4 ms·

Psychology is a religious-like pseudoscience, they can not even define what "psy" is without using some conceptions from religions such as a soul. upd these st

Psychology is a religious-like pseudoscience, they can not even define what "psy" is without using some conceptions from religions such as a soul. upd these statements from me are so controversial, the number of "points" just dances lambada. The psy* areas are clearly polarized: some guys upvote all my messages in this topic and some other ones downvote all my messages in this topic. This is a sign of something interesting but I am not ready to elaborate on this statement in this comment which is going to become [flagged] eventually.

Woshiwuja 3y ago
What? Are you literally referring to ancient greek psy? jesus...
- eimrine 3y ago
  What is incorrect in this reference? You have not proposed any counterarguments. Also if you need just more fresh data - how do you propose to interpret the result of the Rosenhan's experiment?
  - wavemode 3y ago
    That lying about your symptoms to doctors leads to incorrect diagnoses?
    - eimrine 3y ago
      They are _not_ doctors in terms of evidence-based medicine, just policemen without a token. The problem is obviously not about incorrect diagnosis, I can lie to any doctor about any symptoms and just go home with zero obstructions from feds.
      - nick222226 3y ago
        As someone who was formerly in a mental ward for acute crisis, I would say that at least the 72 hour hold was an essential and necessary part of my treatment. I don't think that staying at home with unprepared family members for the acute period would have worked out, and I don't even have a problematic home environment! The flip side of the coin is that I was in a really high quality hospital, I'm sure there are hospitals or facilities that can be more harmful rather than helpful. I also have a problem with the way that they treat mental health like cancer, that once you have a diagnosis you will always have it. There are zero diagnostic criteria for "fully recovered" or removing dependence on medication, even after 5 or 10 years. It's also treated like a scarlet letter for insurance and unrelated things like TSA pre check - no matter how well you are doing you are still some level of risk to yourself and society. Though I could be wrong... the reoccurrence chart over time for my specific acute mania (with no depressive episodes) does look a lot like cancer remission charts with asymptotic approach to 80%+ reoccurrence after 2-4 years.
  - Woshiwuja 3y ago
    Dont put people inside mental asylums when they are not ill?
    - eimrine 3y ago
      There is no evidence of existing at least one defined illness in psy* fields. For example, let me tell you that a person X fell ill with schizophrenia. What do you know about X or X's brain?
      - oasisbob 3y ago
        Most psychologists would be much more interested in person X's behavior, rather than their brain.
        eimrine 3y ago
        And believe in such false statement as a free will? So what is a part of organism (if not brain) which might be possible for psy* specialist to heal, is it an arm or a leg or a spine?
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Dude if you think φύσις is free of its own philosophical baggage I got a bridge to sell you.
- eimrine 3y ago
  > its own philosophical baggage Could you elaborate on this statement?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    If your contention is just something like "the root psy- comes out of mystical/spiritual conceptions in Ancient Greece, and that speaks to the bunk/ungrounded conceptions of modern psychology," then I would ask why the same critique is not levied against the ancient Greek conception of "nature" and the "natural" from which we get the word "physics". You might retort here "ah well, 'nature' is just the word we use when we speak of observable phenomena in the hard sciences, its not muddied by religion like that crock stuff psychology." And then I would say, "ok, if 'nature' is just observable phenomena, what is the aim or purpose of the hard sciences? If it is all just observing/experimenting on discrete phenomena, there would be nothing we could do or conclude from the rigor of physics." You laugh at my insanity (well, if you believed in such a thing): "But we do conclude things from physics, because experiments are reproducible, and with their reproducibility we can gain confidence in generalizing the laws of our universe." And yes! You would be correct here. But now all the sudden you have committed physics to something just as fundamentally "spiritual" as the soul: that the universe is sensible, rational, and "with laws." Which is indeed just speaking the very same mystical "nature" of ancient Greece from which we get phys-. But this need not be some damning critique of physics itself (like psychology), and rather, can lead to a higher level understanding of all scientific pursuits: that we are everywhere cursed by a fundamental incompleteness, that in order even to enter into scientific pursuit we must shed an absolute skepticism for a qualified one. Because this is the only way we accumulate a network of reinforced hypotheses and conceptions, which do indeed help us navigate the purely phenomenal world we are bound in.
phkahler 3y ago
>> This is a sign of something interesting Yeah, you might understand it if you study psychology or perhaps sociology.
fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
> This is a sign of something interesting but I am not ready to elaborate on this statement in this comment which is going to become [flagged] eventually. Yet you're being a reply guy all over this thread, might as well just elaborate you clearly have the time and interest
- eimrine 3y ago
  Psy* pseudoscience is among a few hills I am gladly die for. Also free/libre software, Lisp and cryptocurrency with no premine.

