Behavior in what context though, as modified by thought-mediation, as understood as modified by perception, or as modified by reactive/emotional output/input. It needs to be distinguished. If its thought-mediation its trickier, how do you identify a mental illness through a form of "thought"(I am not talking about thought in the classical sense, but small trigger points and micro-perspective out that shapes general thought and which certain behavioral patterns and traits are triggered).

I bet they will find that a lot of mental illnesses are "thought-triggered," which ties back into environment, society, and sometimes as wild as it sounds biology. You will especially find this in a variety of personality disorders. Mood disorders are a whole different beast.

You can replicate models and reproduce them to come to some general understanding of mood disorders, but until you find the chemical patterns and dynamics that manifest themselves in the specific mood disorders you won't be able to dichotomize and even then doing so will be very hard, because archetypes and differing categories, like Bipolar I, Bipolar II, Hypomania are in fact very hard to find a scientific proof for.

Its generally reducing things to generally well it seems like there is a variation. Well, duh, even in the world of science variation happens within a certain group and pattern of behavior, cognition, and base personality expression. They do apply Occam's razor in a sort of misguided double-edged way, seek generally greater complexity, but in a kind of watered down and over-simplified way. The key is to understand the general pattern and how the individuated cases fit into that general pattern.

Technically, this would not be exactly a scientific approach, but it has scientific grounds and it is hard to replicate/reproduce the model, beyond a mere perceptual and what I consider emergentist perspective, which explains why its not a cold hard science and can never be, except at a kind of rudimentary manner and in an unusual way.

You can replicate broader phenomenon and say well we see this kind of pattern over a spectrum snd therefore we have found a truth, but understanding the various complexities is harder and something science has not made leaps upon as of yet. Trying to fuse it into one integrative system ends up creating issues and is the problem with industrial psychology, which is a catch-all and one-size fits all incorporation of different methodological approaches at the level where it no longer becomes psychology, but a social science.

Psychology straddles that line between science and quasi-legitimate science, but using the classical scientific method is absolutely, absolutely retarded and does not account for individual cases and the non-dichotomized spectrum that exists within psychological dichotomy. Its not that psychology pretends to be a science, but that it stretches things too far and dichotomizes things so much to the point where it no longer is scientific and this in fact is what has allowed politicized and left-wing forces, like the Frankfurt School to inject themselves into the study, the softer side is the Habermus crowd, that sees the core of psychologism as being traced back to some convoluted and indeterministic(anti-evolutionary psychology) perspective, which is part truth, but inherently and subtly a lie, but a lie is carried forward on a kind of Nietszchean model.

You can't replicate things when you fit them into dichotomies in the context psychology does and with the amount of content/knowledge that can be imparted on our understanding of the mind and its correlation to behavior. It is relation as you say, but the correlation part is poorly understood and the current approaches and trends in modern psychology has taken it in some wild directions and so you are going to get a cultural bias in the replications/reproduced models and then a lot of hypothesizing around that model of thought.

I think psychology has got the perceptual element locked down, well mostly, or as good as it can and there are some out there who treat things well by not overdosing with drugs. The main thing is understanding the reactive/emotional aspect and how it fits back into "thought-trigged" behavioral patterns and this might seem easy, but its much harder than people realize and it can be very individualized, yet it fits back into a dichotomy that we can quite our hands around. Example of this is why did classical liberal and even Democratic thinking led to the modern left become like Communists?

We also need to understand how this can modify perception to either give the appearance of a mental illness, more of the personality disorder range, but in the case of liberalism, a definite mood disorder(let's have unchecked sex, rape, and plunder and make that the basic operation for our society, like the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans(Islam is a mental disorder too by the way taking that into account).

Its not "thought-triggered," but rather its socio-environmental and how it can effect basic biological/chemical trigger-points in the brain and is essentially an is issue that fits into own category, its purely behavioral is triggered by the emotive/reactive sphere of the mind, which proves how much free will, socio-environmental forces, and behavioral aptitudes(personality disorder at times too) are tied back into this phenomenon.

I would classify homosexuality and transsexuality as a personality disorder that morphs into a mood disorder. There we go I agree with them, came up with a new category, and then overthrew the whole core of the argument. I hope future psychologists can think of this. It also shows how understanding, not dichotomizing the emotional/reactive sphere of the mind needs to be understood in the context of how behavior works back into modifying the perceptual apparatus of reality and how this affects emotive/reactive dispositions, rather than just saying emotive/reactive is just something that is almost inborn and that it differs significantly from the chemical/brain state, but is some sort of internal extension of mental states that are heavily influenced by the "dichotomies" of "thought-triggered"(which shape the reactive/emotional aspect are tied back into biology/chemistry) and the perceptual apparatus as affected and driven on by behavioral patterns that are not technically considered a form of mental illness, but work themselves into that direction, due to freedom of will indulging itself in social degeneracy and tapping into it.

