For real, why are all your posts bolded now?
What does it portray when you bold your text versus when you don't?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.
Consider the source, people give her normal advice and she goes off, or even just correct a source over non-psychological topics like witchcraft or the bible. She is moreso against the guidance of anyone who isn't herself, which lets a lot of bad delusions of hers linger.
She also just got out of the ward, she might be wary for different reasons than usual. If she went on even a little bit about Majlak or Manifesting then she might have faced a lot of correction from people, lending perhaps to why all of her posts are in bold now?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/22/2022 2:32:49 PM
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.
Consider the source, people give her normal advice and she goes off, or even just correct a source over non-psychological topics like witchcraft or the bible. She is moreso against the guidance of anyone who isn't herself, which lets a lot of bad delusions of hers linger.
She also just got out of the ward, she might be wary for different reasons than usual. If she went on even a little bit about Majlak or Manifesting then she might have faced a lot of correction from people, lending perhaps to why all of her posts are in bold now?
A agree we can't really remove Turq from the context of everything she has said and done.
There is literally zero reason to believe that this current phase isn't apart of the cycle of behaviors she seems to go through.
However, the general topic seems true to me none the less.
Psychological questions are really really hard to answer objectively and the majority of psychological claims are subjective or missuses of the objective.
Should a person really come to this site in particular with psychological questions and expect the answers being spun to be true or helpful? Especially when those answers are typically narratives based on sparse information steeped in ambiguity.
However, if they do come and ask, we should be able to answer even if those answers are speculative and perhaps even hurtful. This is SC after all.
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.
Consider the source, people give her normal advice and she goes off, or even just correct a source over non-psychological topics like witchcraft or the bible. She is moreso against the guidance of anyone who isn't herself, which lets a lot of bad delusions of hers linger.
She also just got out of the ward, she might be wary for different reasons than usual. If she went on even a little bit about Majlak or Manifesting then she might have faced a lot of correction from people, lending perhaps to why all of her posts are in bold now?A agree we can't really remove Turq from the context of everything she has said and done.
There is literally zero reason to believe that this current phase isn't apart of the cycle of behaviors she seems to go through.
However, the general topic seems true to me none the less.
Well, if ignoring Turq entirely in her topic... 🤣
Psychological questions are really really hard to answer objectively and the majority of psychological claims are subjective or missuses of the objective.
Behaviorism and Abnormal Psychology still hit on some pretty good zones, but once you go into some of the older names it's more philosophy backed by unfalsifiable claims than anything (usually over 'The Subconscious').
Should a person really come to this site in particular with psychological questions and expect the answers being spun to be true or helpful?
They can always check the person's sources, or see if sources otherwise corroborate with their claims or not. The website is based around an abnormal psych archetype for the name, so a lot of people have at least dabbled in it.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.
Consider the source, people give her normal advice and she goes off, or even just correct a source over non-psychological topics like witchcraft or the bible. She is moreso against the guidance of anyone who isn't herself, which lets a lot of bad delusions of hers linger.
She also just got out of the ward, she might be wary for different reasons than usual. If she went on even a little bit about Majlak or Manifesting then she might have faced a lot of correction from people, lending perhaps to why all of her posts are in bold now?A agree we can't really remove Turq from the context of everything she has said and done.
There is literally zero reason to believe that this current phase isn't apart of the cycle of behaviors she seems to go through.
However, the general topic seems true to me none the less.
Well, if ignoring Turq entirely in her topic... 🤣
Yes, because a statement can be true or false regardless of the psychological state of the person who utters it.
The heuristic is just a good one.
Psychological questions are really really hard to answer objectively and the majority of psychological claims are subjective or missuses of the objective.
Behaviorism and Abnormal Psychology still hit on some pretty good zones, but once you go into some of the older names it's more philosophy backed by unfalsifiable claims than anything (usually over 'The Subconscious').
I have been black pilled incredibly hard on psychology and social science, its just every where i turn with hope is full of rot. But that rot simply exists in the claims "effect x is statistically significant" or just objectivity in general.
In those two areas of psychology I a sure there are well founded results. For instance, I assume in Adnormal psychology there are means to diagnosis and categorization that are accurate to some % of testable error. (but unless those categories are based on a brain scan or something it would still be a very dubious category or diagnoses, we need a repeatable effect that is measurable with as little complexity as possible).
An example of a really hard question to answer is how do you help someone with adnormal psychology? Medications are a safe bet because they are easily measurable. Coming up with verbal responses to someone is out the window because the effect will just not be trust worthy.
Psychology is cool because you do have this fun philosophical area to play with which I see nothing wrong with if we are realistic about its. Its also cool because its insanely hard if you treat it like a science.
Physh, if you treat it like a science in the same sense as the other hard sciences are treated, it is without a doubt the hardest to get right. The systems are just that nightmarish.
Should a person really come to this site in particular with psychological questions and expect the answers being spun to be true or helpful?
They can always check the person's sources, or see if sources otherwise corroborate with their claims or not. The website is based around an abnormal psych archetype for the name, so a lot of people have at least dabbled in it.
I brought this up the other day, most people are not capable of actually verifying a source.
If its not based in statistics then its hardly worth looking at given we are now in the land of subjectivity. If it is based in statistics you'll need knowledge in random process simulation in order to do a quick check on if values are trustable or not. Even then though you should have some skepticism.
This is wise.
Psych
A agree we can't really remove Turq from the context of everything she has said and done.
There is literally zero reason to believe that this current phase isn't apart of the cycle of behaviors she seems to go through.
However, the general topic seems true to me none the less.
Well, if ignoring Turq entirely in her topic... 🤣
Yes, because a statement can be true or false regardless of the psychological state of the person who utters it.
The heuristic is just a good one.
You can't expect people to not direct it towards themselves in a topic structured like this, especially with how you framed the reply:
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.
This looks like you patting her on the back rather than making a general point, and she's very liable to take it that way.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/22/2022 10:31:52 PM
Psychological questions are really really hard to answer objectively and the majority of psychological claims are subjective or missuses of the objective.
Behaviorism and Abnormal Psychology still hit on some pretty good zones, but once you go into some of the older names it's more philosophy backed by unfalsifiable claims than anything (usually over 'The Subconscious').
I have been black pilled incredibly hard on psychology and social science
Howso, from browsing the internet?
What's your background in it?
In those two areas of psychology I a sure there are well founded results. For instance, I assume in Adnormal psychology there are means to diagnosis and categorization that are accurate to some % of testable error.
And then some, they even have blind tests you can take for correlational data, which while not enough on it's own is used to funnel down potential diagnosis.
With a large enough testing group they can find patterns for example in how some disorders respond to questions about structure, and through having the questions be over seemingly normal things it becomes harder to steer the results through Web MD experience, as hypochondriasis and malingering are things they look for in the field.
(but unless those categories are based on a brain scan or something it would still be a very dubious category or diagnoses, we need a repeatable effect that is measurable with as little complexity as possible).
I actually knew someone in the field who was a lab tech/monkey for brain scans, it's a budding field but looks pretty optimistic.
An example of a really hard question to answer is how do you help someone with adnormal psychology?
THIS, SO MUCH THIS.
Psychology as it stands right now is more like an encyclopedia, the study itself not one of what to do with the knowledge so much as compiling the knowledge itself, one that when used as a tool lend to people defending very different outcomes from one another.
Medications are a safe bet because they are easily measurable. Coming up with verbal responses to someone is out the window because the effect will just not be trust worthy.
Psychology versus Psychiatry are two very different approaches to the study of the mind, one that cannot prescribe pills that carries eight years of study versus someone who effectively took four years of psych and four years of medical. Because of that, we often see people in the field pushing pills onto their clients over how they come across as more of a doctor, when really the one who is constrained to not being able to provide medication has twice the education in a single field who is otherwise willing to work twice as hard before settling on it.
Psychology is cool because you do have this fun philosophical area to play with which I see nothing wrong with if we are realistic about its. Its also cool because its insanely hard if you treat it like a science.
I actually have problems with the pseudo-philisophical bullshit, down to a personal level from too many people presuming that if I say I have a degree in it that I must be either Freudian or Jungian.
Nah dude I'm more like Lilith from Fraiser, dropping the mumbo jumbo in favor of hard results. You don't have to explore the subconscious too far to understand why something like Pavlovian Conditioning works for instance as that's more about direct observation.
Physh, if you treat it like a science in the same sense as the other hard sciences are treated, it is without a doubt the hardest to get right. The systems are just that nightmarish.
What began as speculative is becoming increasingly correlational, but somehow the field cannot avoid the pitfalls of culture, such as labeling homosexuality not a mental disorder.
They really need to replace 'disorder' with something less judgy, as they still otherwise serve as a way of identifying the differences between different groups of behavior.
Should a person really come to this site in particular with psychological questions and expect the answers being spun to be true or helpful?
They can always check the person's sources, or see if sources otherwise corroborate with their claims or not. The website is based around an abnormal psych archetype for the name, so a lot of people have at least dabbled in it.
I brought this up the other day, most people are not capable of actually verifying a source.
Psych has become mainstreamed, if they were to actually answer your question they'd probably say "Sherlock" or "Dexter" or some shit.
That isn't to say those references don't come from somewhere, but that often means unconsciously referencing sources like Sybil over a period of decades as other films and media use it as a resource for what to expect from schizophrenia and the like.
It however can also be good when it's handled right however, like how the show Lie to Me got Paul Ekman's studies to become more understood by the layman, which in my case cross-trained really well with my experiences in theater.
If its not based in statistics then its hardly worth looking at given we are now in the land of subjectivity.
Correlational data is the start of something, and they have now done it across a lot of people. The field began as a speculative philosophy over how limited the original tools were, but they get better all the time. We can often identify what might be wrong with someone not from just what they are displaying, but from identifying what isn't wrong with them to work it down to less possible answers. If for instance someone is reporting a combination of mood swings and hallucinations, rather than just one or the other, then it is easier to assume it's not bipolar or schizophrenia, but rather schizoaffective.
It's difficult to ignore the like... 80% similarities in expression for many disorders across people who fit the symptoms, expressing a sense of near-uniformity even in our aberrant expressions rather than something quote unquote "Truly Unique". By being able to map the similarities you can attempt to streamline, at the very least, the diagnosis stage over the commonalities between the patient and others before them, building upon itself towards a referenceable history that people can pick apart.
For some disorders like Schizophrenia the field is a mess over how they don't yet understand enough about it, and many disorders cross into similar enough criteria to risk a misdiagnosis (looking at you ADD), but if you were to sort a bunch of them into a room it becomes hard to ignore the similarities. Rather than being baseless, it's moreso that it's not finished growing yet, and I suspect once it gets algorithmic that it might take off.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/22/2022 11:17:28 PM
This is wise.
Psych
A agree we can't really remove Turq from the context of everything she has said and done.
There is literally zero reason to believe that this current phase isn't apart of the cycle of behaviors she seems to go through.
However, the general topic seems true to me none the less.
Well, if ignoring Turq entirely in her topic... 🤣
Yes, because a statement can be true or false regardless of the psychological state of the person who utters it.
The heuristic is just a good one.
You can't expect people to not direct it towards themselves in a topic structured like this, especially with how you framed the reply:
I find this to be a logical view.
I don't expect others to not direct something towards themselves in so far as they don't expect me to not do the same.
My view of the topic thread and why its a good heuristic is indeed completely different than Turqs. This is made obvious by her reasoning of the topic statement in her first post. justify the heuristic differently and care about the statement in fundamentally different ways.
This is wise.
Psychological questions are hard to answer objectively.This looks like you patting her on the back rather than making a general point, and she's very liable to take it that way.
If that's what she believes than so be it.
If I see something I generally agree with I may comment regardless of how another will interpret my intentions.