Woshiwuja 3y ago

What? Are you literally referring to ancient greek psy? jesus...

eimrine 3y ago
What is incorrect in this reference? You have not proposed any counterarguments. Also if you need just more fresh data - how do you propose to interpret the result of the Rosenhan's experiment?
- wavemode 3y ago
  That lying about your symptoms to doctors leads to incorrect diagnoses?
  - eimrine 3y ago
    They are _not_ doctors in terms of evidence-based medicine, just policemen without a token. The problem is obviously not about incorrect diagnosis, I can lie to any doctor about any symptoms and just go home with zero obstructions from feds.
    - nick222226 3y ago
      As someone who was formerly in a mental ward for acute crisis, I would say that at least the 72 hour hold was an essential and necessary part of my treatment. I don't think that staying at home with unprepared family members for the acute period would have worked out, and I don't even have a problematic home environment! The flip side of the coin is that I was in a really high quality hospital, I'm sure there are hospitals or facilities that can be more harmful rather than helpful. I also have a problem with the way that they treat mental health like cancer, that once you have a diagnosis you will always have it. There are zero diagnostic criteria for "fully recovered" or removing dependence on medication, even after 5 or 10 years. It's also treated like a scarlet letter for insurance and unrelated things like TSA pre check - no matter how well you are doing you are still some level of risk to yourself and society. Though I could be wrong... the reoccurrence chart over time for my specific acute mania (with no depressive episodes) does look a lot like cancer remission charts with asymptotic approach to 80%+ reoccurrence after 2-4 years.
- Woshiwuja 3y ago
  Dont put people inside mental asylums when they are not ill?
  - eimrine 3y ago
    There is no evidence of existing at least one defined illness in psy* fields. For example, let me tell you that a person X fell ill with schizophrenia. What do you know about X or X's brain?
    - oasisbob 3y ago
      Most psychologists would be much more interested in person X's behavior, rather than their brain.
      - eimrine 3y ago
        And believe in such false statement as a free will? So what is a part of organism (if not brain) which might be possible for psy* specialist to heal, is it an arm or a leg or a spine?

beepbooptheory 3y ago

Dude if you think φύσις is free of its own philosophical baggage I got a bridge to sell you.

eimrine 3y ago
> its own philosophical baggage Could you elaborate on this statement?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  If your contention is just something like "the root psy- comes out of mystical/spiritual conceptions in Ancient Greece, and that speaks to the bunk/ungrounded conceptions of modern psychology," then I would ask why the same critique is not levied against the ancient Greek conception of "nature" and the "natural" from which we get the word "physics". You might retort here "ah well, 'nature' is just the word we use when we speak of observable phenomena in the hard sciences, its not muddied by religion like that crock stuff psychology." And then I would say, "ok, if 'nature' is just observable phenomena, what is the aim or purpose of the hard sciences? If it is all just observing/experimenting on discrete phenomena, there would be nothing we could do or conclude from the rigor of physics." You laugh at my insanity (well, if you believed in such a thing): "But we do conclude things from physics, because experiments are reproducible, and with their reproducibility we can gain confidence in generalizing the laws of our universe." And yes! You would be correct here. But now all the sudden you have committed physics to something just as fundamentally "spiritual" as the soul: that the universe is sensible, rational, and "with laws." Which is indeed just speaking the very same mystical "nature" of ancient Greece from which we get phys-. But this need not be some damning critique of physics itself (like psychology), and rather, can lead to a higher level understanding of all scientific pursuits: that we are everywhere cursed by a fundamental incompleteness, that in order even to enter into scientific pursuit we must shed an absolute skepticism for a qualified one. Because this is the only way we accumulate a network of reinforced hypotheses and conceptions, which do indeed help us navigate the purely phenomenal world we are bound in.

phkahler 3y ago

>> This is a sign of something interesting Yeah, you might understand it if you study psychology or perhaps sociology.

fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago

> This is a sign of something interesting but I am not ready to elaborate on this statement in this comment which is going to become [flagged] eventually. Yet you're being a reply guy all over this thread, might as well just elaborate you clearly have the time and interest

eimrine 3y ago
Psy* pseudoscience is among a few hills I am gladly die for. Also free/libre software, Lisp and cryptocurrency with no premine.