West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Classics => Topic started by: Lethalweapon on November 16, 2007, 08:56:09 PM
-
i reckon raps in the 90's was way better then the music in our day. all te real og albums came out in the 90's all eyes on me doggystlye illmatic 36 chambers chronic regulator dogg food gettin it doggfather me agianst the world the list goes on now adays alot of it is shit screw the south wid there 20 inch crome and bling bling westcoast cumming bak and were gonna collect with interest bitch
-
The way u started the thread made it sound wack but anyway, I must say that the music industry was different back in the 90's, and back they people were making music for the love of it, back in the 90's it wasnt about ring tones or how many record u sell in the first week, it was about bringing something good to the customer, also notice that there aint no longevity in music anymore, back in the 90's a single could last atleast 4 to 5 month, so the album could still be in rotation for 2-3 years until the next one is done, and i think the only artist that was able to bring longevity to her singles and album is Alicia Keys.... anyway that was my contribution to ur thread
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agreed, back then the artist did it for the love of it. I remember 2pac's all eyez on me was on top of billboard for the longest time, good luck seeing an album do that now in days. Personally the albums back then were less influenced by commercialism(the artist werent pushed to release singles to radio or nothing like that). Sure they had singles but they were bangin and TRUE to themselves like Snoop's Gin and Guice etc......
-
altho for a while there albums oculd last 2-3 years but Cube would release one everyyear almost.
-
first got into rap in '99 so I missed out on alot of good shit but don't think there's been any albums as good as Streetz Iz a Mutha or Dr Dre 2001 in present day rap
-
first got into rap in '99 so I missed out on alot of good shit but don't think there's been any albums as good as Streetz Iz a Mutha or Dr Dre 2001 in present day rap
I understand you didn't get into rap till 1999, but Chronic 92 changed the game...Chronic 92 made artist who would never have considered having a hip hop producer produce anything for them, literally begging cats like Dre to do stuff for them.
If I recall correctly, Madonna wanted some Dre tracks, and his response was "I could, but why...? I like to keep them in house" or something to that effect
-
first got into rap in '99 so I missed out on alot of good shit but don't think there's been any albums as good as Streetz Iz a Mutha or Dr Dre 2001 in present day rap
I understand you didn't get into rap till 1999, but Chronic 92 changed the game...Chronic 92 made artist who would never have considered having a hip hop producer produce anything for them, literally begging cats like Dre to do stuff for them.
If I recall correctly, Madonna wanted some Dre tracks, and his response was "I could, but why...? I like to keep them in house" or something to that effect
yeah I was born too late 1986 LOL but Chronic I bought a few years ago and its one of the best of all time 8)
-
I liked rap back in the 50s
-
obviously
-
I liked rap back in the 50s
LMAO ;D
-
Yes it was...we had Deathrow which was suppose to start makaveli and doggstyle records
interscope and prioirty both supported west coast talent and labels..we had mack 10, ice cube and wc as solo artist and as a group
there were no gay beefs like we have today between westcoast artist we mainly had dr vs ruthless
-
"bacc then tha streets determined whut wuz hot"
i dont remember wur i got that from
-
Because many here are about my age or slightly younger, and most here are westcoast fans, the rap of the 90's seem like a Goldyn Age. Honestly though, there was not much different in the lyrical abilities of Warren G and that of your average southern rapper. The tempo changes up, as in the 90's it was slowed down and more funk samples, and now it's trying to make unsampled beats. Which was better, which was worst, it's all about opinion. Ask a Goldyn Era (1986-1992) fan and they'll tell you neither. The Gangsta Rap Era was too violent, too much bangin' on wax and too much beef. Today is too much explotation, too much beef... and when Lil' Wayne is even considered the best rapper, let alway crowned hottest rapper by MTV, you have problems. But difference in taste 'cause for difference in opinion. Personally, you'll heard some old school west over me playing the radio now-a-days, BUT, I'm from Cali and lived there in the 90's. Brings back good times.
-
obviously
-
it had some klassics but most of the 90's artist were studio gangsters, so it doenst make any sense that they rap about stuff they dont even do, i think rap has gotten better and by that i mean the underground west coast scene, its been bursting with cats with alot of talent
-
It's not black and white like that, wether or not shit was better or worse back then. It's a mixed bag of things.
To me it seems that back in the 90's the stuff that sold the most also deserved to sell records. Not to say the underground wasn't hot, 'cause it was, but if the record sold it was a hot record. Nowadays, and especially a few years back, the stuff in the mainstream surely wasn't and isn't the best shit. All the marketing and extra whatnot that there is to selling a record these days sure left a mark on the market.
Another thing I've noticed is the difference of new acts coming into the game in the 90's and nowadays. Nowadays there's a huge gap between guys who rap to get rich and guys who rap for the love of the culture. Of course there are peope who've crossed that gap, but mostly anyway.