I think there is probably a racial component at play, but this is sort of common sense and does not really get to what differentiates races at the level of consciousness and cognitive mechanism. Psychology is essentially at best like a study of Virtuvian man's physiognomy and how it ties back into a broader categorization of mental states(I will discount mood disorders), but the real psychological disorders are liberalism, Islam(to varying extents and its less severe than liberalism(more so its original framework), and finally anything LGBT).

I also would like to include modern psychologists who believe in mental dichotomies and pressuring people into them and politicized/industrial psychology(its highly susceptible to mental illness, so those not pointing outs its dangers and anti-individualistic nature should be considered as having a fixed personality disorder).

The Romans were probably more Western European than modern day Italians, but like modern Italians they sort of had a little Turk in them. Greece is overrated, but Rome is not.

Rome would have collapsed on its own accord, because it became too Asiatic/Middle-Easter. This is something Gibbons points out in part. Cosmopolitanism and the merchant-cult did the Romans in and it imported Christianity with it, which was supposed to be a revolution against it, but turned out to be the other side of the same coin. European civilization has its roots in Paleolithic Europe and Neanderthal Europe.

That might sound bizarre, but when you understand the complex mechanisms and dynamics of civilization, society, et cetera and how humans work at a base level(the down-to-earth psychological approach) you realize that ultimate the base constitutive order of why Europe is great goes back to Paleolithic Europe/Neanderthal Europe.

Sounds conspiratorial, sounds ungrounded, and sounds bizarre, but its basically as "true" as true can get and there is far more empirical evidence for it when you trace things back civilization ally and anthropologically at a kind of brute level.

Germanics represent the core of indigenous European civilization, all the rest are part extra-European invaders.

Also, forget to say psychology has the potential of going far out there. Originally, it was part of the misapplied eugenics movement, which threw all mental defectives into the same category with other social misfits.

It is based off a misunderstanding and broadly defined assertion that tried to work into a more complicated scientific framework. In Freud's case he just used a particular culture, inbred people(like Jews) and social degeneracy(which was marginalized in society), as the base core of a more "convoluted" scientific framework.

Jung just believed we were "fixed souls" and "mental states," which is closer to the truth, but does not pick up the complexities, and its not an issue of mental plasticity(which is only superficially/artificially true) and that psychology should be treated as catharsis and a coping mechanism and that the end results should be the dazed/stupefied individual(Jung showing his Daidist tendencies) or generally an overtly socially self-critical individual who constantly questions self(the whole notion of collective conscious at work and the need to be "normative" and it explains the whole LGBT phenomenon in my opinion and justifies it).

Jung thought we were "dead flesh" expanded in some spiritual center and Freud believed well we were just dead flesh that others should fuck or that our entire life is fucking dead flesh. They convolute and bring mental states and behavioral patterns into it to justify it and in a scary kind of way modern psychologists have extrapolated upon this and broken up the dichotomies and replaced them with a more complex classification of various "spectrums" of specific mental illnesses, such as transsexuality that they claimed are due to biological/chemical things, but in reality never claimed what was the reasoning behind it and had no empirical evidence for the biological/chemical aspect.

They are the biggest charlatans and multiple people's lives have been destroyed and forced into a corner to conform with "social norms" and the psychological legitimization of social degeneracy. It was not long ago that people who masturbated were considered to have a criminal aspect, but pretty much all doctors and psychologists say it is natural and "enriching." That stupid fraud Wilhelm Reich basically legitimized things like masturbation as such.

He claimed it had a spiritual effect that empowered the internal stasis and dynamics of man. All it did was made him more vulnerable to the subliminal messaging in society(Reich believed it created a subliminal effect that allowed one mastery over the others, but really he was talking about those poor unfortunate souls in quasi-scientific or should we say at its base core pseudo-scientific language). They can only fall back on the catch-all and one-size fits all integration of different methodologies, categorizations of mental states(that are self-created and produced by external forces), and peer pressure(which is what we saw with that recent study) to accord with certain behavioral patterns because they are "socially" normative. I get the importance of social norms and the psychologism behind and driving society, but they use the underpinnings and dynamics to justify all kinds of distorted beliefs. These people should be imprisoned or better yet deported to some place in the South Sea.

They can't replicate anything at all and much less point out the individual cause-effect relationship between certain things like mental-behavorial correlations in liberals, Muslims, and LBGT, because a lot of it is socially engineered and reinforced by degenerate behavior.

Its a toxic cocktail you can't disprove, because it carries its own instinctual/Nietszche wait and you know what the antidote is, well its obviously showing how European genetics leads to higher forms and mechanisms of cognition and allows for a cleaner application and then drive that instinct/Nietszche force against them.

