degree of respect and sympathy for people who are suffering regardless of the capacity in which you're talking to them then there's something gone drastically wrong. In fact, as soon as you start waving your credentials around you've shifted into professional mode, and I imagine the APA (or whoever) would probably not approve of you making their profession look this bad in public.

My opinion is we're only getting your side of the story. I suspect there's more going on here than you're leading us to believe. Maybe everything you said was true, but you presented it in a very obnoxious manner. Or maybe you were asked to drop the argument and you ignored the request. I guess we'll never know.

Yeah I mean I only put thousands of dollars into my education and 4 and a half years of my life.

Clearly I have no genuine interest. :-/ (need sarcasm font)


The discussion is available for ya'll to read, my facebook account is right there in my signature.


I wasn't waving credentials. I merely mentioned that I was somebody who had a higher understanding of the subject matter than they lay-man. Then I posted up a credible source. This is called constructing a fact based argument. At no point did I say I was a professional or practicing in any capacity. I said the DSM was a professional source, and it is.


...O see what I did there. I took the internet seriously for a minute LOL. There will be no more of that.

You asked for our opinions, so we gave them to you. Why turn on your own thread, now? Instead of address what we say, you're talking about how you quoted the DSM and have a degree. That's called a lack of argument.
Yet you post this thread.

This is like many discuassions on the internet, you tried to place factual evidence to people who were argueing from an emotive angle, there is nothing wrong with trying to inform people, you should know if youve studied psychology that when people are argueing from that point of veiw they dont want to hear facts, alot of veiw of the world has been narrowed down, same with like alcoholics, drug users, you write the fact down on a continent photograph it from space and they still wouldnt want to see it for what it is, but nothing wrong with trying to point out the facts to people, whether they want to hear it or not, because its called caring enough to help, ignoring it and letting them delude themselves is the easiest way to go, and more people would rather do that than the hard things.

Who is that response directed at? Unless I missed something, nobody accused you of not being interested...
Okay, I took a look and the problem is, first and formost, that you were being obnoxious and showing a complete lack of empathy.

Secondly, you were demonstrating exactly what I was talking about: disciplinary imperialism. When you say that "the media is just a scapegoat" for a problem which essentially "lies in the mind of the patient" you are priviledging one type of knowledge (and that's all your degree is, one type of knowledge - mine (sociology) is a different type, and a neuroscientist's would be another still*) over others, and using your expertise in that type of knowledge to claim superiority.

Thirdly, even amongst trained psychologists and psychiatrists there are disagreements as to the degree which the media is responsible for eating disorders, and to dismiss it completely out of hand is pretty irresponsible.


There is (and this isn't just my degree speaking here) a social aspect to most psychological disorders. Asserting that fact is not either a] to deny completely the validity of pschological and psychiatric knowledge, or, b] (as your defensive attitude is implying) to claim that your degree was worthless and that you are worthless. I understand you feel personally insulted by the way in which you feel your understanding and qualifications are being questioned, but that's no excuse to act like an [censored].
And when you claim to be more than just a layman, you take on the responsibility of being such. And being unsympathetic and down right rude to someone who has suffered a mental illness, whether or not it was during your working hours, is the sort of thing that could get you struck off.

*And actually, there are large bodies of research out there which show that - with respect to a massive range of issues including but not limited to mental health - lay knowledge, and especially that of those most closely affected by the issues (as a sufferer of anorexia clearly has been), can be just as valuable as "academic" or "scientific" knowledge. And since we're throwing around credentials; you can trust me there - although STS isn't my speciality (just like eating disorders aren't yours) I have probably had more education on the subject than you.

EDIT: There you go, I'm taking the internet too seriously too

as long as you're being honest and respectful, you can say whatever you want. you were doing one of those wrong.

Well, I would go as far to say that anything any one person sees is different than what is seen by any other person...

Now, the definition of bulimia doesn't seem to just say someone who throws up to keep skinny. That is, someone who just performs the latter, and, say, eats little to look 'nice' isn't necessarily bulimic, I think... And, really, that's kind of a reasonable solution. Of course, this doesn't work for just anyone, and most people are knowledgable enough nowadays to know that it isn't very effective in the short and long term.

Also, I can't see why environmental factors could not contribute to someone wanting to use the above solution (i.e. not bulimia, but some of the consequences stated above). Further, I would say it would be ignorant to neglect the possibility.

So, it seems like the two of you were talking about different things, to me... That is, the woman was thinking about what I've been saying, and you were talking about the actual definition of bulimia.

Shotgun.

From what the OP says, it seems as though he (or she) has been treated unfairly.

