Originally Posted by SingingSabre
Bullcrap.
Equinophobia, as far as I can tell, is a fear of horses. Not a fear of riding horses.
Thanks for the correction. It changes almost nothing. Instead of, "If someone is diagnosed with fearing horseback riding, then he suffers from equinophobia, by definition", my assertion becomes, "If someone is diagnosed with fearing horses, then he suffers from equinophobia, by definition." Big deal. That slight slip warrants a "bullcrap"? Give me a break.
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
P.S. I agree that the self-test of bike paths is poor evidence
The self-test is poor evidence of
what? That OJ did it? Yes, it's poor evidence of
that.
Remember, all Forester was trying to show was that cycling at road speeds on an urban
sidepath (nothing like the long intersection-free sections of your 20 mph bike highway, Gene) is significantly dangerous. He asserts that it is so dangerous that nobody is even willing to put it to a test. He tried, and nearly killed himself. Now, here we are, years later, his assertion stands. Seems like pretty good evidence of
that.
Originally Posted by Sandwarrior
I would call that a survival instinct and not a phobia, defensive riding even.
You say
seat, I say
saddle.
Let's keep things in perspective. This whole thing is much ado about nothing, a semantic argument about the meaning of "phobia" at best.
Even if you go by the DSM, it's not exactly clear what is a phobia, and what is not. Forester tried his best to explain why he thought it was a phobia per the DSM criteria. Diane was the only one who challenged his reasoning, and then really on a semantic point again (the meaning of
anxiety). Let's remember that psychology is a soft science to begin with, and that what gets in or stays out of the DSM and "defined" to be a "mental disorder" is often determined by politics as much as "science". See
criticism.
I think we can all agree with invisiblehand when he says:
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
I have a difficult time criticizing the article from an educated standpoint other than Mr. Forester seems to be stretching it.
But "seems to be stretching it" is hardly
debunking. Nor does it justify, "How anyone can even take him seriously at all is beyond me.".
I take my 7 year old daughter seriously, as I did when she was 3. I take
everyone seriously (including Bek, ILTB and Diane) because
everyone deserves to be taken seriously, and their words should always be evaluated as objectively as possible, interpreted in the context in which they were written or said. It doesn't matter who says them. I'm sure Albert Einstein uttered complete nonsense from time to time, and the unabomber actually made some sense here and there.
Words should be evaluated, credited or debunked, not
people.