What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
59 Comments
- mookieXL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22@Detritus
"Psychology is a pseudo-science"
Watch your thetan level. - Tobark, on 10/11/2007, -27/+43"Psychology is crazy, yo."
Dugg down for this crap. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17@Detritus: So, you say that psychology is a pseudo-science based on your pseudo-scientific psychological theories, then?
- OdinEye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12@Detritus - "When LSD was first discovered it was thought to induce a kind of short-term schizophrenia, so these quacks got it into their head that in order to cure schizophrenia they needed to find an antidote to LSD!"
That would be *Psychiatry*, not *Psychology*, that would take that perspective. Psychiatrists are medical doctors working with medical treatments.
If you are going to make broad, sweeping comments about an entire science, try making them about the right one. - wyrmwood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@Detritus: Actually, the "self-deception" title is incorrect - the article wasn't about false memories, it was about remembering the past from an emotionally removed point of view. Kind of like the Robin Williams "stand on the desk" scene in dead poet's society, as far as seeing things from a different point of view in order to move forward.
LONG WINDED as hell though, and the "double blind"-ish test seemed pretty lame with obvious results... - OdinEye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9This phenomenon is not new, and was not just discovered in the "past decade" as the article suggests.
The researchers referenced in this ridiculously long article apparently failed to do a comprehensive literature review prior to conducting their research - a common problem in psychology research, in which different divisions of the science essentially seem to pretend that the work done in other areas does not exist.
What they are referring to is called "reframing", and has been a central part of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy) for the past 25-30 years or so. This is well understood, and is a central component of CBT treatment, particularly for depression.
Behavior Analysis and Cognitive Behavioral research function towards psychology like physics functions towards the other natural sciences. These are hard sciences and they are much more similar in presentation to other hard sciences. This makes them much more effective, but also less interesting for people who would like their explanations of human behavior to involve dramatic storytelling. I suspect this is the reason we see repetition of already understood phenomena in new, more dramatic form. - chaosium, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9" Psychology is a pseudo-science and this story clearly illustrates how dangerously misguided it can get at times. "
POP psychology can be pseudoscientific, you Scientologist nutjob. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12No, the world must know!
- lunarnall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Please tell me I wasn't the only one that read "Better Living through Self Decapitation"...
- realcoolportal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@YUKEVSTUR: You don't realize it, but you ARE spouting a lot of New Age nonsense, but trying to pass it off as the teachings and writings of Plato, Buddha, and all these other people you mentioned. That's what New Age is: a hazy, quasi-mystical philosophy steeped in post modernistic thinking that tries to pass itself off as legitimate by misreading some of the ideas of past mystics, putting them all in a blender, and pressing frappe.
Even though Buddhism talked about maya (illusion), it was most likely talking about illusion in a more practical sense, which is to get "hung up" in the drama of daily life and culture (for example, believing that your world is ending, just because someone broke up with you or you lost your job or something like that). In other words, neutral events happen to us, but instead of seeing them for what they are (neutral events), we attach all this drama and meaning to them that make us miserable. Buddhism's answer to all that isn't to say that we live a fake story, but to let events come and go and stop becoming so attached to them, stop getting caught up in the drama.
As for Plato and Socrates, I don't know where you heard that they said life was just an illusion. Socrates was about questioning conventional wisdom-- secondhand knowledge that gets passed down to us and is assumed to be true and as a consequence defines our reality. He didn't say that we live illusions. Ditto Plato.
So it's not true that our lives are "made up" or invented. We live lives and the stories that we live out did happen. The illusion is in how we react to those stories. Do we see the stories as simply a chain of events? Or do we ascribe some sort of meaning and drama to them beyond what they were? Do we say, "Yes, I was orphaned as a child?" Or do we say, "OMG, I am so cursed and I will never be happy as a person and I can't believe I am so unlucky that this happened to me! Why me?" The illusion is in the drama and emotional attachment to the story, not the story itself. - rogerborn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6despite a few people here who seem to want to disparage anything good or new, and who cannot seem to see the good in anything, themselves, or others - this just makes sense, if you think about it.
how can anyone 'fix' their problems if they bring all their baggage and bad attitudes to the process?
it is only when you can look at the problem from a different perspective, disassociated from it, that you can begin to see what is real.
of course, not everyone is willing to see reality and be honest enough to take a look. - yukevster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@Junkyarddawg
It's far from "newage", it was first realized by people like Siddhārtha Gautama and later Socrates, Plato, Emerson and Thoreau to name but a few.
