6 ms·

I don't really want to call this pseudoscience, but what it's missing is the connection to psychiatry and neuroscience and to me falls into the nasty tendency o

I don't really want to call this pseudoscience, but what it's missing is the connection to psychiatry and neuroscience and to me falls into the nasty tendency of bucket thinking. Just because traits are observable and nameable doesn't mean they're actually valid. You're just handing amateurs dumb "diagnostic" tools that are just going to harm interpersonal relationships rather than make them better. If I observe you as having narcissistic traits, and you observe yourself as having narcissistic traits, and you form an identity around being a narcissist, nothing meaningful has been done. You still have no useful tools with which to make your life better. The psychological world needs a lot less of this, because handing people convenient identities without a corresponding plan of action for improving yourself that actually works, is contributing to rather than alleviating the problem. I don't think half of the people who think they're on the autism spectrum are anywhere close to it. I don't think half of the people described as narcissistic or psychopathic deserve the term. I do think that most people have emotional difficulties, and quantifying and providing resources for improving emotional health and depth should be the primary focus of psychology at the moment. I like the focus on loneliness, I hate the focus on disorders.

derefr 8y ago
> The psychological world needs a lot less of this, because handing people convenient identities without a corresponding plan of action for improving yourself that actually works, is contributing to rather than alleviating the problem. Why? Psychology is not medicine. Psychology is the study of the mind. (Maybe you're thinking of psychiatry?) We—psychologists—study the mind because we want to know how it works. It's basic research, like physicists studying particle collisions, or astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background. We're doing it in order to understand. We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset. This research, in particular, is interesting because it unifies several previous, more limited hypotheses about how and why the human brain ends up in a particular persistent state. It provides a rubric that allows researchers (not doctors; not laymen) to craft tools that find this state, and to make predictions based off of the presence of this state. Researchers in possession of those tools can then use them to do other things. Like, say, medicine. But the basic research comes first.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  > We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset. You’re approaching the same problems that neuroscientists are tackling, but using a “social sciences” toolset? What does that even mean? That sounds like an outright rejection of the scientific method.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    First, the scientific method is not relevant or useful in all worthwhile fields of inquiry. Second, the scientific method can definitely be applied in psychology.
    - yuhe00 8y ago
      I don't know a lot about psychology. The only things I've read are pop-psych articles like this about "traits", "D-factors" and "personality types", which you got to admit do sound a bit much like pseudo-science, or at least not telling the full story. It's useful, for sure, but I'd like to know more about the formal methods employed in modern psychology today. I imagine statistics, surveys and telemetry perhaps being key, but like all methods based in data - You have to be very careful; testing methodology and interpretation biases can heavily influence the results. I think psychology could bring valuable insight into the future of AI as well. It's a shame that most psychologists involved in tech are in HR/communications or at best tasked with keeping people addicted to whatever social platform they are building.
      - Sharlin 8y ago
        It is true that psychology as it is currently practiced in many places has one of the worst replication crises [1] of all sciences, with lots of p-hacking and other unethical practices going on as researches attempt to get publishable results in a field where most data you get is necessarily messy and difficult-to-control confounding variables abound. But that's more about the usual perverse incentives in the academia rather than a fundamental problem with the field itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
mirimir 8y ago
Yes, maybe not pseudoscience, but also not very useful. So based on their nine questions, I score rather high on their "D-factor". And while I don't spend much time obsessing over "utility maximization", I have clearly made many utility-based decisions. For example, I never wanted children, notwithstanding social expectations, and preferred to do what interested me. It's true that some of my interests have been entirely selfish. Having fun, in various ways, for example. But I've also spent years being quite idealistic. Academic pursuits. Working on social and ecological issues. And now, being a privacy advocate. I do get that my idealistic efforts could just be driven by the desire to look good. To be admired and recognized. But I'm aware of that, and use it for motivation, while recognizing that it's all ultimately empty and meaningless. So anyway, I believe that human psychology and ontogeny are far too complex to be usefully characterized by stuff like a "D-factor". At best, that just gets at what we're conscious of. And what we're conscious of is largely meaningless post hoc bullshit.
