4 ms·

You were talking about OCEAN being not empirical based, that simply was false, because OCEAN was replicated everywhere, including the one study you cited. The s

You were talking about OCEAN being not empirical based, that simply was false, because OCEAN was replicated everywhere, including the one study you cited. The study you found and cited was dealing with clinical diagnosis of psychosis, which was not OCEAN for and about. Nobody knew anything in the field would use OCEAN for diagnosis, because there are many other tools for that purpose. You simply don’t know the field enough to speak intelligently. Do not spread false beliefs about a subject you know little about.

Xcelerate 8y ago
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim OCEAN wasn't empirically based, nor did I claim that it is used for diagnosis. I said the DSM is used for diagnosis of BPD. I offered OCEAN as an example of the general lack of rigor in the field. Read my post more carefully. > You simply don’t know the field enough to speak intelligently. If you read the study linked to in the article I cited, the whole field of psychology is having a crisis right now. The Atlantic even titled a recent article "Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running Out of Excuses". Your profile page says "academic background in psychology". I wouldn't say having a background in a field that can't replicate its own studies means a whole lot. Am I also not authorized to comment on the field of astrology because I don't have a background in astrology? > Do not spread false beliefs about a subject you know little about. Please point out the sentence in my post containing a false belief.
- pharrington 8y ago
  For example, "This is a much better model, but going from research to clinical practice seems to be a very slow process." You omitted, mistakenly or not, the vital qualifier that the model in question is better not for general personality modeling and prediction, or even psychological pathology in general, but specifically for analyzing the much narrower domain of personality pathology. In your child post for the submission, you directly imply that psychology does not collect data and try to quantitatively predict things, saying "Start collecting data and start trying to quantitatively predict things." When called out on this error, you post a link to a study that does both of these, and the conclusions of which you misinterpreted. Yes, the replication crisis is real. Yes, psychology is probably the biggest offender. No, the crisis is nowhere remotely close to only being a major problem in psychology. Communications and research in QFT and the like are absolutely jammed packed with math because they are the easiest sciences to perform correctly, and are the most amenable to being accurately modeled with simple equations. I am not exaggerating when I say that - remember, a rigorous description of both general relativity and the entire Standard Model fit easily on one standard legal size sheet of paper. You can't even say that about chemistry, let alone even higher level emergent phenomena. Psychology is -hard- to reproduce, not from lack of effort, but because it's fucking hard.
- BenMorganIO 8y ago
  I think at this point, you're just being exceptionally rude to those who devote much of their time and effort to this research. I would recommend sending an apology. > You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim OCEAN wasn't empirically based, nor did I claim that it is used for diagnosis. I said the DSM is used for diagnosis of BPD. I offered OCEAN as an example of the general lack of rigor in the field. Read my post more carefully. Also, you did claim that it was used for diagnosis. Read your last set of sentences: > Consider for instance the current system of categorizing personalities: the "Big Five" system (OCEAN). Why is this still a thing? Any sort of primitive GBDT would almost certainly perform better than this, so it's a mystery to me why these crude systems are still being used in the mental health industry in 2018. I would assume "these" refers to a set of systems inclusive of OCEAN considering it's referred to as the context of the paragraph a few sentences back.

Xcelerate 8y ago

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim OCEAN wasn't empirically based, nor did I claim that it is used for diagnosis. I said the DSM is used for diagnosis of BPD. I offered OCEAN as an example of the general lack of rigor in the field. Read my post more carefully. > You simply don’t know the field enough to speak intelligently. If you read the study linked to in the article I cited, the whole field of psychology is having a crisis right now. The Atlantic even titled a recent article "Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running Out of Excuses". Your profile page says "academic background in psychology". I wouldn't say having a background in a field that can't replicate its own studies means a whole lot. Am I also not authorized to comment on the field of astrology because I don't have a background in astrology? > Do not spread false beliefs about a subject you know little about. Please point out the sentence in my post containing a false belief.

pharrington 8y ago
For example, "This is a much better model, but going from research to clinical practice seems to be a very slow process." You omitted, mistakenly or not, the vital qualifier that the model in question is better not for general personality modeling and prediction, or even psychological pathology in general, but specifically for analyzing the much narrower domain of personality pathology. In your child post for the submission, you directly imply that psychology does not collect data and try to quantitatively predict things, saying "Start collecting data and start trying to quantitatively predict things." When called out on this error, you post a link to a study that does both of these, and the conclusions of which you misinterpreted. Yes, the replication crisis is real. Yes, psychology is probably the biggest offender. No, the crisis is nowhere remotely close to only being a major problem in psychology. Communications and research in QFT and the like are absolutely jammed packed with math because they are the easiest sciences to perform correctly, and are the most amenable to being accurately modeled with simple equations. I am not exaggerating when I say that - remember, a rigorous description of both general relativity and the entire Standard Model fit easily on one standard legal size sheet of paper. You can't even say that about chemistry, let alone even higher level emergent phenomena. Psychology is -hard- to reproduce, not from lack of effort, but because it's fucking hard.
BenMorganIO 8y ago
I think at this point, you're just being exceptionally rude to those who devote much of their time and effort to this research. I would recommend sending an apology. > You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim OCEAN wasn't empirically based, nor did I claim that it is used for diagnosis. I said the DSM is used for diagnosis of BPD. I offered OCEAN as an example of the general lack of rigor in the field. Read my post more carefully. Also, you did claim that it was used for diagnosis. Read your last set of sentences: > Consider for instance the current system of categorizing personalities: the "Big Five" system (OCEAN). Why is this still a thing? Any sort of primitive GBDT would almost certainly perform better than this, so it's a mystery to me why these crude systems are still being used in the mental health industry in 2018. I would assume "these" refers to a set of systems inclusive of OCEAN considering it's referred to as the context of the paragraph a few sentences back.