While it might sound new-age to you and hard to see on an intellectual level (as opposed to a experiential level), we all live our lives believing we are separate from everything else, which if you have any understanding of basic physics is impossible - it is only in the human mind that separation and a seperate "identity", or "I" exists.
In other words; we are just a body, in a body (the universe) experiencing "this moment" - everything else is a creation of our minds. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Psychologists would be the first to admit it. Psychologists, for the most part, are serious people--not jackasses who accuse random strangers online of practicing Scientology.
Honestly, anyone who has taken even an introductory-level course in Psychology should know this.
What we see in this sub-thread here is people acting out on the stories they tell themselves about their lives. They--for some inexplicable reason--personally identify with psychology. (They probably self-identify with ALL intellectual pursuits, due to their inflated egos.) They interpret attacks on psychology (or philosophy, literature, or film theory, etc.) as attacks on the self. They see no reason to form a rational response, because to them it's as if someone has just randomly insulted them. "Okay...This guy wrote something about--I'm a *****?!" That's all an attack on psychology is to them--just an inarticulate insult. They couldn't be bothered to think about or even fully read it. They read just enough to interpret the comment as an insult, and to react in kneejerk fashion. They take active measures to ensure that their perception BECOMES reality. They label the offensive person. They declare their own intellectual superiority. They share confidence with (either through direct comment or up-modding) other like-minded people. In this way, they bolster their misguided perceptions about themselves and others. - spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6does coping = self-deception? (to a degree)
- mattmollysdad, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7article was way to long. my best advise as a ***** old person is:
1. to keep away from crazies
2. u can't change people
3. and most important: don't jam ur (own) head.
there r going to be all kinds of people out there who want to ***** with u. they will say u r too fat, too skinny, too smart, too dumb, u always want to
lead, u always want to follow, etc. so u need to keep that ***** out of ur mind. the worst thing u can do is to ***** with ur own head... I've known only
a few really together people and they all have one thing in common... they r at peace with what they r... they don't doubt themselves, things happen,
***** happens, that's life... accept it and go on. - yukevster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Hey here's a radical idea (unless you're a Buddhist that is), how about dropping the 'story' all together?!
It takes practice but the rewards are well worth it.
It's human nature to see oueselves as this specific individual living out 'this' life. But that's all a delusion - the story of our lives is all made up... in our heads, and 9 out of ten people live their whole lives never realising it. Shame. - rompom7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@throadgrommel:
This is true. However only because some psychological practice is not science. For instance, a psychologist counciling a person is not scientific, while the counciling may be based on scientific research. It'd be like a scientist that creates medical drugs also being a doctor that prescribes drugs.
A doctor isn't a scientist, they use scientific research and study to heal a person. A psychologist does both the research/study and healing.
Psychological research can be considered a science, because it bears traits that any science has (aims, objectives, hypothesis, etc).
(no, i am not confused with psychiatrists, who have the ability to prescribe drugs) - rompom7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Dugg for the irony of "Psychology is crazy, yo."
- spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Good Digg, Dave. Favorite Quote from FA:
“I would need to locate the dissonance between the person I thought I was and the person other people saw.”
Which is analogous to my new favorite quote:
"It's not what you say, it's what people hear"
-Dr. Frank Luntz (from his book "Words that Work") - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@realcoolportal:
No, he's pretty much reiterating the basic tenets of Buddhism, paticca samuppada or "conditioned arising", which refers to the cyclical processes that combine to create the illusion we all have of an ongoing, independent consciousness, i.e., cells repairing and multiplying, neurons firing, the collecting of sensory information, etc. I have no idea what "maya" is or if it has anything to do with actual Buddhism. Anyway, it's only "New Age" in the sense that yuppies got their hands on it, stripped it of all logical merit, and started using it to be even more flaky and self-absorbed than non-Buddhists. But that's not the fault of the philosophy, it's the fault of the people misusing it. Don't bash unless you know what you're talking about. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's not a bad idea, to decapitate the self.
