Why is psychology such a useless subject?

File: 93 KB, 1600x767, Media 566209 en.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 13:37:43 2019 No.13284697 [Reply] [Original]

Why is psychology such a useless subject?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 13:39:11 2019 No.13284706 Because it's all in your head

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 13:40:32 2019 No.13284714 It's very useful in making you seem smart by spouting Freudian and Jungian lingo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 13:56:46 2019 No.13284785 Because people like you exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 13:59:29 2019 No.13284799 Because psychoanalysis was a failed abortion of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 14:23:12 2019 No.13284904 Because, ironically, people who pursue it are fucked in the head. It also doesn't help they are extemelly dogmatic about a field of study that's still in its infancy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 14:27:02 2019 No.13284923 >>13284904 this is true everyone who studies it is some type of mentally ill

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 14:28:13 2019 No.13284929 >>13284697 Because the capitalist machine doesn’t give a fuck about you

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:32:20 2019 No.13285591 >>13284697 Because it a humanistic arts subject which pretends to be a scientific one

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:35:12 2019 No.13285609 >>13284697 it's only accurate regarding npcs, and their phenomenology is not exactly complex. Most of it is self evident.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:39:37 2019 No.13285629

>>13284904
>they are extemelly dogmatic about a field of study that's still in its infancy.
This is my problem really. Everyone from Freud to the CBT people to whoever made points that very well might have validity but due to the nature of the subject matter it's extremely hard to know much of anything with certainty, so people should be cautious about asserting their theories as more than possibilities, or shooting down other people's theories based usually on just disliking them for personal reasons.

People should be that way about science in general, and they aren't, but it is especially egregious when dealing with psychology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:41:45 2019 No.13285638 because you're trying to make sense of someone else thought patterns using their words and your own bias thought patterns

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:42:11 2019 No.13285640

Because its difficult to apply to the individual. It's all about normalcy in the modern age and deviations from it. It's interesting to get information about how the average human works from their studies, but when it narrows down to the individual the only thing it really can do is either teach you to habituate an act or thought process back to normalcy or prescribe medication to get your brain chemicals back to normal.

Also people who think it's useless suffer from too much individual ideology and can't be expected to understand things from another person's perspective or that anything can possibly be different from what they experience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:42:51 2019 No.13285642 >>13284697 Everything ITT is strawman. >>13284904 Ad hominem >>13285591 Ignorant of all non-clinical psych >>13285629 All psych textbooks and authorities emphasize its infancy and its methodological difficulties

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:44:59 2019 No.13285658

>>13285642
>All psych textbooks and authorities emphasize its infancy and its methodological difficulties
All the psychologists and psychiatrists I've spoken to have presented to me the theory they believe and have been rather unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:46:39 2019 No.13285670 >>13285658 Nice anedoctal evidence, please proceed to universalize it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:48:58 2019 No.13285682 >>13285670 it's a problem that's basically universal in science, people cling to their theories. Your field is certainly not exempt from it, it's one of the worst offenders

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:51:03 2019 No.13285701 >>13285682 >it's one of the worst offenders Do provide evidence the stastitics for this Every frield has people like that, but that’s not an inherent problem of the field itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:51:35 2019 No.13285704 >>13285642 I bet you're a blast to hang out with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 16:53:45 2019 No.13285722 >>13285701 Fields like sociology and psychology are worse because they deal with facts about people, which by their nature are extremely emotionally impactful. The replication crisis is worse in these fields, if you want some evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:03:37 2019 No.13285781 >>13285722 Read up on cognitive psychology. Im not going to waste my time with people who’s knowledge of psych doesnt extend beyond the therapist’s couch or le epic social experiment

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:09:24 2019 No.13285821 >>13285781 You can just admit when you're wrong, there's probably a bit in your cogpsych textbook about that being helpful

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:14:21 2019 No.13285854

Why do you keep reposting the same thread? You've had your answer. Like I said the first time, before the thead was deleted: your criticism, if not merely bait, shows your naivete, and as you continue in scholarly pursuits you will realize that all human intellectual endeavor in all disciplines is ultimately futile. And as I said the second time you reposted this thread, without you ever making any actual retort:
>Neuroscience is boring. It never actually gets at anything more substantial or interesting than trivial factoids like "neurons in the corpus callosum usually carry X mitochondria." The clinically applied neuroscience research, while actually useful, typically operates on woefully incomplete understandings; we're really just doing what seems to work, and most medications operate by this principle, crude bricks that we smash atypical brains with to make them behave and maybe be happy. Neuroscience isn't the Holy Grail you think it is and if you had ever read the slightest smattering about the subject you would be aware of this. It is necessary for there to be a synthesis of raw biological data and conscious experience, or the domain of philosophy, and psychology is that synthesis, and it has its failings, but so does everything else. Nobody ever complains about economics being witchdoctory even though by comparison to economics, psychology is as obvious and straightforward and rigorous and "scientific" as chemistry. The hate on psychology is largely a meme, articulations of which rarely come paired with either a critical understanding of the field, a critical understanding of related fields, a critical understanding of basic epistemological obstacles, or a critical understanding of how science is done. The funniest thing is that loathing of contemporary psychology is almost always almost immediately followed up by thoughtlessly and hypocritically unscientific opinion-shilling, that A, B, and C are obvious truths about the human condition, when the entire problem with psychology is that it addresses some of the most complex and difficult questions there are, and just defaulting to old opinions without more seriously evaluating them is disingenuous and stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:15:47 2019 No.13285865 >>13285854 >Nobody ever complains about economics being witchdoctory Lot of people do in fact complain about that, and should.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:19:37 2019 No.13285883
File: 32 KB, 406x550, thankslit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I want a masters in mental health counseling so I can be a psychotherapist .

Right now I've started my junior year as an English major and will still have a chance to get into that masters program. Should I switch my major to psychology instead so I can learn more about psychology?

While psychology is more interesting to me, I've wasted enough time as is in college and this switch would take even more time (and money). Could I get the same education reading Jung and Freud in my off time?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:20:45 2019 No.13285890 >>13285883 Forgot to mention it's at a state school.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:20:56 2019 No.13285892 >>13285883 You could probably get some shitty social work master's with just english, and then you would be allowed to give whatever kind of "therapy" you'd like.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:23:31 2019 No.13285911

>>13285892
I looked on a therapist finding website and now I have my doubts about the field. I genuinely thought and maybe still think psychology would be a great way to help others but all I see is MFT and I even saw a hypnotherapist on there.

I think I need to do more reading before I decide. I don't want to feel like a fraud my entire time.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:23:48 2019 No.13285914

>>13285642
Clinical psychology is the only field with any type of scrunity into its predictive power. The rest is total fucking made up bullshit that is akin to experts in Star Wars Lore.
There is a reason absolutely no jobs whatsoever outside clinical work and academia ever look for psychology degrees

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:25:38 2019 No.13285922 >>13285642 >methodological difficulties There are no difficulties. There is an active refusal to adhere to predictive models and establish causal foundations before admitting to concepts and categories

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:26:00 2019 No.13285925 >>13285911 Do at least a PhD, then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:27:49 2019 No.13285931 >>13285925 I'm already fucked for a PhD anon. 2.8 gpa and years at a community college. Also isn't a PhD level mostly research? I always thought of the pscyhotherapist as the applied science level of psychology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:29:54 2019 No.13285939 >>13285911 Look for Evolutionary Psychology, then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:30:33 2019 No.13285943 >>13285939 lol

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:32:49 2019 No.13285951

>>13285914

With the Exception of Mark Zuckember that was also a psychologist. Oh, and almost every high tech firm is looking for psychology linked with informatics nowadays.

Cambridge Analytica (a psychological organisation) fucking won the elections for Trump. Get out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:34:28 2019 No.13285958 File: 48 KB, 894x773, 1549637620132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13285951 >Cambridge Analytica (a psychological organisation) fucking won the elections for Trump

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:35:08 2019 No.13285963

>>13285931
>Also isn't a PhD level mostly research? I always thought of the pscyhotherapist as the applied science level of psychology.
Rigorous psychotherapeutic practice requires an understanding of how research is done and what research implies about how practice should be done. Although master's level psychotherapists are not unusual, they typically work with economically unprioritized populations, like college students or the poor, and rapidly forget their educations beyond what they personally feel "works best." Psychiatrists are just as out of touch but in the opposite direction: they are overspecialized as prescribers and no longer have any idea how to have a conversation about pain or joy. The PhD level clinical psychologist is the actual psychotherapeutic expert of today, expertise in psychotherapy admittedly being limited.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:38:11 2019 No.13285976 >>13285963 Any books you would suggest anon so that I have a more firm belief in the field?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:38:45 2019 No.13285979 File: 8 KB, 269x187, Unknown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13285958 It is the offspring of psychology and data mining.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:40:12 2019 No.13285987 >>13285979 was questioning the 'won Trump the elections' bit

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:41:24 2019 No.13285993

>>13285951
>Oh, and almost every high tech firm is looking for psychology linked with informatics nowadays.
>Cambridge Analytica (a psychological organisation) fucking won the elections for Trump

And do you have any evidence they're actually hiring psychologists or just doing the smart thing and coming up with their own ad hoc models simply looking at the data

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:41:42 2019 No.13285994 >>13285976 No. Serious academics don't write books anymore, it's all a constant exchange of brief, refined research papers. Books about psychology are largely aimed at lay audiences and/or an exercise in wallet-fattening.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:42:36 2019 No.13285998 Deleuze answers this question very well

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:43:38 2019 No.13286004 File: 82 KB, 480x360, (you).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13285704 >huhuhuhuh you must be fun at parties hughuguhguhguhhhuhuhuh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:43:47 2019 No.13286005 >>13285994 This all stems from me working an incredibly shitty job and realizing how awful it is to work without feeling like your helping. I might just become a firefighter or teach at a community college then. Big kiss anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 17:59:03 2019 No.13286062 >>13286004 Snarky multi-reply posts are peak reddit even if that dude was also using a Soi meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:06:06 2019 No.13286090 File: 25 KB, 480x263, to christians.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13285993 I do have evidence, you can have them too, look at their job placement page. However they do like a certain kind of psychology... Socio Cognitive, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:08:23 2019 No.13286100 >>13284923 can confirm

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:19:35 2019 No.13286164 >>13286090 >Socio Cognitive i.e. Not psychology

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:28:35 2019 No.13286210 >>13284697 If you believe this than you don't understand it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:43:01 2019 No.13286283 >>13285854 based

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:52:34 2019 No.13286327

ITT: People who don't know shit about psychology other than psychoanalytical stuff that no modern psychologist or clinician or researcher in the field actually believes in try to discuss psychology

Embarrassing. Psychology in this day and age is moreso a science than the vague set of philosophical beliefs about humanity that it was born out of. Try taking a physiological or cognitive psych course sometime, or even a course on psychopathology and development.

