Ignorant is a strong word to some. I don't mean it to be an insult here.
You are ignorant of too much to understand my points it seems. You're missing what I am saying or purposefully misinterpreting or focusing on minor supplementary points.
I had a point-by-point response to your questions, but they were lost right as I was about to post them. I don't have the time to re-do. I recommend boning up on the philosophy of science. Here is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mental illness is a sham? You must be blessed to have never encountered it. Or you have it.
I am an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist [https://www.siop.org/]. We don't deal (much) with mental illness. Among psychologists, we're particularly robust in our attention to experimental control and the conduct of proper science. We're the ones who (to a large extent) came up with and advanced Meta-analyses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis].
You are correct that I'm a bit pissed off. My anger focuses on the damage this reckless headline is causing the fragile minds of people like you. It's more fodder for morons to feel confident in their ignorance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect].
If anyone wants to debate any of these points (or anything else) I'm game. Bring it. No Anonymous Cowards allowed, however.
What you see on TV called "Psychology" has very little to do with actual scientific psychological research. You are ignorant of the reality across numerous sciences. I recommend listening more and posting less. You'll look less foolish.
Your biologist friend is incorrect. The field, by itself, does not view the results only as a result for that particular cohort. That is a general truth that applies to all scientific data, and to data in general. It is only data about that from which you have collected it. That much cannot be avoided. That is an early question: "Does the data we glean from this stuff (people, stars, cells, etc.) tell us anything interesting and sytematic about this stuff? Then we address the question of generalization: Can we reasonably expect what we found to be true about this stuff to be true about all other stuff in the same category?
And what do you actually know about psychological research? Have you conducted any or read any full articles from the original authors? What do you know about scientific research at all? What scientific studies have you performed?
I am a psychologist. I am also a fan of the "hard" sciences and have read several full articles in physics, chemistry, medicine, and several other fields.. I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking) and reviewed before they are conducted than experiments in "hard" fields. There is no IRB review process in experiments not involving human subjects. Fields that study non-living things like matter and energy have it far easier. Those things behave deterministically and predictably. With humans, animals, and other living things, the noise factor is intense. We have had to develop highly sophisticated techniques to be able to perform science and uncover truth. The truth of that science needs to be taken with a large grain of salt because we are talking about summarizing a very wide set of behaviors, outcomes, and causes with a relatively small amount of words.
The idea that this means "Psychology is wrong" is the opposite of what should be gleaned here.
1. This looked at a journal from 2008. That's pretty recent in scientific terms.
2. What is the replicability of new scientific findings in "hard" science fields like physics, chemistry, and medicine? Well, we don't know very well, because there hasn't been a concerted effort to explore that like there has been in psychology (At least not that I was able to find; I thought there was an effort. Please link if you know of it).
3. This is GREAT. This is what science is supposed to do, test itself. Now we have a much better understanding of what is "true" in psychology.
4. The author is something of a fool and probably not an actual scientist. A phrase like, "those of us in the hard sciences" speaks strongly to a high level of ignorant arrogance. People who do real science understand the noisiness of real data and difficulty of discovering truly new effects.
How does this not fly in the face of net-neutrality? This is a per-usage fee. Sure, there's no fee back to the content provider, and I'm aware that mobile carriers have some exemptions to traditional wire-based ISP's, but this seems like an move from Google. Moreover, this sounds like any old pay-per-data plan mobile providers have floated/attempted in the past. What is new here?
No doubt there will still be ways to search a car of interest and police who will flout this ruling. However, I do think this ruling will create a moderately sized change in general police procedure and serve to reduce the number of annoyance searches. Hooray for this.
You see, it is often the case here that roads are built for speeds much higher than the actual posted limit. Parameters like lane width, grade, shoulder presence & width, presence/absence of median, etc. all contribute to an intuitive psychological understanding of what an appropriate (and safe) speed is. By posting a lower limit, the cops and the cities they work for have a nice juicy revenue stream whenever they please to use it. Moreover, they have a 'legitimate' reason to stop and harass whomever they don't like, e.g., brown people. Or maybe they do it to keep people safe .
Yawn.