- oohexcitement, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It is possible that each time a person imagines a past event of their life, they may distort their original perception. To look at it with a fresh perspective would be to take a relatively unbiased stance to the event. However, the 3rd person stance could also be very biased. Perhaps it is best to let past events rest the moment they occur, and stay in the present moment without judgement. :)
- TheCrazyIndian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2When I first looked at really quickly I thought it said "Better Living Through Self Decapitation" HAHA
- chikkychappy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I agree that all our experiences MAY (i.e., we're not sure of it; while a lot of what we perceive are just brain interpretations, it's almost an absolute fact that behind this is an underlying reality) simply be construction of our minds, I don't agree with the recommended action. Your approach is terribly naive, absolutist and myopic.
So what if, in the most ABSOLUTE level, everything is just an illusion? It is still a very convincing one that people throughout the ages have believed in. The knowledge does not affect our daily lives; it is just a footnote, a mere physical data, in the most obscure area of our minds.
Consider: If the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics were proven, what would your line of thinking be? Would you recommend that people stop mulling over things because everything will happen anyway? So they could just kill that man you hate because, in another universe, your equivalent would not? To suggest such is immature. We have lived our lives under a very convincing illusion, and deforming our lives would not change anything. Would we ever be in contact with our parallel self? Would your new decisions somehow make their effect less real? Hell no. Nothing has changed in our experience, only our knowledge of its ultimate basis.
Going back, knowing that everything is just an illusion, again, does not change much. A chicken will be on my mind be not part of my being (unless I eat it), and the table is not me or vice-versa. I can still fully differentiate things from each other, and most importantly from myself, and since this gets me through the day then I would stick to it.
You may argue that this knowledge would help us in the psychological level, but I disagree. Just as quarks are not considered in chemistry (as far as I know, atoms are most basic constituents), I also say that this physical hypothesis you're stating is not fundamental enough to considerably change our psyche. - OdinEye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Care to list your references?
Or is this bold statement based upon only your personal (I'm sure vast) wealth of knowledge? - yukevster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And this is where humanity gets stuck - in it's "stuff". Few people ever go beyond and dis-identify from all their 'life' stuff (egocentric conditioned mind) - it's a sad fact. For most to do so, even if they realized it were possible to do so, would be far too painful, confusing and even scary. I'm working on it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1check out richard bandler
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Nonsense. Psychology is built on scientific processes. You could try actually picking up a book to see how it's done.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I never claimed that psychology isn't science. I only stated that anyone who's studied psychology would concede that there are serious questions as to whether or not psychology is a science, and we are in agreement on that point.
However, psychoanalysis is not the only non-scientific aspect of psychology. It's certainly the most controversial, but there are questions as to whether emotion is even measurable and whether mental illness actually exists in a quantifiable way that is distinct from biological disorder.
I could use the scientific method to determine the best way to play marbles, but that doesn't make marbles a science.
An interesting field of endeavor, sure, but not a science.
I'm sure a lot of scientists play marbles, but that doesn't make it a science either.
No more than literature, religion, or boxing (the sweet science). - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2sounds like NLP
- OdinEye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ humanlabrat - "While reframing is certainly a central component of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), that does not mean that research into the nuances of its effects for non-clinical populations is merely reinventing the wheel. Reframing (also called "reappraising" ... another term close to the heart of CBT) is widely researched in cognitive and social cognitive psychological research for how it applies to everyday emotion regulation in non-clinical, psychologically-healthy populations."
I agree - it is always of value to extend the current understanding with replications that apply to different populations and different situations, etc. This is how science progresses.
The article does not discuss this as a replication. It describes the understanding that personal interpretation patterns for life events effect affect and mood as a new phenomenon, recently discovered "in the last decade". Neither the author, nor the people interviewed in the article (at least to the degree that they were quoted - something they are admittedly not entirely in control of) indicates anything about previous research - they seem content to pretend this is new, which has the effect of making them seem responsible for the discovery of the effect.
All of this in the New York Times, which suggests it will have broad exposure to the general public.
It is this to which I object. - humanlabrat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While reframing is certainly a central component of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), that does not mean that research into the nuances of its effects for non-clinical populations is merely reinventing the wheel. Reframing (also called "reappraising" ... another term close to the heart of CBT) is widely researched in cognitive and social cognitive psychological research for how it applies to everyday emotion regulation in non-clinical, psychologically-healthy populations. *Everyone* needs to regulate their emotions, not just people who seek therapy ...
