philosophy meta-forum

Bullshit psychology versus the real psychology

Tadeusz

20 day(s) ago

What are some persistent psychological myths that keep on getting repeated although later research disproved it/ has found no evidence.

Bonus question: Are character traits stable across the lifespan or is it possible to change one's character? I keep reading very conflicting things.

I know about the usual blunders in social psychology but I would like know more about disproved myths regarding neuroscience neuropsychology? Has anyone read the paper Leiter linked to. I have no access in the moment, but I would like to know whether it is worth reading or the usual bullshit of grandiose claims.

Huang

20 day(s) ago

It's really easy to find out if a well-known finding is bullshit: just google "[name of psychological phenomenon]" + "replication" or "meta-analysis." Andrew Gelman's blog also regularly calls out papers with bad stats.

Haven't read the Leiter paper, but the thesis seems like old hat, and it's in Frontiers, which is an open-access, pay-to-publish journal where reviewers don't have the option of rejecting a paper. Not to say everything from Frontiers is bad, but approach with caution. Same goes for PLoS One.

Marsilius

17 day(s) ago

Gelman usually takes the social psychology crowd to task. I would like to hear more about things like empirical science on language acquisition versus Chomsky's proposals/dogmas. A developmental psychologist at Oxford wrote years ago that it is incredibly hard to distill any testable hypotheses from his works and where she was able to identify some predictive claims, Chomsky allegedly got it wrong.

Every year we hear from at least one "breakthrough" study that there is no free will. From time to time, we hear that Chomsky got it ridiculously wrong. If a discussion ensues, it is so much full of lingo and contradicting claims as to who said what, that it is impossible for the layman to form an opinion.

Fred

17 day(s) ago

More generally, Leiter is on a real Nietzsche bullshit roll right now. In addition to the

Guilt is _so_ bourgeois! We should raise our children to be sociopathic Ubermenschen! That way, once we've gotten rid of morality, there can be geniuses like Napoleon who can seduce us back from the brink of killing ourselves.

I don't get how people can take this shit seriously.

Augustus

17 day(s) ago

Many philosophers, such as Leiter and Lance, argue as follows:

1. A bunch of social scientific papers turn out to be non-replicable, and so the social sciences are less scientific than we hoped.

2. Therefore, a bunch of armchair bullshit some dipshit German and French dudes pulled out of their asses in the 1800s is real science.

Gareth

17 day(s) ago

More generally, Leiter is on a real Nietzsche bullshit roll right now. In addition to the

Guilt is _so_ bourgeois! We should raise our children to be sociopathic Ubermenschen! That way, once we've gotten rid of morality, there can be geniuses like Napoleon who can seduce us back from the brink of killing ourselves.

I don't get how people can take this shit seriously.

Fred

Next time read more than the abstract!

Jan

17 day(s) ago

More generally, Leiter is on a real Nietzsche bullshit roll right now. In addition to the

Guilt is _so_ bourgeois! We should raise our children to be sociopathic Ubermenschen! That way, once we've gotten rid of morality, there can be geniuses like Napoleon who can seduce us back from the brink of killing ourselves.

I don't get how people can take this shit seriously.

Fred

Next time read more than the abstract!

Gareth

Nah, waste of my time.

Ned

16 day(s) ago

Oh, and emotivism is false. Or, for the emotivists about 'true' and 'false' out there: booooo emotivism.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.