>>13285883
I did an MHC masters but did my undergrad in linguistics and anthropology. But I ended up having to go back to school for psych prereqs. You should know though that no respected psychologist or therapist or counselor, at least where I am located, believes in any more than a fraction of what Freud and Jung spouted. Even modern day psychodynamic practitioners cringe at those two. The field these days is very behavioral, as in CBT and DBT, mindfulness, and other empirically supported modalities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:56:43 2019 No.13286345 >>13286327 how do you feel about IQ

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 18:59:07 2019 No.13286356

>>13286345
IQ tests are pretty consistent measures past a certain age when synaptic pruning concludes, but are generally regarded by many in the field as containing a certain degree of cultural biases based on whichever culture developed the particular measure. So they may be internally consistent but how reliable they are on testing what they mean to is arguable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:00:10 2019 No.13286362 >>13286356 Would you say IQ tests are more or less culturally biased than the majority of results in psychology

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:00:52 2019 No.13286367

>>13286345
Not him but IQ constructs are passingly useful. It's not the discipline's fault that pseud laymen and charlatans have apotheosized it as the ultimate standard of intellectualism. It was originally built to identify people with cognitive deficits so that special needs education could be provided.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:02:14 2019 No.13286375

>>13286327
Thanks for the response anon and congratulations on your MA in MHC.

Most people I've talked to have told me not to switch majors and I don't think I will if I can still take some psych electives.

My goal would be to do private practice that has an emphasis on helping young men with depression or anxiety. After looking to find nearby psychotherapists however I only see MFT though. Any advice on whether or not I should still get into this field and any advice on finding a good graduate program where I won't feel like I'm learning pseudoscience?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:03:39 2019 No.13286379 >>13284697 After Nietzsche established the basic principles of it, it was co-opted by a horny Jew and a Swedish mystic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:06:32 2019 No.13286387 >>13286327 >Psychology in this day and age is moreso a science than the vague set of philosophical beliefs about humanity that it was born out of. Its actually gotten worse if anything T. Actual STEM Chad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:07:35 2019 No.13286391 >>13286327 >CBT and DBT, mindfulness, >empirically supported modalities AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:14:48 2019 No.13286428 >>13286391 isn't there research backing CBT anon?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:20:25 2019 No.13286452 >>13286428 Yeah and most of it is flawed because the whole point of CBT is gaslighting and bullying patients into "reporting" things more positively to their clinicians Psychology as always just making up its own metrics and cheating them

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:29:10 2019 No.13286483 >>13286452 The field would be wonderful if I felt a deep belief in it. I really need to do my own research and come to my own conclusions. Therapy and psychology have always seemed like a controversial field to everyone outside of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:29:11 2019 No.13286485 >>13286327 >Please brainwash yourself with contemporary psych dogma before having an opinion

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 19:59:06 2019 No.13286664 bump lol :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:01:22 2019 No.13286681

>>13286362
All psychology research, or at least the good studies published, are aware of their sample demographics and what those cultural implications might suggest at a broader scale. You'll often see points like that made in the limitations sections of research. So I suppose the limitation is always present, but it should be recognized and mentioned in a published study, and if it isn't then that says something about the quality of the journal the research was published in.

>>13286375
Honestly an MHC program or LCSW is probably the way to go if you only want a masters but still want to treat depression and anxiety. MHC would be more geared towards counseling of course- and since its more focused on treatment rather than research it ends up being a lot more practical and less psuedoscience than a PhD program actually.

If you have an MHC degree people assume you are going to be using something most likely short term and goal oriented, which means you will be using evidence based treatments such as CBT or DBT or something with actual research supporting it. Its rare to see the more loosey goosey pseudoscience modalities like psychodynamic or gestalt in an MHC program than in a PhD program. At least in my state (NY). Things might be different in other parts of the country.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:04:42 2019 No.13286696 >>13286428 There is an insane amount of studies and RCT's (random controlled trials) proving the efficacy and success of CBT, DBT, MBCT, MBSR, and dozens of other behavioral modalities of treatment. That anon has no idea what they are saying.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:05:52 2019 No.13286707

>>13286681
Is there any benefit for me to try to go into a PHD program instead?

I remember listening to a Jordan Peterson clip and it made the MA level seem like the applied science. While research is interesting, I'd much rather work with people in therapy. I guess my question is that I don't see the point of becoming a psychologist if I don't want to do research.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:06:00 2019 No.13286708 >>13286452 Sounds like you are using your own anecdotal evidence rather than the wealth of research on the matter...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:06:14 2019 No.13286711 >>13286696 >proving

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:08:29 2019 No.13286722 >>13286327 So you are in major at psychology. I need some real thing. I enough read freud, jung and adler but everyone said it is not a psychology anymore. So please, book rec for someone want to into real psychology .

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:10:59 2019 No.13286731

>>13286707
Short answer is no.
The whole point of the MHC program and, to a lesser extent, the LCSW degree, is for those who want to treat clients with mental disorders without spending years on research. If thats your goal, then forget the PhD.

The benefit of the PhD though besides research is you have more power as an advocate and also better teaching possibilities for college level education, and also a bit more perceived expertise. "Perceived" being the keyword there though.

>>13286722
Read up on Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:13:58 2019 No.13286742

>>13284697
I read a bunch of books and watched a ton of videos on Narcissism. I suspected my aunt had it bc she treated her daughter like she was cleopatra, but she treated her son poorly and would berate him every day.

Tbh if you know any abusive person and want to help the victim it’s good to study some. The son no longer speaks to the mom and the daughter doesn’t let my aunt interact with her children for fear of her recreating that Golden child / scapegoat complex she held with her children

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:17:23 2019 No.13286759

>>13285914
IO psychologists primarily work in the private sector and the government. A number of specialized fields (e.g. personality psych, cognitive psych) allow for the opportunity to be hired as a consultant. I don't remember the pretentious title, but I know a number of cognitive psychologists that, essentially, were hired to ensure that individuals, guided by the instructions provided, could use the products of the company.

While there are meme fields within psychology that are susceptible to whatever feel-good bullshit comes along (e.g. educational psych, most things regarding gender/sex that are studied psychologically outside of an evolutionary context), the majority of it is a
young, scientific field with, due to its statistical mastery and methodological rigor, sizable potential to grow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:17:28 2019 No.13286760 File: 10 KB, 128x128, lovemyselfandthereforothers.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13286731 Incredibly based, you were the perfect anon for me to talk to today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:18:13 2019 No.13286767 >>13286731 And then...? Give me 5 recommend I think I can do this

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:23:58 2019 No.13286792 >>13286711 This, nothing is ever proved by the scientific method. He's right though, a seemingly innumerable amount of data suggest that CBT, DBT etc. are the best tools we currently have for treating mental illness.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:26:14 2019 No.13286801

>>13286760
Glad to help, and good luck finding a place in the field. Just know some of it is wacky mumbo jumbo BS and some is really practical helpful material, and once you begin to sort your way through you can actually find ways to help others in meaningful ways.

>>13286767
The thing is that reading on behavioral psych isn't really philosophy in the sense that Freud and Jung might be, so its not exactly interesting to read. Nor is it the entertaining "pop psych" you see that sells in bookstores. Its more actual clinical instruction manuals like Beck's manual on treating depression, or a CBT intro book like Doing CBT. So while practical, its not like you read a fun theory book on CBT to "get it", you read a cbt manual to "do it", if that makes sense.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:34:23 2019 No.13286842

>>13286767
Not that anon, but...

Child and Adolescent Psychopathology by Theodore Beauchaine and Stephen P. Hinshaw is a great, thick overview of modern, developmental-psychological research. Unless you want to shell out 50 bucks, get the second edition (it's the blue one) used.

The science of the mind by Owen Flannagan, a cognitive psychologist and philosopher, is an interesting integration of philosophy with cognitive psychology.

If you're interested in DBT, anything by Marsha Linehan.

I'd also recommend, once you've identified an area of interest, diving into academic scholarship and sifting through the various papers on the subject. Google scholar is a great resource for this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:36:58 2019 No.13286858 >>13286681 >A research-based program is more susceptible to pseudoscience than an application-based program LOL

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:41:22 2019 No.13286885

>>13286767
>>13286842
I'm that anon and yeah I would also rec Marsha Linehan if you're interested in DBT and Borderline.

I also forgot there are some pretty interesting books on trauma out there. Trauma and Recovery by Herman, The boy who was raised as a dog, and the Body Keeps the Score are all good ones.

>>13286858
Yes, actually. As someone who has worked as a psychology professor, as a clinical therapist, and as a researcher, yeah, thats how it is. Did you have a different experience?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:43:56 2019 No.13286898 >>13284904 >>13284923 can confirm t. psychologist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:45:07 2019 No.13286905 >>13286885 You worked a psych professor with an MA?

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:48:04 2019 No.13286927

>>13286905
Adjunct professor with an MA, and you can be a TA (who does almost as much work as an Adjunct for like 1/3rd of the pay) with just a BA. Its pretty fucked actually. Sometimes you got people fresh out of a BA program teaching freshman's psych 101 in recitations while the actual PhD professor just does massive lectures. College's will do anything to avoid paying out a real salary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:56:42 2019 No.13286966 >>13285951 >Cambridge Analytica (a psychological organisation) fucking won the elections for Trump. Get out. lmao.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 20:58:40 2019 No.13286977 >>13286327 If half the papers aren't replicable, then it's shit. Most don't even understand basic statistics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:00:22 2019 No.13286982 >>13286345 >>13286356 IQ is a meme. It's circularly defined and people who cite correlation don't even understand what that even is. Intelligence ought to be multidimensional if anything.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:02:44 2019 No.13286991

>>13286885
>Yes, actually. As someone who has worked as a psychology professor, as a clinical therapist, and as a researcher, yeah, thats how it is. Did you have a different experience?
As somebody with so much psychology work under their belt, why have you not considered the possibility that browsing 4chan is a maladaptive behavior that is deleterious to your mental health? To maintain your longterm psychological wellbeing, it seems as though it would be best to pursue tangible hobbies and relationships rather than slopping through the fecal filth that is this place. It's possible that there are other websites that would be more your taste, like facebook or reddit.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:06:55 2019 No.13287003

>>13286977
Thats why you have to read the actual studies themselves and not just some random news article or story summarizing a study without even mentioning the journal it was published in and how respectable that journal is. If half of it is shit then the other half might be saying really interesting and worthwhile things and is worth trying to pursue in an actual scientific fashion. I'm not saying all psychology is flawless, a lot of it is equivalent to well phrased shots in the dark, but the stuff that is legit is worth pursuing.