Of course when looking at the past you tend to get nostalgic, so things might seem better now than they actually were. So any non-biased views about this are impossible.
But I will say this: things are much better now than they were a few years back. Real Hip-Hop has lifted its head and it's on he rise again. Not much of it in the mainstream, not yet, but it's coming.
-
yeah its pretty black and white. 90s was a lot better. no question. proof? listen to rap albums
-
easily 90s was the hottest music ever made... nothin since ima say 2002 compares to anything from late 80s to 01.....
-
yeah its pretty black and white. 90s was a lot better. no question. proof? listen to rap albums
exactally...
-
after listening to some shit from the 90's lately don't think its even close they were hella better!
-
i wrote a whole essay on this exact topic
-
Is this even a question right now? :eh:
-
The way u started the thread made it sound wack but anyway, I must say that the music industry was different back in the 90's, and back they people were making music for the love of it, back in the 90's it wasnt about ring tones or how many record u sell in the first week, it was about bringing something good to the customer, also notice that there aint no longevity in music anymore, back in the 90's a single could last atleast 4 to 5 month, so the album could still be in rotation for 2-3 years until the next one is done, and i think the only artist that was able to bring longevity to her singles and album is Alicia Keys.... anyway that was my contribution to ur thread
real talk.
-
I got into rap in 2000, 2001-ish... but I did my research when I first started listening and I was buying albums from the 90's even then like I still am now
'90's Hip-Hop is most definatly better than present day, and always will be... no question about that 8)
-
what's your definition of "better"?
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Let me re-quote myself.
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
Everyone knows what the word better means, thus "a definition of the word better" solves nothing. I just gave you an official definition of it, and as you already pointed out, it doesn't give any answers. Why not? It's full of unoperationalized words. People don't necessarily agree on what makes a difference in quality between two given things. The outcome is always rather subjective. That's not in the word 'better', but in the use of it.
I think we both agree on this; you simply failed to notice it ;)
-
i reckon raps in the 90's was way better then the music in our day. all te real og albums came out in the 90's all eyes on me doggystlye illmatic 36 chambers chronic regulator dogg food gettin it doggfather me agianst the world the list goes on now adays alot of it is shit screw the south wid there 20 inch crome and bling bling westcoast cumming bak and were gonna collect with interest bitch
And I'm sure others would reckon raps in the 80s was way better than music in the 90s. Cuz the REAL OG albums came out in the 80s. By Any Means Neccessary, Radio, Raising Hell, No One Can Do it Better, Fear Of A Black Planet, Great Adventures of Slick Rick, Paid In Full, 3 Feet High And Rising the list goes on. In the 90s, a lot of it was shit. Screw the West Coast with their 100 spoke Daytons and Nike Cortez...
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Let me re-quote myself.
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
Everyone knows what the word better means, thus "a definition of the word better" solves nothing. I just gave you an official definition of it, and as you already pointed out, it doesn't give any answers. Why not? It's full of unoperationalized words. People don't necessarily agree on what makes a difference in quality between two given things. The outcome is always rather subjective. That's not in the word 'better', but in the use of it.
I think we both agree on this; you simply failed to notice it ;)
I think you're just saying the same things as me, cause you love me so bad. Wannabe
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Let me re-quote myself.
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
Everyone knows what the word better means, thus "a definition of the word better" solves nothing. I just gave you an official definition of it, and as you already pointed out, it doesn't give any answers. Why not? It's full of unoperationalized words. People don't necessarily agree on what makes a difference in quality between two given things. The outcome is always rather subjective. That's not in the word 'better', but in the use of it.
I think we both agree on this; you simply failed to notice it ;)
I think you're just saying the same things as me, cause you love me so bad. Wannabe
You need to learn to articulate and comprehend.
-1 for being such a pathetic, stuck up kiddo.
-
Tha answe is so clear, YES it was better! Just remember 94-96... You could go to the record store every week and grab a classic. Today you don't even have a classic in a whole year.
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Let me re-quote myself.
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
Everyone knows what the word better means, thus "a definition of the word better" solves nothing. I just gave you an official definition of it, and as you already pointed out, it doesn't give any answers. Why not? It's full of unoperationalized words. People don't necessarily agree on what makes a difference in quality between two given things. The outcome is always rather subjective. That's not in the word 'better', but in the use of it.
I think we both agree on this; you simply failed to notice it ;)
I think you're just saying the same things as me, cause you love me so bad. Wannabe
You need to learn to articulate and comprehend.
-1 for being such a pathetic, stuck up kiddo.
you still got a lot to learn doggie.. You think you know everything now you're in your 2nd year of college? :grumpy:
-
An opinion of musicial taste is a very true. Early 90s music was a very much better than crap I hear on cassette player today. But some people say I have a no idea what a good music, since I also like to disco dance. Bring back the pimping musics!
