/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1483620]

The reason Psychology isn't taken seriously as a science is:

1. Because of how subjective it is. Most Psychology is based on various peoples' opinions and anecdotal observations about human behavior rather than provable scientific fact. That's why Psychology is more /lit/ than /sci/ material.

2. Because of how subjective it is, it's very easy to abuse. A psychiatrist can argue that almost any behavior (or phase of behaviors brought on by external forces) is part of a psychiatric disorder. This makes a mistake in that it assumes human behavior patterns are a constant rather than something people change over time, which is why so many developing children get put on Ritalin because they act hyper. Guess what? Those medications can just as easily wig them out if what they're showing are simply childhood stupidity rather than a real illness.

What are /lit/'s thoughts?

Pic related, my favorite philosopher-psychologist.

[Anonymous No.1483625]

OP, go take a real psychology class. We're not in the 1950's anymore.

[Anonymous No.1483629]

>Because of how subjective it is
>provable scientific fact

I have bad news for you.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1483632]

this is like a video game art thread

[Anonymous No.1483637]

OP, you are basically reciting the arguments against early Psychoanalysis. Psychology has changed a lot over the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.1483639]

>Most Psychology is based on various peoples' opinions and anecdotal observations about human behavior rather than provable scientific fact.

Most humanities are. Psychology gets the shaft because it tries to make people's lives better as they already are, not with the aid of anything other than their own effort, IMHO.

>Because of how subjective it is, it's very easy to abuse. A psychiatrist can argue that almost any behavior (or phase of behaviors brought on by external forces) is part of a psychiatric disorder. This makes a mistake in that it assumes human behavior patterns are a constant rather than something people change over time

Which is why Behaviorism > all.

Although I love me some Jung, you can get real shit done with Behaviorism in a "objective" way that few if any other schools can, which is always good for the one practicing all that change in the first place, the other. Underdogs notwithstanding.

[Anonymous No.1483640]

>>1483637
No, it's an argument against the mishandling of the newer Psychology-based science of Psychiatry, which is almost equally based on subjective observations.

Hopefully as it develops through the 21st century Neuropsychology/Neuropsychiatry will help reduce misdiagnoses and the abuse of prescriptions by psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1483643]

>>1483639
>Behaviorism > all
Some behaviour doesn't make sense without the presupposition of internal states. See Fodor et al.

[Anonymous No.1483645]

>>1483637

The science of it might have changed, but society's general (therefore dogmatic) view of Psychology has changed next to nothing ever since the early 20th century.

[Anonymous No.1483649]

I had an autistic nephew who acted kind of weird, was a child shut-in, liked drawing pictures of trains and dinosaurs in his room.
His psychologist that his parents made him see decided he needed medications for his behavior, so they put him on prozac, i think, and then he started causing problems at school, threatening to rape other kids, drawing on the walls in crayon. Then they made him take more medications so he'd calm down and he became depressed and tried to kill himself, and wrote a letter to his principal about how he would kill her.
When they took him off his medication he was just his "normal" but still weird quiet reclusive self that wouldn't act out or harm a fly.

[Anonymous No.1483659]

>>1483643

Not my point. Behaviorism merely accepts that human behavior are ultimately patterns, that are dynamic of course (which was my point in bringing it up), something the other schools are extremely weary of admitting, though they all but come out and say it. I don't disagree with the existence of internal states, but that is a wording that is irrelevant to Behaviorism's school of thought - even for Jung's, if you think about it, although he never made that step of actually naming his organismic human an actual organism in the Behaviorism sense, but kept to the wordings he was used to from his student days.

[Anonymous No.1483666]

>>1483659
Behaviorism should be better applied today in the sense that a person's behavior is determined by their external experiences.
You shouldn't punk out by medicating some kid with problems when you can instead try to get to the root of the problem and then subject your patient to behavioral conditioning.

[Anonymous No.1483683]

>>1483666

Precisely so, along with genetics and personal life story. There are great initiatives in the treatment of autistic children with Behaviorist therapy, but from where it is to becoming the common path for autism care is a longways ahead of us.