>>13286991
I couldn't think of a better way to have a direct window into the subconscious mind of disturbed individuals than to browse 4chan. I'm not interested in people's surface level socially acceptable behavior, the fake presentations people put on other sites. I didn't become a therapist to explore socially normal behavior. I want to see how people with struggles really feel and express themselves. So 4chan is the place, if that makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:09:55 2019 No.13287015 File: 170 KB, 360x346, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13287003 >I couldn't think of a better way to have a direct window into the subconscious mind of disturbed individuals than to browse 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:11:43 2019 No.13287027 >>13286708 Nah you can read this bullshit plain as day in Becks own writing. He's a huckster kike and his work is pure snake oil You can tell by just looking at its magical "decline in effectiveness" each year as less people fall for the placebo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:14:15 2019 No.13287037 >>13287003 you should go to 8ch they have this site beat by far on that metric

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:18:09 2019 No.13287057 >>13287037 Only different between this site and 8ch is a 20 IQ drop

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:18:47 2019 No.13287062

>>13287027
I disagree with you but you raise a curious point. What exactly is a "placebo" when it comes to psychotherapy? All therapeutic success is technically in the mind, and so if a client feels and thinks better because they think they should, technically that result would be indistinguishable from if a client feels and thinks better because the particular tx in question actually worked.
Measuring mechanisms of change in treatment, even with the use of mediation analysis, can still be pretty tricky to be honest. But the fact still remains that people in treatment do tend to get better. How that happens might not be as clear as some experts say, but therapy does work more often than it fails.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:19:33 2019 No.13287066 >>13284714 I assure you, this does make you seem smart

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:19:37 2019 No.13287067 >>13287062 >What exactly is a "placebo" when it comes to psychotherapy? When you're having to ask this question you're already lost

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:24:24 2019 No.13287087 >>13287003 Based again 4chan made me want to become a therapist

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:28:03 2019 No.13287094

>>13287067
I don't think you understood my actual question, and you don't seem to have an actual answer either. Let me restate it so the question becomes clearer to you.

In psychopharmaceutical research examining the effects of a drug, a placebo suggests that the effects observed, the results of the experiment, are not due to the actual drug but is instead a result of the subject's change in mind and perception. They think they took something that works, and so they feel better.

Yet in psychotherapy all results are measured in feelings, and the tx is essentially dealing with intangible things like cognition and emotion. Does the client feel better? Did they measure a lower score on a particular scale for depression or anxiety? If yes, the tx worked. But HOW did it work? Was it due to the actual particular qualities of the tx plan administered, or was it simply because being in therapy made the client feel like they should get better, so they did?

My point is both of these outcomes are the exact same when observed. In both scenarios the client got better. So in psychotherapy a true placebo does not really exists in the same way that it does in medical research. Only with more studies using mediation analysis looking at mechanisms of change in certain tx modalities can this become clearer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:28:54 2019 No.13287097 >>13287066 Neither does believing in made up bullshit like personality disorders and depression as an illness

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:30:14 2019 No.13287104 >>13287094 >I don't think you understood my actual question You may choose to believe so but don't be surprised as your discipline continues to rapidly decline in trust and funding

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:32:46 2019 No.13287113 >>13287094 The therapy is supposed to work better than placebo.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:38:01 2019 No.13287138

>>13286977
the replication crisis is a fucking meme
>>13287003
He didn't do a good job of explaining why, but, from the meta analysis that spurned this crisis, a majority of the failed replications can be explained due to differences in methodology.

There's also problems with the definition of replication the analysis used. If we're doing statistics using frequentist methods, which are the tradition methods of data analysis within psychology, than the probability of achieving a significant result decreases with every significant result achieved. Also, just because a result does not achieve significance or display the same effect of the previous study does not mean that there was a failure in the replication. Rather, if it shows the same trend as the original results, then it's likely that the results differed in significance and effect due to differences in the sample. However, the same trend is still there.

When replications provide an opposite trend, questions should be asked about possible individual differences that would give rise to this heterogeneity of results. The research regarding the relationship between worry and autonomic arousal is a great example of this.

Borkovec formulated a model of worry based on results suggesting that worry was linked to lower AA. This model asserts that GAD individuals engage in pathological worry, which causes the individual great discomfort, and believe that worry is useful because such worry is negatively reinforcing in that serves to avoid heightened arousal.

Newman, working off data that suggested heightened AA was linked to worry in GAD, posited the contrast avoidance. This model states that GAD individuals worry in order to put themselves on constant red alert. This constant red alert prevents from experiencing a negative contrast, which is perceived to have catastrophic consequences if it occurs. They use worry to prepare for and expect the worst in any given situation. If the worst doesn't happen, it's attributed to luck, and, if it does happen, the behavior is reinforced.

Vacey, noticing the heterogeneity of results, from which these two groups of researchers articulated models upon, designed a study, which netted results that suggest effortful control could moderate the relationship between worry and AA.

Hope this helps, the replication crisis isn't taken seriously inside the sciences for good reason, and not because of arrogance.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:38:14 2019 No.13287139

>>13287113
But there is no real effective way to measure a placebo in psychotherapy. There is a sugarpill equivalent for say SSRI medications right, which works as a placebo. But there is no sugarpill equivalent for something like CBT.

To my current knowledge (I could be wrong) there are no popularly recognized RCT's that put some subjects in a CBT group and others in a totally fake therapy group and observed the effects.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:38:48 2019 No.13287140 >>13284697 Pro bait thread OP really well done

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:39:02 2019 No.13287142 >>13287003 Subconscious is a meme word, and that whole rationalization is filled with words that, in tandem with one another, mean literally nothing. No wonder you couldn't get into a PhD program and had to settle for a masters, you're a brainlet.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:41:10 2019 No.13287154

>>13287138
This is some of the best cope I have ever seen, your field is a meme

>Also, just because a result does not achieve significance or display the same effect of the previous study does not mean that there was a failure in the replication. Rather, if it shows the same trend as the original results, then it's likely that the results differed in significance and effect due to differences in the sample. However, the same trend is still there.
i have no words

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:43:13 2019 No.13287162

>>13287138
Thanks for giving more information on that actually. I never looked at the actual methods of that meta analysis, but suspected variation in methodology might account for a lot of it. Either way its not a totally accurate depiction.

>>13287142
And tell me anon, how does that make you feel?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:44:49 2019 No.13287169 >>13284697 It’s always though of as a meme, but look what the modern advertising industry has done with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:47:40 2019 No.13287185 >>13287142 Do you think a PhD is worth it anon? For any field?

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:50:46 2019 No.13287200

>>13287139
>To my current knowledge (I could be wrong) there are no popularly recognized RCT's that put some subjects in a CBT group and others in a totally fake therapy group and observed the effects.

Because CBT groups are just whatever retard is put in charge of them fancies is "distorted" thinking so it self controls on its own. You can't control for what is already nonsense

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:53:58 2019 No.13287222 Psychologists or psychotherapists in this thread, do you feel like your helping people? Is it clear and evident in your work? Genuinely curious

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:58:55 2019 No.13287247 >>13287222 They're notorious sociopaths and even psychopaths so they'll just lie. It takes a special type of scumbag to become a psychology and these fucks all deserve a bullet Look into scientology and dianetics instead

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 21:59:30 2019 No.13287252 >>13287222 I’ve got a few friends who are psychologists and they’ve always said it’s hit and miss, mostly dependent on the person who is receiving treatment.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:00:08 2019 No.13287256
File: 181 KB, 900x675, gg-allin-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13284697
its not useless. its totally useful, and that is the problem. psychiatry/psychology acts as if depression is something bad because life should be happy and comfortable and comforting, and at the same time they fervently think that is not a philosophical assumption. then you can see the kind of "intelligenstia" we have here.... of course they talk thousand things about why depression is a disease and is not a moral or ethical assumption and blah blah blah...
they are part of the intellectual power of today (science..:). so they dont think they have to put too much effort in explaining themselves from an ethical or philosophical side. science have the intellectual power of this day, and psychology/psychiatry is the thing, in power, who gonna say what exactly is the mind. and they are trying it, they are trying it with all their hearts.
obviously, tomorrow, the paradigm of knowledge will be another, and again we will gonna have people saying what is the mind ( consciousness). and the wheel keep rolling as always roll.
they are just a theory. its a shame they work with the judicial system hand in hand. but is only a consequence of they like part of the "truth system" of today. besides that, people are stupid, people believe whatever nonsense theory they throw (and will throw) at them. go to a psych, go to a priest, go to a fucking buddhist counsellor, go to the woods to "found yourself", they are all the same shit.
also, reminder that all psych fans saying modern psychology/psychiatry is now different and clean, are the same ones saying the same thing thirty years ago. meanwhile zombies party in the hallway of the psychiatric.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:06:59 2019 No.13287294

>>13287139
When doing head-to-head clinical trials with therapy, often the therapy being tested is pitted against treatment-as-usual and a wait-list conditions (to control for the passage of time). There are quasi-placebo therapies for individual contexts, but no general-placebo-like therapy.

There is also a good amount of debate regarding whether it's the specific or general aspects of therapy that are conducive to treatment. We can test whether or not the specific elements of a therapy are working by giving participants little pieces of therapy.

For example, and if I can find the paper I'll cite it, exposure and response prevention (ERP), which is used to treat OCD, was tested in a controlled study of patients with OCD.

Those patients who voluntarily exposed themselves to that which evokes compulsions, but were allowed to engage in compulsions (i.e. the E without the RP) became more courageous in confronting that which evokes compulsions. Those who did not participate in exposures, but, when exposed to that which evokes compulsions, were not allowed to engage in compulsions became better at, well, not engaging in self-destructive, compulsive behavior.

In the context of ERP, this research does suggest that the specific elements of therapy, rather than the expectations of adaptive change that therapy is supposed to produce or the therapist-patient relationship, produced such effects, as the specific elements had the different effects that they were intended to have.

>>13287222
Not a psychotherapist, but, if you're good at your craft, and aren't treating something as resistant to treatment as ASPD, it's hard to believe that you aren't helping others

>>13287154
Nice

>>13287185
Can't speak for every field, but if you enjoy research, than go for it :)

Otherwise it'll be six years of hell and shit, as the universities love to milk young, idealistic graduate students for all the labor they're worth, while simultaneously burdening them with exacting, academic responsibilities.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:11:43 2019 No.13287321

>>13287256
The normative judgment isn't just made freely, there is a substantial amount of data informing it.

There are a sizable amount of philosophical and scientific problems regarding the DSM/ICD.
However, to think that there are not psychologists who recognize this, and are confronting the problem, is idiotic. You know nothing of what you're talking about.

Fucking use your shift key, reading your dumpster-fire of a blog-post is hard enough.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:15:42 2019 No.13287337

>>13287142
>Subconscious is a meme word,
can you or anyone expound on that? It seems to me like an essential word when you need to describe the absence of freewill (another meme word but I'm trying to write about that idea and am struggling for the language).

