User talk:PrincetonNeuroscientist

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, PrincetonNeuroscientist. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

White-Washing

We generally do not like it. Do us a favor and stop with the apologetics. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, of course, talk it out on the talk page. We're at least willing to hear what you have to say, even if we revert the changes you've made. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As I just advised him to do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is about allowing further sourcing of data on an article, not about a particular stance. Castaigne2 is taking a political stance and is an enemy to neutrality. There is no rationality to his argument. Johns Hopkins' position of the issue serves as a keystone position in the medical community. You should at least try and foster confidence in the knowledge of users who work in the medical field at an elite level (that includes me). --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk page before making further edits. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, this isn't Citizendium or Wikipedia; we don't give way to people who assert themselves as "experts". Perhaps you should read up on what we're about here? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Neutrality isn't one of our goals here on this wiki. I think many of us like wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for an encyclopedia, but we're... not an encyclopedia. Our primary goals are deconstructing pervasive elements of pseudoscience, authoritarianism, and general crankery, especially where popularized by public figures. We like to take a snarky point of view that isn't afraid to level reality-based criticism where warranted.

So when castaigne here says you're whitewashing, he's saying that you're removing important elements of highlighting those problems in the name of neutrality, which isn't as important to this wiki. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I also don't have much use for his "Look at my three degrees and be obedient to my medical superiorities!" attitude. Shades of Mona. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pal, you're cruising for a blocking.

Edit warring and not discussing things on the article talk page is very likely to get you either blocked or vandal-braked(slowed to one edit per half hour). This is probably going to be your only warning. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and lock the page. *shrugs* --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This will be your only warning

Legal threats of actions against users, of any kind are not tolerated and backhanded "jokes" about having users committed will not be tolerated. If you engage in any kind of threat of this sort against any other user at all you will be indefinitely banned. No exceptions.

And I, a random asshole on the internet should not have to explain the following to you: if you are a mental health professional, as you claim to be, you should Damn well know that publicly making a diagnosis of a private individual is a huge breach of your professional code of ethics. You should know better. If you're arguing from your authority you should at least act like a damned professional. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's one reason why I doubt their authority claims. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

??? I haven't made any legal threats against you??? You're getting anxious because I accused you of Sock Puppetry and so now you're finding away to blackmail me. I am a mental health professional and I have made no diagnosis of you -- Regardless, HIPPA policy states nothing against making public diagnosis. Regardless, public "diagnosis" (which again I did not engage in) is totally legal. In fact there are entire TV programs dedicated to public diagnosis. Stating that I have the authority to commit people to mental institutions is perfectly legal and in line with HIPPA policy. Regardless, it was totally facetious. Hence "Stop talking to yourself". You can "warn" me all you want as long as you enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Don't tell me that I should "Damn well know" - you obviously don't know and no it is not a breach of my professional code of ethics at all. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

APA Code of ethics subsections 9.01(especially clause b) and 9.10. Look at me, telling the PhD some of the most basic aspects of his field. Also, I know it was fucking facetious, it doesn't mean it wasn't fatuous and inappropriate. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Look at you misunderstanding regulations you had all the time in the world to read and digest ... Let me make this very clear ... making a public diagnosis is totally legal. The APA code of ethics pertains to whether diagnosis can be legally warranted for involuntary commitment. A little tip - you can't understand something from just looking up a slice of it on the internet. I'm sorry you couldn't afford college. Regardless, neither clause states anything about violations in public diagnosis. Secondly, I'm a Ph.D in Biophysics with a concentration in Neurobiology - not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I don't have a psychiatric practice nor do diagnosis individuals based on psychiatric symptoms. I have the authority to diagnose and submit patients to Optogenetics and DMS treatment if their PCR results demonstrate viable cause. My diagnoses are based in lab results. Trust me, there is nothing that you can teach me ;) (without regression of my intellect of course). PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Again - my field: Biophysics not Psychology. So your statement should be rephrased "I'm totally inept when it comes to science so I confused two totally different branches of applied science" - ikanreed. If you're attempting to make the point that I don't have intellectual and medical authority over you - I am so so sorry you think that is true. But it's ok, you can live in your RationalWiki world all you want and nobody will hurt you. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[EC] Nobody here asserted that diagnosing people online is illegal, merely unprofessional. (Reread ikanreed's comment.) And it is. Without interviewing ikanreed, without their medical history, without any sample of their viewpoint except a few internet comments -- you can surely not hope to diagnose them accurately. (As you surely know, HIPPA is about privacy, not diagnosis.)

Please stop doing this, though. It's dickbag behavior and won't help you get your edits into the article. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

HIPPA Policy is about diagnosis. What do you think regulations regarding privacy are for? Reread my response. I'm not a psychologist so it's not remotely unprofessional. Regardless, public diagnosis is not unprofessional even coming from a psychologist. You're flaunting your ignorance!!! Stop it! --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

JFC. Can you stop being the biggest, baddest, smartest man on the internet for one damn post? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop appealing to your institutional position.

We cannot verify this and it makes you seem like a dickbag. If you're at the cutting edge or the working edge of a field, you surely know the relevant citations for the issues under discussion. Cite them instead of citing yourself. Please and thank you. FuzzyCatPotato of the Crazy Dollhouses (talk/stalk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop being a cunt.

I've reverted your edits to Hunter Avallone. --MtD^Bogan 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Princeton...

Doesn't offer a phD in biophysics. OOPS! Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, and any Princeton undergrad wouldn't say they had an "in X with a concentration in Y," because Princeton calls it's majors "concentrations." You would have said "certificate." The lies are piling up, no? Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.princeton.edu/physics/research/biophysics/, http://www.princeton.edu/physics/graduate-program/. You're making yourself look a total moron. A major (A.B. degree) is a concentration at Princeton undergrad. Every doctoral thesis has a concentration. Small piece of advice: when you're in a hole don't keep digging. I did my undergrad, grad, and post-doc studies all at Princeton and I would gladly invite you to one of my offices at Princeton, NYU, or Rockefeller University to have a discussion about the biological basis of Gender Dysphoria just don't waste my time. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't offer phD's in Biophysics. This is not hard. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But, hey, I'll take that invite. Just tell me where to go and who to ask for. I'll call you! Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Princeton offers A PhD program in Biophysics, astrophysics, mathematical, etc but scream and shout all you want if that's what lets you get along. It's obvious you enjoy convincing yourself of untruths :). Send me a private message and we'll set up a meeting. I've got availability the rest of this week. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's actually you and not an IP spoofing you, you provide no mechanism to send you a private message. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)