/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15479021
They ignored it because of the emotional cost of acknowledging it

>>15471900

>>15464692
>is this why scientists refuse to research the grandiose delusion phenomenon?
They willfully ignore their own confirmation biases in favor of the happy fantasy that they're super special geniuses.

>>15456482

>>15461401
>If everyone who ends up in your clinic is having auditory and other hallucinations
what little research has been done says
>Around 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts
and thats only healthy people
auditory hallucinations are less common than that, but for whatever reason, the researchers sill avoid the topic of delusional grandiosity

>>15442704
Your civilization is collapsing at the same time that Africa's is improving. You can choose to deny this truth as a coping mechanism if you are emotionally incapable of accepting it, but doing that will not change the course of events, Africa will still be on the upswing while you are on the decline.

>>15430711
>None ITT so far.
you're just ignoring what you don't like seeing

>>15421934

>>15407143

>Keep vaccination/clamping/vitamin K/soliciting advice out of this thread and start your own because it takes a lot of space.
how come the medical community is so dead set on willfully ignoring it's worst problems? no desire to improve at all?
whats the latest research on the ever increasing amount of avoidable deaths and injuries inflicted on patients by incompetent physicians? does the fact that this problem has been on the rise for the past quarter century suggest that physicians have been becoming increasingly greedy & amoral or does it show that their iq has been getting lower?

>>15309619
delusions of grandiosity are extraordinarily common amongst scientists, thats why they avoid researching the topic

>>15263530
>There is a relative lack of research into GD
gosh, why would science neglect investigating this one little facet of reality? are they avoiding it intentionally because the inevitable results of any research would be too hurtful and embarrassing for them to deal with?

>>15247329
>the replication crisis isn't affecting everyone else's discipline, but not mine
go to https://retractionwatch.com, find any discipline that hasn't contributed content to the site

>>15221745
none of that is true, horses are omnivores. lmao that you're denying the evidence before your eyes in favor of your childhood schoolbook soience meme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
>There is a relative lack of research into Grandiose delusions
Why are the scientists avoiding looking into this aspect of science? Does it hit too close to home, too emotionally difficult and painful a topic to think about?

More about delusional grandiosity:
>Grandiose delusions, also known as delusions of grandeur or expansive delusions, are a subtype of delusion that occur in patients with a wide range of psychiatric diseases, including two-thirds of patients in a manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia, patients with the grandiose subtype of delusional disorder, frequently in narcissistic personality disorder, and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.
>Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, unusually intelligent or otherwise very powerful.
>The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, science fictional, or supernatural theme.
>In contrast to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. Around 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts at some point in their lives but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.

>>15177725
The real first disproof of relativity was the discovery of Hubble's law, but everyone ignored that and just went along pretending relativity hadn't been disproved by observational reality. Following that, the cosmic background radiation was discovered, contradicting the predictions of relativity, but that was also ignored. Quarks? Ignored. Galactic rotation curves? Ignored.
So in that context, any proof of relativity isn't relevant.

>>15155906
your irrational denialism only highlights your lack of rational understanding of this topic.
the first minute or two of this video will get you back on track
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ZDyzPqnT4

>>15121142
nice attempt at being a denialist, but covid caused a major economic collapse and global warming isn't helping. you aren't going to be getting a stem job out of college, nobody will want to hire you.

>>15120630
an unbiased, randomly selected sample of your writing identified your iq as 94

>>14829733
how does a publication prove anything in the context of the replication crisis?
if the majority of publications are false, then being published should discredit an idea.
please familiarize yourself with at least the broad details of the replication criss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
publications can't be taken at face value, anyone who does that is ignoring reality. ignoring reality is fundamentally anti-science.

>>14594159
Thats fine sentiment and there is probably some truth to the idea that things could be better if media influences were keyed in on using their influence to make it so, but overall neglecting the horrifying true nature of humanity is an irrational attempt to escape from reality. Incessant news of the evil that men do allows people the opportunity to avoid falling prey to those evils themselves. Censoring fair warnings like that only gives murderous aggressors even more of an upper hand.

>>14587110
/sci/ was good before you arrived, but now that you've been on /sci/ for a while, you think the board sucks balls.
maybe /sci/ will go back to being the way you like it if you stop trying to participate in the discussion

>>14550203
the other thread was started first, this one was started because the reddit soience shills got upset that their narrative was contradicted by the other thread so they started this thread as a form of science denialism, to isolate themselves from the hard and unwanted truths in the original /med/ general

>>14527558
>the remaining 10% are never actually cured
about that remaining 10%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
>There is a relative lack of research into grandiose delusions, in contrast to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. Around 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts at some point in their lives but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of grandiose delusions.
the professionals, for some reason, absolutely refuse to research this little corner of their discipline. can you guess why the pros refuse to investigate it? why do they consider people who experience these delusions normal? its like saying that people who have sckitzo hallucinations are normal.