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:20:36 2019 No.13287354

>>13287321
>and are confronting the problem,
how they are confronting the problem?. i am saying the problem is psychology in itself and his lack of ethic legitimization to talk about the mind of others. psychology dont exist without that.
anyway, dont talk about an anecdotal part of psychiatry to save his idiocy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:25:59 2019 No.13287377 Bros do you think firefighter would be a good job?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:29:01 2019 No.13287392 File: 100 KB, 531x359, 1538530252325.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13285951

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:31:58 2019 No.13287403

>>13287294
Yeah all the studies I've seen either use wait-list or compare the treatment to another common therapy or some sort of psychoeducational material or self-help books or something, which is why I wasn't sure if a "true" placebo for psychotherapy really existed. I've never heard of that paper you mentioned though, sounds interesting. Thanks for the info, much better response than the one I got prior. I'll dig around for that one.

>>13287222
It's not 100%, and often times you really don't know if you're doing anything big. But I'd say more often than not you are helping in some way. For some it might be a huge revelatory change, and for others simply providing a caring ear is enough to make some minor impact. Its certainly more good than harm, that's for sure. But it is without a doubt hard work, and often times thankless work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:34:35 2019 No.13287409 >>13287294 >treatment-as-usual Which means absolutely nothing and can be selected however the researcher wants it to be including next to no treatment at all

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:37:36 2019 No.13287418 >>13287138 I referred to psychology not 'sciences' in general, you hack. If psychologists can't replicate results and rely on bad statistics, then it is empirically bogus.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:41:01 2019 No.13287438

>>13287354
The science of psychology tackles what it can know, and leaves what it cannot know to metaphysics, philosophy, etc. That's what a science does, tackles what it can measure. You're a fucking idiot if you think uncertainty should necessitate the paralyzation of scientific progress. Scientists didn't need absolute knowledge to get a hunk of metal to the moon, they needed sufficient knowledge, and that endeavor or exercise yielded them more knowledge.

That's what we're doing, formulating models of human experience on sufficient, validated knowledge, testing them in various exercises, and then incorporating the new knowledge garnered into that model. Unfortunately, since we're such a fucking new discipline, the new often undermines the old.

Philosophical presuppositions always underlie such research, but, unless we can sort between those presuppositions empirically, we don't fucking sort. It's not the job of scientists to do such a thing.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:49:39 2019 No.13287481

>>13287138
>If we're doing statistics using frequentist methods, which are the tradition methods of data analysis within psychology, than the probability of achieving a significant result decreases with every significant result achieved.
An experiment can either be replicated to demonstrate an observable effect or it cannot.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:52:50 2019 No.13287494

>>13287409
You do realize that science is a collaborative process, and not done by a cabal.

If it's done in such a way, it gets critiqued to hell. You do realize that, right? Treatment-as-usual represents that which is commonly used, whether it's a pill, therapy, etc., to treat that disorder or grouping of disorder.

>>13287418
My retort was specifically within the context of psychology, solid ad hominem mate.

>>13287403
I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I apologize for not being able to provide a better response. To better help your search, a study that breaks down a therapy into its constituent parts in order to compare them, or investigate the legitimacy of each is known as a dismantling study.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:55:37 2019 No.13287505 >>13287481 The methods used to analyze a data aren't done in a vacuum, and separate from that which determines whether something has been replicated. The definition of replication is not a universal given. Science is not that simple.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:55:38 2019 No.13287506 >>13287494 >You do realize that science is a collaborative process, and not done by a cabal Lmao "We define our group as not being a cabal so it's not a cabal and we all agree so“

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:57:10 2019 No.13287507 >>13287403 Is there a need for a therapist who specializes in men 14-28? All the therapists nearby do couples therapy m

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:58:19 2019 No.13287511 >>13287506 >Tens of thousands of idiosyncratic researchers across the globe who come from incredibly variable backgrounds can be represented as a homogeneous group You can't be this stupid.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:58:46 2019 No.13287515

>>13287494
>Treatment-as-usual represents that which is commonly used,
Which is, as it turns out, next to nothing.
You can read it in these studies, a pill and a pat on the back is used as a control for a select bunch of people voluntarily decide to undergo a consistent length of treatment. Self selection meets cherry picking

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 22:59:49 2019 No.13287518 >>13287511 The same thing can be said about the Jews. You're not fooling anyone psychy

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:00:19 2019 No.13287520

>>13287494
>dismantling study
Oh wow, I've come across a couple of those but didn't actually know the umbrella term for studies like that. My counseling program wasn't at all research focused since it was an MA program so all my studying has been done on my own time when it comes to clinical research. An interesting thing I've seen is that the most common mechanisms of change are often features found present in nearly all therapy modalities, such as empathic listening and quality of the client-counselor relationship, suggesting that the most effective part of therapy are the nearly universal person-centered approaches found in them.

>>13287507
Thats actually the same population I aim to treat. I think emerging male adults are a pretty safe population to look at, especially in these times when so many young men feel displaced, depressed, emasculated, and confused by modern societal pressures. Not to mention the field of counseling is pretty female dominated, its definitely a population in need.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:00:21 2019 No.13287521 >>13287377 Obviously not, at least be a fucking librarian or something for christ's sake if you're going to decide to be impoverished

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:00:25 2019 No.13287522 >>13287511 >your career is ruined and funding stopped if you go against orthodoxy such science

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:00:51 2019 No.13287524 >>13287518 That genuinely made me laugh, thanks mate :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:02:07 2019 No.13287530

>>13287438
you dont know what means ethical legitimization. you think science is the Truth. so you dont need and you probably think is even stupid thinking about ethical legitimization in regards to psychology/psychiatry. science is a human invention. you cant even start to understand that science dont mean nothing at all but a perspective of life. saying you must take pills because science say it, is not different from pray in direction of mecca because koran say it.

anyway, in the previous post you say psychiatrists are confronting the problem, and now you are saying there is not problem in the first place because science is not about metaphysics and philosophy. and now i go to my first post.

>psychiatry/psychology acts as if depression is something bad because life should be happy and comfortable and comforting, and at the same time they fervently think that is not a philosophical assumption.

in other words. the philosopical is in the middle of your science, not outside.
this is the problem of all big mouth intellectual predominant narratives, they are conquerors and they dont stop till one day they start to decline and dont understand why .

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:02:55 2019 No.13287534 >the one dude in this thread who needs therapy the most is the one ranting against the entire field of psychology Such is man

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:03:14 2019 No.13287537 >>13287520 Bro your a JBP fan, same

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:04:07 2019 No.13287540 >>13287534 I'm the only sane man in a fucking crazy clown world

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:04:11 2019 No.13287541 >>13287534 >if u disagree with us ur crazy based asshole

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:05:20 2019 No.13287546

>>13287520
I do some banal work in a clinical research lab, so I've picked some things up. There are a bunch of neat methods within clinical psychological research.

>>13287294
As I stated here, I'm familiar with a good bit of the specific-general aspects debate regarding research. If I can dig up an interesting paper on the subject before I head to bead, I'll shoot you the citation.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:06:21 2019 No.13287551

>>13287537
I'm actually not lol, but I recognize that MANY young adults do suffer from mental disorders and general dissatisfaction and relate to what Peterson is talking about, and that they deserved to be heard and helped like everyone else. I sympathize with young men growing up in today's society, but I don't subscribe to Peterson's philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:06:22 2019 No.13287550 >>13287546 regarding therapy*

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:06:41 2019 No.13287553 >>13287520 >empathic listening and quality of the client-counselor relationship, suggesting that the most effective part of therapy are the nearly universal person-centered approaches found in them. it's called having friends LMAO

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:08:27 2019 No.13287561 >>13287553 say more

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:12:20 2019 No.13287579 >>13287551 We would be good friends anon, I’d force it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:14:51 2019 No.13287591 >>13287553 >on a site where people talk about not having friends Also anon if I want to share my deepest problems I’m probably not gonna trust my boys I love my boys but my boys are my boys and I don’t tell my boys everything

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:17:08 2019 No.13287602

>>13287520
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032700002871

This meta-analysis caused a solid amount of ruckus, and supported the infamous dodo bird verdict (i.e. it's the general patient-therapist relationship that produces such change across treatments, not the variable idiosyncratic elements of the patient, therapist or treatment.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13772

This study suggests that specific characteristics regarding the patient may be a largely determining factor in the outcome of treatment, rather than general or specific factors of the treatment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796713000740

Another such study, which integrates the big 5

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-006X.66.1.7

Also a fun one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:18:04 2019 No.13287607 >>13287602 Are you becoming a psychologist anon?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:18:36 2019 No.13287611 >>13287591 Exactly, you tell your therapist things you'd never tell anyone else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:19:37 2019 No.13287621 >>13287607 Ye, I'm applying to graduate programs this fall.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:22:54 2019 No.13287639 >>13287621 Do you have a MA or just went straight from a BA in psych? Fuck this field is so interesting

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:23:12 2019 No.13287640

>>13287534
im not ranting about psychology itself, but about his claiming that they are "the truth of the mind" (or consciousness...)
i dont mind if psychology/psychiatry exist as some kind of counsellor in the same vein as religious or caritative groups.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:24:26 2019 No.13287647 >>13287639 BA, and it's my understanding that a MA is usually garnered through a PhD program.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:25:42 2019 No.13287649

>>13287602
I read that Wampold one! I recall citing it in a paper once. Thanks a lot for the others. Which type of graduate program are you applying to? I did mines in MHC. Will eventually go for a clinical psych PhD after I get more practical experience.

>>13287640
I can agree with that. Its a developing field, and far from uncriticizable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:27:13 2019 No.13287658 >>13284697 Based tgread. What has psychology done for humanity? Nothing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:28:36 2019 No.13287666 >>13287647 Ahh I see. I’m torn right now but more than likely I’ll get a English BA and head into a LMHC MA. This field is so alluring it almost makes me want to ride the academia wave for 12 years and not give a fuck about the debt

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:30:42 2019 No.13287674 >>13287658 Anthony Cumia is a psychologist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:31:15 2019 No.13287677 >>13287640 There are no claims thrown around regarding truth in science. >>13287649 PhD programs in clinical and industrial-organizational

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:33:55 2019 No.13287687 To my PhD bros How do y’all balance getting your fucking nuts sucked and studying?

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:34:54 2019 No.13287697

>>13287677
Ah good luck then. IO is where the real money is at if you care about that. Make sure you have a bit of clinical experience too. I know a bunch of people who got rejected from PhD clinical programs since they all had MA's in general psych but all their experience was research and not enough client interaction experience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:36:02 2019 No.13287703 >>13287697 How could you get that deep into the field and care about money?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:41:17 2019 No.13287717 >>13287703 I don't care about making a lot, but I know some of my colleagues have more expensive taste (some like going on long ass vacations every few months) and they always complain saying they wish they did something more lucrative like IO.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:45:24 2019 No.13287725

>>13287677
>There are no claims thrown around regarding truth in science.
why be a hypocrite?. dont be cynical.
anyway, people go to psychology/psychiatrists because they think is the truth of the mind. centuries of pop science propaganda dont go in vain. at least you should know it. the patientes usually dont care a shit about psychology/psychiatry. most people go with blind faith because they go to "science of the mind". not to mention the affectionate hug psychology have with the judicial system based in their truth guarantee.

