JFG / Jean-Francois Gariepy / jfgariepyneuro / The French Pervert / The Public Space - Warski's Abusive Ex-BF, Racist Streamer, Failed Academic, Potato Masher, Kristi Winter's BFF, Kero Defender

[PT 940]

Holy shit, I'm now 100% convinced this woman is flat out exceptional.

Yeah that was bizarre. He looked away every time she walked up and seemed annoyed.

 

[Colonel J]

That is entirely besides the point, the thread existed before he said anything and people where saying those statements before donga ever did because it was obvious to even that halfwit. Whether or not andy regrets the decision is entirely speculation even if it did matter.
Andy wasnt enjoying his streams with Jf he may not have had the full breakdown until after the split but you'd be exceptional to deny the stress it was causing him with the constant degrading and cucking him on his own show. There was a reason at the time he would rather be on stream with the internet badass than the superior intellectual.

Sure it was Andy's show in name, but JF put much more work into the show than Andy ever did.

 

[Shaka Brah]

That is the most Jewish-looking woman I have ever seen.

 

[soy_king]

That is the most Jewish-looking woman I have ever seen.

If JF believes he can produce pure white babies with a Latina then I'm sure he thinks any possible half "jew" babies will still be white.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

About 25 minutes into the response stream, JF claims that Brain Scanning is a shit technique because we can't even tell whether or not a portion of the brain lights up because of less activity or more activity.

This is just not true, not in the fucking slightest.

"Positron emission tomography, also called PET imaging or a PET scan, is a type of nuclear medicine imaging.

Nuclear medicine is a branch of medical imaging that uses small amounts of radioactive material to diagnose and determine the severity of or treat a variety of diseases, including many types of cancers, heart disease, gastrointestinal, endocrine, neurological disorders and other abnormalities within the body. Because nuclear medicine procedures are able to pinpoint molecular activity within the body, they offer the potential to identify disease in its earliest stages as well as a patient’s immediate response to therapeutic interventions.

Nuclear medicine imaging procedures are noninvasive and, with the exception of intravenous injections, are usually painless medical tests that help physicians diagnose and evaluate medical conditions. These imaging scans use radioactive materials called radiopharmaceuticals or radiotracers."
https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=pet

Part of JF's issue with brain scanning is also that they have no idea what they're measuring. This is just balantly not fucking true, how the fuck does a PHD that attended Duke university not know about this.

I cannot tell if JF is an idiot or lying because this is really fucking egregious.

 

[Colonel J]

About 25 minutes into the response stream, JF claims that Brain Scanning is a shit technique because we can't even tell whether or not a portion of the brain lights up because of less activity or more activity.

This is just not true, not in the fucking slightest.

"Positron emission tomography, also called PET imaging or a PET scan, is a type of nuclear medicine imaging.

Nuclear medicine is a branch of medical imaging that uses small amounts of radioactive material to diagnose and determine the severity of or treat a variety of diseases, including many types of cancers, heart disease, gastrointestinal, endocrine, neurological disorders and other abnormalities within the body. Because nuclear medicine procedures are able to pinpoint molecular activity within the body, they offer the potential to identify disease in its earliest stages as well as a patient’s immediate response to therapeutic interventions.

Nuclear medicine imaging procedures are noninvasive and, with the exception of intravenous injections, are usually painless medical tests that help physicians diagnose and evaluate medical conditions. These imaging scans use radioactive materials called radiopharmaceuticals or radiotracers."
https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=pet

Part of JF's issue with brain scanning is also that they have no idea what they're measuring. This is just balantly not fucking true, how the fuck does a PHD that attended Duke university not know about this.

I cannot tell if JF is an idiot or lying because this is really fucking egregious.

PET is but one kind of brainscan and googling the "reliability of brainscans" shows that there are indeed clear errors in the process:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2015/apr/09/bold-assumptions-fmri
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ility-brain-scan-research-question-180959715/

There's this article I'd like to read, but I don't wanna pay money for it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456683

Perhaps I will ask JF to do a video about brainscans.

 

[soy_king]

PET is but one kind of brainscan and googling the "reliability of brainscans" shows that there are indeed clear errors in the process:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2015/apr/09/bold-assumptions-fmri
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ility-brain-scan-research-question-180959715/

There's this article I'd like to read, but I don't wanna pay money for it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456683

Perhaps I will ask JF to do a video about brainscans.

Not a neuroscientist, but this might be somewhat helpful. Also, it's more recent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30643581

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

PET is but one kind of brainscan and googling the "reliability of brainscans" shows that there are indeed clear errors in the process:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2015/apr/09/bold-assumptions-fmri
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ility-brain-scan-research-question-180959715/

There's this article I'd like to read, but I don't wanna pay money for it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456683

Perhaps I will ask JF to do a video about brainscans.

See I thought about that too, because I wanted to be charitable. However, shortly after he lists off his issues with Psychology he frames his criticism over ALL brain science. I’ll go back later and get the exact quote, but it’s pretty clear he’s talking out of his ass.

One other thing that is a major red flag, is that he made the claim that Psychology gives no insights into the world.

Apparently clinical psych is just bunk, all those studies about SSRIs curbing depression is total bullshit or bad science. It’s pants on head exceptional.

 

[Colonel J]

See I thought about that too, because I wanted to be charitable. However, shortly after he lists off his issues with Psychology he frames his criticism over ALL brain science. I’ll go back later and get the exact quote, but it’s pretty clear he’s talking out of his ass.

One other thing that is a major red flag, is that he made the claim that Psychology gives no insights into the world.

Apparently clinical psych is just bunk, all those studies about SSRIs curbing depression is total bullshit or bad science. It’s pants on head exceptional.

Well, I'd say all but the biological parts of psychology are BS. As you say, SSRIs problems can relate to depression. Lithium can treat bipolar disorders. But only this biological aspects of it is a science. There is a reason psychology is referred to as a soft science. It is soft on the science and more about theory (things like theory of mind).

If you ever looked at a DSM5 it is essentially a book of disorders and how one may qualify as having one, but these standards are not objective, determined empirically, and are subject to change. Some disorders get removed or changed entirely. If you meet x, y, and z (some of these factors require having x, y, z for a length of time) then you have V disorder.

I think a part of this belief from JF comes from their watching of Stefan who also, if i recall correctly, shits all over psychology as a field, stating the low-reproduction rate of studies, yet often uses Freudian form of psychology, I forget the specific term I learned in school, when conversing with callers.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

Well, I'd say all but the biological parts of psychology are BS. As you say, SSRIs problems can relate to depression, but only the biological aspects of it. There is a reason psychology is referred to as a soft science. It is soft on the science and more about theory (things like theory of mind).

Yes, Psychology has those elements and they are worthy of critique. However, JF was trying dismiss the field as a whole as something immature partially because it doesn’t provide broad explanatory power.
But a scientific study doesn’t need broad explanatory power to be good or valid. It just needs to have a good process behind it. Hell constructs aren’t scientific in of themselves, but they are still useful. Like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for example.

The explanatory power it tries to put forward, has to do with the importance of the phenomena it lists off. If you’re JF, you’d look at this and dismiss it as stupid because it doesn’t get enough right. But if you’re smart about it, you’d test out what works and what doesn’t. And for what is wrong about it, you scrap or revise it. Thats how models can and do improve.

If you see a psychologist or layman try to use this and frame it as being a correct or good explanation of phenomena. Then ask them to substantiate and explain why it’s the case. And see how well that evidence matches up with the model. That’s how you test for good models and the first step to improving them.

You could make an argument that maybe psychology lacks a central dogma. Biology has evolution to anchor its findings in broad explanatory terms. But, even without evolution you can still have good biological science albeit incomplete in broader perspective.

Like without Darwin, do you throw out Mendel? Technically Mendel’s theory doesn’t need the explanatory power of evolutionary theory to be true. It stands on its own because the data and the process stands on its own.

 

[Citation Checking Project]

I think a part of this belief from JF comes from their watching of Stefan who also, if i recall correctly, shits all over psychology as a field, stating the low-reproduction rate of studies, yet often uses Freudian form of psychology, I forget the specific term I learned in school

Psycho-analysis, my kiwwa. And yes it's indeed pseudo-science of the lowest kind.

 

[debatelimination]

You could make an argument that maybe psychology lacks a central dogma. Biology has evolution to anchor its findings in broad explanatory terms. But, even without evolution you can still have good biological science albeit incomplete in broader perspective.

Like without Darwin, do you throw out Mendel? Technically Mendel’s theory doesn’t need the explanatory power of evolutionary theory to be true. It stands on its own because the data and the process stands on its own.
View attachment 658155

Psychology is heavily dependent on neuro-biology as @Colonel J has stated especially because purely behavioral surface observations, , do not always amount to the right set of conclusions. I'll just use Freud as an example. Sigmund Freud use to experiment on cocaine and praised it in so called "Uber Cocaine".


