Making the biopsychosocial model more scientific—its general and specific models, Smith, 2021

In the original FND papers Jon Stone said that an important clue was a woman who had an attentive husband come with her.

 

Don't forget tea leaves .

 

Very true. Indeed it's Parker's propaganda style for the LP.

 

Literally magazine quizz level of pseudoscience. Which Beatles are you or what you had for breakfast says about your negotiating style.

It's the firm conviction these people have about being able to read other people, when they absolutely cannot, that destroys the entire system. Comedians genuinely have a more realistic understanding of human behavior. But these people are fully convinced they can do what they cannot. Dunning-Kruger maxxed out in the very people who should beware of it.

 

From post #16

So if a patient visits the doctor they get pre-judged as being mentally ill before they've even said hello? That sounds about right to me actually - anyone who sees a doctor probably is mentally ill these days for being so deluded as to believe a doctor would help them. Why can't patients [be assumed to be] completely mentally balanced but just physically ill?

Edit : Bit in square brackets

 

Here’s the paper

 

I stopped reading there. Sadly 2 words in isn't my record for deciding not to carry on reading a BPS paper.

To be fair I have an analogous test for categorising BPS papers, they don't really stand a chance either.

 

Hey, when your ideas aren't worth a dime, always use $100 words to make stuff up about what those ideas would be if you had any. It's just academia things to use obscure words where common ones are perfectly cromulent.