It will send the hordes of people psychologist like to grapple, "guard," and "tend" to running for the hills.

Psychology is essentially a legitimate and upper echelon social science. Its not an actual science in the sense that one can work a concrete premise and find something that is universally true or is true in a certain context. You can make out certain behavioral traits/behavioral patterns and tie them back to mental states and then pinpoint the overlap between certain mental traits and their phenomenal expression in certain cognitive and behavioral patterns. That is true especially for mood disorders. The problem is when they start building everything into a dichotomy and have a convoluted system of classifications to justify their typification of a certain mental illness.

They will have all these classifications such as that there is the schizotypal, there is the depressive, and there is the histrionic version of this specific mental disorder, but its meant to just show that they think mental states and their various phenomenal expressions and traits are not "consistent," but in reality it only proves they have not been able to fix down what the different archetypes representing the range of a certain mental state represents.

It then becomes highly subjective and is not exactly scientific, because it shows they can't identify what a certain mental state means and how it correlates to brain/chemical state. This is actually one of the major arguments for things, such as transsexuality. They claim its because a certain part of the brain, I think around the amydaga(the part that regulates emotional states) is shaped and formed in the womb in a manner that does not align with gender assignment, so its cause is hormonal and chemical imbalances in the womb.

A part of me says it is BS, because how can they prove and what does it matter, if they cannot notice any major cognitive differences between the brains of women and men. The emphasis is wrong. That said our environment is absolutely abortive, whether its due to diet, contraceptives getting into the water system/other chemicals in the water, like fluoride, and whatever drugs people are taking. Even though this is pseudo-scientific, too much sex during pregnancy can throw off hormonal/chemical conditions in the womb, and it shows I am trying harder than even all the amateur and certified psychologists.

They can't replicate studies because there are no fixed laws or theories that science works on, they just create a model around a generally sound empirical model, where one can identify mental states quite easily(because mental states are usual simple, like facial expressions) and are tied back into emotions, which are far less complex than modern psychology likes to make it out to seem. That said, even when understanding mental and emotional states it is impossible to explain the archetypical and personality characteristics attached to them and ground them scientifically. Its part of not understanding the complexity of the brain and how micro-thoughts and micro-behaviors/internal world of the person correlates back out to actual behavior, because it can be so individualized, volatile, and inconsistent.

Its rare you find such fixity and usually you see it in things such as schizophrenia. They just draw up some facts plug it into a system and then mess with variables and models in such a way as to not necessarily fit a certain conclusion, because they can't, but because they have too rigid and complicated an understanding of emotions and mental states and how they modulate behavior and because they can't quite differentiate behavioral traits and patterns(and their symptomatic expressions) from mental states and emotional dispositions. Read about Kraeplin's dichotomy for an example of this and those ahead in the psychiatric and psychological world like to break from this model. Its why also some people who hold onto it and the cultural bias attached to certain personality disorders, like Schizoid and Aspergers, end up holding some people into the psychologically ill category, because they express a few superficial traits, and this is why so many people are on drugs or are getting mental therapy(wasting their money) which ends up ruining people's lives.

Its all tied back into being a "socially normative" and "functional" person essentially, but in the meantime they don't consider hardcore social degenerates(like child porn/pedophiles/LGBT as mentally ill but encourage their problems). It also unfortunately leads to a kind of politicized psychology and is used to justify it as most of that industrial psychology bull crap conditions and legitimizes in a very loose manner. These people are essentially more devilish than the feds. In reality though liberalism is a mental disorder, at least the far-left varieties, because their is a belief that progress means going backwards and going backwards is going forward.

Its an ideologically driven mental sickness, because it breaks down all that is natural to man and has been built up by him for millennias. I call it idiot leader and self-gratifying(sort of Mother Jones like) leader disorder. Things like Schizophrenia though are more than emotional and mental issues, but rather a perceptual flaw that is sort of produced by a misfiring of the chemicals in the brain.

Stressors can trigger it as it did with the mathematician, Mr. Nash. They also fail to acknowledge social issues and social issues are easy to identify and tie it back into how it affects mental and emotional states. This does not mean psychology is not valid as a social science and psychiatry is well on its way, once one gets off being stuck on drugs and getting out of the psychological dichotomies, but it will take a greater understanding of mental chemistry/biology and how environment/ecology and society play off each other and feed back into the mind and how mental ideals, like liberalism feed back into it.

Liberalism is a mental disorder and that needs to be acknowledged, at least the part that wants to drive us backwards.

We will give psychiatry at last a chance of becoming a legitimate science in the future, but it would even then have to be a highly unusual and individualized science.