Anonymous Wed Jun 12 23:49:25 2019 No.13287738

>>13287725
??? Your typing and use of language inspires disgust.

It's quite literally the reality, the scientific method does not make claims regarding truth. It's not a mechanism that fucking proves things.

What we have are updating heuristics.

Do you have any data backing the claims regarding the popular view? You also do realize that the popular perception of a discipline is not reflective of the reality of the discipline, right?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 00:09:03 2019 No.13287833

>>13287738
what is francis bacon?.
i suspect you are being a total phony hypocrite right now, trying to not understand to save your believes, but anyway, im gonna respond it like it was clean.

>It's not a mechanism that fucking proves things.
this is basically what i said and even go deeper than me. now you just have to tell it to psychologists/psychiatrists and his patients. every time. every fucking time.
yes, i am almost certain that patients go to psychiatry because psychiatry is part of science and patients thinks science is the truth or the better truth available. and its 100 percent certain the justice system choose the psychiatry because they think is true what they say. you probably know this too.

if you want it, i put it in another way. i prefer psychology/psychiatry dont have the social monopoly about behaviour or consciousness.

sorry for my language, im shit at english.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 00:38:38 2019 No.13287968

>>13287833
>trying to not understand to save your believes
If there are many people who give up talking to you because you are a conversational wall, perhaps the problem is with you.
>what is francis bacon?

People go to a psychologist, like they go to Protagoras, because the psychologist gives them the tools to adaptively set goals and move towards them. We don't have truths, we have tools. We engage in cybernetics, not in conversations regarding epistemology or metaphysics.

The justice system puts faith in psychology because their tools are the best heuristics we have. These heuristics, such as the data regarding the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and suggestibility of children, can inform decisions so that better ones can be made in the active world. Everything is an updating heuristic, which may or may not inform action in the world.

Where on Earth, in any fucking discipline, can you find objective, proven truths?

if you want it, i put it in another way. i prefer psychology/psychiatry dont have the social monopoly about behaviour or consciousness.

???
This is a problem regarding the public's perception of research and science. You are a giant sperg.

>sorry for my language, im shit at english.

Fucking press shift to capitalize your speech, it's horrendous to look at.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 01:10:16 2019 No.13288110
File: 24 KB, 225x225, 281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13285854
if psychology is so great than why are your treatment outcomes so shitty over anything longer than a 1 year time period?
(you are also doing to economics what people in this thread are doing to psychology, econmics has some great data and predictably)
psychology has some marginal success with hard edge cases such as people will severe schizophrenia, or real OCD (i.e. they wash till the skin comes off), because those are generally hardwired brain problems.
but anyone with just "head" problems, call them personality problems/mood issues, etc psychology treatment is like throwing a dice (. no 20% or less success rate is NOT! science, sorry)

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 01:35:32 2019 No.13288222

>>13287968
if you are saying psychiatry dont have the monopoly of behaviour or consciousness, and they dont try to have it. its ok with me. im ok with a world with psychology/psychiatry as a pseudethical approach to mind like many others. remember psychology/psychiatry combate unironically depression. anyway, you are almost denying the preponderance they have.

>we dont have truths
if you are saying "we dont have truths", but after that, you say, "only temporary truths". that dont change a thing. psychologist are treating people as they have the "temporary truth" of the mind. and the patients think they have the tools of the "temporary truth" of the mind.

>This is a problem regarding the public's perception of research and science.
the publics perception is all the power psychology have. i dont know why you minimize its importance.

you really believe psychology/psychiatry patients think science dont prove things at all?. dont be disingenuous. you are so cocksure about science that you dont even have the perception that, in the end, is a social movement. a perception that need social cohesion to live.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 03:29:26 2019 No.13288612

>>13284697
Psyfags still pretend to understand things and then base their views on their 'understanding'.
No one does that in serious disciplines. Even in the 17th century attempts to 'understand' the laws of scaterring of moving bodies were considered a side curiosity. If anything, people set up models first, based on a mix of empirical guesses and a priori disciplines, and if predictive, base their understanding of physical processes on it.
Then you have behaviorfags that go to another direction and go full empirioretardation and refuse the consider causal relations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 03:38:22 2019 No.13288644 >>13285642 All of your arguments are strawmanning

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 03:40:22 2019 No.13288650 >>13286792 How do you explain the rising suicide rates? Psychology is at best ineffective and at worst evil. They dole out fucking pills, may as well call it pharmacology.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 03:43:50 2019 No.13288665

>>13288650
How do you explain the increase in response rates to treatment across disorders?

Psychotherapists do not dole out pills, they treat through therapy, which may accompanied by temporary medication. Your strawman view of psychiatry does not generalize to an entire field, which is not limited to its clinical application.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 03:51:44 2019 No.13288691

>>13288222
A heuristic is not a truth, it's a tool that serves to advance an individual towards a goal. Tool =/= truth.

>the publics perception is all the power psychology have. i dont know why you minimize its importance.

Nothing was minimized, rather the issue, ASSUMING there is one, was put into a more correct, logically coherent, and reasonable context.

>you really believe psychology/psychiatry patients think science dont prove things at all?

If you have any empirical evidence to support this claim, please provide it. Even if we do accept this unsubstantiated assertion, the problem reflects a lack of understanding regarding the scientific method, and not clinical science specifically.

>you are so cocksure about science
>cocksure
lmao

> in the end, is a social movement. a perception that need social cohesion to live.

Is this supposed to mean something

This whole endeavor is deeply ironic, the discipline, in its applied form, which subsumes only a portion of the discipline, may be your only salvation. If this thread was created with a genuine interest in the field, then that desire would've been satiated long before now. Get some help, fren.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 07:41:22 2019 No.13289339

>>13285914
>There is a reason absolutely no jobs whatsoever outside clinical work and academia ever look for psychology degrees
Interestingly, at least at my university, more people go into the industrial and organization program than into clinical psychology. I think it's a total meme, though, and it will die out very soon once employers realize that O/I psychologists really don't have that much to offer. I did a content analysis for an O/I psychologist once who worked for a nursery home, and all she did was asking the employees how they felt about their job. They all said it sucked and her "solution" was telling the people who run the nursery home to employ more staff and that was it

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 07:55:12 2019 No.13289384
File: 80 KB, 800x577, 1524516464490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13288691

if you go this far only to deny science have the social legimitization of truth and coherence in this time, i think you have a shit perception of the occidental world.

>was put into a more correct, logically coherent, and reasonable context.
what exacly you think is the context?.
you are denying my point because you are assuming that if an assertion dont go through the scientific method or empirical filter, dont have the right to be saying or treated seriously. and that is the point im trying to criticize all over the thread. at the same time you suggest i should have empirical evidence, you are saying in the thread evidence and science dont prove nothing.. you are literally saying i should use your heuristic method or i dont say anything substantial. which is my whole fucking point.
my point is that the mind, the philosophical and the consciousness should not be under the yoke of psichology or science, that is my point. everybody should have his own word about himself.

if in every psychology and psychiatric office and department they have a big poster who say "we dont prove nothing". to me is enough.
i do believe there is a misunderstanding in most of the patients of psychology/psychiatry about this concern, specially when we live in a world where in the schools we are learning science is better at recognizing things because science can prove it in a material vein.

you think im against scientific method or something, but i am against its preponderance like the narrative or the "suitable tool" to know the truth of some issue. i am talking about the social perception of truth, not about the truth. in other words, im against people believing in science as truth, not at science in itself. i think it would be more useful if you go with the issue, not denying it.
think im talking about the people who go to psychiatry believing is the closer truth we have to understand his feelings or whatever they think its a problem about themselves. try to accept this people exist.

>Is this supposed to mean something
if people dont give psychology the legitimization as truth. psychology wouldnt be different than any other philosphical or pseud religious therapeutic project or design about the mind and consciousness.
>may be your only salvation.
is the second time in the thread somebody is implying im a crazy who needs psych help because im against psychiatry/psychology as truth of the mind. i think you dont understand what im talking about. the fact that you think if im crazy, i should go to psych, the automization of this thought, is to me the whole problem.

>If this thread was created with a genuine interest in the field,
you are talking as a believer who think anybody cant criticize his beloved discipline if only they know it and understanding it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 07:58:42 2019 No.13289397 Psych anons need to read Feyebrand's books. No, science is not about scientific method. It is empiricism. Psychology is attempting to understand something that is inherently cannot be looked into empirically. That's the problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 08:02:10 2019 No.13289409 How the fuck can you be a reader/writer and say psychology is useless? It's best purpose is for writing/studying characters

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 08:02:58 2019 No.13289415

>>13287138
The replication crisis started not because of meta-analysis but because they asked scientists to replicate studies. They didn't just give the outline to new scientists to attempt to replicate the studies: they also had the original study creator try to replicate their own studies and those also failed to produce the same results. It's taken seriously by them because failing to reproduce your own study should give even an undergrad pause. It is not taken seriously by those who think you can eliminate data points, which is a lot of people who are more into superstition than science.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:13:59 2019 No.13289968

>>13289415
The replication crisis doesn’t apply to:
Cognitive psychology
Behavioral psychology
Neuropsychology
Psychophysics
Psycholinguistics all of these field have great replication rates because they only affirm that whicb verifiable through the scientific method.
Priming, anchoring, conditioning, lexical effects, signal detection bias, phoneme restoration and many more have reliable replication rates to the point where they’re empirically undisputed mental phenomenons. Shit, I could prime you right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:16:59 2019 No.13289981 >>13289415 >>13289968 The replication crisis applies to those fields in psych that would mosy obviously have them, especially Social and personality psych.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:23:27 2019 No.13290021 Why are psychiatrists so comfortable lying to people and telling them things like depression is a "chemical imbalance" in the brain?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:25:52 2019 No.13290032

>>13289968
But it does. Even for Cognitive Psychology, I think, it's around 50%. Many priming studies are concerned, too - which doesn't mean the effect isn't real, there are just many badly thought out studies which only exist because of publish-or-perish. Neuropsychology is particularly bad, too, because fMRI studies are a meme.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:29:28 2019 No.13290054

>>13290021
Because like most medical and diagnostic sciences, psychiatry selects for sociopaths without self-awareness. People who have doubts about recognizing instances of Diagnosis X applying formula Z, because that's what the book says, don't pass tests and project interview-acing self-confidence the way that a mindless robot who takes everything on faith does. If you have even the most basic wonder in the back of your mind about something like "What are we REALLY doing here..?," it will manifest systemically and slow you down in the race to beat out competitors and become a for-profit pill-dispenser.

Compound that with decade after decade of doing it in your private practice, "seeing results" as people come back and state in a zombie-like monotone "Thank you, doctor, I'm all better now," and you have a recipe for a psychiatrist.