My real beef with Psychology is that you have to be so careful to not fuck someone's life up with a wrong word of gesture. Always having to be on your toes takes some tolls on the therapists, especially when they're generally viewed as treating crazies and doing fuckall a doctor can do at least five times better.

[Anonymous No.1483700]

All knowledge is subjective and debatable.

Problem is that psychology is about people and people get butthurt easily.

[Anonymous No.1483706]

>>1483683
How do you definite Autistic personality disorders?
Just general anti-social behaviors? Does that mean every weirdo, shut-in or wallflower with few or no friends is autistic?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1483714]

>>1483700
>All knowledge is subjective and debatable.
knowledge is by definition objective and non-contestable

[Anonymous No.1483740]

>>1483706

Eh, more like a gradient of autistic behavior (from Rainman-esque being high-function autism to nearly catatonic/obsessive being the other side of it, roughly), but I can't really quote you an author since my shit's packed up and very far away from me at the moment. Anti-social behavior is just that, anti-social behavior. I do believe Aspergers to be inside the gradient, but not what every third Anonymous claims himself to be. I've visited an autistic care center in my city a few times, and real Asperger kids are extremely cute and quite friendly, you just have to let them take over most of the conversation and follow their pace. I'd provide you a link but their website is under maintenance ATM. Really special work they do there, even though it'll always be frowned upon since we're in a 3rd world country trololo.

[Deep&Edgy !6zrF7IOncU No.1483744]

i'm sorry

[Anonymous No.1483745]

>>1483700

Thread could be over for me right here.

[Anonymous No.1483750]

>>1483740
With Asperger's I think the way you can cure that is by telling the little shits to shut the fuck up or you'll knock them upside the head.

[Anonymous No.1483770]

>>1483750

Well, since autism always involve some sort of trouble in picking up on social life as it's socially acceptable, every treatment should have some goal in providing the autistic with ways of being able to function properly on his society (sorry if take too long to get to a point, words start to fail me this late in the night), and protecting their heads when they don't get what they want jesus christ.

This general Asperger we see so much around here would be well treated with a slap on the head though. So many people labeling themselves as such is only fucking up people's ideas of the syndrome and their therapy's course of action as well. But, for me, Psychology will always be the frightful redheaded stepchild of health/humanities, so we just gotta learn to deal with it and try to work the best we can on what we're able to achieve.

[Anonymous No.1483777]

>>1483740
Listen, I had to go to school with a kid with with asperger's.
He had weird posture, he would crouch instead of sitting at his desk, and he always babbled on on and on about shit no one cared about unless you told him you were going to hit him if he didn't quiet.
He would do other weird things too, like shaking his head to the side like an owl and then adjusting it like he thought it was going to fall off.
What's worse is he was convinced he was going to go to college, join the military and become a politician: none of which he could do because of his mental illness and weird-ass behaviors.

Basically, Asperger's is a disease for dumbasses who think they are geniuses because their parents and teachers coddle them into believing it. I think it's sick to lie to mentally handicapped people to make them think they can do more in society than they actually can.

[Anonymous No.1483783]

>>1483770

Don't you think a lot of autistic behaviors are simply caused by isolation, or by a child not being properly socialized with others their own age?

[Anonymous No.1483789]

>>1483777
Hi, I'm Bram Cohen. I am a millionaire. I am the creator of the BitTorrent protocol. I am the CEO of the BitTorrent company. I am the reason you can download your anime and porno.

I am also an individual living with Asperger's.

[Anonymous No.1483808]

>>1483789
Yes, Bram, but what REAL influence do you have in the world?

[cerbera No.1483809]

>>1483789

>self diagnosed

Doesn't remove the fact that 99 percent of Aspergers "victims" are just kids that have no friends or social skills, so latch onto Aspergers an excuse for their stupid behaviour around normal people. Then their parents and other idiots try and associate Aspergers to famous/successful people, who quite obviously don't have the disease.

It's a sham. Same as ADHD. Most people who claim to have it actually don't.

[Anonymous No.1483822]

>>1483777

Maybe not military and politics, but college is far from these two as goal, wouldn't you think? But I do hear you. Science can't really get into the way of a child's upbringing if their responsible parties aren't up to hearing it out, unfortunately. Which is why a whole lot of people that could have turned out completely fine if they started with autistic therapy since early childhood are physically and psychologically impaired of doing so because their parents either didn't believe what the doctor said/don't want the stigma of having a "retarded" child/don't take their children to a full evaluation and just trust the first damn psychiatrist word for absolute truth.