A. Ppl/gov needs to consider the cognitive impairment effects more? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what is being considered and sought out when smoking weed.
B. Study performed in europe. Lots of confounding issues due to borders, geopolitics, and a range if other factors.
C. Causal? Mmmm that's a stretch. They've got 2 out of 3: 1 a relationship and 2 the ban came in time before the increase in passing classes. However, the big one, accounting for other possible causes, is (at least in tfa's write up) is not addressed. Methinks there are several more impactful events that could account for a rising course completion rate. Generation size, increased competition, a recognition of greater skill needs for a more technical job market, reduced standards, reconfiguration if classes to address a slump in graduates/grades, increasing political/economic stability, etc. Etc.
No, not really. There are plenty of introverted people (i.e., not networkers) who learned valuable skills and got jobs based on knowledge gained in college. This is so blatantly obvious that I'm not even going to bother citing sources (a skill I learned in college). The burden of proof is on you.
I will put this out for you though: do you really want a surgeon who skipped half of her classes operating on you? Do you really want your pediatrician diagnosing your childs illness based on google searches?
Yes, it is cause for celebration. Even if there are inconsistencies in its funding practices, we should always celebrate any positive actions. By this we encourage others to do likewise.
You do have passion. Complacency isn't the root of your current malaise, however. You've found yourself in a place that doesn't allow you to find flow/engagement in your work, and/or that isn't passionate about its own mission (probably a departmental more than organizational issue). You may eventually burn out if you stay in this situation. The major source of stress in this model is the dissonance between your passion and their obstructions to progress.
Recommendations - 1. Change the way you approach/think about the situation; find new ways to utilize your strengths and exercise your passion that fit better with the pace and goals of your co-workers. 2. Change the situation. Enter/create a role of influence for yourself. Use it to spread your passion to others. Be careful to ensure you're doing the right thing ethically, morally, and economically. 3. Leave for another project/employer that better matches your style, passion, and goals,
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorant is a strong word to some. I don't mean it to be an insult here. You are ignorant of too much to understand my points it seems. You're missing what I am saying or purposefully misinterpreting or focusing on minor supplementary points. I had a point-by-point response to your questions, but they were lost right as I was about to post them. I don't have the time to re-do. I recommend boning up on the philosophy of science. Here is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mental illness is a sham? You must be blessed to have never encountered it. Or you have it. I am an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist [https://www.siop.org/]. We don't deal (much) with mental illness. Among psychologists, we're particularly robust in our attention to experimental control and the conduct of proper science. We're the ones who (to a large extent) came up with and advanced Meta-analyses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis]. You are correct that I'm a bit pissed off. My anger focuses on the damage this reckless headline is causing the fragile minds of people like you. It's more fodder for morons to feel confident in their ignorance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect]. If anyone wants to debate any of these points (or anything else) I'm game. Bring it. No Anonymous Cowards allowed, however.
Likewise, Anonymous Coward.
What you see on TV called "Psychology" has very little to do with actual scientific psychological research. You are ignorant of the reality across numerous sciences. I recommend listening more and posting less. You'll look less foolish.
Agreed.
You know even less about psychological research, research in general, and science overall.
Bamp. Good post.
Your biologist friend is incorrect. The field, by itself, does not view the results only as a result for that particular cohort. That is a general truth that applies to all scientific data, and to data in general. It is only data about that from which you have collected it. That much cannot be avoided. That is an early question: "Does the data we glean from this stuff (people, stars, cells, etc.) tell us anything interesting and sytematic about this stuff? Then we address the question of generalization: Can we reasonably expect what we found to be true about this stuff to be true about all other stuff in the same category?
It sounds like you know very little about cancer or cancer research.
You know nothing of Psychological research.
And what do you actually know about psychological research? Have you conducted any or read any full articles from the original authors? What do you know about scientific research at all? What scientific studies have you performed? I am a psychologist. I am also a fan of the "hard" sciences and have read several full articles in physics, chemistry, medicine, and several other fields.. I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking) and reviewed before they are conducted than experiments in "hard" fields. There is no IRB review process in experiments not involving human subjects. Fields that study non-living things like matter and energy have it far easier. Those things behave deterministically and predictably. With humans, animals, and other living things, the noise factor is intense. We have had to develop highly sophisticated techniques to be able to perform science and uncover truth. The truth of that science needs to be taken with a large grain of salt because we are talking about summarizing a very wide set of behaviors, outcomes, and causes with a relatively small amount of words.