They put my friend on Wellbutrin and Lexapro and he repeatedly tells them, multiple psychs, that he thinks it fried it brain, destroyed his soul, that he doesn't feel like the same person anymore, that he thinks they gave him 10x the dosage they should have started with, etc., and no matter what they just laugh it off and say things like "But didn't you say you no longer feel depressed? So you're better!" He just gave up on begging them to recognise that he's profoundly unhappy with the results, even when he said that the only thing preventing him from having a meltdown in despair over what happened is that the pills nuked his ability to care about things in that way, too.

And still, any time he reports anything wrong, a mild tic, a mild lack of sleep, anything, they start fumbling for their fucking prescription pad and trying to give him some mood stabilizer or ADD medication or something.

They aren't thinking. They are plumbers who memorized a plumbing manual ca. 1980, whose provenance they never questioned.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:44:30 2019 No.13290133

>>13289968
>allow me to eliminate some data points
It does apply to those disciplines, and some of them were included in the initial study replications which failed. You seem more invested in lying to save face than in science, which does nothing good for the reputation of the sciences you are dragging into your superstitious orbit.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:48:19 2019 No.13290151

>>13290032
Should’ve specified semantic priming, but that’s fair.

>>13290133
But many fields in psychology have emrrged as direction reactions to the methdological issues of previous ones. Imagine lumping astronomy with astrology because they both study a similar subject. Many fields in psychology have nothing to do with each other and are even defined against each other.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:51:19 2019 No.13290168

>>13290151
>But many fields in psychology have emrrged as direction reactions to the methdological issues of previous ones. Imagine lumping astronomy with astrology because they both study a similar subject. Many fields in psychology have nothing to do with each other and are even defined against each other.
>>Allow me to continue ignoring the data points which disprove my hypothesis
Intellectually honest people in these disciplines hate you. Just so you know.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 10:55:00 2019 No.13290187

>>13290168
You’re not saying anything. What data points am I ignoring? If someone cant repicate a conformity study that has zero bearing on something like phonemic restoration. Im denying the idea that because soke branches in psychology have loose methodlogies that this then applies to the whole of psychology. This is an ilogical conclusion.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:01:39 2019 No.13290217

>>13290187
You said that the crisis did not apply to these disciplines>>13289968
And when I responded that those disciplines had been in the studies which started the crisis>>13289981
You decided that I meant other disciplines and that those had not been implicated at all. The people who made those studies from those disciplines who were honest enough to attempt to replicate their own studies and honestly deliver their results which do not support replication have every reason to hate you as a superstitious idiot who is holding back the legitimacy of their science with abject uninformed lies. Comparing them to astrologists is fucking retarded and morally repugnant when you misoutlined the crisis and the actors involved (and their rigour and honesty) to spout unfounded bullshit. You might as well be a televangelist.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:06:33 2019 No.13290252

>>13290217
1) You’re being overly emotive
2) Even if I was wrong about cognitive psychology, considering it’s a wider field than I recognize it for, what i said still stands for most of it.
3) Social, clinical and personality psychology have glaring methodological issue and the people who decide to study such things as psycholonguisyics and psychophysics almost invariably do it because they recognize the methodological distinctions
>have every reason to hate yo
Cry more honestly

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:09:44 2019 No.13290275 >>13290252 >>13290217 For example, you can find thousands of studies replicating the effects of sematic priming because psycholinguistic is a far more rigorous discipline with firmer scientific foundations within psychology than social psych.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:12:14 2019 No.13290286 >>13290217 Social psychologist hardly even run pilot tests to check their stimulus. It’s a joke half the time.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:13:39 2019 No.13290294

>>13290252
Emotion will not change the results of those studies or their implications for those disciplines. You may continue lying and giving those disciplines a reputation for intellectual dishonesty, but that's on you. None of what you said stands in terms of intellectually honest research within those disciplines, and the only people who support your view are those who are intellectual and/or moral retards. You are not contributing to their reputation as sound sciences, but making a mockery of them by ignoring problems which honest and rigourous scientists within those disciplines have raised as major issues if the disciplines want to continue with scientific rigour. Crying about it won't change that. Applying some honest research and intellectual honesty would but you are seemingly incapable of abandoning your religious beliefs about those sciences which are not supported by those sciences themselves.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:18:53 2019 No.13290320

>>13290294
This block of text literally says nothing.
>intelltual honesty
Okay, bruv. Define what that means first and then try agin.
>intellectual/moral retards
Morality has nothing to do with science
>raised as major issues if the disciplines want to continue with scientific rigour.
Yeah the issue being the foundation of their science. Imagine somebody saying this about phrenology. You’re retarded. New fields in science emerge as reactions to the inadequacy of previous ones. The proper course for things like social psych is to either get subsumed by neuroscience or do narrow the scope of their discipline to something actually managble within the scientific method.
>abandoning religious beliefs
Are you having a stroke?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:20:45 2019 No.13290332

>>13290320
I am aware you cannot engage with scientific rigour as it does not conform to your prejudices. Thankfully, people working in the disciplines you listed can and do, and whether you agree with them is irrelevant to their work, if not their reputation.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:24:37 2019 No.13290352

>>13290332
>avoiding the argument through ad hominem
You haven’t made an argument and are incapable of engaing in discourse. You made one point and then proceeded to either 1) insult me or 2) make rhetorical lines intended to discredit my person, appeal to an abscent authroity (you’re continual reference to anonymous experts and scientists) and did not engage with the argument itself.
You’re the one treating science here as a religious subject.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:25:56 2019 No.13290358 >>13290332 >>13290352 The point that there can exist fields within psychology with greater rigour than others stands entirely to reason. You’ve done nothing but irrationally reject this notion.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:34:01 2019 No.13290408

>>13290352
I have outlined my argument, which you are not capable of understanding. As I said, you have no bearing on the sciences you hope to defend, unlike those who took part in the replication survey, and whether you ever learn to engage honestly with the subject will not be the deciding point. Other anons can read what I said, but there is no point in trying to get you to behave with scientific rigour or honesty as you are so peripheral to the debate all you can contribute to is the damaging of their reputations by ignoring the results of studies and claiming scientists would do likewise. They haven't, and they really do not deserve to be associated with intellectual morons like you who cling to disproven prejudices about those disciplines. Casting them as having poorly laid out studies in the first place also does not serve your point, as, again, they work in the disciplines you are trying to defend as rigourous- either they lacked rigour as you claim, or they applied rigour and got results you have a religious need to deny despite evidence to the contrary, but either way the disciplines you think are exempt are implicated. And you are an idiot who by association damages the reputation of those disciplines as less honest than they have been, as you refuse to acknowledge faults they have admitted while attributing other faults to their design. You are not helping them.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:40:29 2019 No.13290451

>>13290408
Okay, keep putting your fingers in your ears and insulting others as your only means of debate. I know as an empirical fact that were this discussion not performed behind the comfort of a screen you’d be forced to actually engage the argument and would come up wholly inadequate with nothing but insults and nonsequiturs as your only rethorical tools. You have yet to provide any reasoning as to why you refuse tk accept that there can exist less rigorous fields in psychology, even though there are many texts dedicated to outlining this very point and is commonly brought up topic in any psychology curriculum. Your a zealot.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:48:20 2019 No.13290509

>>13290451
>I say it's just anon, those disciplines will not have taken part in the replication survey and admitted a lack of replication
That is not how science works. Anons can look up the surveys and see they are neither meta analyses as you claimed, nor do they exclude the disciplines you claim are exempt. What's particularly disgusting about your denials and offloading your fears onto social psych is that JSPS has less reproduction problems than JEP. I expect you'll have to Google that to work out what your cognitive dissonance is supposed to splutter back.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:51:20 2019 No.13290538 >>13290509 Find the psycholonguistic or psychophysics studies looked at in the replication studies?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:53:12 2019 No.13290551 >>13290538 Anyone can through Google.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:56:01 2019 No.13290568

>>13290021
Because the entire psychiatric profession rests on that assumption, and because people have a really hard time accepting any claim that meant their profession or livelihood would be at stake.

It's not their fault, they're fallible human beings. If the difference between you eating and not eating is believing in a certain myth, you'll believe it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 11:57:56 2019 No.13290582 >>13290568 But eating is a psychological belief. We actually don't need to eat.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:00:18 2019 No.13290601 >>13290551 Nothing comes up, anon. You’re the one with the burden here. All the rhetoric around the replication crisis alwaus avoids those two sub branches. It makes considering the emerged as reponses to the loose methodology of most psychology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:01:21 2019 No.13290611 >>13290601 It makes sense* considering they* emerged reponses to the loose methodology of most psychology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:02:31 2019 No.13290619 >>13290601 >Nothing comes up I recommend to any anon interested to Google and see how you're lying. Psycholinguistics replication is not a googlewhack.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:06:30 2019 No.13290641 >>13290619 Go ahead then. Do it. Show me if its so easy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:10:07 2019 No.13290669 >>13290641 >Google this for me >That will make other anons incapable of googling to find out for themselves http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Psycholinguistics+replication

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:15:42 2019 No.13290707 >>13290669 You fucking retard. I mean show me a result that actually demonstrates theres a replication crisis in psycholinguistics. None of the results there do so.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:18:47 2019 No.13290729

>>13290707
>I'll ignore the results about Nature and the replication crisis studies
>I'll even ignore the top result is about commonly admitted replication inconsistencies
Remember what I said about data points not being optional take it or leave it things?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:19:24 2019 No.13290733 >>13290669 >>13290707 The first results are about HOW to approach replication in psycholinguistics which is the exact opposite of your point. Do you not know how google works?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:20:45 2019 No.13290743 >>13290733 It's about how to address replication inconsistencies. It even specifies how some cannot be addressed.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:21:54 2019 No.13290750

>>13290729
You do realize that ALL sciences have issues with replications. That doesnt qualofy as crisis. The replication crisis refers to a particular phenomenon, im asking you to show that osychologuistics has a crisis. That first article refers to very specific phenomenons and paradogms in psycholinguistics. Show me something that says X% of studies have replication issues like the ones that exist for social psych.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:23:55 2019 No.13290763 >>13290750 >I'mma ignore that Nature survey >Also it only counts as a crisis when other disciplines have regular inconsistencies of replication K then, you do that.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:28:24 2019 No.13290793

>>13290763
Not ignoring it when it doesnt provide what im asking for. You’re just assuming psycholinguistics or psychophysics have the same statistics even though you havent check the individual studies looked at. These branches are not referred to explicitly therefore you cant assume how they are affected by the survey. That would be bad science :-)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:30:56 2019 No.13290813 >>13290793 >I'mma keep ignoring those disciplines were willing to take part in the survey and got results I don't like That's cool.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:33:08 2019 No.13290824

>>13290813
You don’t have the actual data to prove that point and are basing it on your assumption that they resulted in the same way :)
Since the percentages dont actuallu categorize them in that matter how do you know that the 50% of cognitive studies that were replicable werent all psycholinguistics one? Oh wait, you cant!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:36:07 2019 No.13290835 >>13290824 >Nature can suck a dick because I don't read Ikr?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:39:06 2019 No.13290859