Freud’s experimentation with cocaine had its downs , his associate, Ernst von Fleischl-Marxzow had been dealing with a hand injury with large doses of morphine. Dr. Freud’s administration of cocaine as a solution for the man’s morphine addiction turned him into an morphine cocaine addict who died seven years later. He was the first person known to suffer the paranoia and delusions of bugs crawling under the skin that are common to heavy cocaine addicts....

In 1895, Freud was still a coke-head. While under the influence - him and and colleague of his performed surgery on Emma Eckstein. The surgery went bad (like Andy Warski's career), in part because of the Freud being Andy Warski's type of coke-head. While Emma survived this nearly-fatal error seems to have haunted Freud and led him eventually to give the drug up despite all its apparent benefits. But by the time Freud gave up the drug, its use had already spread far and wide...

Production of cocaine began to increase greatly in response to increased medical use.

The popularity of the drug began growing as more applications (bad or not) were discovered. Along with pharmaceutical applications...
In 1887, the US Surgeon General recommended that cocaine be used to treat depression, claiming that there was no such thing as cocaine addiction...

It would be another 17 years before the danger of the drug was recognized sufficiently to make it a controlled substance... In 1914, cocaine was made illegal.


And yes, it severely lacks central dogma but you're wrong in the sense that biology has evolution to anchor its findings in broad explanatory term. The evolution as it's pure definition is stagnant and clear, it can explain many things but it is still purely reliant on cellular&molecular biology, which is still a biology. How alleles are passed on, how are they fixated, lost all dictate the direction of the evolution goes. And everything of these, including nucleotide sequences can be measured and are sampled before any scientific model is created in evolutionary biology.

You do not throw Mendel out without Darwin, but you only have to ask what is the mechanism driving the two so we can give better explanation for other instances, why stop here? Same with psychoanalysis, it was not until discovery of acetylcholine that we could give better explanation as to how to treat disorders such as ADHD. The psychiatric treatments were often proven to be harmful (lobotomy) and so were the wrong conclusions of purely surface-based psycho-analysis (as seen with cokehead Freud).

Remember that phylogenetic trees are not made with only knowledge that we have about theory of evolution and Mendel principles. They are made with help of sampling fosils, DNA and carefully calculated substitution DNA mutation rate & without cellular biology we would have nothing. It's not purely observational, without sampling and further investment in science we would not be able to make further conclusions about Evolution.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

Psychology is heavily dependent on neuro-biology as @Colonel J has stated especially because purely behavioral surface observations, , do not always amount to the right set of conclusions. I'll just use Freud as an example. Sigmund Freud use to experiment on cocaine and praised it in so called "Uber Cocaine".


Freud’s experimentation with cocaine had its downs , his associate, Ernst von Fleischl-Marxzow had been dealing with a hand injury with large doses of morphine. Dr. Freud’s administration of cocaine as a solution for the man’s morphine addiction turned him into an morphine cocaine addict who died seven years later. He was the first person known to suffer the paranoia and delusions of bugs crawling under the skin that are common to heavy cocaine addicts....

In 1895, Freud was still a coke-head. While under the influence - him and and colleague of his performed surgery on Emma Eckstein. The surgery went bad (like Andy Warski's career), in part because of the Freud being Andy Warski's type of coke-head. While Emma survived this nearly-fatal error seems to have haunted Freud and led him eventually to give the drug up despite all its apparent benefits. But by the time Freud gave up the drug, its use had already spread far and wide...

Production of cocaine began to increase greatly in response to increased medical use.

The popularity of the drug began growing as more applications (bad or not) were discovered. Along with pharmaceutical applications...
In 1887, the US Surgeon General recommended that cocaine be used to treat depression, claiming that there was no such thing as cocaine addiction...

It would be another 17 years before the danger of the drug was recognized sufficiently to make it a controlled substance... In 1914, cocaine was made illegal.


And yes, it severely lacks central dogma but you're wrong in the sense that biology has evolution to anchor its findings in broad explanatory term. The evolution as it's pure definition is stagnant and clear, it can explain many things but it is still purely reliant on cellular&molecular biology, which is still a biology. How alleles are passed on, how are they fixated, lost all dictate the direction of the evolution goes. And everything of these, including nucleotide sequences can be measured and are sampled before any scientific model is created in evolutionary biology.