drb91 8y ago
> You still have no useful tools with which to make your life better. Nonsense, you can now use mental health best practices to treat yourself or seek help from someone who can treat you. I say this because I’ve seen this precise scenario: someone told a family member they were narcissistic and to get help, and they did, and they’re largely a more pleasant person to be around now. It took years to effect this change, but I sincerely believe labels can help; even in self diagnosis. That said, this type of self awareness is a modern phenomenon—David Foster Wallace captured the negative aspects of this quite well in some of his stuff (infinite jest and Men Who Stare At Goats come to mind). The answer for me was meditation and finding a better balance between stress and relaxation; I think true mindfulness (....not an app) could really help here. And, of course, you need to want to change. This may be the hardest part of watching someone deal with monkeys on their back.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes. With self awareness, you can use your psychology to further your commitments. It's like adding (or strengthening) a level, in Hoffstadter's strange loop model.
drasticmeasures 8y ago
I read it the same way. "Oh great, more pseudoscience in psychology that will make things worse for the marginalized and get thrown out after 30 years of not working." It's part of the push to treat crime as a mental illness and set the stage for medicating criminals, I suspect, and it comes with all the flaws that the traditional mental illness model has.
visarga 8y ago
Some of these "dark" traits are not treatable. You don't treat the sociopath, you treat his/her victims. The best strategy is to avoid them, if possible. Understanding this means you can feel free of the obligation of treating them, saving yourself form a lot of suffering - they would only use these opportunities to hurt you, anyway.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jl2718 8y ago
  A really strange thing I’ve come across is when someone becomes a sociopath. It seems like it would then be possible to go back to ‘normal’, but it doesn’t seem to happen much. Why is it so much easier to go in one direction than the other?
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Psychological entropy?
  - visarga 8y ago
    Maybe it's actually an inborn tendency they can't change.
s-shellfish 8y ago
> I like the focus on loneliness, I hate the focus on disorders. Again though, that's you, your understanding. This is always the problem with psychology. Projecting all the information you've ever encountered through your understanding of yourself and through your understanding of others, onto others. Disorders suck, yes. It's not always just loneliness in a physical presence sense. Sometimes it's intellectual/emotional loneliness. > I don't think half of the people who think they're on the autism spectrum are anywhere close to it. We are what we make of ourselves. You might not know the reason someone would prefer identifying with autism. But again, that comes down to how you observe information on the outside, versus an how an individual has understood their own self internally, in a stable sense, their entire life. Intellectual loneliness, only seeing a singular connection between sets of information people externalize. One singular one that matches with everything. And then, trying to have one's own sense of self, instead of having to perpetually match with every person intellectually, to keep their own perspective maintained, validated.
phkahler 8y ago
I disagree. I found a self diagnosis of personality disorder helpful. I was able to read the characteristics, identify the ones that fit and then actively work toward changing them. It also allowed me not to be upset with myself when those quirks were acting up. I used the definition as a starting point for my own self directed change. The other thing I learned is that there is no accepted cure for any of the PDs except one. They are wrong of course, but they are learning.
- eloop 8y ago
  Why are they wrong, and which one has a cure?
  - phkahler 8y ago
    Something called Dialectical Behavior Therapy is an accepted treatment for BPD - Borderline Personality Disorder. Not sure what it's all about 'cause I'm not BPD. They are wrong because other PDs can be cured in some cases - I'm not going to assert that they always can, that would be as silly as categorically saying they can't.
dboreham 8y ago
No actual narcissist is going to “observe themselves having narcissistic traits”.
- itronitron 8y ago
  actually they do >> https://www.livescience.com/47197-narcissists-admit-to-it.html https://www.livescience.com/47197-narcissists-admit-to-it.ht...
itronitron 8y ago
While I do agree with most of what you said I think there is value in providing people descriptions of behaviors that they may see in other people. For example, if a relative of mine 'Timmy' suffered from schizophrenia but schizophrenia as a diagnosable condition didn't exist yet then it would be much more difficult for anyone to know how to deal with Timmy. Some might shun him while others might fully buy into his paranoia. The dark core traits have real victims so providing society with a means to identify and describe those behaviors will provide some limit to their range and impact.