>>13290835
If you actually had the data on hand why would you hesitate to show it to prove your point? What im asking for is very easily verifiable. All I need is a number that shows what percentage of psycholinguistic or psychophysics studies looked at werent replicable. Do you have that number? No? Then dont pretend you know the answer and accept that you are merely assuming that these fields have the same replication crisis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:40:18 2019 No.13290867 >>13290859 >Nature should call to my house and spoon-feed me Excellent plan

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:42:10 2019 No.13290887

>>13290867
>providing proof is spoon-feeding
Did you read the survey? Did this number come up? If so, do you remember it? Why not even post it? Maybe then I can verify myself, but clearly you don’t know the answer yourself. You likely didnt even read it yourself and are again merely assuming.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:47:09 2019 No.13290925 >>13290867 Do reflect one your arguments back at you. Im pretyy sure an “intellectually honest” person would admit whether they had this data point or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:48:45 2019 No.13290933 >>13290859 You're not presenting any evidence either dumbass

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:57:15 2019 No.13290986

>>13290933
Evidence for what exactly? Nobody talks about the existence of a replication crisis in psycholinguistics or psychophysics and there is no such study dedicated to determining this. Therefore we don’t have data points to use for this argument, the only thing we csn look at are either the replication of individual phenomenons or the ontologies of the disciplines themselves. Psychophysics does not have the same issues with factoring and variability like something like social psych. You can easily determing a threshold range for auditory stimulus but not so easily for “fulfillment”.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 12:58:46 2019 No.13291001

>>13284697
Applied Psych student here. It's useful. If you can convince people they are being treated, they are being treated.

for most of the time it's about being a listening ear for whiners and if necessary you try to give them the right medication and follow-up.

Most of the tests are basic as shit and outdated though, I think a lot of people are misdiagnosed in the past and given the wrong medication.

Also most peer students are mostly retards that just happen to able to study, so i get why psych gets a bad rep

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:09:41 2019 No.13291060

>>13291001

>I think a lot of people are misdiagnosed in the past and given the wrong medication.
in thirty years some psych student gonna say exactly the same of this time.
do you really think depression is something that exists like a scientific discovery. or you admit is an ethical view of the mind?.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:14:03 2019 No.13291086

>>13291060
Depression is a scientific constructs with ooerationally defined patterns and causes. The only real problem with depression is that it has a name that is too familiar to people in ordinary speech. There are too many cultural and social concepts that get triggered when people think of it. No one would argue that depression is real if we simply called it something like serotonin-deficiency or whatever. Depression should be a word used to desrcibe a symptom not the condition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:19:44 2019 No.13291125 >>13291086 this means you think depression is a serotonin deficiency medical problem?.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:23:32 2019 No.13291146

>>13291125
No, i used that as an example. My point is that if we used a more specific term with less social connotations for depression people would be less adverse to denying it. It’s just a construct ised to refer to some specific phenomenon within a specific paradigm.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:24:33 2019 No.13291152

>>13291086
>No one would argue that depression is real if we simply called it something like serotonin-deficiency or whatever
I would argue with you because there's no correlative between serotonin levels and depression. We can increase serotonin levels in people with depression without any change and we're unable to induce depression in healthy people by lowering their serotonin levels. The "chemical imbalance" is a complete fiction.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:25:10 2019 No.13291155 >>13291086 Seriously, read Émile Durkheim.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:28:38 2019 No.13291185

>>13291146
i think the whole "you feel sad because serotonin deficiency", is probably a worst solution.
you dont answer my question. you think depression is an ethical approach to the mind. or you think is a scientiphic indisputable truth?.
or whatever you think it is.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:31:05 2019 No.13291198

>>13291152
That was just an example. You could also give it a more specific behavioral description, instead of a neurological.

>>13291155
Read actual science. What’s your point here? Gravity, which you probably take as a certainty, is just a scientific construct. If we had a commonly used social/cultural idea of the physical attraction of bodies, you would have people arguing whether “gravity” is real by conflating the scientiifc construct with the social one.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:37:07 2019 No.13291239

>>13291185
>you feel sad because serotonin deficiency
Case and point, that’s what YOU are getting from the term depression because this is how it would be socially construed. Depression is not “sadness”. Depression is not a feeling. It’s a construct, a category that refers to specific behavioral and neurological patterns. Nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:42:44 2019 No.13291268 >>13291239 >specific behavioral what do you think this means?. you are saying depression is not about sadness or losing "the will to live" but a purely materialistic thing who dont correlate to any particular feeling, emotion or sensation?.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:43:56 2019 No.13291278

>>13286327
Nice. Got my undergrad in ling, too, taking as many psych credits as I could. Developmental psych and sense and perception (Sinneswahrnehmungen) were easily two of my favourite lecture courses. Neurophysiology is a field wherein I found a special affection for Vygotsky, Jakobson, and, for other predilections, Havelock Ellis.

Folks who denigrate Freud without having read his works are impoverished in intellect. Reading his works, it becomes evident his intent to consolidate and concrete the foundations of modern psychology. For subsequent criticism of his perspectives on hysteria, sexuality, and consciousness, I defer to Foucault.

Generally speaking, Freud is to psychology as Chomsky is to linguistics. It's not valuable theory so much as it's valuable insight into the historical background of the field in question.

I don't have much more else to say, but Oliver Sacks makes for nice reading.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:45:44 2019 No.13291290

>>13290986
>Nobody talks about the existence of a replication crisis in psycholinguistics or psychophysics and there is no such study dedicated to determining this.
The dude you were arguing with even pointed out which journal to look it up in. If I can find it, why can't you? In fact, when I went to look it up, I found blog posts from the psycholinguistics researchers saying they had a hard time getting their contradictory replication printed as a replication study to be included in Nature's survey on replication, because the failure to replicate results was so large that it counted as a refutation of the original result more than a replication.

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/09/an-attempt-to-publish-a-replication-attempt-in-a-nature-journal-part-2/

^Will take you through how the original psycholinguistics study published by Nature had flawed methods and how the replication has different results, and how Nature tried to avoid publishing it in their survey of replication results because a) the field is so small in neuroscience and b) the replication results were so divergent from the original study's results.
This should adequately disprove your idea that psycholinguistics is immune to poor methodology and also your idea that it has not been included in the Nature survey of the replication crisis.

The other dude might have the right idea in not spoonfeeding someone who insists other people google for him, but I don't see how you can claim either of those things when proof is just a google away. Was it your shitty article that they disproved and cited for filler words or something that you're being this obtuse?

NB this places them in the 70% statistic of those that fail to reproduce another's results from Nature. That statistic is derived from the whole survey across more than psychology and neuroscience. Using it as a stand in for psychology replication failures and saying psycholinguistics is exempt suggests you don't know what the replication survey is about or what the statistics represent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:48:14 2019 No.13291309 >>13291152 >The "chemical imbalance" is a complete fiction. thats complete bullshit, read a book

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:49:42 2019 No.13291321

>>13291268
Sadness and losing the “will to live” arent behavioral measures. They’re cognitive ones, meaning they are evaluations that individuals make that vary from person to person. A behavioral measure is “the subject refuses to eat food” or “the subject sleeps 12-14 hours a day”, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:51:15 2019 No.13291333 >>13291309 The guy who came up with the serotonin theory of depression disproved his own results. Pfizer ignored that for obvious reasons.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:52:49 2019 No.13291345 >>13291309 Prove it's true. I would like to believe it because it would make things so much more comprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:53:47 2019 No.13291350 >>13291321 so... what is depression from a psychology perspective. people who dont eat food?. subject who sleeps 12 14 hours a day?. what are the behavioral alarms of a depressive?.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 13:58:11 2019 No.13291380 >>13291350 Read up on it. Im not an expert. Im sure the DSM outlines them. Scientific constructs are a basic part of science and it’s clear that people who reject psychopathology don’t understand how they work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:00:27 2019 No.13291398 >>13291380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_disorder they literally calling it a mood disorder. lmao.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:04:14 2019 No.13291425

>>13291398
>It is often accompanied by low self-esteem, loss of interest in normally enjoyable activities, low energy, and pain without a clear cause. People may also occasionally have false beliefs or see or hear things that others cannot.
It seems like they take cognitive evaluations into account as well, although I dont know if they simply ask the patient or determine for themsleves if the patient has “low self-esteem”.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:07:12 2019 No.13291453

>>13291380
im only questioning you to see the pov of a psychology student to something so stupid like the depression as a medical problem. i think you dont think too much about it. you are a perfect acolyte.

>it’s clear that people who reject psychopathology don’t understand how they work.
golden dogmatic denying.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:08:31 2019 No.13291463 >>13291425 >a disturbance in the person's mood is the main underlying feature.[1]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:09:55 2019 No.13291474 >>13291425 >loss of interest in normally enjoyable activities, you think this is something serious?. psychologists are mad.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:11:21 2019 No.13291488 >>13291453 >depression as a medical problem. Except nothing I said supports this and you’re just looking for an excuse to support your own ideology.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:13:03 2019 No.13291507

>>13291125
I'm the fag you (You)'d

depression can be caused by a serotonin deficiency, but it isn't a necessity. Also lesser overall cognitive abilities are shown or a lesser testosterone level. You can also be depressed by simply LIFE events. It's also shown that people with a very high intelligence are more prown to depression because they aren't easily satisfied and can't relate to most other people, and humans are social beings by nature.

According to the DSM you can ONLY speak of a disorder if the person in question or/an the people surrounding that person significantly suffer from it.

So to answer your question, yes it can be scientificly diagnosed but in most cases there will be a subjective part (like has the person considered suicide etc), which is done by shitty surveys. I advocate for more physical scans anyway.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:15:34 2019 No.13291525

>>13291474
Did I say it was? Did anyone? That’s just a observable pattern among depressives, not the determing factor.

>>13291463
Yeah, but it’s not the determining one.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_scales_for_depression
My understanding is that self-reported mood is taken as a behavioral measure here. What is expected of them report and the subsequent patterns. But that’s not all used in determing the condition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:16:35 2019 No.13291533 >>13291321 >not being able to eat, sleep, wake and suicide contemplation aren't behavioral measures

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:21:03 2019 No.13291568 >>13291060 >do you really think depression is something that exists like a scientific discovery. or you admit is an ethical view of the mind?. guess what, it can be both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 14:35:35 2019 No.13291652 >>13291507 >depression can be caused by a serotonin deficiency, but it isn't a necessity. Why do you believe a serotonin deficiency causes depression if the connection isn't necessary?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 16:13:04 2019 No.13292169

>>13291507
>the people surrounding that person significantly suffer from it.
its pretty terrifying something could be a disorder if other people suffer because your mood.