>>1483783

The principal of the care center I've went to has reported that you are able to successfully diagnose a child with autism as early as 3 months old. I'm sure isolation and lack of socialization are a part in the development of the typical behavior, but apparently the genetic aspect of it can't be so easily ignored. The care routines that are provided at this center enable the parents to work with the child's development so that, in time, s/he can actually enroll in regular school system instead of special and benefit from it just like a "normal" child would do. It's, very VERY roughly, giving the child so much social/affective stimuli that she can't help but notice it and respond to it. When that happens, she is so overwhelmed by the good reactions they get from their parents that they keep on responding to the social stimuli until it can be lowered to a level usually found in regular social life, and they can function like a regular person would.

[Anonymous No.1483828]

Did aspergers/autism exist before it could be diagnosed/labelled?

[Anonymous No.1483829]

>>1483809
That's why doctors should be carefully trained and be sparing in their diagnosis.

The author of the DSM-IV regrets that he was associated with the project. He shares the fears of a number of people in this thread that it led to the over-diagnosis of normal, commonplace personality quirks. He's worried his work is robbing kids of their childhood. He's concerned that his rubrics for diagnosis have acted as a giveaway to drug companies.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/all/1

There's a good article about the drafting of the new DSM-V. Anyone interested in psychology and its problems (presumably the people in this thread) should read it and report back with their new, more informed opinions.

[Anonymous No.1483848]

>>1483828

Surely, but before the great era of the diagnosing manuals, it was all just considered plain common crazies and they hurdled off to asylums/sanatories/crazy houses in general. Every mental condition, at some point, was most likely considered one.

[Anonymous No.1483863]

>>1483848
Asperger's is usually too mild to be seen as a "crazy" behavior.
It's more "why won't this guy shut up, I don't fucking care about Starcraft" behavior.

[Anonymous No.1483878]

>>1483863

Yeah, but in a historical sense, it would surely have received the same treatment as any other mental illness at the beginning of medical interest in them (crazy houses). If it was manageable enough for ye ol' society to merely frown upon while you did your exquisite quirks, you were an eccentric; but I'm going out on huge stretches here.

[Anonymous No.1483894]

>>1483829

Well, this was an awesome way to get me frustrated at what I'm studying to be and still push me toward it. I just hate that the public/mental health area where I'm at is so life consuming, but a private practice would be just trying to hide from the problem in plain sight.

I particularly liked this bit so far (slow reader, sorry):

>But attenuated psychotic symptoms syndrome still creates a mental illness where there previously was none, giving drugmakers a new target for their hard sell and doctors, most of whom see it as part of their job to write prescriptions, more reason to medicate. Even Carpenter worries about this. “I wouldn’t bet a lot of money that clinicians will hold off on antipsychotics until there’s evidence of more severe symptoms,” he says.

[Anonymous No.1483897]

Goddamn, behaviorism paved the way to make psychology a "real" science. Now there's cogonoscitivism, and its child, neuroscience, which is pretty much based on biology and links it to human behavior.

[Anonymous No.1483904]

while on the subject of autism, why do people always think of social problems? I can assure you it's mostly a problem with processing, awareness, and theory of mind which all lead to social issues but that isn't the "core". I don't like how psychiatric criteria seems to only deal with behaviour and not look for some underlying reason for it.

For instance, I had no idea people used emotions in any kind of decision making. I was not aware people used eye contact because I never looked at faces to begin with. When in a crowded room I simply process a bunch of noise and find it hard to separate the words from the noise. When I look at pictures I often can't even figure out what the whole picture is, literally, because I focus on one little part of it.

[Anonymous No.1483906]

>>1483894

Oh shit, I'd like to add this piece:

>The fact that diseases can be invented (or, as with homosexuality, uninvented) and their criteria tweaked in response to social conditions is exactly what worries critics like Frances about some of the disorders proposed for the DSM-5—not only attenuated psychotic symptoms syndrome but also binge eating disorder, temper dysregulation disorder, and other “sub-threshold” diagnoses. To harness the power of medicine in service of kids with hallucinations, or compulsive overeaters, or 8-year-olds who throw frequent tantrums, is to command attention and resources for suffering that is undeniable. But it is also to increase psychiatry’s intrusion into everyday life, even as it gives us tidy names for our eternally messy problems.

