Originally Posted by fleabee (Post 6663804)

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6663757)

I understand what they said was a bitter pill for some to swallow,and egg on face is never a good look. even though some had told you for a long while that he was poison ,liar,fake,user, lift your bottoms lips up, learn from it, and next series be more careful of who you turn into a demi-God ,make sure they are worthy next time

Originally Posted by flamingGalah! (Post 6663912)

Oh Chuff :joker:

The ones with egg on their faces are the ones who are slating Jim... Linda is the poisonous one, she did all she could to make people hate him, but it didn't work... JIM TO WIN!! :dance:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 6663287)

Right as usual, joey.

The trouble with psychology is that it isn't an exact science. I drag this story out almost every BB but it's valid here. I once shared an office with a doctor of psychology who was lecturing. I joked, oh no... you're not going to be psychoanalysing me, are you? He told me, the trouble with psychology is, just when you've used all your skills to work someone out and stick them in a pigeon hole, they do something completely out of character and blow your well-educated theory out of the water. It's true of all psychologists, and particularly true of those on TV last night making dangerous, litigious and frankly actionable allegations about Jim's character without ever having met the man. Surely a psychological summing up of someone based on stuff they've read and a few hours of video is shaky at best, and quackery at worst.

Originally Posted by flamingGalah! (Post 6663751)

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered' :thumbs:

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6663940)

IF experts had said he was an angel would you have believed it ?

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6664168)

We're discussing what the psychologists on the show think, not me.
And I don't hate jim, I'm just aware how he operates.

Originally Posted by Seraphim (Post 6664115)

I agree. I absolutely agree.

I myself posted this yesterday:

The problem about psychologists etc. coming on with superficial and sometimes derisory attitudes is that people do look up to these people, and they trust their judgement as an "expert". Anyone (including people with personality disorders, prejudices, deep childhood wounds) can become a psychologist by doing a handful of open university courses followed by a PHD, specialising in any aspect they choose, and hey presto: they could be sitting on TV hinting that others are sociopaths, while presenting absolutely no evidence or justification whatsover for their conclusions. Meanwhile, the audience are forming opinions based on what they are hearing. It worries me.

Robodog posted this wonderful post in response:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...6&postcount=54

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6664180)

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 6663802)

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6664253)

Of course not, don't resort to the ol goto response of condescension please livia.
My point was you can't discredit psychology is an inexact science due to your alleged conversation with one psychologist.
Of course I'm not saying you're lying, it does conveniently fit your theory, but that probably coincidence.
Don't suppose you know how or what my responses will be... you don't.
We don't agree on this it's not unheard of, but not the end of the world.

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6664180)

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

Originally Posted by Seraphim (Post 6664273)

To an extent, no-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "Games People Play" about transactional analysis. It explores social interactions, and outlines the ways in which people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes of a psychologist, and in reality, we all play these "games", we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way the person is being manipulative, because in psychobabble, most people manipulate others in order to achieve their goals, from children who want a cuddle to adults who want the last of the wine. A lot of the time, this is not even a conscious thing.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans, we are dependent on others, and therefore must be accepted by the social group.

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6664180)

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6664335)

Hang on, are you now saying you know more about psychology than psychologists because you read a book written by a psychologist?...

Originally Posted by GiRTh (Post 6664420)

If the psych said Jim was genuine and honest I'd have said they were full of sh*t.

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic (Post 6664476)

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

Originally Posted by optimisticcynic (Post 6664476)

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6664518)

That in no way explains what you said, tell me more about this book you found so facinating....

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6664587)

I only asked for a one word answer ,yes or No ,would you have opened a thread calling the experts (in their fields) liars and charlatans if they had said Jim was NOT playing a game, I didnt want a load of copy and paste stuff

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 6664575)

Oh please spare us :shocked:,are the the asparugus lady ?