Fatigue and psychosocial variables in autoimmune rheumatic disease and CFS

[trishrhymes]

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the last century was to re-label psychology, sociology etc as social sciences.

As far as I can see they are not sciences, but they pretend that by going through some of the same processes scientists do they are somehow doing science.

So they set up hypotheses, measure things, or rather ask questions and pretend the answers can be numerically scaled.

This gives them loads of numerical data on which they carry out statistical tests of significance. These days with computer packages that can be used to carry out very sophisticated statistical analysis on large sets of data they can produce loads of p values.

They use the 'rule of thumb' 5% level as a 'magic number', and trawl through loads of p values produced by their analyses to find these magic p values. I gather this is called p-hacking.

They then imagine that they have discovered important correlations between factors like catastrophising, symptom focusing etc and illness severity, and they interpret these according to their beliefs about the illness.

They show no understanding at all of any of the following:

Correlation does not imply causation. And if causation is inferred it may be in the wrong direction, eg does symptom focusing make you sicker, or does being sicker make you focus more on your symptoms...

A p value of 5% means there is a 1 in 20 chance that the 'significance' they have found is not significance, but just chance variation.

Statistical significance is not the same as clinical significance.

Most of the stuff they 'measure' is not on a linear scale, eg being able to walk a mile is not twice as healthy as being able to climb one flight of stairs, etc.

People fill in questionnaires in the way they think they are expected to do, especially after 'treatment' designed to persuade them to change their beliefs about their health.

Some of their scales are complete nonsense, eg Chalder fatigue scale has a ceiling effect and a nonsense scoring system and ridiculous descriptors.

Garbage in - Garbage out. If you feed a statistics package with garbage, it will spew our even more garbage.

And don't let me even begin on the ethics of any of this stuff...

Not science.

Not ethical.

Not funny.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Cheshire]

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the last century was to re-label psychology, sociology etc as social sciences.

As far as I can see they are not sciences, but they pretend that by going through some of the same processes scientists do they are somehow doing science.

So they set up hypotheses, measure things, or rather ask questions and pretend the answers can be numerically scaled.

This gives them loads of numerical data on which they carry out statistical tests of significance. These days with computer packages that can be used to carry out very sophisticated statistical analysis on large sets of data they can produce loads of p values.

They use the 'rule of thumb' 5% level as a 'magic number', and trawl through loads of p values produced by their analyses to find these magic p values. I gather this is called p-hacking.

They then imagine that they have discovered important correlations between factors like catastrophising, symptom focusing etc and illness severity, and they interpret these according to their beliefs about the illness.

They show no understanding at all of any of the following:

Correlation does not imply causation. And if causation is inferred it may be in the wrong direction, eg does symptom focusing make you sicker, or does being sicker make you focus more on your symptoms...

A p value of 5% means there is a 1 in 20 chance that the 'significance' they have found is not significance, but just chance variation.

Statistical significance is not the same as clinical significance.

Most of the stuff they 'measure' is not on a linear scale, eg being able to walk a mile is not twice as healthy as being able to climb one flight of stairs, etc.

People fill in questionnaires in the way they think they are expected to do, especially after 'treatment' designed to persuade them to change their beliefs about their health.

Some of their scales are complete nonsense, eg Chalder fatigue scale has a ceiling effect and a nonsense scoring system and ridiculous descriptors.

Garbage in - Garbage out. If you feed a statistics package with garbage, it will spew our even more garbage.

And don't let me even begin on the ethics of any of this stuff...

Not science.

Not ethical.

Not funny.

Merry Christmas.

I would had that the things they measure like "catastrophising" are dependent on their own definition and understanding of what's happening.

If I remember correctly, on the "catastrophising" scales, there are things like, "if I do too much, I'm going to feel worst" which is catastrophising only in a world where PEM is a figment of the sufferers' mind....

 

[slysaint]

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the last century was to re-label psychology, sociology etc as social sciences

I did Domestic science briefly at school..........does that count too?

 

[Snowdrop]

What @trishrhymes said (post #21)

On another thread Ron Davis talks about how they're getting close to finding out what is going on at a molecular and cellular level in this disease.

When the time comes and there is real bio treatment and diagnostic tests along with a clearer understanding of this disease wouldn't it be great if all these pseudoscientists were sent a nice letter politely explaining why their work on ME is a steaming pile of crap. And how their patronising arrogance helped to harm so many people.

As above, this should not be called science.

 

[denmarkk]

Don't worry. I fixed the last sentence in the abstract for them:

"For example, these study authors' lack of acceptance and avoidance behaviour toward new biomedical research results may be particularly important in understanding their perpetuating fallacies about fatigue in CFS."

 

[Sean]

Sometimes I think that the BPS school have the worst case of collective projection ever.

 

[alex3619]

Maybe the CFS patients' beliefs are normal afterall?
Or if not, maybe the psychobabblers will move onto the ARD group cause clearly they need help more.

Nah, don't wish this on RA patients. I think they should move on to post-life therapy, spend time with mediums and give psychotherapy to the dead. Its more their style.

 

[alex3619]

Sometimes I think that the BPS school have the worst case of collective projection ever.

Any old cr*p that supports their argument seems to be good. Science, reasoning, evidence?? What's that?

 

[alex3619]

Did someone mention thinking. Not sure that features anywhere in the job description


There is no evidence that any scientist does.

Yes, the word scientist should be specific to those practicing science, not those pretending they practice science. That can and does include many doctors and other psychs, but definitely not all of them.

 

[alex3619]

Garbage in - Garbage out. If you feed a statistics package with garbage, it will spew our even more garbage.

I like to also use the term BIBO, babble in, babble out.

 

[Inara]

I have a PhD in Maths and listened to a first semester psycho lecture about the basics: what is psychology, its history and some "statistics". After that I was pretty sure most psychologists don't understand statistics in the least - I wouldn't trust their results at all. I would want to recheck everything what a psycho-paper states. After I realized the procedure of psycho-science I dismissed psycho papers collectively as non-science. I would have to check every single case. I am not a psycho-believer.

What's their procedure?
They give questions or statements, where the answer is prespecified ("items"). Of course, this is highly suggestive. It doesn't say anything of a person's true thoughts or feelings. Besides, who says those people answer truthfully? Suggestion/manipulation is non-scientific for me. At least it would have been in the area I worked.
Then they put some numbers in a statistics program. I doubt the majority of psychologists understand the underlying maths. I admit you don't have to understand everything. But you should understand, at least, when the model you choose is applicable and what results you may deduce.
Then there are some "best practice" rules in science - ok, most bugger them maybe. That's okay. If you keep an understanding of what science should be. It's the search for insights, you want to understand reality (ideally; let's not talk about what money made of science). One agreed on some "rules", like, e.g. a hypothesis must be verifiable oder falsifiable. I think the psycho-theories, e.g. the psychosomatic theory, is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, like the hypothesis: "There exist unicorns". And therefore I do not accept it as science.

At this point, latest, one should understand, what psychology truly is: a normative science, like economy or the law. You also understand that when you look at the "definition" of "psychological illness". It's defined as behavior that deviates from the norm. Who defines what normal behavior is? And that leads to two characteristics of psychology: power and politics.

It makes no sense to discuss psychology scientifically; I don't anymore. It is a means of power, sense doesn't count there.

 

[Kati]

Welcome to the forum @Inara

 

[Molly98]

utter bollocks with brass knobs on, it's not worth any more of my energy so I shall leave it simply as that.

 

[Inara]

Thank you @Kati

 

[Dr Speedy]

When Trudie talks about "lack of acceptance and avoidance behaviour may be particularly important...in CFS".

Does she mean lack of acceptance of her nonsense and avoidance behavior to protect ourselves against CBT (Crap By Trudie) ...

 

[Countrygirl]

[QUOTE="Dr Speedy, post: 797397,

Does she mean lack of acceptance of her nonsense and avoidance behavior to protect ourselves against CBT (Crap By Trudie) ...[/QUOTE]

From now on and for all time CBT is to be known as ............drum roll................CRAP BY TRUDIE!! What an appropriate and fully descriptive name!

 

[Woolie]

If I remember correctly, on the "catastrophising" scales, there are things like, "if I do too much, I'm going to feel worst" which is catastrophising only in a world where PEM is a figment of the sufferers' mind....

@Cheshire, the concept is entirely circular. People are asked about their thoughts and feelings when experiencing intense pain. If you feel overwhelmed by the pain and cannot think of anything else but how bad it feels, and you start to feel helpless (perhaps wonder if it will ever end), then you are "catastrophising". It is believed that these thoughts and feelings make the pain worse. Of course, it could also be that the worse your pain, the more you are likely to have these kinds of thoughts and feelings. So it could be the result of the pain, rather than the cause.

But my real problem is how pejorative the word "catastrophising" is - you are making a "catastrophe" out of something that is only a minor matter!

If people find that mindfulness or relaxation or guided thinking or whatever helps them cope with pain, then great. But this concept of "catastrophising", this makes a pathology out of what is just a perfectly normal reaction to a terrible situation. Who are these people, that negatively label the experience of others who are going through something way worse than they can even imagine? Its truly a crime.

 

[Woolie]

Actually, that's the whole problem right there isn't it? Pathologising people's reactions to illness. Why does Psychology have this obsession with identify pathologies and correcting them? What wrong with just respecting people's various reactions to illness. Sure, offer people techniques that may help them. But stop negatively labelling those that don't think or feel the way you think they should (and don't negatively label their behaviours either!).

 

[A.B.]

Why does Psychology have this obsession with identify pathologies and correcting them?

Psychosomatic explanations seem to attract the kind of person that loves to make feel themselves better by belittling others. Everything seems to revolve around the idea that the patient is morally defective and inferior to the therapist that has to explain to them how to act, think, feel, the right way. When this repulsive behaviour is disguised as medical explanation or therapy, it becomes socially acceptable.

 

[daisybell]

Only someone who has never experienced severe or chronic pain could design such a questionnaire imo. Which fact should immediately make the questionnaire design highly questionable....
To label someone who is focusing on their pain and feeling helpless about it a catastrophiser is incredibly cruel and perjorative.
Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes......