4 ms·

Psychology can be whatever you want to make it. If you don't want to be psychologically profiled, be an outlier and/ot be more careful about what data you divu

Psychology can be whatever you want to make it. If you don't want to be psychologically profiled, be an outlier and/ot be more careful about what data you divulge. The same thing happens in psychological settings. Faceless corporations and practitioners profiling people for what purpose - to sell more psychiatric medication? Or to actually help? You can't ever really tell the difference walking into those places. HIPPA can protect you from how people outside of psychology will use that information, but it can't protect you if the practitioners of pyschology don't actually have your best interest aligned with their best interest. This problem is a revolving door. It could be bad to get more eyeballs on it, but it could also be a good thing. The point is, that's uncertain.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
The difference is it's much easier to choose not to walk into a bad psychologists office than it is to completely forsake using the internet, where nearly everywhere is overrun with advertisers tracking your every move and adding it to a psychological profile. Whether you're "giving" them your data or not, they're taking it. Suggesting the average person simply "be careful" about the data they divulge is absurd in light of advanced tracking methods such as browser fingerprinting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  > The difference is it's much easier to choose not to walk into a bad psychologists office than it is to completely forsake using the internet I can't agree with this. Abstractly it's the same problem. Requires knowing information you don't have, before you have it.
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    Can't you read reviews about a psychologist on the internet before you decide whether or not to go into their office?
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      I don't know if I can explain why a review from a patient isn't information that reduces the problem space. To me, it offloads the complexity of the initial problem to another constructed variant. As analogy, suppose I tell you to only focus on information coming from other corporations about 'big data' and what these organizations are going to do with your data. From that, derive whether their security practices are held at a high standard. You can't know these things until things proving to the contrary happen. Likewise, I can't know whether my personal experience in a psychologist office is going to be similar or different from another patient - yielding the same results (what is the goal?). Every single statement spoken in the office of a mental health care professional - all of these things matter to the psychologist, and I am aware of that (psychology can't cure neurosis because psychology is neurotic). Every single behavioral mannerism, every quirk, every habit. All 'data' collected, to yield diagnosis. The psychologist themselves might reason themselves out of that belief by telling themselves 'I ignore it, I validate my theories against the science' but the science is mutable because the mind has no set definition that is 'valid' and 'correct' with respect to a standard. They are not God - they do not have omniscience on the definition of mental wellness, mental clarity. I've had counselors tell me it's weird that my 'grounding' techniques are thinking about reality and math. They are not programmers, computer scientists, mathematicians! It's the same as you worrying about every single statement or bit of information you divulge on the internet. Could be worried about all of it, could shrug it all off. Could go into a psychologist's office and not worry about any of that. Won't, because it fundamentally conflicts with my core values, self identity, principles, beliefs - things I need for my mental health, sanity, security, things that keep my future stable and under my control (being able to reason correctly with respect to code). Conflating all of that with a neurotic obsession over the functioning of my mind? Just as bad, if not worse, as having shit security with data. Data can't predict the future. It's a choice to trick oneself into that belief. That's the problem with these organizations that yields mental peace. Collect all the data they want! It controls their minds more than it controls mine.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

The difference is it's much easier to choose not to walk into a bad psychologists office than it is to completely forsake using the internet, where nearly everywhere is overrun with advertisers tracking your every move and adding it to a psychological profile. Whether you're "giving" them your data or not, they're taking it. Suggesting the average person simply "be careful" about the data they divulge is absurd in light of advanced tracking methods such as browser fingerprinting.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
s-shellfish 8y ago
> The difference is it's much easier to choose not to walk into a bad psychologists office than it is to completely forsake using the internet I can't agree with this. Abstractly it's the same problem. Requires knowing information you don't have, before you have it.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  Can't you read reviews about a psychologist on the internet before you decide whether or not to go into their office?
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    I don't know if I can explain why a review from a patient isn't information that reduces the problem space. To me, it offloads the complexity of the initial problem to another constructed variant. As analogy, suppose I tell you to only focus on information coming from other corporations about 'big data' and what these organizations are going to do with your data. From that, derive whether their security practices are held at a high standard. You can't know these things until things proving to the contrary happen. Likewise, I can't know whether my personal experience in a psychologist office is going to be similar or different from another patient - yielding the same results (what is the goal?). Every single statement spoken in the office of a mental health care professional - all of these things matter to the psychologist, and I am aware of that (psychology can't cure neurosis because psychology is neurotic). Every single behavioral mannerism, every quirk, every habit. All 'data' collected, to yield diagnosis. The psychologist themselves might reason themselves out of that belief by telling themselves 'I ignore it, I validate my theories against the science' but the science is mutable because the mind has no set definition that is 'valid' and 'correct' with respect to a standard. They are not God - they do not have omniscience on the definition of mental wellness, mental clarity. I've had counselors tell me it's weird that my 'grounding' techniques are thinking about reality and math. They are not programmers, computer scientists, mathematicians! It's the same as you worrying about every single statement or bit of information you divulge on the internet. Could be worried about all of it, could shrug it all off. Could go into a psychologist's office and not worry about any of that. Won't, because it fundamentally conflicts with my core values, self identity, principles, beliefs - things I need for my mental health, sanity, security, things that keep my future stable and under my control (being able to reason correctly with respect to code). Conflating all of that with a neurotic obsession over the functioning of my mind? Just as bad, if not worse, as having shit security with data. Data can't predict the future. It's a choice to trick oneself into that belief. That's the problem with these organizations that yields mental peace. Collect all the data they want! It controls their minds more than it controls mine.