-
what's your definition of "better"?
"bet·ter1 (bĕt'ər) pronunciation
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today."
Source: www.answers.com
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
I asked about his definition of better. The points you mentioned are still very subjective. What's "higher quality"? How do you define the concept "quality"? If you got that clear, you can "measure" if hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop nowadays.
Now it's all just a matter of opinions, whereby most people think hiphop in the 90s was better than hiphop now.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Let me re-quote myself.
Question is: better, according to whom? By what standards?
Everyone knows what the word better means, thus "a definition of the word better" solves nothing. I just gave you an official definition of it, and as you already pointed out, it doesn't give any answers. Why not? It's full of unoperationalized words. People don't necessarily agree on what makes a difference in quality between two given things. The outcome is always rather subjective. That's not in the word 'better', but in the use of it.
I think we both agree on this; you simply failed to notice it ;)
I think you're just saying the same things as me, cause you love me so bad. Wannabe
You need to learn to articulate and comprehend.
-1 for being such a pathetic, stuck up kiddo.
you still got a lot to learn doggie.. You think you know everything now you're in your 2nd year of college? :grumpy:
In fact it is my fourth year. You're just being too hard headed and ignorant to actually comprehend what people are saying. Now let's recap, because your contradictions are entertaining:
- You said the thread starter should come with a definition of 'better'.
- I gave you the one and only valid definition of better: it's an adjective, and it is a comparative of good.
- I corrected your question. The question was not about the word better, but about the standards it is applied to.
- You ignored my statement.
- You said I was throwing around subjective terms, while that's exactly what I avoided in my words.
- I recognised the commonalities in our stances.
- You said I was copying your opinion, and you made some pathetic statements towards my position.
Now, after all of that, if you still fail to recognise the pathetic loser in yourself, you might want to see a psychologist. For your own sake it would be helpful. That's not to say freshmen can't be right, but for you to try and correct me on my articulateness and accuracy... That's like Gonny van Oudenallen (http://"http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonny_van_oudenallen") calling out Hans Hoogervorst (http://"http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hoogervorst") for being a bad politician. Know what you're talking about, before you open your mouth. Read what people are saying and respond to it. Don't just brag, because it'll only make you look more stupid.
To be honest, I can't wait for your next statement. Bring it on.
-
if you still fail to recognise the pathetic loser in yourself, you might want to see a psychologist.
lol, you obviously don't have the slightest clue of what a psychologist does. And you call yourself smart?
-
Rap was w/o any doubt far better in the 90's
It was about rhymes skills, it was Snoopy, it was Rakim, it was east & west
The dj dj'd & scratched his vinyles 'till he d.i.e, the rapper blown your mind away.
The productions weren't as "formated" as they are now. it wasn't pseudo music
Just listen to what has been made in the 90's and you'll come to the same conclusion than most of us.
-
Yes.
-
Again, it falls back on to what you came up listening to. Of course you're going to feel that 90s shit was the hottest music. But people who grew up on Melle Mel, Slick Rick, EPMD, LL etc. would disagree with you. They think that 80s shit was the hottest. And if you ask a kid who was born in 1992, who didn't start bumping Hip Hop until 2002, he'll tell you the shit he hears now is that classic shit. He'll tell you Lil Wayne and T.I. are the hottest emcees. Etc. etc. Is he wrong? No. Maybe to ignorant people he is, but in no way can we say he's wrong. It's what he knows. It's what he grew up on. It's hot to him, just like some of you think Kurupt is a super ill emcee. You grew up listening to him and you don't care what others say.
So to people who are fans of 90s music, people who grew up listening to 90s music, which is the majority of DUBCC, they will agree. But go to some of these little youngsters who didn't grow up on Snoop Dogg being the illest West Coast emcee, that thrown, to them belongs to Game. Go to some of these youngsters who have no clue who Scarface and the Geto Boys is, but they know about Lil Wayne and T.I. It goes on...
-
An opinion of musicial taste is a very true. Early 90s music was a very much better than crap I hear on cassette player today. But some people say I have a no idea what a good music, since I also like to disco dance. Bring back the pimping musics!
real talk
-
Again, it falls back on to what you came up listening to. Of course you're going to feel that 90s shit was the hottest music. But people who grew up on Melle Mel, Slick Rick, EPMD, LL etc. would disagree with you. They think that 80s shit was the hottest. And if you ask a kid who was born in 1992, who didn't start bumping Hip Hop until 2002, he'll tell you the shit he hears now is that classic shit. He'll tell you Lil Wayne and T.I. are the hottest emcees. Etc. etc. Is he wrong? No. Maybe to ignorant people he is, but in no way can we say he's wrong. It's what he knows. It's what he grew up on. It's hot to him, just like some of you think Kurupt is a super ill emcee. You grew up listening to him and you don't care what others say.