Unfortunately that is not unusual. And not just on face book or the internet. Unfair judgements happen in many places. It is sad but true. And it is upsetting to be unfairly judged.

It seems like you're right....to a degree. The media has a huge influence on how people view their bodies and image in general. It may be psychological, but young girls especially, seem to struggle with the concept of being happy with their selves and always strive to be more like what the media tells them. I think this then spirals down hill in to a proper disorder.

Basically, I think you were being a bit arrogant and obnoxious and you probably should have appreciated this woman's view, which is definitely not wrong.

Meh, people are allowed to be donkeys if they want, in their private lives. If their private lives become so big that they eclipse their professional lives, then, certainly, there should be concern from their professional body. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with them.

(Note that I'm not saying you acted like a donkey, OP.)

The problem is that Facebook isn't quite a personal and not quite a public space. It's something in between. The situation described is a bit like having a conversation at a restaurant. Or, even more accurately, like going to a support group to tell people that their perception of their experiences is invalid. You might have a point -- you might even be totally right -- but it's not quite the right way to go about doing things.

As MutantPenguin points out, once you bring up your credentials in this kind of a (non-private) situation, you open yourself to professional accountability and standards. So, if it's true that you were being a bit obnoxious, you should learn from this. It's okay to act however you want in private (provided that it doesn't eclipse your professional life), but some decorum and tact is required if you're acting publicly.

Not all eating disorders come from a skewed self-image. And not all of them come from some type of trauma. If you have been taught that they ALL stem from the exact same issue, then I would question your education. Also, where exactly do you think the ideas behind mental illness have come from and where do you think they came up with the definitions of each disorder? Oh that's right - from people who have them.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I had an issue with anorexia when I was in high school, many many moons ago. I assure you it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the media or self image. Mine stemmed from an on going traumatic experience and in some odd twisted way it made me feel better to be able to control whether I ate - or not, as the case was - because I could control NOTHING else in my life.

However - I have meet women and girls who do have a terribly twisted sense of self and they believe that there is no way to be "too thin". They idolize models and the crack-head skinny women on magazines and will do anything they can to be like them. And in almost all of those cases - they're extremely unhappy with their situation in life and think that if they looked differently, they could be differently.

The point is that people develop all mental disorders for different reasons. NO ONE is the same. NO ONE is effected by the exact same things. So maybe you should expand your understanding of eating disorders to encompass real life knowledge instead of just what a book tells you. And you do that by being respectful to those who suffer(ed) from them. (Even if they do hold on to a skewed idea of why they have these issues. If they aren't in a place to accept that it's in their power to change it, then being rude and cutting them down isn't going to help anyone.) I would think any professional in that field would tell you the same.

Actually I think when your FB wall is viewable by anyone and you post a link to it on a public forum, it's no longer (that is, if it ever was) something in between. It becomes purely public, and subject to public scrutiny.

Not to mention that - regardless of what settings you choose - as far as legal and proffesional instutitions are concerned, Facebook is public and you should be careful about anything you post.

That depends on the labour and privacy laws of the country in which you live.

Dude what about biologists and physicists that write dozens of books illustrating the SIMPLEST truths(or so they seem to them) to laymen hoping to illuminate reality to them...and then it just doesn't work and people still believe in all sorts of voodoo. You can't change attitude with facts.
I'm just sayng this type of thing isn't new.

I have learned that, even trying to tell a woman they look fine as is, they find a tad bit of offense to that too.

Things like this never end well. Hopefully you know now, not to say much on the matter as it'll just get out of hand.

And I have ADHD and bipolar ~_~ and I eat like a horse. Fast ass metobalism wont let me be any bigger lol, I learn to 2 deal. Women though, thanks to the media, have it hard.

As Lemunde said, we're only getting half the story in this thread, so it's hard to say for certain. But taking the evidence as it stands, I'd have to say the OP could have done with a little more tact. If you have a degree in psychology, perhaps it might be wise to apply that knowledge to the fact that some people may be incapable of hearing "truth" in any kind of positive light if they have not themselves sought out such advice - it's my experience that people generally want reassurance rather than pure anolysis in such cases. If your intentions were well meant, that's fair enough, but to understand the receiving end of that advice is equally important, and sensitive subjects require a great deal of care or risk causing further trauma. All in all, just another internet discussion gone awry.

it's foolish to completely dismiss one cause because another is more prominent

You messed if a women and her weight, in a place were she had power. You expected to win? Lolz
I had a similar scenario except it revolved around gays, now these people are all for expressing themselves and their opinions. I went for a less offensive approach and just asked questions about being gay...they instantly assumed I was purely againist it and some sort of narrow minded priest when I raised my opinion on the matter, kicked and banned from the discussion. Hypocrites much