>(like has the person considered suicide etc)
this is an ethical approach to suicide. i mean, you make a disorder based in ethical claims.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 17:30:57 2019 No.13292667 >>13289415 False positives happen, and you didn't address anything else in that post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 17:34:57 2019 No.13292691 >>13292667 That post seems to be about the replication crisis. Did you misquote because it's a weird post out of all the posts itt to reply to about false positives/negatives?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:48:49 2019 No.13293431
File: 860 KB, 1920x1080, IMG_20190613_172609_079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I may need the help of some of you.
After reading most of this thread I was left kinda disillusioned. My 'dream' (that's not really the appropriate term but who cares?) is to become a therapist and treat people who are in dire situations. I want to study psychology. I really like Jordan Peterson and stuff like Archetypes. That's the most interesting thing about psychology in my opinion. I still haven't read any Jung but he and his writings seem very interesting to me. What I also think is very interesting is Religions and their relationship to psychology (like I already said: Archetypes). I only want to study psychology to treat and help people later.
I don't want to study psychology like someone who's studying biology, because they find the subject interesting. Don't get me wrong I do think it's very interesting but that's not my main goal. I'm also not so sure if what I'm interested really is psychology and not philosophy (Archetypes, Jung, etc.). I live in Germany maybe that helps with formulating an answer to my question. What should I do? Do I study psychology for 11 years to become a psychotherapist ("Psychotherapeut"), basically a clinical psychologist? Or...?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:52:57 2019 No.13293448 >>13293431 You are such a faggot. I am genuinely disgusted by you.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:54:27 2019 No.13293457
File: 39 KB, 400x300, karl-marx-in-shades.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Psychologists and psychiatrist are the vanguard of capitalism and counter-revolution. Are you depressed because you are oppressed? Because of social conditions? No they say, «it's just a bunch of brain chemicals, it's your fault, do not blame the bourgeoisie». Trusting these jewish snakes is a grave mistake.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:55:13 2019 No.13293463

>>13293431
Youre just another pantshitter that is thinking far too ahead

First and foremost, Do the readings. You didn't even get there yet you're just obviously fraternizing with pseud skinnyfats on an anonymous porn collecting forum. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you, writing like that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:55:50 2019 No.13293464 >>13284697 because it got invented to milk rich people with prroblems that are not really problems and it never stopped. return to nature and worship god. people living in harmony with nature do not even have a word for suicide.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:56:39 2019 No.13293467 >>13293457 Marx was literally a jew you kike apologist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:58:34 2019 No.13293481 >>13292691 No, you get false positives when running experiments. Those false positives are unlikely to replicate (1/400 chance to).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:59:04 2019 No.13293485 >>13293467 Nothing wrong with being jewish, you /pol/tard, being a snake is the insult here.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:59:30 2019 No.13293488

I don't trust them anymore after a therapist gave my little brother amphetamines

Threw that shit down in the trash
Woke up my mom in the middle of the night
Told her "you have made a big mistake. Never give him these pills again."
Gladly she listened without much protest, despite how badly she wanted his grades to improve
In our culture the eldest son has some degree of authority in the house, and i put it to use for the sake of my little bros brain
Hes fine now. Ended up improving his grades on his own
I wish i can find the therapist and choke him out desu, how dare he.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 19:59:45 2019 No.13293490 >>13293485 Then why bother mentioning the jew?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:11:22 2019 No.13293555

>>13293431
if you read the threads you see the psych guys sooner or later lay down their authority over biology. so that is your fate if you join them.

also, if you read the threads, you see they are philosophical hacks. if you have a genuinely interest in people, even though it may sound counterintuitive, psychology is not the place.

algo, most of the big literature is antipsych and subjectivist in essence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:24:38 2019 No.13293643 >>13284929 unironically based and redpilled. >>13286327 unironically not based and bluepilled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:25:36 2019 No.13293646 >>13293431 Did I fucking write this anon what the fuck, my exact thoughts and feelings exactly

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:35:09 2019 No.13293695 >>13284923 Can confirm too

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:35:12 2019 No.13293696

>>13293481
False positives don't have a standard rate of occurrence and they couldn't have a standard rate of replication. It's like saying the false positive rate of heroin is the same as the false positive rate of tire damage and they have the same replication errors. I thought you might be responding to the depression posters talking about misdiagnosis or something. Where are you getting that figure from and what are you applying it to?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:41:51 2019 No.13293722

>>13284697
Nothing is useful or useless except in relation to something. So that's just a tautology, it's useless to you :P But personally I find it incredibly useful in the creation of my theories, in my analysis of books, and in the way I lead my life

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:48:48 2019 No.13293764 >>13293448 Me too

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 20:49:51 2019 No.13293769 >>13293646 So what are going to do?

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:17:30 2019 No.13293939

>>13293769
I'm a JBP fan who thought being a therapist would be fulfilling. The caveat to that is if I don't feel like I'm making an actual difference it will do the opposite of what I wanted in the first place.

I think I'll research and look into the effectiness of therapy. I might find it rewarding enough to know that at the very least I'm being an open ear to someone who wants help dealing with mental health. If I look into the field and it feels to wishywashy and not solid then I'll probably teach English or look into being a firefighter.
The PhD level seems interesting but I don't know if I want to dedicate that much of my life towards my job.

If you come to the U.S you can become a psychotherapist with a MA instead of a PhD.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:31:39 2019 No.13294013 >>13286982 Incorrect

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:34:10 2019 No.13294029 >>13287142 >You're a brainlet because you got a master's degree Uh huh

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:35:38 2019 No.13294036 >>13287247 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH It's getting more difficult to distinguish genuine retards from pretend retards

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:38:00 2019 No.13294051 >>13287518 Psychology isn't a religion with an ancient homeland where you're supposed to marry other psychologists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:40:52 2019 No.13294068 >>13287522 >psychology is BS because it keeps changing every few decades >psychology is a cult because you can't go against psychology orthodoxy Pick your strawman

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 21:44:32 2019 No.13294096 >>13294068 one cult consensus is replaced by a new one

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 23:14:01 2019 No.13294483 >>13284697 monthly reminder that psychology is normie psychology.

Anonymous Thu Jun 13 23:45:47 2019 No.13294620

>>13284697
I don't know why, but what you say is true.

The only success I've heard from practicing psychology is from people who are already successful but mildly anxious/depressed. I don't think the "psychology" is causing the effect though. I think that these high functioning people are getting a placebo effect and/or benefiting from talking about their problems out loud and realizing how retarded they sound. The only other group psychology seems to help are those with child level fears and phobias, like literal retards who are scared of spiders and public bathrooms with massive glory holes with giant penises trying to ejaculate on you while you're trying to take a dump at the public park on a Wednesday afternoon in July.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 13 23:54:15 2019 No.13294667 >>13287337 The word you're looking for is unconscious.

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 00:04:26 2019 No.13294709

>>13293696
Most data analysis done within social and personality psychology is done using frequentist tools.

A result is not significant (i.e. assumed that it is not a false positive) if it does not achieve a p value of 0.05. The chance for two studies, assuming same conditions, (which isn't possible, but assume it for the sake of argument), to find a false positive in a given result is, at most, 1/400.

There's also some bad science happening (e.g. p hacking), partially due to the necessity to publish in order to keep your position, which may contribute the unreliability of some studies.
The field is becoming self-aware of these problems, and is encouraging researchers to articulate and submit hypotheses before data analysis, experiment with Bayesian methods, and to examine studies with an increased focus on the methodology/analysis rather than results.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 14 00:10:10 2019 No.13294737 >>13293431 You believe too much in the system

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 00:21:11 2019 No.13294775

>>13294709
That is not how you work out the rate of false positives and even with a significance range of p 0.05, the probability of false positives being repeated needs the rate of false positives, and true positives, to be known, and to have already rejected the null hypothesis. You cannot work out the false positive ratio (the chance of it being repeated) without knowing the false positive rate (and therefore also the true negatives and overall negatives) and without significance testing (and therefore also including the variables for true positives and failures to reject the null hypothesis).
You're not including the variables which are necessary to that ratio, and you are (incorrectly) saying that significance assumes a lack of false positives. The chances are not 1/400, and you are not giving the variables necessary to work out the probability of repetition.

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 02:12:46 2019 No.13295151

>>13294775
>you are (incorrectly) saying that significance assumes a lack of false positives

It doesn't, rather it represents an arbitrary cutoff from which we can be reasonably certain about a given result. It's a cutoff that separates the area of uncertainty and fairly certain.

>That is not how you work out the rate of false positives

I didn't make that claim, that ratio does not represent an absolute amount for every given replication, nor is it applicable to the significance range of p 0.05, but rather to specifically a value of 0.05. It's purely the highest chance of such a thing occurring while achieving significance, assuming a cutoff of 0.05, and given same conditions across tests, which is, again, an absurd assumption. It's a tool used to illustrate a point.

>You cannot work out the false positive ratio (the chance of it being repeated) without knowing the false positive rate (and therefore also the true negatives and overall negatives) and without significance testing (and therefore also including the variables for true positives and failures to reject the null hypothesis).

The false positive rate is equivalent to the p value. It's known in my hypothetical.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 14 02:16:56 2019 No.13295162 >>13293555 >humanities trannies don't like science Who would've thought >philosophical hacks Scientists predominantly are trained scientifically and read such material, I would've never had guessed!

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 02:19:50 2019 No.13295170

>>13286982
This post is the worst thing in this thread.

No evidence that it's multi-dimensional, but rather it reflects a belief in wanting it to be multi-dimensional. Those who still cling to the idea of emotional IQ are regarded with the same respect of those who still cling to the learning styles meme. Rather these multiple dimensions are just IQ manifesting behaviorally due to its co-occurrence with other traits or dimensions (e.g. emo IQ is really IQ with high trait agreeableness).

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 06:35:24 2019 No.13296010
File: 29 KB, 724x463, 1538164042829.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13295162
they cant even conceive depression is an ethical possition or that they are social categorizers, or that assuming hurting others is a sympton of a disease is a purely machiavellian shit. and this only in this thread. one thing is not read too many philosophy and another is dont have an acknowledge of basic thoughts involve in your discipline. never understanding your ground of work is a purely philosophical and personal ground too delicate for big words and big experimenting.
if you do science with consciousness, you gonna be like a retard experimenting with something he never really understand. they are creating a type of consciousness. something they couldnt acknowledge either.
basically, they are hacks because they cant think without the refuge of their discipline, not because they dont read heidegger or something.

Anonymous Fri Jun 14 10:36:32 2019 No.13296918

>>13295151
>The false positive rate is equivalent to the p value. It's known in my hypothetical.
m8 you clearly don't understand what the math here involves. Significance ≠ false positive rate. You need both. You also need the other variable I told you about. Otherwise you cannot work out the chance of a false positive repeating. You need to put those variables into the false positive ratio formula to work out the chances of a false positive repeating.

What you're saying to me is like
>The circumference of a circle is pi
It's not, you need the variable from the radius.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 14 13:47:25 2019 No.13297833 >>13284929 Is it assburgers? What's with seething lefties shoehorning capitalism into everything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 14 13:49:11 2019 No.13297840 >>13285642 Fuck psychologists and their apologists. You don't know me.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature