Scientific thought. Definitely not social sciences pt 2.

[David.]

All conversation welcome.

Who the fuck can anyone trust? Replicability on academic research is at like 35% in sociology and roughly the same for psychology.

Heres a fun one:

Kleptomania, or the irresistible impulse to steal unneeded objects, is a poorly understood disorder. The objectives of this paper are to critically review and integrate existing data and to make suggestions for further research.

FINDINGS: Kleptomania is more common than previously thought. The "typical" individual with kleptomania is a 35-year-old woman who began to steal when she was 20 years old. Her thefts bring both relief and guilt. She probably has not sought treatment on her own but suffers from a necessary, pervasive, repetitive, and self-destructive act. She may have a history of sexual dysfunction or sexual preoccupation and may be unhappily married to an emotionally unsupportive husband. She has been labile and dysphoric for many years and may have a personality disorder. She has probably had a tumultuous, stressful childhood and may dissociate. CONCLUSIONS: The author proposes a biopsychosocial model of the etiology of kleptomania based on data from the literature. This model emphasizes possible childhood abuse as a precipitating factor in later development of kleptomania. More complete research is needed in the study of kleptomania.

 

[Sebastian]

All conversation welcome.

Who the fuck can anyone trust? Replicability on academic research is at like 35% in sociology and roughly the same for psychology.

Heres a fun one:

Kleptomania, or the irresistible impulse to steal unneeded objects, is a poorly understood disorder. The objectives of this paper are to critically review and integrate existing data and to make suggestions for further research.

FINDINGS: Kleptomania is more common than previously thought. The "typical" individual with kleptomania is a 35-year-old woman who began to steal when she was 20 years old. Her thefts bring both relief and guilt. She probably has not sought treatment on her own but suffers from a necessary, pervasive, repetitive, and self-destructive act. She may have a history of sexual dysfunction or sexual preoccupation and may be unhappily married to an emotionally unsupportive husband. She has been labile and dysphoric for many years and may have a personality disorder. She has probably had a tumultuous, stressful childhood and may dissociate. CONCLUSIONS: The author proposes a biopsychosocial model of the etiology of kleptomania based on data from the literature. This model emphasizes possible childhood abuse as a precipitating factor in later development of kleptomania. More complete research is needed in the study of kleptomania.

"More complete research is needed in the study of ________."

That is the social sciences in a nutshell. I can't comment on either Sociology or Psychology at present. But I have heard from an ex, who is a Psych PhD, that the field is notoriously bad at pushing past orthodox thinking. Might want to ask @Hydroponic3385.

 

[The Oi]

All conversation welcome.

Who the fuck can anyone trust? Replicability on academic research is at like 35% in sociology and roughly the same for psychology.

Heres a fun one:

Kleptomania, or the irresistible impulse to steal unneeded objects, is a poorly understood disorder. The objectives of this paper are to critically review and integrate existing data and to make suggestions for further research.

FINDINGS: Kleptomania is more common than previously thought. The "typical" individual with kleptomania is a 35-year-old woman who began to steal when she was 20 years old. Her thefts bring both relief and guilt. She probably has not sought treatment on her own but suffers from a necessary, pervasive, repetitive, and self-destructive act. She may have a history of sexual dysfunction or sexual preoccupation and may be unhappily married to an emotionally unsupportive husband. She has been labile and dysphoric for many years and may have a personality disorder. She has probably had a tumultuous, stressful childhood and may dissociate. CONCLUSIONS: The author proposes a biopsychosocial model of the etiology of kleptomania based on data from the literature. This model emphasizes possible childhood abuse as a precipitating factor in later development of kleptomania. More complete research is needed in the study of kleptomania.

Really interesting timing.

My father in law just caught his office manager stealing from his medical practice. She has been with his practice since she was 18 years old and has been gradually promoted and given yearly raises since that time.

He has discovered that she has stolen tens of thousands of dollars a year just over the last three years using a skimming method she manufactured using checks that came in after the books were closed each day. Hasn't tracked it back past there but they're sure it goes back farther.

She has been having marital problems for years. As for her childhood and the sexual stuff, no idea.

But...interesting stuff nonetheless.

 

[David.]

"More complete research is needed in the study of ________."

That is the social sciences in a nutshell. I can't comment on either Sociology or Psychology at present. But I have heard from an ex, who is a Psych PhD, that the field is notoriously bad at pushing past orthodox thinking. Might want to ask @Hydroponic3385.

Well i think its more limited to soft sciences, but at the very least ive seen article after article on hard sciences with angles that certainly point towards what seems to be a political agenda. Having a base knowledgr of the components and axioms used to draw conclusions and abstract is the only way you could understand the nuance of whatd being claimed..

Only a snippet but i think i remember a different "type" of geometry, or at least geometry wuth different characteristics was pushed untill it was basically thtown out for a new one at thr turn of (either the 18th or) 19th century.

But with social science and psychology, yea its just so murky. Ive listened to incredibly well respected people give directly contrasting opinions, or flat out get stuff wrong. Its like well if i cant trust you on this, how can i trust you on your conclusion? Or really anything? And you teach where?

 

[David.]

Really interesting timing.

My father in law just caught his office manager stealing from his medical practice. She has been with his practice since she was 18 years old and has been gradually promoted and given yearly raises since that time.

He has discovered that she has stolen tens of thousands of dollars a year just over the last three years using a skimming method she manufactured using checks that came in after the books were closed each day. Hasn't tracked it back past there but they're sure it goes back farther.

She has been having marital problems for years. As for her childhood and the sexual stuff, no idea.

But...interesting stuff nonetheless.

I really avise everyone read up on brain chemistry and temperament. Youre absolutely able to help yourself or at thr very least understand yourself better (or someone you care about) and maybe you can go from there.

That profile is pretty strong. Lol. I wonder if theres a slight variation between kleptomania and career thief.. It seems really closely connected but i think one tends to be closer connected to systemizing and ego, theres actually a little bit of rationale in it. But all of That study was pretty spot on

 

[gourimoko]

Well i think its more limited to soft sciences, but at the very least ive seen article after article on hard sciences with angles that certainly point towards what seems to be a political agenda. Having a base knowledgr of the components and axioms used to draw conclusions and abstract is the only way you could understand the nuance of whatd being claimed..

Only a snippet but i think i remember a different "type" of geometry, or at least geometry wuth different characteristics was pushed untill it was basically thtown out for a new one at thr turn of (either the 18th or) 19th century.

But with social science and psychology, yea its just so murky. Ive listened to incredibly well respected people give directly contrasting opinions, or flat out get stuff wrong. Its like well if i cant trust you on this, how can i trust you on your conclusion? Or really anything? And you teach where?

Are you asking whether or not we can rely on the scientific process to get a better understanding of reality? Or whether or not we can rely on "well respected people" who give "contrasting opinions?"

Can you give examples of the people you're talking about? And is this a question about the scientific process or something else?

 

[Cavatt]

This seems like a really soft thread

 

[gourimoko]

This seems like a really soft thread

Would be great to have a science thread; but... not sure if that's the intent of this thread?

 

[KI4MVP]

Would be great to have a science thread; but... not sure if that's the intent of this thread?

that's what I thought I clicked, but apparently not

 

[KI4MVP]

Only a snippet but i think i remember a different "type" of geometry, or at least geometry wuth different characteristics was pushed untill it was basically thtown out for a new one at thr turn of (either the 18th or) 19th century.

I don't think I heard about this, but what changed? Was the prior geometry somehow wrong, or was the new geometry somehow more complete, more elegant, or easier to work with? When hard science changes, it's because someone has an insight that does one or more of those 3 things, the best ones do all 3 at once and elevate civilization because of it.

 

[David.]

Are you asking whether or not we can rely on the scientific process to get a better understanding of reality? Or whether or not we can rely on "well respected people" who give "contrasting opinions?"

Can you give examples of the people you're talking about? And is this a question about the scientific process or something else?

Im going to try to find an example of something that we wont likely disagree about so it doesnt put at risk how i hear you.

 

[David.]

I don't think I heard about this, but what changed? Was the prior geometry somehow wrong, or was the new geometry somehow more complete, more elegant, or easier to work with? When hard science changes, it's because someone has an insight that does one or more of those 3 things, the best ones do all 3 at once and elevate civilization because of it.

I think non Euclidean geometry?

 

[gourimoko]

I think non Euclidean geometry?

Just with respect to:

Only a snippet but i think i remember a different "type" of geometry, or at least geometry wuth different characteristics was pushed untill it was basically thtown out for a new one at thr turn of (either the 18th or) 19th century.

FWIW, this is literally what I went to school for.. You learn types of non/pseudo-Euclidean geometries when studying general relativity given you need these maths for Lorentzian manifods and metrics.

But I don't think the quote here is accurate with respect to the evolution and history of the mathematics here... See, we need a reason to use mathematics, and the typical reason is the modelling of the physical world. Non-physical complex mathematical abstractions have to have a certain use-case for people to spend time learning and using them (and using them to what end?)

For pseudo-Euclidean geometries (Riemannian geometries), you have general relativity. which creates a massive use-case for the given mathematics.

But with respect to history here, you can trace the historical progression and evolution of this particular field (and the degree of it's use) from Bernhard Riemann, to Hendrik Lorentz, to Albert Einstein, in very short order.

Anyway, getting back to the point at hand and "who to trust," this is one of those cases where you can't trust what you hear or read when those things are presented as minor factoids to make a larger, tangential point; especially if that point is, as you say, "controversial." I recall linking you to a Noam Chomsky interview about exactly this new phenomena we're seeing of pseudo-intellectualism and anti-intellectualism in the modern information age. I think, regardless of his politics, he makes some extremely important points in this regard.

 

[gourimoko]

@David.

This was the snippet I believe:

"
The Internet is a cult generator
From Noam Chomsky on the Purpose of Education.

Technology is basically neutral. It’s kind of like a hammer. The hammer doesn’t care whether you use it to build a house, or a torturer uses it to crush somebody’s skull. The hammer can do either.

The Internet is extremely valuable if you know what you’re looking for. I use it all the time for research, as everyone does. If you know what you’re looking for — if you have a framework of understanding which directs you to particular things, and sidelines lots of others—then this can be a valuable tool. Of course, you always have to ask yourself, ‘Is my framework the right one?’ Perhaps you need to modify it from time to time. But you can’t pursue any kind of inquiry without a relatively clear framework that’s directing your search and helping you choose what’s significant and what isn’t; what can be put aside; what is going to be pursued; what ought to be challenged; what should be further developed; and so on.

You can’t expect somebody to become a biologist or a doctor by giving the person access to the Harvard University biology library, and just say, ‘Look through it, you’re on your own.’ The Internet is the same, but just magnified enormously

If you don’t understand or know what you’re looking for — if you don’t have some conception of what matters —then you’re lost. And you should always be willing to question your framework and make sure you’re not going in the wrong direction.

But if you don’t have that, exploring the Internet is just picking out random factoids that don’t mean anything. Behind any significant use of contemporary technology is some well-constructed directive apparatus. It is very unlikely to be helpful — it is very likely, in fact, to be harmful.

It turns out, for example, that a random exploration through the Internet turns out to be a cult generator. Pick up a ‘fact’ here, another ‘fact’ there, and someone else reinforces it, and all of a sudden you have some crazed picture that has some ‘factual’ basis, but nothing to do with the world."

 

[David.]

Just with respect to:



FWIW, this is literally what I went to school for.. You learn types of non/pseudo-Euclidean geometries when studying general relativity given you need these maths for Lorentzian manifods and metrics.

But I don't think the quote here is accurate with respect to the evolution and history of the mathematics here... See, we need a reason to use mathematics, and the typical reason is the modelling of the physical world. Non-physical complex mathematical abstractions have to have a certain use-case for people to spend time learning and using them (and using them to what end?)

For pseudo-Euclidean geometries (Riemannian geometries), you have general relativity. which creates a massive use-case for the given mathematics.

But with respect to history here, you can trace the historical progression and evolution of this particular field (and the degree of it's use) from Bernhard Riemann, to Hendrik Lorentz, to Albert Einstein, in very short order.

Tell me if this is an accurate way to look at what youve said:

In the fields of psychology, social sciences, thought, the brain etc, these fields serve as a purpose to better understand different things. So people studying specific topics will develop foundations abd concepts and build up. This could be brain biology, the big 5, mbti, the concept of intelligence and its different parts.

What i think youre saying is that these are separate things but they all interact and are used for different purposes. Part of what im curious about is if these fields contradict the other fields, are used as tools that could be better used to understand say, concepts like intelligence, or if they should be considered separate fields with boundaries to respect. Or all of the above.

For instance: You have a patient with anger issues. Neuroscientist says its because their brain chemistry is off, they have an excess of seratonin. A psychiatrist says they are low in agreeableness. A psychiatrist says its because their childhood was tumultuous. A geneticist says their father was angry and it was passed down to them. A neurobiologist says the patients amygdala is small. A psychologist says they have been encouraged to use anger because of instances in the past, or have control issues because of an event that happened and they refuse to let themselves feel it again.

Etc.

Not all of these are possible at the same time. Some could be the independent variable. Some add layers of understanding of the situation. But none have ruled out any of the others? Is that because theyre all correct or is it just because you cant possibly rule any of them out? I know for certain that mbti has been found to be only useful for understanding different way we communicate with each other.

Ill try to find an example of something more concrete that is contradictory. Hm simon baren cohen has developed different parameters to understand thought and personality that are categorically distinct from the big 5 and leads to results that you wouldnt get from using the big 5. Which is right? Do they complement each other? If i learn big 5 and i read studies that are based on an understanding of them, and then i look at jon haidt studies, they are just.. Based on different axiom developed from these different concepts and you inherently must draw different conclusions than you would using the other, because the tools are so different.



Quick aside - why are some people interested in say math vs psychology? Theyre similar personalities and generally considered the most intelligent, but for example i could demolish my sister in debate, word crack, philosophical abstraction etc and she could build a robot to tear out my larynx. And she couldnt be less interested in politics and psychology and i couldnt be less interested in most math.