In this field, sending out surveys with "objective" questions to a large amount of people to collect data is the only way to get your research deemed "scientifi

In this field, sending out surveys with "objective" questions to a large amount of people to collect data is the only way to get your research deemed "scientific". I think everyone would agree that the role of the scientists and writers of these pop-psych articles should be to interpret the point and help readers come to an insightful and true conclusion like yours, but really everyone in the psychology and journalism fields are forced to run a "I'm just reporting the facts like my boss wants me to" mantra to keep their job. It's kind of sad that this academic system makes it so only well-paid therapists get to do that, because of course looking at the current state of affairs in the world and coming to and reporting on and building insight on the logical conclusion that only hurt people hurt people isn't "scientific research" because the peers in your field only allow themselves and others to repeat what the numbers in the excel spreadsheet say. The psychology and objective journalism fields are great examples of dysfunctional academic systems. I like Alice Miller's hot take on her field in her book "For Your Own Good". I'm just going to straight up copy her text: Those who swear by statistical studies and gain their psychological knowledge from those sources will see my efforts to understand the children Christiane and Adolf [Hitler] as unnecessary and irrelevant. They would have to be given statistical proof that a given number of cases of child abuse later produced almost the same number of murderers. This proof cannot be provided, however, for the following reasons. Alice Miller lists off 1) child abuse takes place in secret 2) testimony of victims on their own suffered child abuse is often very flawed to protect their parents 3) experts in criminology have already noted this trend in their scientific research Even if statistical data confirm my own conclusions, I do not consider them a reliable source because they are often based on uncritical assumptions and ideas that are either meaningless (such as "a sheltered childhood"), vague, ambiguous ("received a lot of love"), or deceptive ("the father was strict but fair"), or that even contain obvious contradictions ("he was loved and spoiled"). This is why I do not care to rely on conceptual systems whose gaps are so large that the truth escapes through them, but rather prefer to make the attempt ... to take a different route. I am not searching for statistical objectivity but for the subjectivity of the victim in question, to the degree that my empathy permits.