So to people who are fans of 90s music, people who grew up listening to 90s music, which is the majority of DUBCC, they will agree. But go to some of these little youngsters who didn't grow up on Snoop Dogg being the illest West Coast emcee, that thrown, to them belongs to Game. Go to some of these youngsters who have no clue who Scarface and the Geto Boys is, but they know about Lil Wayne and T.I. It goes on...
Yeah but in the 80's they made points. In the 90's they took them points and dug deep into 'em (lyrically). Now they just freelancing. Now points don't need to be made, cuz we gettin' the money and women now. Aight, shit's all cool, but ain't nobody respectin' them artists back than neither. And they went against alot of the culture that Hip Hop was made on.
And I ain't tryin' to knock what you say becuz you right but in the bold, all that ain't the truth. The music may bring be back memories and be 'good' or whatever the words you wanna use, but that doesn't mean the lyrical content was better.
When The Hot Boys was on fire, I loved that shit, so of course that Cash Money Era is fire to me, I grew up on it, but no way in hell are they 'better', lyrically than the music coming thru in the 90's. You feel me?
And yes I'm using the words lyrically, becuz common sense, that's what the thread starter is askin'. ;D
-
ain't no question about it hell yes rap was better in the 90's
-
Yeah but in the 80's they made points. In the 90's they took them points and dug deep into 'em (lyrically). Now they just freelancing. Now points don't need to be made, cuz we gettin' the money and women now. Aight, shit's all cool, but ain't nobody respectin' them artists back than neither. And they went against alot of the culture that Hip Hop was made on.
And I ain't tryin' to knock what you say becuz you right but in the bold, all that ain't the truth. The music may bring be back memories and be 'good' or whatever the words you wanna use, but that doesn't mean the lyrical content was better.
When The Hot Boys was on fire, I loved that shit, so of course that Cash Money Era is fire to me, I grew up on it, but no way in hell are they 'better', lyrically than the music coming thru in the 90's. You feel me?
And yes I'm using the words lyrically, becuz common sense, that's what the thread starter is askin'. ;D
You fall in the category of "People who are fans of 90s music" though. That's what I'm saying. Of course a fan of something is going to side with it. Truth be told, there's a lot of good lyricists out there right now. Pitbull, Lil Wayne, T.I., Chamillionaire, Little Brother, Papoose, Joell Ortiz, Saigon, Ya Boy, Omar Cruz etc. etc. The only reason people are so disgruntled with todays music is because it's mainly party music. If you grew up on or are a fan of 90s music, you're into Street anthems. You're into gutter beats. Dark. Gritty music. You're not into this happy-go-lucky-lets-do-a-dance music. Thats not what you listened to growing up and that's not what appeals to you... We get it.
-
It's not even a question. The vast majority of mainstream Hip Hop nowadays is disposable fad pop. In my opinion its most directly tied to the media and record label conglomerates that absorbed and destroyed all of the great labels. They turned the art of Hip Hop into an assembly line product.
-
Again, it falls back on to what you came up listening to. Of course you're going to feel that 90s shit was the hottest music. But people who grew up on Melle Mel, Slick Rick, EPMD, LL etc. would disagree with you. They think that 80s shit was the hottest. And if you ask a kid who was born in 1992, who didn't start bumping Hip Hop until 2002, he'll tell you the shit he hears now is that classic shit. He'll tell you Lil Wayne and T.I. are the hottest emcees. Etc. etc. Is he wrong? No. Maybe to ignorant people he is, but in no way can we say he's wrong. It's what he knows. It's what he grew up on. It's hot to him, just like some of you think Kurupt is a super ill emcee. You grew up listening to him and you don't care what others say.
So to people who are fans of 90s music, people who grew up listening to 90s music, which is the majority of DUBCC, they will agree. But go to some of these little youngsters who didn't grow up on Snoop Dogg being the illest West Coast emcee, that thrown, to them belongs to Game. Go to some of these youngsters who have no clue who Scarface and the Geto Boys is, but they know about Lil Wayne and T.I. It goes on...
Yeah but in the 80's they made points. In the 90's they took them points and dug deep into 'em (lyrically). Now they just freelancing. Now points don't need to be made, cuz we gettin' the money and women now. Aight, shit's all cool, but ain't nobody respectin' them artists back than neither. And they went against alot of the culture that Hip Hop was made on.
And I ain't tryin' to knock what you say becuz you right but in the bold, all that ain't the truth. The music may bring be back memories and be 'good' or whatever the words you wanna use, but that doesn't mean the lyrical content was better.