You do not throw Mendel out without Darwin, but you only have to ask what is the mechanism driving the two so we can give better explanation for other instances, why stop here? Same with psychoanalysis, it was not until discovery of acetylcholine that we could give better explanation as to how to treat disorders such as ADHD. The psychiatric treatments were often proven to be harmful (lobotomy) and so were the wrong conclusions of purely surface-based psycho-analysis (as seen with cokehead Freud).

Remember that phylogenetic trees are not made with only knowledge that we have about theory of evolution and Mendel principles. They are made with help of sampling fosils, DNA and carefully calculated substitution DNA mutation rate & without cellular biology we would have nothing. It's not purely observational, without sampling and further investment in science we would not be able to make further conclusions about Evolution.

I used the wrong term regarding central dogma, genetics actually fits that better than evolution. And that is actually a pretty significant faux paus so thank you for catching that.

Also, while I don’t disagree with most of your post my point still stands. I’m trying to say that JF’s assertion that Psychology’s lack of broad explanatory power via a theory like Evolution or General Relativity is grounds for its lack of usefulness is dumb.

To sum it up better, you don’t need broad explanations to get predictive validity via a scientific process. And as long as you’re able to get predictive validity you’re able to find utility with the results of an experiment.

 

[debatelimination]

I used the wrong term regarding central dogma, genetics actually fits that better than evolution. And that is actually a pretty significant faux paus so thank you for catching that.

Also, while I don’t disagree with most of your post my point still stands. I’m trying to say that JF’s assertion that Psychology’s lack of broad explanatory power via a theory like Evolution or General Relativity is grounds for its lack of usefulness is dumb.

To sum it up better, you don’t need broad explanations to get predictive validity via a scientific process. And as long as you’re able to get predictive validity you’re able to find utility with the results of an experiment.

If you're talking about a scientific process, you always base hypothesis based on broad theory knowledge that we have until now, in the scientific community and then the experiment begins where we gather our data, with independent, dependent & controllable variables. Later on results must be discussed via the longer broad discussion. You're not always gonna get the predicted results in experiment, the discussion is made to bring in the possible deviations / conditions that have caused unexpected / expected results.

I must yet see JF's criticism of psychology so I can make mind up for my self.

P.S.: Where did you find that pyramid from?

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

If you're talking about a scientific process, you always base hypothesis based on broad theory knowledge that we have until now, in the scientific community and then the experiment begins where we gather our data, with independent, dependent & controllable variables. Later on results must be discussed via the longer broad discussion. You're not always gonna get the predicted results in experiment, the discussion is made to bring in the possible deviations / conditions that have caused unexpected / expected results.

I must yet see JF's criticism of psychology so I can make mind up for my self.

P.S.: Where did you find that pyramid from?

Just look up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs on google images. I would also look up JF’s stream on Talib’s article, he goes into his issues with Psychology there in a more full context I think.

Also, as far as I’ve been educated you don’t need a broad theory before you engage in science. In fact part of the classic scientific process is to constantly engage in experimentation so that you can arrive at a theory.

I’m basically defending the merit of the scientific process with or without a theory.

 

[debatelimination]

Well, hypothesis is made based on information gathered so far from a scientific theory and that is information , based on the facts that can be repeatedly tested and verified (or a group of hypothesis that have been supported through research using scientific method). Scientist usually identify the problem, looks into scientific data to see if something on such topic was already published, then they form hypothesis based on that which is tested in an experiment. And when such is confirmed/rejected, we can discuss as to why that was the case in which knowledge is necessary otherwise you might come at the wrong conclusions. If such hypothesis is accepted multiple times, we can already form a theory. Scientific theory is basically scientific interpretation of the scientific facts, that are observed, verified through multiple experiments.


A scientific theory are general interpretations based on scientific data

 

[Not even once]

Not able to check youtube atm, but apparently there is a bit of domestic disturbance on JF's stream. Anyone able to grab it should do so before he deletes it.

https://twitter.com/KnightsSTEMplar/status/1093681618194182144

http://archive.ph/R6Hea

 

[wellthathappened]

Was that a cry for help from someone in a hostage situation?

 

[Smarty Pants]

Alright I don't give a shit about psychology, what happened with his ugly potato jew gf?

 

[BlancoMailo]

So apparently his gf was assaulted by a guy who looked like No White Guilt and this is some sort of PTSD response? (based on the updates to the above tweet)

Here's the Killstream reacting to it, they're pretty much as baffled as everyone else and are using the tweet chain for reference: