If you believe that psychology as a science is incapable of rigor at the most basic levels
Please, go find two papers from peer reviewed psychology journals that you feel don't measure up to the standards of other fields, and THEN I'll grab some counter-examples.
Are you intentionally not reading what I'm writing? Honestly, I want to know, because I cannot find any other basis for these statements.
I have said time and time again that MODERN psychology uses statistically rigorous methodology. The Rorschach test dates from before 1913 (Rorschach first studied the use of inkblots while a medical student). What else were psychologists doing in 1913? Sure as hell not anything relying on the scientific method.
Properly scientific approaches were not part of psychology until after B.F. Skinner became influential, because he insisted on focusing only measurable and quantifiable behaviors.
That's the compressed version. The meta-history file (compressed:17GB) decompresses to 2.8TB on its own. Assuming the same compression ratio (likely not a valid assumption) the articles file would decompress to 500GB, give or take.
Why would anyone one commit be less vetted than any other commit? The old commits don't get new edits merged into them. A commit from year ago is no less likely to have vandalism present than the commit from yesterday. It will just be different vandalism.
Yeah, but this might fail outright on count three from that case--if the amount is large enough a verbal agreement doesn't cut it (IANAL, I don't know the relevant dividing amount)
I thought it was obvious, but let me explain: the value of the double-blind trial is that it avoids the communication of subtle cues from the administrator of the test to the subject. These cues are only problematic because of a psychological phenomenon known as the placebo effect.
This is where you are wrong. The placebo effect is not the only problem here. In the case of projective tests, such as the Rorschach, the real problem is the therapist-patient interaction. Because the therapist is inherently not an objective observer, nor a removed observer there is an interactional dynamic that renders the results unreliable--different therapists will score the test differently. There are additionally serious questions of validity, and there have been no methodologically rigorous studies that address these issues (that I am aware of, provide a link if you are).
I was pointing out that he was relying on the validity of psychology as a basis for his criticism of psychology which was kind of amusing.
No he was not. At least, not as I read it. He was relying on the validity of scientific methodology (double blinds are NOT unique to psychology, and did not originate from psychology, but rather from a 19th century physiologist) to criticize an unscientific test that was created back in the days when psychology was not a science at all (assuming you accept some Popperian-esque epistemology of science--a sort of radical empirical scepticism).
However, if you want a serious response about double-blind tests, you're going to have to explain how you intend to apply one to a diagnostic tool, since they're intended for therapeutic tools. It's possible, but in the end, I'm not sure that you would be describing something that most researchers would call a "double blind".
This is a valid point (however, in general lexicon people conflate 'double blind' with methodological rigor, a tendency I myself share). As for how I would devise such a test, I can't say. However, I'm also not the one claiming the Rorschach is a valid test--I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that it is, and that it lacks a scientific basis. You are not pointing to one other than simply repeating yourself claiming it is a invaluable tool. You have to show that, you cannot simply claim it.
On that note, no I don't consider the Exner scoring system to be such a basis (unless again, you can present appropriate evidence to the contrary). It is, to be colloquial, lipstick on a pig. An effort to make what was previously a completely useless test into a strange sort of proxy for something marginally useful, but not actually into that useful thing.
No, I disagree. The projective tests (let's isolate ourselves from Rorschach as a specific example, though we can go back to it, later) are very much a tool of modern psychology. They're invaluable tools in many respects, but they require skill (just like any medical tool) to use correctly.
You can disagree all you want, but you have yet to respond to my point: These tests (the Rorschach in particular, I'm not as familiar with more modern projective tests, but pending evidence of their reliability and validity I will remain sceptical because of their methodology) have no epistemologically or methodologically scientific basis, that I am aware of. Please present one if you are.
Holy shit....just reading the wikipedia summary of that movie scares the shit out of me. Also, that might be the wikipedia article with the largest number of uses of 'vagina' and 'penis' in the same sentence, a prospect which only horrifies me further.
. I don't think that the field of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy has been discredited to the extent you seem to believe. Certainly it has it's opponents, of which you seem to be one, and in that sense it is "discredited" with certain groups or schools of thought.
Astrology is still accepted by a surprising number of people as well. That does not make it science.
. The unconscious is a powerful force in our lives, but it is not something that can be measured with a thermometer, or a blood test, or brain imaging. As with any kind of interpretation, useful results are only achieved with a truly competent analyst. Add to that the natural human inclination to resist the kind of confrontation inherent to psychoanalysis and you have a recipe for the appearance of the kind of hand-waving that you allege.
Subsitute: demons ---> unconcscious, witch doctor ---> psychoanalyst. Same story, right?
Now, I am not in fact refuting that unconscious psychological factors play a significant role in our lives. Nor am I denying that past traumas and experiences significantly influence those factors. To do so would be obviously absurd. I am not even saying that modern psychotherapy is without benefit. What I am saying is that nearly everything in the study of psychology from pre-1950s (give or take a decade) should be treated as sceptically as chemical treatises from pre-1500. Because they are equally likely to be a crock.
Just because the atom theory of the greeks was on the right track (matter is composed of differing kinds of atoms) does not make their four-element theory relevant, and I would describe anyone subscribing to it as equally unscientific as anyone giving credence to Freud's theories. So yes, there is are unconscious factors, and they are important. That does not make Freud relevant, anymore than the existence of atoms makes the Greeks relevant.
. That does not mean, however, that such work should be relegated to the annals of history. It is uncomfortable in the extreme to actively confront and accept our unconscious selves, and it is not a challenge most people are willing to take up. For those that are willing, the rewards can far surpass the results of modern psychopharmacology.
Again, yes it does. And as I said, even the APA agrees with me.
. In computer terms, it is a relatively simple thing to fix a hardware issue - untangling an OS that has been tied up with poor installs and malware is a far more complex and delicate task. In this metaphor, there is no useful human equivalent to wiping the drive and reinstalling, and we must each deal with the install we have been dealt. Sorry, I couldn't come up with a car analogy. =(
Tell that to all the advocates of electro-shock therapy.
Your post more or less sums up my point: the Rorschach test is unscientific, as much so as alchemy or astrology.
It is not a test that has epistemological or methodological roots in science. Its roots come from the Freud school of 'making things up and calling them true.'
Contrast this with the modern study of psychology which relies on statistically rigorous experiments with proper methodology.
Abstract observation, including Freudian or Jungian introspection, has been discredited because it is of questionable validity, reliability, and (most importantly) falsifiability.
The Rorschach test is a holdover from the bad old days of psychology when it was little more scientific than alchemy was in its day.
There's this fascinating science called psychology that tells us why double-blind studies are valuable. I think you'd like it.
What the hell was this supposed to mean? His whole point was that there are no double-blind studies supporting your point. Turning around and saying double-blinds are important is not a retort.
Modern psychology is rather different from psychology in the first part of the 20th century. The Rorscach belongs firmly in the latter.
The test is not a reliable or meaningful test anyway. The APA should be embarassed by this statement. Rorschach tests (and similar tests) are from the days when psychology was as much of a science as alchemy (read: total bullshit). That alchemy laid groundwork for chemistry and old psychology for scientifically (methodologically) valid psychology is not a reason to put any stock in those ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Show me the money!
Note: Stupid postercomment compression filter can bite my shiny metal ass.
If you believe that psychology as a science is incapable of rigor at the most basic levels
Please, go find two papers from peer reviewed psychology journals that you feel don't measure up to the standards of other fields, and THEN I'll grab some counter-examples.
Are you intentionally not reading what I'm writing? Honestly, I want to know, because I cannot find any other basis for these statements.
I have said time and time again that MODERN psychology uses statistically rigorous methodology. The Rorschach test dates from before 1913 (Rorschach first studied the use of inkblots while a medical student). What else were psychologists doing in 1913? Sure as hell not anything relying on the scientific method.
Properly scientific approaches were not part of psychology until after B.F. Skinner became influential, because he insisted on focusing only measurable and quantifiable behaviors.
That's the compressed version. The meta-history file (compressed:17GB) decompresses to 2.8TB on its own. Assuming the same compression ratio (likely not a valid assumption) the articles file would decompress to 500GB, give or take.
Your Karma must be shit BadAnalogyGuy.
Why would anyone one commit be less vetted than any other commit? The old commits don't get new edits merged into them. A commit from year ago is no less likely to have vandalism present than the commit from yesterday. It will just be different vandalism.
No.
Yeah, but this might fail outright on count three from that case--if the amount is large enough a verbal agreement doesn't cut it (IANAL, I don't know the relevant dividing amount)
Any corporate IT worth its paygrade will be using disk images for refreshing an installation.
Go back to throwing paint on socialites.
I thought it was obvious, but let me explain: the value of the double-blind trial is that it avoids the communication of subtle cues from the administrator of the test to the subject. These cues are only problematic because of a psychological phenomenon known as the placebo effect.
This is where you are wrong. The placebo effect is not the only problem here. In the case of projective tests, such as the Rorschach, the real problem is the therapist-patient interaction. Because the therapist is inherently not an objective observer, nor a removed observer there is an interactional dynamic that renders the results unreliable--different therapists will score the test differently. There are additionally serious questions of validity, and there have been no methodologically rigorous studies that address these issues (that I am aware of, provide a link if you are).
I was pointing out that he was relying on the validity of psychology as a basis for his criticism of psychology which was kind of amusing.
No he was not. At least, not as I read it. He was relying on the validity of scientific methodology (double blinds are NOT unique to psychology, and did not originate from psychology, but rather from a 19th century physiologist) to criticize an unscientific test that was created back in the days when psychology was not a science at all (assuming you accept some Popperian-esque epistemology of science--a sort of radical empirical scepticism).
However, if you want a serious response about double-blind tests, you're going to have to explain how you intend to apply one to a diagnostic tool, since they're intended for therapeutic tools. It's possible, but in the end, I'm not sure that you would be describing something that most researchers would call a "double blind".
This is a valid point (however, in general lexicon people conflate 'double blind' with methodological rigor, a tendency I myself share). As for how I would devise such a test, I can't say. However, I'm also not the one claiming the Rorschach is a valid test--I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that it is, and that it lacks a scientific basis. You are not pointing to one other than simply repeating yourself claiming it is a invaluable tool. You have to show that, you cannot simply claim it.
On that note, no I don't consider the Exner scoring system to be such a basis (unless again, you can present appropriate evidence to the contrary). It is, to be colloquial, lipstick on a pig. An effort to make what was previously a completely useless test into a strange sort of proxy for something marginally useful, but not actually into that useful thing.
No, I disagree. The projective tests (let's isolate ourselves from Rorschach as a specific example, though we can go back to it, later) are very much a tool of modern psychology. They're invaluable tools in many respects, but they require skill (just like any medical tool) to use correctly.
You can disagree all you want, but you have yet to respond to my point: These tests (the Rorschach in particular, I'm not as familiar with more modern projective tests, but pending evidence of their reliability and validity I will remain sceptical because of their methodology) have no epistemologically or methodologically scientific basis, that I am aware of. Please present one if you are.
Holy shit....just reading the wikipedia summary of that movie scares the shit out of me. Also, that might be the wikipedia article with the largest number of uses of 'vagina' and 'penis' in the same sentence, a prospect which only horrifies me further.
How dare ye point out my mark of shame!
This is like asking what Secret Police don't murder a few protestors?
Just because it is common practice does not make it acceptable behavior.
It's like the 17th Century, when pickpockets used to work the crowds who came to watch pickpockets being hanged.
You've got to admire the sheer ballsiness of such a move though.
News yes. /. relevant? Not so much.
Deep Throating kills you.