I recently asked a former president of the APA how he used the DSM in his daily work. He told me his secretary had just asked him for a diagnosis on a patient he’d been seeing for a couple of months so that she could bill the insurance company. “I hadn’t really formulated it,” he told me. He consulted the DSM-IV and concluded that the patient had obsessive-compulsive disorder.

“Did it change the way you treated her?” I asked, noting that he’d worked with her for quite a while without naming what she had.

“No.”

“So what would you say was the value of the diagnosis?”

“I got paid.”

[Anonymous No.1483909]

>>1483894
The article is frustrating. I imagine it must be even more frustrating for people already involved in the profession. Not publishing even excerpts of the DSM-V drafts because they worry about copyright issues is absurd. If they want to be taken seriously, if they want to be seen as scientists and not charlatans, they need to let psychiatrists review the work without an NDA. Telling reviewers that they can't publish about what they saw is ridiculous. Ivory Tower psychiatry. It's a shame.

[Anonymous No.1483912]

>>1483906

And not only that but the article confirms that the DSM V is going to list ASEXUALITY and LACK OF SEXUAL INTEREST as a mental disorder.

I fucking raged.

[Anonymous No.1483918]

>>1483912
Drug companies need a way to sell the female libido pills that have finally been developed.

[Anonymous No.1483929]

>>1483904

You're right. I'm not able to mention the cognitive aspects of the autism therapy in detail because, as I mentioned, my shit on it is packed away and not with me right now, and I dealt mostly with the social behavior aspect of it when writing about it. But you are right: the treatment touches on neurological, psychological and social aspects all continuously and at once, so that the child roughly pays attention/realizes that there are clues in the environment to guide their action as to not get slapped on the head everytime something doesn't go her way or when she genuinely wants something, and that following those clues is a good thing to do for her in general.

But psychiatrists do tend to focus on only one of those aspects, surely. I don't think they like working together with psychologists much, although that'd be really good for an effective course of action regarding autistics reabilitation.

[Anonymous No.1483927]

>>1483918

That's stupid. If you're asexual, that's a sexual preference (or lack thereof), not a fucking illness.

If you're impotent, that's a physical issue, not a mental one.

Jesus fuck. And psychologists wonder why no one thinks of them as scientists.

[Anonymous No.1483935]

>>1483829
Thanks for posting the article. It was a pleasure to read. I've heard about Frances and his dispute with the APA over the revising of the DSM, but I never really looked into it.

Good article.

[Anonymous No.1483947]

>>1483927
>>1483909

I really wish I could speak up against this, but frightful redheaded stepchild are what they are. Maybe in a few years.

[Anonymous No.1483955]

>>1483935

And I've just finished as well. It was a great article indeed, which I'll be looking further into with some help when the new semester starts. Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.1483957]

The human condition is inherently flawed. The job of doctors is to fix flaws. So yes, the definition of mental illness SHOULD spread to include pretty much most behavior. If an aspect of a person's personality causes them anguish, and if we can change it, we should change it.

The pharmaceutical industry is deeply corrupt, but linking expansions of the definition of mental illness is oversimplistic. People can be medicated for things without them being on the DSM-IV, and there are MANY certified mental conditions where there is no standard pharmacological treatment.

More generally, I think what people need to realize is that "regular" medicine isn't really that much better. Doctors in general are tasked with the job of trying to treat people even though we don't entirely know how the human body works. Scientists can be more rigorous about it because they're detached from the messy business of actually treating people, but doctors have to apply imprecise science to people's immediate needs. And you know what? Overtreatment is a very real problem in medicine. And the pharmaceutical companies do everything they can to encourage doctors to throw pills at problems even if the evidence that the medication works is weak.

But most sensible people realize that even though the field of medicine suffers from severe flaws, medicine works. If you've got a medical problem, going to the doctor will usually help you. And the same is true of psychiatry. The world of mental health is deeply flawed. But mental illness exists, and psychiatry has been proven to help. And also, like with the rest of medicine, research psychologists are able to engage in a much more scientifically rigorous methodology than your average practicing psychiatrist is able to deal with.

[Anonymous No.1483962]

>>1483927

To play devil's advocate: asexuality isn't necessarily unfixable or something you're born with, and it may be messing up a lot of other shit in that person's life. So if they want to change that, I think we should allow them to. The problem with the current system is insurance companies often won't cover costs without a diagnosis, so if we don't have a classification for Asexuality in there, they're basically paying out of their own pocket.

[Anonymous No.1483963]

>>1483829
That's a marvelous article.

[/Lit/'s Lovely Taiga !Y4SoHX4AQw No.1483966]

Psychologists are simply fiction writers, of course they shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.1483971]

ITT: We overgeneralize all psychologists, as well as blaming problems in psychiatry on them.

[Anonymous No.1483974]

>>1483962
Yes but that's like saying you think homosexuality, bisexuality, or any sexual preference or fetish aside from "normal" sexuality is an illness.

[Anonymous No.1484127]

>>1483974

Sorry for the late response, it took me a while to write one and several things came up in between.

Anyway, pharmaceutical corruption aside, the purpose of the DSM is to classify people so that we can help them. That's why DSM-IV has a caveat for every disorder that it must be negatively impacting the person's life. I know it's a touchy topic, but the fact is that homosexuals are different from the norm, and historically being homosexual could very well make your life terrible, so thus it was seen as an illness (of course there are other reasons why it was seen as so, but from a treatment point the negative impact is enough IMO).

I had a lecture which sort of touches on this topic, it broke down to basically:

There are at least two ways of helping a person with any physical or mental 'problem' (or more aptly, a difference which prevents them from functioning 'normally'): 1, fix the physical/mental difference, or 2, 'fix' society so that the difference is no longer a detriment (as an example, wheel ramps for paraplegics so they are no longer 'mobily-disabled'.

I guess with homosexuality and fetishisms, in our society we place the ownace on society rather than them. And so it's our job to change the world so that they no longer find it harder.

In the case of Asexuality however, that person really is missing out on a lot in life. I'm guessing many Asexuals want relationships, but the fact is that most relationships require sexual intimacy (at least at the start). Of course not all do, many Asexuals couple with other Asexuals, or they find a partner that understands; but those aren't the ones seeking treatment, and for those that want to feel sexual attraction I think we should help them. Perhaps society can be 'fixed' instead, but that would require the removal of the desire for sex in relationships.

[Anonymous No.1484134]

>>1484127
part 2:

I guess likewise, if a homosexual fell in love with someone of the opposite sex, and they wanted to feel sexual attraction, then I think they should be allowed to do make that happen (whether we should fund that is another argument of course).

I understand that this also opens up regular personality traits to definition of 'illness', and I think in many ways they can be pathological; but society largely doesn't deal with these because resources are limited, and so we can only fund so much. And if someone wanted to 'fix' their personality traits, we generally don't look down upon them.

I also understand the rejection of classifications as they lead to stigma. But that is something society needs to fix, and I think the western world HAS greatly improved in that respect.

[Anonymous No.1484162]

living proof that a bit of knowledge is more dangerous than having any knowledge at all

[Anonymous No.1484169]

people don't want it to be a science, because it would make all the observations true. And people don't like being told about themselves. Chemistry, physics, etc. are accepted because they judge other things, not ourselves.

[Anonymous No.1484467]

You are now aware that Demausian Psychohistory is the most useful psychological science.

[Anonymous No.1484482]

The only genuinely scientific investigation into the works of the mind was Dianetics. It's no wonder the psychs attacked it relentlessly.

[Anonymous No.1484497]

>The reason Psychology isn't taken seriously as a science
Stopped right there. This is either a troll or a self-absorbed hipster faggot absorbed in his own lunacy. Nothing to see here, folks.

[Anonymous No.1484494]

Well I think that psychology isn't taken as seriously as other science because it's relatively young in practice and difficult to operationalize. It also isn't entirely publicly recognized, most people only think of shrinks when they hear "psychologist."