When The Hot Boys was on fire, I loved that shit, so of course that Cash Money Era is fire to me, I grew up on it, but no way in hell are they 'better', lyrically than the music coming thru in the 90's. You feel me?
And yes I'm using the words lyrically, becuz common sense, that's what the thread starter is askin'. ;D
so is it better to make a point in your music? Maybe that's what you consider to be better, but it can't be generalized over the entire society. That's why it's almost impossible to say what music is better.
-
if you still fail to recognise the pathetic loser in yourself, you might want to see a psychologist.
lol, you obviously don't have the slightest clue of what a psychologist does. And you call yourself smart?
You really are good at proving me right once again. Psychologists are simply people who are expert in the field of psychology (usually people with a scientific degree in psychology). You're probably confused with a psychiatric, who is a doctor specialized in treating mentally ill people.
Psychologists are interested in mental processes and behaviour. They work all over the spectrum of labour economics. They might be able to help you do something about your megalomania.
Do your homework before falsely trying to discredit me again. Hit that diss button again, that'll surely make you a man.
And just for a small ironic side note... I'm becoming (however interdisciplinary) an academic psychologist myself. You wouldn't think I'm totally ignorant about the field of science I'm operating in now, would you?
-
P.S.: I wouldn't call myself smart. I'm just careful, accurate and articulate.
P.P.S.: Have you read the newspapers today? "Studie economie is slechte keus" (De Volkskrant 28-11-2007, Economie p.7) And I quote:
"Het tekort aan personeel zal de komende jaren groter worden. Nu al geldt dat het vinden van hoogopgeleid personeel lastig is. Komende tijd zal ook de vraag naar personeel met lagere opleidingen stijgen. Een uitzondering vormen banen waarvoor een economische of een zorgopleiding [...] voor nodig is. Op deze gebieden worden - op alle opleidingsniveaus - juist personeelsoverschotten verwacht, omdat te veel studenten kiezen voor een dergelijke opleiding."
There you go, being a freshman in an economical education (accountancy?) at the HAN in Arnhem. Oh yeah, you'll be richer than anyone on the planet. Megalomania? What's that?
-
if you still fail to recognise the pathetic loser in yourself, you might want to see a psychologist.
lol, you obviously don't have the slightest clue of what a psychologist does. And you call yourself smart?
You really are good at proving me right once again. Psychologists are simply people who are expert in the field of psychology (usually people with a scientific degree in psychology). You're probably confused with a psychiatric, who is a doctor specialized in treating mentally ill people.
Psychologists are interested in mental processes and behaviour. They work all over the spectrum of labour economics. They might be able to help you do something about your megalomania.
Do your homework before falsely trying to discredit me again. Hit that diss button again, that'll surely make you a man.
And just for a small ironic side note... I'm becoming (however interdisciplinary) an academic psychologist myself. You wouldn't think I'm totally ignorant about the field of science I'm operating in now, would you?
lol, like i said before; you dont have a clue what a psychologist acually does. It's like saying "a singer is good in singing". But you dont know what a psychologist really does. And megalomania hasn't been classified as an official mental disorder, so stop using terms that are only used in populair media. And finally, what makes you think I study economics?
-
lol, like i said before; you dont have a clue what a psychologist acually does. It's like saying "a singer is good in singing". But you dont know what a psychologist really does. And megalomania hasn't been classified as an official mental disorder, so stop using terms that are only used in populair media. And finally, what makes you think I study economics?
Okay, so now all of a sudden, according to you, I do not have a clue of my own field of science. That explains why I'm headed for a nomination for a honours master. ::)
Anyone with a voice can sing and can thus be a singer, but not everyone can be a good singer. But now you're implying everyone can get a university degree in psychology?
"psy·chol·o·gist (sī-kŏl'ə-jĭst) pronunciation
noun
An individual who has completed a programme of study in psychology and is engaged in research, clinical treatment, teaching, or other applications of psychology."
Source: www.answers.com
Now tell me again I don't have a clue and neither does the dictionary. Huh?
And megalomania hasn't been classified as an official mental disorder, so stop using terms that are only used in populair media.
I don't know who told you that, but it actually is an official psychosis. It's a personality disorder, and yes, personality disorders are officially mental disorders (whatever 'officially' in science means). I guess that's why there's heaps of official papers and studies on megalomania to be found in academic libraries; because it's something that's only mentioned in popular media... ::) I'm sorry to bust your bubble once again, but your blank statements make very little sense.
And finally, what makes you think I study economics?
Your refusing to tell. Wouldn't you love to rub it in, were my guessing totally off?
-
I don't know who told you that, but it actually is an official psychosis. It's a personality disorder, and yes, personality disorders are officially mental disorders (whatever 'officially' in science means). I guess that's why there's heaps of official papers and studies on megalomania to be found in academic libraries; because it's something that's only mentioned in popular media... ::) I'm sorry to bust your bubble once again, but your blank statements make very little sense.
11z, as much as I hate Xander's attitube, as a clinial psychologist I'm afraid I have to disagree on you with this. I think your confusing symptoms and syndromes here. A psychosis is a symptom and can result in megalomania. It just depends on the way a psychosis is being expressed; A psychosis can also make a person hostile, anxious, etc. Thereofre, a megalomanic psychosis is not a symdrome. It can be a symptom of a variety of disorders, like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Because of that, it is not included in the DSM IV, the "official" handbook of mental disorders (I think that's what Xander was talking about).
A mechalomanic personality disorder, like you describes, does not exist in the current version of the DSM. Again, megalomania can be a symptom of personality disorders like a histrionic, or a narcissistic personality disorder. However, this type of megalomia differs completely from the psychotic type, cause now it's part of the persons personality and not due to a psychosis/hallucination.
So Xander's either hallucinating, or he's suffering from a personality disorder. And have a prop for putting so much effort into proving Xander wrong!
-
now this dude knows what he's talking about^^ unlike you eleven. Psychologist my ass!!
-
I don't know who told you that, but it actually is an official psychosis. It's a personality disorder, and yes, personality disorders are officially mental disorders (whatever 'officially' in science means). I guess that's why there's heaps of official papers and studies on megalomania to be found in academic libraries; because it's something that's only mentioned in popular media... ::) I'm sorry to bust your bubble once again, but your blank statements make very little sense.
11z, as much as I hate Xander's attitube, as a clinial psychologist I'm afraid I have to disagree on you with this. I think your confusing symptoms and syndromes here. A psychosis is a symptom and can result in megalomania. It just depends on the way a psychosis is being expressed; A psychosis can also make a person hostile, anxious, etc. Thereofre, a megalomanic psychosis is not a symdrome. It can be a symptom of a variety of disorders, like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Because of that, it is not included in the DSM IV, the "official" handbook of mental disorders (I think that's what Xander was talking about).
A mechalomanic personality disorder, like you describes, does not exist in the current version of the DSM. Again, megalomania can be a symptom of personality disorders like a histrionic, or a narcissistic personality disorder. However, this type of megalomia differs completely from the psychotic type, cause now it's part of the persons personality and not due to a psychosis/hallucination.
So Xander's either hallucinating, or he's suffering from a personality disorder. And have a prop for putting so much effort into proving Xander wrong!
Good job on pointing out the flaws; you're perhaps right about me being inaccurate there. What I meant to say is that megalomania actually is a condition which is officially recognised in psychology; not just in popular media. There's no denying that. Question to you: are psychosises always necessarily syndromes? Because I'm well aware of megalomania not being a syndrome; I may have erred in calling it a psychosis while it's 'just a condition'. However:
"Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a 'loss of contact with reality.'" Stedman's Medical Dictionary
It says mental state, not mental disorder / syndrome. I think I'm getting even more confused now...
By the way, lmao @ you actually drawing the conclusion that Xander is an interesting subject for a psychological case study. Either hallucinating or suffering from a personality disorder (I say the latter)... In your face!
Besides, I wasn't aware that you already graduated! I was already wondering why I don't see you on the faculty of social sciences in Utrecht... So what's it you're doing these days?
-
now this dude knows what he's talking about^^ unlike you eleven. Psychologist my ass!!
He said you're hallucinating or having a personality disorder. Go tell your mother.
I didn't say I'm a psychologist, but psychology plays an important role in my (interdisciplinary) discipline, which I by a long shot haven't graduated for yet. Nor have I ever claimed I was, or will be (edit: a psychologist, that is).
-
Question to you: are psychosises always necessarily syndromes?
I suppose you mean symptomes :P ? I re-checked my DSM, and you were right too (guess it's still confusing for me aswell). A psychosis alone can more or less be a disorder by itself too. One example is a delusional disorder, which has a couple of subtypes. One of those subtypes is the grandiose type (=megalomania I think), which is characterized by excessive feelings of power, welth and knowledge. Lol, sounds very much like Xander. So here's the overview:
Schizophrenia&psychotic disorder -> Delusional disorder -> Grandiose Type aka. Xander Niks
Lol @ how this topic has turned out! Yeah I graduated and I'm currently doing a research on Borderline personality disorder in Hilversum. It's a preparation for the real work as a practical psychologist. Looks like I have my first cliënt with Xander! So how's your study going these days?
BTW do you consider rap in the 90's better than present day rap? :raisetheroof:
-
All this overlap and the use of subcategories is damned confusing, but I believe we've pretty much come to a consensus, haven't we?
Question to you: are psychosises always necessarily syndromes?
I suppose you mean symptomes :P ?
Actually, no. Symptomes (can) indicate syndromes, I know that. But does the word psychosis refer to a state of mind, or to the behaviour it results in? I thought it was the first, thus psychosises are related to syndromes (and only indirectly to symptomes). I was only wondering if this is a rule, or even in how much this applies.
Lol @ how this topic has turned out! Yeah I graduated and I'm currently doing a research on Borderline personality disorder in Hilversum. It's a preparation for the real work as a practical psychologist. Looks like I have my first cliënt with Xander!
That's funny, we were actually discussing the core of your work here! But hell, borderline personality disorder - you sure have gotten yourself into a tough subject there. Are you planning on working with such patients all your life? Because damn, you need a strong personality to be able to cope with that in the long run... I know I couldn't (and wouldn't want to, for that matter). Props though, that's some really interesting work you do.
So how's your study going these days?
You probably already noticed, I'm an ASW'er now. It felt like coming home when I finally started in Utrecht! People hadn't expected someone with Havo and a HBO diploma to be able to compete with the best out there, but they were proven wrong. ;) A combination of writing skills and an endless will to learn everything there is to learn about the fields of science (sociology, psychology and cultural anthropology) has helped me really find my way there. It's still a long way to go, but I'm planning on specialising in ethics, getting me minors and/or masters in the fields of politicology and/or philosophy and maybe, if possible, a research master. That's just me daydreaming though. We'll see how things develop... Plus, living in Amsterdam Oud-Zuid with Thomas as my roommate - life is good man, I'm telling you!
-
BTW do you consider rap in the 90's better than present day rap? :raisetheroof:
lmao. erm... Rappers actually used to rhyme back then. Good raps are rare these days. It's just that listening to rap music on a whole pretty much bores me now.
-
whatever y'all. You need to take a close look on yourselves and stop drinking that haterade.
-
whatever y'all. You need to take a close look on yourselves and stop drinking that haterade.
lol, +1
-
All this overlap and the use of subcategories is damned confusing, but I believe we've pretty much come to a consensus, haven't we?
Question to you: are psychosises always necessarily syndromes?
I suppose you mean symptomes :P ?
Actually, no. Symptomes (can) indicate syndromes, I know that. But does the word psychosis refer to a state of mind, or to the behaviour it results in? I thought it was the first, thus psychosises are related to syndromes (and only indirectly to symptomes). I was only wondering if this is a rule, or even in how much this applies.
Lol @ how this topic has turned out! Yeah I graduated and I'm currently doing a research on Borderline personality disorder in Hilversum. It's a preparation for the real work as a practical psychologist. Looks like I have my first cliënt with Xander!
That's funny, we were actually discussing the core of your work here! But hell, borderline personality disorder - you sure have gotten yourself into a tough subject there. Are you planning on working with such patients all your life? Because damn, you need a strong personality to be able to cope with that in the long run... I know I couldn't (and wouldn't want to, for that matter). Props though, that's some really interesting work you do.
So how's your study going these days?
You probably already noticed, I'm an ASW'er now. It felt like coming home when I finally started in Utrecht! People hadn't expected someone with Havo and a HBO diploma to be able to compete with the best out there, but they were proven wrong. ;) A combination of writing skills and an endless will to learn everything there is to learn about the fields of science (sociology, psychology and cultural anthropology) has helped me really find my way there. It's still a long way to go, but I'm planning on specialising in ethics, getting me minors and/or masters in the fields of politicology and/or philosophy and maybe, if possible, a research master. That's just me daydreaming though. We'll see how things develop... Plus, living in Amsterdam Oud-Zuid with Thomas as my roommate - life is good man, I'm telling you!
Ehm, I believe a psychosis refers to the state of mind. The disorder is the behaviour that results from that state of mind. But psychosises can be both symptomes and syndromes. It's a symptom of schizophrenia. Other symptomes are emotional numbness and lack of energy for example. But psychosises only can also indicate a psychotic disorder, whereby the psychosis is the only sympton, what automatically makes it the symdrom.
As far as the Borderline research; I'm not in actual contact with the cliënts. I'm doing a research on a specific borderline treatment program (DGT). Shortly, I measure pre- and posttreatment differences and then hope to find a treatment effect. In order to do so, I have to dig through cliënt's personal files, and often bump into some pretty shocking things (child abuse, automutulation, suïcide).
Nice to hear you live in Amsterdam now! How did you manage to find a house there? And how's the musical career going?
-
^I think you suffer from borderline
-
I think you've got a point on that whole symptom/syndrome case... Not much to be added there, props.
As far as the Borderline research; I'm not in actual contact with the cliënts. I'm doing a research on a specific borderline treatment program (DGT). Shortly, I measure pre- and posttreatment differences and then hope to find a treatment effect. In order to do so, I have to dig through cliënt's personal files, and often bump into some pretty shocking things (child abuse, automutulation, suïcide).