. I don't think that the field of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy has been discredited to the extent you seem to believe. Certainly it has it's opponents, of which you seem to be one, and in that sense it is "discredited" with certain groups or schools of thought.
Sigmund Freud's scientific fraud is well documented. His case studies, while based on actual cases for the most part, contain gross exaggerations and alterations to better fit his preconceived theories. Even university psychology departments and the APA agree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=4&ref=education&oref&oref=slogin
Astrology is still accepted by a surprising number of people as well. That does not make it science.
. The unconscious is a powerful force in our lives, but it is not something that can be measured with a thermometer, or a blood test, or brain imaging. As with any kind of interpretation, useful results are only achieved with a truly competent analyst. Add to that the natural human inclination to resist the kind of confrontation inherent to psychoanalysis and you have a recipe for the appearance of the kind of hand-waving that you allege.
Subsitute: demons ---> unconcscious, witch doctor ---> psychoanalyst. Same story, right?
Now, I am not in fact refuting that unconscious psychological factors play a significant role in our lives. Nor am I denying that past traumas and experiences significantly influence those factors. To do so would be obviously absurd. I am not even saying that modern psychotherapy is without benefit. What I am saying is that nearly everything in the study of psychology from pre-1950s (give or take a decade) should be treated as sceptically as chemical treatises from pre-1500. Because they are equally likely to be a crock.
Just because the atom theory of the greeks was on the right track (matter is composed of differing kinds of atoms) does not make their four-element theory relevant, and I would describe anyone subscribing to it as equally unscientific as anyone giving credence to Freud's theories. So yes, there is are unconscious factors, and they are important. That does not make Freud relevant, anymore than the existence of atoms makes the Greeks relevant.
. That does not mean, however, that such work should be relegated to the annals of history. It is uncomfortable in the extreme to actively confront and accept our unconscious selves, and it is not a challenge most people are willing to take up. For those that are willing, the rewards can far surpass the results of modern psychopharmacology.
Again, yes it does. And as I said, even the APA agrees with me.
. In computer terms, it is a relatively simple thing to fix a hardware issue - untangling an OS that has been tied up with poor installs and malware is a far more complex and delicate task. In this metaphor, there is no useful human equivalent to wiping the drive and reinstalling, and we must each deal with the install we have been dealt. Sorry, I couldn't come up with a car analogy. =(
Tell that to all the advocates of electro-shock therapy.
Your post more or less sums up my point: the Rorschach test is unscientific, as much so as alchemy or astrology.
It is not a test that has epistemological or methodological roots in science. Its roots come from the Freud school of 'making things up and calling them true.'
Contrast this with the modern study of psychology which relies on statistically rigorous experiments with proper methodology.
Abstract observation, including Freudian or Jungian introspection, has been discredited because it is of questionable validity, reliability, and (most importantly) falsifiability.
The Rorschach test is a holdover from the bad old days of psychology when it was little more scientific than alchemy was in its day.
There's this fascinating science called psychology that tells us why double-blind studies are valuable. I think you'd like it.
What the hell was this supposed to mean? His whole point was that there are no double-blind studies supporting your point. Turning around and saying double-blinds are important is not a retort.
Modern psychology is rather different from psychology in the first part of the 20th century. The Rorscach belongs firmly in the latter.
I saw a pussy with teeth.
The test is not a reliable or meaningful test anyway. The APA should be embarassed by this statement. Rorschach tests (and similar tests) are from the days when psychology was as much of a science as alchemy (read: total bullshit). That alchemy laid groundwork for chemistry and old psychology for scientifically (methodologically) valid psychology is not a reason to put any stock in those ideas.
IE6 is only used by employers who block youtube anyway.
If only all /. comments after the first post just reworded the last line of their parent.
A man can dream.
The moral of the story is don't use crappy custom code (ex: anything I've ever written in perl) because its unmaintainable and non-portable.
Watching porn.
Was it really that hard to figure out?
That may be, but this is the year of OS/2 on the desktop. Mark my words!
Ah but Chrome has things it needs to learn before it can be a buggy memory whore.