3 ms·

The Author lists many psych studies. Most fail to replicate or have terrible statistical reasoning underlying them. There’s 3 psych findings that do, but he’s

The Author lists many psych studies. Most fail to replicate or have terrible statistical reasoning underlying them. There’s 3 psych findings that do, but he’s not listing those. I appreciate he’s up front with his doom. I’d likely be a doomer too if I was in my 20s-30s with a schizophrenic mom and reading psych abstracts. I say the quiet part out loud: psychology as a field and the papers they produce is 90% charlatans and people who didn’t have the intellect for math or science. There’s some good ones, but it’s tough to stand in field with shaky ground. Also reading history will give you more context, strange to be a doomer when you know the full history humans.

Clubber 2y ago
There's a stretch between 1914 and around 1955 that I wouldn't want to live through for anything.
Quarrelsome 2y ago
I think its a "she" FWIW.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Most fail to replicate or have terrible statistical reasoning underlying them. There’s 3 psych findings that do, but he’s not listing those. Do tell. Which three?
Willish42 2y ago
> I say the quiet part out loud: psychology as a field and the papers they produce is 90% charlatans and people who didn’t have the intellect for math or science. There’s some good ones, but it’s tough to stand in field with shaky ground. While I share some of your sentiment here (truly), I think 90% is way too high a number for the field as a whole, and also believe you're likely discounting "emotional intelligence" and the boots-on-ground work that non-academic psychology specialists are doing for public health and mental health in general. IOW, I am *equally* skeptical of armchair psychology people who are so dismissive about "real" psychology people. Everybody has an opinion, and peer reviews etc. are how we root out "intuition" from clinically proven phenomena. EMDR is a great example of a recent-ish innovation that is still being tested clinically on its efficacy, but shows some promising signs thus far AFAICT. I'm certainly glad somebody is testing it etc. so that we can incorporate it into folks' care, and would not consider the people doing so "90% charlatans" nor would I find them exclusively in some alleged 10% of "non-charlatans"
- ineedaj0b 2y ago
  I agree I’m probably a loon too. I would say 90% is not the number that aren’t ‘up to something interesting’ but 90% cannot do good statistics? I feel pretty good about that number ;)
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Odd to dismiss someone as a doomer using the argument of "all psychologists are hacks anyway". The mind is the most complex part of humanity to study and you simply cast those wanting to try and understand this nearly unsolvable topic a "failed mathematicians" (a relatively easy, objective discipline). >reading history will give you more context, strange to be a doomer when you know the full history humans. nothing will make you more fatalist than seeing all the slow progress made and how modern society actively works backwards and dismantles so many of these facilities by the request of the financial elite.

Clubber 2y ago

There's a stretch between 1914 and around 1955 that I wouldn't want to live through for anything.

Quarrelsome 2y ago

I think its a "she" FWIW.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

> Most fail to replicate or have terrible statistical reasoning underlying them. There’s 3 psych findings that do, but he’s not listing those. Do tell. Which three?

Willish42 2y ago

> I say the quiet part out loud: psychology as a field and the papers they produce is 90% charlatans and people who didn’t have the intellect for math or science. There’s some good ones, but it’s tough to stand in field with shaky ground. While I share some of your sentiment here (truly), I think 90% is way too high a number for the field as a whole, and also believe you're likely discounting "emotional intelligence" and the boots-on-ground work that non-academic psychology specialists are doing for public health and mental health in general. IOW, I am *equally* skeptical of armchair psychology people who are so dismissive about "real" psychology people. Everybody has an opinion, and peer reviews etc. are how we root out "intuition" from clinically proven phenomena. EMDR is a great example of a recent-ish innovation that is still being tested clinically on its efficacy, but shows some promising signs thus far AFAICT. I'm certainly glad somebody is testing it etc. so that we can incorporate it into folks' care, and would not consider the people doing so "90% charlatans" nor would I find them exclusively in some alleged 10% of "non-charlatans"

ineedaj0b 2y ago
I agree I’m probably a loon too. I would say 90% is not the number that aren’t ‘up to something interesting’ but 90% cannot do good statistics? I feel pretty good about that number ;)

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Odd to dismiss someone as a doomer using the argument of "all psychologists are hacks anyway". The mind is the most complex part of humanity to study and you simply cast those wanting to try and understand this nearly unsolvable topic a "failed mathematicians" (a relatively easy, objective discipline). >reading history will give you more context, strange to be a doomer when you know the full history humans. nothing will make you more fatalist than seeing all the slow progress made and how modern society actively works backwards and dismantles so many of these facilities by the request of the financial elite.