[Suze]

You don't even have to be a Jim fan, to see how extremely anti Jim that episode was.

[abhorson]

When it was Carol Mcgiffin being the most pleasant about Jim, the alarm bells were ringing.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by abhorson

When it was Carol Mcgiffin being the most pleasant about Jim, the alarm bells were ringing.

Yes,it was a bit scarey

[abhorson]

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

[Suze]

Originally Posted by abhorson

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

I expect BB producers wanted Jim to make the final but without a chance of winning, so a word in some shell likes and make it clear it is all sympathy voting for Jim (which I don't happen to think it is at all), and they hope not to get another Aaron situation. It was a totally obvious episode of BOTP of where they were trying to lead the viewers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by abhorson

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.

[abhorson]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.

You win, thread closed

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.

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.

[Vanessa]

Linda looks right at home on BOTS, a show that has always been biased against Jim.

[abhorson]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

The dancing doctor could have given more expert views that those two last night.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

Thank you Livia.

I totally agree with every word of your post above, sometimes these people on the wrong outlet can do more harm than good.

I also have to say I think 'quackery' is a brilliant way of describing those individuals especially on Bit on the Psych last night.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

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

Great post Seraphim, and from Robodog also. I missed these yesterday, thanks for reposting.

[Samm]

It wasn't bias at all

[Kizzy]

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

I was quoting a professional in that field. It was he who effectively rubbished it, I was merely passing on what he said.

What's odd is accepting a professional psychological account of someone's actions based on watching the telly and reading a biog. It isn't professional. What those women gave were opinions, nothing more. And opinions, as we know, are like arseholes in that everyone's got one, and theirs were no more valid than anyone's who doesn't like Jim.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I was quoting a professional in that field. It was he who effectively rubbished it, I was merely passing on what he said.

What's odd is accepting a professional psychological account of someone's actions based on watching the telly and reading a biog. It isn't professional. What those women gave were opinions, nothing more. And opinions, as we know, are like arseholes in that everyone's got one, and theirs were no more valid than anyone's who doesn't like Jim.

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

IF they had praised Jim ,the fans would have held on their every last word, but they didnt ,so the experts are wrong? how predictable ?

[Millicent]

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

[Millicent]

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by Millicent

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

The only one talking any sense was Ian Lee and he was not on the panel.