Wow.. I guess it's a good thing they don't instantly throw you into the endless depths of being confronted with these patients. That still is some very impressive stuff you're on about though. Good looking :)
Nice to hear you live in Amsterdam now! How did you manage to find a house there? And how's the musical career going?
Ah, you know, we had a jazzy thing going on, and basically had everything worked out. A label, a management, all of it. It's just that the outcome wasn't really satisfying. It was all too compromising, and in the end it didn't feel right. On that base, we backed out of it. Thomas is still up on his management stuff, but I simply had to back out of it. I never was the type for business, so I'm just 'doing me' now.
That's also how we ended up in Amsterdam... Thomas has some connections through which he managed to get us an underpriced appartment in one of the most expensive urban areas of Europe. (Peep that Jort Kelder documentary series "Bij ons... in de PC" (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=5966668&md5=6bc7c2d66adff76e99ca444d71b45694) every Thursday evening on Nederland 1, and you'll see what I'm talking about.) He needed to live here for business (he's busy attending business meetings, lunches and looking for networking opportunities all day) and I just moved in with him. I'm traveling from Amsterdam to Utrecht every day, kind of enjoying the best of both worlds. Feels damned good, because it's an inspiring environment to live in.
You should drop by some time so we can have us some €3,50 beers in Sophia ;)
-
^I think you suffer from borderline
Let me put this in Dutch, for I think that way the meaning will be much clearer to you:
"Narcisme is een term uit de psychologie. Het is een vorm van gedrag die wordt gekenmerkt door een obsessie met de persoon zelf (vaak het uiterlijk), gebrek aan inlevingsvermogen, egoïsme, dominantie en ambitie. Iemand die narcistisch gedrag vertoont, noemt men een narcist.
Op het eerste gezicht heeft een narcist een zeer sterk gevoel van eigenwaarde en straalt zelfvertrouwen uit. Vreemd genoeg is echter het tegendeel het geval. Narcisten hebben, meestal onderbewust, juist weinig zelfwaarde en compenseren dit door zich als beter of belangrijker dan anderen te beschouwen. Zodoende vormt het narcisme een belemmering bij de uitoefening van bepaalde publieke functies waarbij anderen worden beoordeeld door de narcist in kwestie.
Om zich te beschermen tegen kritiek heeft een narcist niet veel aandacht voor de mening of het gevoel van anderen en kan zelfs een onderontwikkeld inlevingsvermogen hebben.
Eigenlijk heeft ieder mens wel eens een licht narcistische inslag, maar als iemands gedrag er te sterk door bepaald wordt en er problemen met de omgeving ontstaan, kan er sprake zijn van een psychische aandoening, bijvoorbeeld een narcistische persoonlijkheidsstoornis."
Source (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcisme)
That's for as far as your judging others makes any sense. Note that it also provides an explanation for the very start of this argument. :wavey:
-
I think you've got a point on that whole symptom/syndrome case... Not much to be added there, props.
As far as the Borderline research; I'm not in actual contact with the cliënts. I'm doing a research on a specific borderline treatment program (DGT). Shortly, I measure pre- and posttreatment differences and then hope to find a treatment effect. In order to do so, I have to dig through cliënt's personal files, and often bump into some pretty shocking things (child abuse, automutulation, suïcide).
Wow.. I guess it's a good thing they don't instantly throw you into the endless depths of being confronted with these patients. That still is some very impressive stuff you're on about though. Good looking :)
Nice to hear you live in Amsterdam now! How did you manage to find a house there? And how's the musical career going?
Ah, you know, we had a jazzy thing going on, and basically had everything worked out. A label, a management, all of it. It's just that the outcome wasn't really satisfying. It was all too compromising, and in the end it didn't feel right. On that base, we backed out of it. Thomas is still up on his management stuff, but I simply had to back out of it. I never was the type for business, so I'm just 'doing me' now.
That's also how we ended up in Amsterdam... Thomas has some connections through which he managed to get us an underpriced appartment in one of the most expensive urban areas of Europe. (Peep that Jort Kelder documentary series "Bij ons... in de PC" (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=5966668&md5=6bc7c2d66adff76e99ca444d71b45694) every Thursday evening on Nederland 1, and you'll see what I'm talking about.) He needed to live here for business (he's busy attending business meetings, lunches and looking for networking opportunities all day) and I just moved in with him. I'm traveling from Amsterdam to Utrecht every day, kind of enjoying the best of both worlds. Feels damned good, because it's an inspiring environment to live in.
You should drop by some time so we can have us some €3,50 beers in Sophia ;)
I'll be happy to accept that invitation! I'll hook up with Thomas on of these days then.