4 ms·

For the record I do have a degree in psychology (albeit a bit dated) and have spent a significant part of my life reading the literature. Also for the record I

For the record I do have a degree in psychology (albeit a bit dated) and have spent a significant part of my life reading the literature. Also for the record I spent 0 seconds google before replying, I was simply speaking from memory and my current understanding of the literature. I know about the replication crisis and I know about the placebo-effect of psychotherapy (I even spent a couple of sentences in my previous post telling you that). The replication crisis is not nearly as universal as you are leading on here. There are a few very famous experiments which haven’t been replicated, and have since been discredited. The most prominent example is the Stanford Prison experiment. A more recent example here is social priming. What happens is exactly what I described earlier, there is a meta-analysis (or a review of other kind), the previous finding is scrutinized and we move on. In clinical psychology the replication crisis is not as overarching. There may be a research showing that some aspects of some therapy is working better then other, or some fine tuning of some method is yielding better results, which is then not replicated, but whole programs such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy have ample research with ample evidence that shows its effectiveness over a simple dialog therapy. But honestly I don’t know why we are even talking about this. This has nothing to with personality tests and whether or not they have any scientific merit. EDIT: By the way, I read some of the source in that wikipedia article, particularly the section about psychology, and this here is an excellent summary of the situation inside clinical psychology (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835722/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835722/). It is not stating much except the issue also exists inside the field of clinical psychology, and that researchers should be aware of it. The author mentions that efficacy of psychotherapy is probably overestimated, probably around 20-40%. The authors do not state—nor do I think they believe—that psychotherapy has no effect over a structured conversation, merely that the estimated efficacy is probably inflated. EDIT 2: I read over our thread again and I think I know how this conversation derailed so much. > It turns out that psychology is just about having structured conversations about your feelings. Personality tests are a framework for that, and they work for that purpose (and basically that purpose alone). Now if I had read this sentence of yours better I probably wouldn’t have spent all this time arguing with you. Because this sentence is straight up not true. Personality tests have never been solely about finding frameworks for clinical psychology. Now there are some clinical psychologists that use theories from personal psychology, or use tests constructed by psychometrisians. But the goals of personality psychologists have always been about explaining behavior. They do this by constructing models based. Modern personality psychology presuppose certain personality types that they claim can be found by doing factor analysis on their tests, and that these types increase the likelihood that some people behave a certain way in certain situations. Some of these behaviors are pathological and some clinical psychologists claim that is a basis for certain treatment. However at this point in time, these theories are getting less and less relevant in favor of theories from cognitive, neuro, and—to a lesser extent—behavioral psychology. Note though that clinical psychologist doesn’t have to subscribe to any of this, and can simply apply which ever treatment has the best potential. As clinical psychology is not about explaining behavior, but simply to help people live a better life, and save lives that are at risk.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
I think you still misunderstand me. The reason we ended up here is because I was trying to suggest there is nothing especially bad about the Jungean shit compared to the rest of the field. The more recent ideas (specifically CBT and DBT) in the field simply have not had a chance to be disproven yet. In their introduction, the Jungean methods produced some results, and now we are onto new hotness. Like angular vs react, the preferred framework of the experts changes. And I never said that personality tests have anything to do with clinical psychology. I said that psychology (in general) was about having structured conversations about and understanding of your feelings. That includes the clinical side and the "mushy" side that results in things like "life coaching." I am likening the MBTI to CBT because they are both fundamentally frameworks for reasoning about your feelings, just in different contexts. This is also why I brought in autism tests, which are another way of fitting your cognition into a framework. People like to claim that personality tests find some sort of "ground truth" about yourself, which is not true, and this is why people (rightly) liken them to astrology. They are a good basis for talking through your cognitive processes, and nothing more. On the clinical side, this is why Jordan Peterson talking about dragons eating boys' mothers is as compelling to people as CBT. And why it gets clinical results. The difference in the methods is really very marginal, and almost certainly lost in the noise between the statistical analysis, the small sample size, and the lack of controls in the experiments. The importance seems to be that there is a framework that the users believe in and find useful. Clearly you don't believe in personality testing and you strongly believe in CBT, which is fine. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. --- To summarize, my argument here is: 1. All the methods for understanding and working with your cognition are somewhat dubious and poorly-understood. 2. All the methods can still be useful because they help you think about yourself. 3. The context in which the method is used is actually much more important than the method. 4. There's pretty good evidence that trying to understand your cognition helps. And that these 4 points apply equally to things like Myers-Briggs (which is based on the ridiculous musings of a few Germans with oedipal complexes) and things like CBT or Autism tests (both of which have okay science, at least by today's standards). I will also add that this is pretty heretical according to your field, so I don't expect you to agree, but it's what seems to be suggested by the meta-science on the field itself.
- 4y ago

pclmulqdq 4y ago

I think you still misunderstand me. The reason we ended up here is because I was trying to suggest there is nothing especially bad about the Jungean shit compared to the rest of the field. The more recent ideas (specifically CBT and DBT) in the field simply have not had a chance to be disproven yet. In their introduction, the Jungean methods produced some results, and now we are onto new hotness. Like angular vs react, the preferred framework of the experts changes. And I never said that personality tests have anything to do with clinical psychology. I said that psychology (in general) was about having structured conversations about and understanding of your feelings. That includes the clinical side and the "mushy" side that results in things like "life coaching." I am likening the MBTI to CBT because they are both fundamentally frameworks for reasoning about your feelings, just in different contexts. This is also why I brought in autism tests, which are another way of fitting your cognition into a framework. People like to claim that personality tests find some sort of "ground truth" about yourself, which is not true, and this is why people (rightly) liken them to astrology. They are a good basis for talking through your cognitive processes, and nothing more. On the clinical side, this is why Jordan Peterson talking about dragons eating boys' mothers is as compelling to people as CBT. And why it gets clinical results. The difference in the methods is really very marginal, and almost certainly lost in the noise between the statistical analysis, the small sample size, and the lack of controls in the experiments. The importance seems to be that there is a framework that the users believe in and find useful. Clearly you don't believe in personality testing and you strongly believe in CBT, which is fine. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. --- To summarize, my argument here is: 1. All the methods for understanding and working with your cognition are somewhat dubious and poorly-understood. 2. All the methods can still be useful because they help you think about yourself. 3. The context in which the method is used is actually much more important than the method. 4. There's pretty good evidence that trying to understand your cognition helps. And that these 4 points apply equally to things like Myers-Briggs (which is based on the ridiculous musings of a few Germans with oedipal complexes) and things like CBT or Autism tests (both of which have okay science, at least by today's standards). I will also add that this is pretty heretical according to your field, so I don't expect you to agree, but it's what seems to be suggested by the meta-science on the field itself.

4y ago