I mean, how can you study one's mind?

>>1483639
While I think Skinner and Behaviorism has merit, it doesn't explain deeper needs. Where does self-actualization and intimate relationships fit into Behaviorism? There has to be more to it than just physical responses or rewards.

[Anonymous No.1484501]

>>1484482
More because it is bullshit, actually. Scientology is not Science.

[Anonymous No.1484558]

>>1483620
>>1483629
the news is that these arguments can be made against science itself. As any scientist worth his salt would say, "nothing is a provable fact"
Psychology happens to receive criticism as not a real science because most people have no clue how it's used other than counseling.

It uses the same methodology as science, it follows the same parameters as science, it even requires experimentation like a science, and it is mostly empirical. Unlike science it focuses on solving mutable issues instead of black and white problems. Since scientists can't deal with the idea that the universe is constantly changing, they can't deal with the idea that behavior changes constantly. That does become problematic when attempting to do repeatable experiments but the same could be said for higher level quantum physics

>>1483639
it's also not a humanity. http://en()wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
please read for an acceptable simple definition of what is included in the humanities

[Anonymous No.1484570]

>>1484494
What you don't understand is that everything including self-actualization and intimate relationships are a result of repeated punishments, responses and rewards.

[Anonymous No.1485245]

>>1484558

>Quoting Wikipedia on me, but ok, sure

>The humanities are academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytical, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences.


I don't see how Psychology can't be fitted in this description. Most of the article contains shit I have studied on my college so far, and it's common practice amongst Psychology courses where I am. In any case, being a course that studies the human condition, to me it's a Human Science (and also to most academic bodies in South America and Latin Europe, since the Psychology departments are usually within the Humanities centers - if it's among the Health centers where you are, more power to us, but it's usually more academically related to Humanities than Health).

>>1484570

Couldn't have said it better. I need to brush up on my English.

[Anonymous No.1485252]

>>1484482
This. The facts speak more loudly than the bleats of the sheep.

[Anonymous No.1485308]

>>1483639

>Behaviorism > all

Any good books on behaviorism? I'm interested but I don't know where I have to start. Some recomendations would be nice.

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1485330]

Psychology is currently trying to see itself as a science even though it ticks few of the boxes most other sciences tick.

However the current Paradigm Shift is going to Humanism

just a heads up

[Anonymous No.1485335]

>>1485308
The Naked Ape
The Blank Slate
How the Mind Works
The Brain the Changes itself
Nature via Nurture
The Mating Mind
The Origins of Virtue
The Selfish Gene
Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind
Understanding behaviorism

[Anonymous No.1485339]

>>1485330
For an excellent assault on 'humanism' try;
Straw Dogs by John Straw.
Some of which is a rehash of Schopenhaurs ideas. But it's an excellent attack at humanism and pretty much dismanltes and destroys the entire idea of it.

[Anonymous No.1485349]

>>1485339
Except you just espoused the exact sentiment he argued against.

[Brownbear !5EJ71eKlNQ!!6SnjW+BUlLP No.1485350]

>>1485339
>>1485339

Humanism is a better approach to Psychology than we currently have.

Psychological experiments take 'snap-shots' of behaviour and are just not replicable, ecological validity, reliability etc either way every experiment done in psychology has major flaws.

Humanism is the best approach, instead of using Psychology as a science focus on the human element.

[Anonymous No.1485387]

>>1485335

[anonymous No.1485913]

>>1485350
I agree with this.

[Anonymous No.1485934]

The reason psychology isn't take seriously because people believe humans are special beings and that their actions and behaviors cannot be predicated by science. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1485937]

Every psychologist today knows that Freud and Jung were crazy people with baseless research. For fucks sake, one of the first things you learn when you study psychology is the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence.

Some branches of psychology is even hard science - like cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. Many more to come. Psychology is changing - it's moving away from subjectivity and towards objectivity. One day, psychology will bring us the objective truth about the subjective experience. This knowledge blows my mind.

[Courage Wolf !penisASZp2 No.1485938]

OP cannot into behaviorism

[Neuro !qdUPARcrn. No.1485942]

>>1485937
This man (woman?) speaks 100% truth. Thank God, because I was about to go into a nerd rage.