Thank you.
The idea that this means "Psychology is wrong" is the opposite of what should be gleaned here. 1. This looked at a journal from 2008. That's pretty recent in scientific terms. 2. What is the replicability of new scientific findings in "hard" science fields like physics, chemistry, and medicine? Well, we don't know very well, because there hasn't been a concerted effort to explore that like there has been in psychology (At least not that I was able to find; I thought there was an effort. Please link if you know of it). 3. This is GREAT. This is what science is supposed to do, test itself. Now we have a much better understanding of what is "true" in psychology. 4. The author is something of a fool and probably not an actual scientist. A phrase like, "those of us in the hard sciences" speaks strongly to a high level of ignorant arrogance. People who do real science understand the noisiness of real data and difficulty of discovering truly new effects.
What better way to play with yourself?
How does this not fly in the face of net-neutrality? This is a per-usage fee. Sure, there's no fee back to the content provider, and I'm aware that mobile carriers have some exemptions to traditional wire-based ISP's, but this seems like an move from Google. Moreover, this sounds like any old pay-per-data plan mobile providers have floated/attempted in the past. What is new here?
No doubt there will still be ways to search a car of interest and police who will flout this ruling. However, I do think this ruling will create a moderately sized change in general police procedure and serve to reduce the number of annoyance searches. Hooray for this.
You see, it is often the case here that roads are built for speeds much higher than the actual posted limit. Parameters like lane width, grade, shoulder presence & width, presence/absence of median, etc. all contribute to an intuitive psychological understanding of what an appropriate (and safe) speed is. By posting a lower limit, the cops and the cities they work for have a nice juicy revenue stream whenever they please to use it. Moreover, they have a 'legitimate' reason to stop and harass whomever they don't like, e.g., brown people. Or maybe they do it to keep people safe .
Oh the ignorance. People like you are why we still have a war on drugs and all of the pain, death, and destruction that comes with it.
Yawn. A. Ppl/gov needs to consider the cognitive impairment effects more? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what is being considered and sought out when smoking weed. B. Study performed in europe. Lots of confounding issues due to borders, geopolitics, and a range if other factors. C. Causal? Mmmm that's a stretch. They've got 2 out of 3: 1 a relationship and 2 the ban came in time before the increase in passing classes. However, the big one, accounting for other possible causes, is (at least in tfa's write up) is not addressed. Methinks there are several more impactful events that could account for a rising course completion rate. Generation size, increased competition, a recognition of greater skill needs for a more technical job market, reduced standards, reconfiguration if classes to address a slump in graduates/grades, increasing political/economic stability, etc. Etc.
No, not really. There are plenty of introverted people (i.e., not networkers) who learned valuable skills and got jobs based on knowledge gained in college. This is so blatantly obvious that I'm not even going to bother citing sources (a skill I learned in college). The burden of proof is on you. I will put this out for you though: do you really want a surgeon who skipped half of her classes operating on you? Do you really want your pediatrician diagnosing your childs illness based on google searches?
Uhhh, source on those stats please?
Yes, it is cause for celebration. Even if there are inconsistencies in its funding practices, we should always celebrate any positive actions. By this we encourage others to do likewise.
You do have passion. Complacency isn't the root of your current malaise, however. You've found yourself in a place that doesn't allow you to find flow/engagement in your work, and/or that isn't passionate about its own mission (probably a departmental more than organizational issue). You may eventually burn out if you stay in this situation. The major source of stress in this model is the dissonance between your passion and their obstructions to progress. Recommendations - 1. Change the way you approach/think about the situation; find new ways to utilize your strengths and exercise your passion that fit better with the pace and goals of your co-workers. 2. Change the situation. Enter/create a role of influence for yourself. Use it to spread your passion to others. Be careful to ensure you're doing the right thing ethically, morally, and economically. 3. Leave for another project/employer that better matches your style, passion, and goals,
LOL.
You seem like a fun person.