You seem to know quite a bit about psychology (clinical in particular), and I completely agree with you about the woeful state of ignorance between fields and subfields of various disciplines. However, in this case, the researchers were certainly not rediscovering CBT, because they were interested in the effects of reframing as it is used to regulate emotions in everyday contexts among people who do not suffer from mental illnesses. You should consider reading the empirical article published in Psychological Science 2 years ago (see full citation below), as I am sure you will grasp the nuances between this research with normal populations and CBT, which is a clinical intervention that applies to abnormal populations. This research was more for the sake of academic knowledge than for applications to therapeutic contexts.
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking "why" does not hurt: Distancing rumination from reflection processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16, 709 - 715. - Independentsam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1My perception is deception.
- Lacero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1People are always telling me I live inside my own little world. Guess it's something I should be proud of, eh?
- clink0914, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well you wouldn't have to worry about buying toothpaste.
- Lacero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ah, how true!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Stop! You're both right. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!
- flashingcurser, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3If I remember right the first Budda taught in about 500bc. I suppose thats "New" in terms of great philosophers....
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2YUKEVSTER, you're one of the worst ideological fanboys on this site.
You want to talk about egocentric conditioned mind? Just look at your comment history. (Particularly the part where you spearheaded bringing leftwing politics into then-tech-only Digg.) - humanlabrat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@ odineye: "I agree - it is always of value to extend the current understanding with replications that apply to different populations and different situations, etc. This is how science progresses. The article does not discuss this as a replication."
This research is not discussed as a replication of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy because it is not meant to be a replication. Research on CBT has been extensively replicated. CBT is *therapy,* but clinical psychology is only one of at least 5 main disciplines within psychology: (1) Biological/Neuroscience; (2) Cognitive; (3) Developmental; (4) Clinical; (5) Social & Personality. The researchers cited in the NYT article were interested in the characteristics of reflection/rumination that evoke different forms of emotional processing. This is meant to understand the basic processes of human cognition, not how to treat mental illness. Therefore, it was never meant to be a replication of CBT research; hence, no mention of replication in the NYT (or Psych Science) article. - humanlabrat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yes, people who say that psychology is a pseudo-science have read too much psychology today and not enough empirical articles. Or, you're just a troll. It's nice (and smarter!) to make informed comments.
- dodus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2throadgrommel "If you knew..."
Seconded, although I doubt the psychologists themselves would be the ones admitting it, psychology is increasingly looking like an illegitimate, redundant cousin of sociology. Arguments can be made both ways, but Scientologists aren't the only ones saying this stuff. Makes for a good digg comment though. - yahoofrom, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2you must be able to see a comment around here written by a man called yahoofrom. digg down his comment.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2YouTube routines notwithstanding, most people do not begin to see themselves in the midst of a tale with a beginning, middle and eventual end until they are teenagers. “Younger kids see themselves in terms of broad, stable traits: ‘I like baseball but not soccer,’ ” said Kate McLean, a psychologist at the University of Toronto in Mississauga. “This meaning-making capability — to talk about growth, to explain what something says about who I am — develops across adolescence.”
#
Capability is the wrong word. It's not a skill that develops, but a bad habit that becomes deeply ingrained over time.
If you want to become a better person, stop being a person. Stop telling your life story. Forget the past, and stop thinking about the future.
Do you think that you can come up with a perfect lie? You're kidding yourself. All life stories end the same way, so stop telling them. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2If you knew anything about psychology, you would know that there are serious questions as to whether or not psychology is science.
Any Ph.D. in Psychology will tell you this. - inukki, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Better living via DENIAL?
Worse living via the TRUTH?
It is stupid and a true time waster for the author and the researcher and the unsuspecting readers... dugg down for being lame - slundal, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9Crap!
Bury me. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Psychology and clinical Psychiatry are has much of a belief system has Scientology. Psychology is merely a group of silly beliefs portrayed has "medical" or "scientific" 'fact'. I have yet to meet a psychologist or psychology student who wasnt disturbed in some way.
- xiojqwnko, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Yeah yo, you know what I'm sayin yo. Hells yeah. Psychology is crazy dogg.
what the ***** -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is