4 ms·
For a psychologist, you've easily suckered yourself into a common cognitive bias: appeal to authority. (and likely Dunning-Kruger) You've presented only anecda
by sterlind 8y ago
For a psychologist, you've easily suckered yourself into a common cognitive bias: appeal to authority. (and likely Dunning-Kruger)
You've presented only anecdata, then incessantly restated your credentials to shroud them in authority. But there are a lot of psychologists, and a decent proportion of those are crackpots. How can I trust you're not a crackpot?
- choot 8y agoThe article also uses "this is a study". So I decided to use "this is a psycologist". Both of which are factually correct. If it makes, it appeal to authority in my case then it's equally applicable to the study defined in the article. See, i am not presenting here any groundbreaking theory or refuting anything stated in the article but merely stating my experience. How can it make me a crackpot?
- harshalizee 8y agolol, that's not how this works. You and a peer reviewed study do not share the same kind of legitimacy and definetely not equally applicable. Yours is, at best an opinion. The fact that as a 'pyscologist' (that's not how you spell it by the way), you can't see the difference makes it look like you're proving his point.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]