derefr 8y ago

> The psychological world needs a lot less of this, because handing people convenient identities without a corresponding plan of action for improving yourself that actually works, is contributing to rather than alleviating the problem. Why? Psychology is not medicine. Psychology is the study of the mind. (Maybe you're thinking of psychiatry?) We—psychologists—study the mind because we want to know how it works. It's basic research, like physicists studying particle collisions, or astronomers studying the cosmic microwave background. We're doing it in order to understand. We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset. This research, in particular, is interesting because it unifies several previous, more limited hypotheses about how and why the human brain ends up in a particular persistent state. It provides a rubric that allows researchers (not doctors; not laymen) to craft tools that find this state, and to make predictions based off of the presence of this state. Researchers in possession of those tools can then use them to do other things. Like, say, medicine. But the basic research comes first.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago
> We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset. You’re approaching the same problems that neuroscientists are tackling, but using a “social sciences” toolset? What does that even mean? That sounds like an outright rejection of the scientific method.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  First, the scientific method is not relevant or useful in all worthwhile fields of inquiry. Second, the scientific method can definitely be applied in psychology.
  - yuhe00 8y ago
    I don't know a lot about psychology. The only things I've read are pop-psych articles like this about "traits", "D-factors" and "personality types", which you got to admit do sound a bit much like pseudo-science, or at least not telling the full story. It's useful, for sure, but I'd like to know more about the formal methods employed in modern psychology today. I imagine statistics, surveys and telemetry perhaps being key, but like all methods based in data - You have to be very careful; testing methodology and interpretation biases can heavily influence the results. I think psychology could bring valuable insight into the future of AI as well. It's a shame that most psychologists involved in tech are in HR/communications or at best tasked with keeping people addicted to whatever social platform they are building.
    - Sharlin 8y ago
      It is true that psychology as it is currently practiced in many places has one of the worst replication crises [1] of all sciences, with lots of p-hacking and other unethical practices going on as researches attempt to get publishable results in a field where most data you get is necessarily messy and difficult-to-control confounding variables abound. But that's more about the usual perverse incentives in the academia rather than a fundamental problem with the field itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

mirimir 8y ago

Yes, maybe not pseudoscience, but also not very useful. So based on their nine questions, I score rather high on their "D-factor". And while I don't spend much time obsessing over "utility maximization", I have clearly made many utility-based decisions. For example, I never wanted children, notwithstanding social expectations, and preferred to do what interested me. It's true that some of my interests have been entirely selfish. Having fun, in various ways, for example. But I've also spent years being quite idealistic. Academic pursuits. Working on social and ecological issues. And now, being a privacy advocate. I do get that my idealistic efforts could just be driven by the desire to look good. To be admired and recognized. But I'm aware of that, and use it for motivation, while recognizing that it's all ultimately empty and meaningless. So anyway, I believe that human psychology and ontogeny are far too complex to be usefully characterized by stuff like a "D-factor". At best, that just gets at what we're conscious of. And what we're conscious of is largely meaningless post hoc bullshit.

drb91 8y ago

> You still have no useful tools with which to make your life better. Nonsense, you can now use mental health best practices to treat yourself or seek help from someone who can treat you. I say this because I’ve seen this precise scenario: someone told a family member they were narcissistic and to get help, and they did, and they’re largely a more pleasant person to be around now. It took years to effect this change, but I sincerely believe labels can help; even in self diagnosis. That said, this type of self awareness is a modern phenomenon—David Foster Wallace captured the negative aspects of this quite well in some of his stuff (infinite jest and Men Who Stare At Goats come to mind). The answer for me was meditation and finding a better balance between stress and relaxation; I think true mindfulness (....not an app) could really help here. And, of course, you need to want to change. This may be the hardest part of watching someone deal with monkeys on their back.

mirimir 8y ago
Yes. With self awareness, you can use your psychology to further your commitments. It's like adding (or strengthening) a level, in Hoffstadter's strange loop model.

drasticmeasures 8y ago

I read it the same way. "Oh great, more pseudoscience in psychology that will make things worse for the marginalized and get thrown out after 30 years of not working." It's part of the push to treat crime as a mental illness and set the stage for medicating criminals, I suspect, and it comes with all the flaws that the traditional mental illness model has.

visarga 8y ago

Some of these "dark" traits are not treatable. You don't treat the sociopath, you treat his/her victims. The best strategy is to avoid them, if possible. Understanding this means you can feel free of the obligation of treating them, saving yourself form a lot of suffering - they would only use these opportunities to hurt you, anyway.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jl2718 8y ago
A really strange thing I’ve come across is when someone becomes a sociopath. It seems like it would then be possible to go back to ‘normal’, but it doesn’t seem to happen much. Why is it so much easier to go in one direction than the other?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Psychological entropy?
- visarga 8y ago
  Maybe it's actually an inborn tendency they can't change.

s-shellfish 8y ago

> I like the focus on loneliness, I hate the focus on disorders. Again though, that's you, your understanding. This is always the problem with psychology. Projecting all the information you've ever encountered through your understanding of yourself and through your understanding of others, onto others. Disorders suck, yes. It's not always just loneliness in a physical presence sense. Sometimes it's intellectual/emotional loneliness. > I don't think half of the people who think they're on the autism spectrum are anywhere close to it. We are what we make of ourselves. You might not know the reason someone would prefer identifying with autism. But again, that comes down to how you observe information on the outside, versus an how an individual has understood their own self internally, in a stable sense, their entire life. Intellectual loneliness, only seeing a singular connection between sets of information people externalize. One singular one that matches with everything. And then, trying to have one's own sense of self, instead of having to perpetually match with every person intellectually, to keep their own perspective maintained, validated.

phkahler 8y ago

I disagree. I found a self diagnosis of personality disorder helpful. I was able to read the characteristics, identify the ones that fit and then actively work toward changing them. It also allowed me not to be upset with myself when those quirks were acting up. I used the definition as a starting point for my own self directed change. The other thing I learned is that there is no accepted cure for any of the PDs except one. They are wrong of course, but they are learning.

eloop 8y ago
Why are they wrong, and which one has a cure?
- phkahler 8y ago
  Something called Dialectical Behavior Therapy is an accepted treatment for BPD - Borderline Personality Disorder. Not sure what it's all about 'cause I'm not BPD. They are wrong because other PDs can be cured in some cases - I'm not going to assert that they always can, that would be as silly as categorically saying they can't.

dboreham 8y ago

No actual narcissist is going to “observe themselves having narcissistic traits”.

itronitron 8y ago
actually they do >> https://www.livescience.com/47197-narcissists-admit-to-it.html https://www.livescience.com/47197-narcissists-admit-to-it.ht...

itronitron 8y ago

While I do agree with most of what you said I think there is value in providing people descriptions of behaviors that they may see in other people. For example, if a relative of mine 'Timmy' suffered from schizophrenia but schizophrenia as a diagnosable condition didn't exist yet then it would be much more difficult for anyone to know how to deal with Timmy. Some might shun him while others might fully buy into his paranoia. The dark core traits have real victims so providing society with a means to identify and describe those behaviors will provide some limit to their range and impact.