Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
What does it matter though? Why give so much attention to the finger pointing to the moon, rather than the moon itself?
-
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Self-Critical Perfectionism Predicts Lower Cortisol Response to Experimental Stress in Cfs Patients
- Thread starter voner
- Start date
What does it matter though? Why give so much attention to the finger pointing to the moon, rather than the moon itself?
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Sounds like something I'd do actually, so I don't think Hip can be criticised there. tbh, I actually went back to edit out 'bastards', but then could not think of another term that was more appropriate. Limited vocabulary - sorry![/QUOTE]
Yes it looks like it was you, my mistake, so my criticism of Hip is no longer valid and I apologize. In fact I humbly condemn my lack of perfectionism in not checking the thread properly. So far I think Hip introduced "communist autocratic leader", you introduced "shitty human being", and chipmunk introduced "cokehead", but I'm prepared to be corrected. I hope my last post didn't lower the tone
.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
So far I think Hip introduced "communist autocratic leader", you introduced "shitty human being", and chipmunk introduced "cokehead", but I'm prepared to be corrected. I hope my last post didn't lower the tone
LOL - think you've documented our low tone pretty thoroughly. Sometimes, honesty requires a little soft swearing.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
I hope my last post didn't lower the tone
It's good to lower the tone sometimes and have little mud-slinging; allows people to let off some steam! Then we can get back to the discussion. The French are always good at doing that, I have noticed: having passionate interludes of cursing and name-calling for few minutes, before returning back to composed reasoned discussion!
You are saying that the mental health conditions themselves should be studied directly, rather than neuroticism, which only has an association to these conditions.
From the point of understanding these mental health conditions, yes, it's probably best to study them directly.
But if you want to study how subclinical versions of mental conditions may be present in what we consider mentally healthy people, then a parameter like neuroticism might be of use.
Similarly, perfectionism might be considered a subclinical version of OCD.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
Going back to some points @Esther12 made earlier:
I have to agree with you to some extent on this: personality and mind is such a complex multifaceted thing that it is almost insulting to try to reduce it down to three numerical values on three scales of measurement (even if those scales are reliably measuring something).
But the thing about psychology is that it is trying to become a science; so it needs to try to find things to measure.
I have some acquaintances who are quite anti-science. They argue that the physical world is far too complex and multifaceted to be ever captured in a simple equation or theory.
Yet along comes someone like Newton, and through all the incredible complexity of the world around him, manages to penetrate right into the bedrock of reality, and realize that some fundamental laws apply to all the complexity, laws that today we call Newton's laws of motion, and Newton's law of gravitation. These laws were used to put man on the Moon.
So the moral of the story would seem to be: don't give up looking for a scientific theory just because your subject matter is complex and multifaceted.
Psychological parameters like introversion-extraversion, neuroticism, perfectionism, or whatever are just attempts to try to measure aspects of the mind.
I have to admit that when I took the EPQ, I was still quite young and intellectually impressionable (early 20s), so perhaps I did ascribe to it more significance than it deserves.
Though when I was doing this diploma course in personality theory, I was enthralled with everything I was learning.
The first time you learn any of the personality theories, you start to see that theory in operation in everyone around you. All of a sudden, all their words and behaviors seems to be perfectly explained by the theory. So for example, when you first learn Freud's theory of mental dynamics — his id, ego and superego aspects of the mind— you start see the id, ego and superego in operation as dynamic forces at play in the minds of everyone around you. You very quickly start to live and breathe this theory.
This initially makes you feel that the id, ego and superego tripartite model of the mind which Freud devised must be true, because you can see it everywhere. But then when you move on to study another personality theorist, and a different theory of the mind, then all of a sudden you start to see that model of the mind dynamically in operation in all those around you!
Every time I studied a new personality theorist, this process would repeat itself: the new theory I'd just studied would seem self-evidently true simply because you could perceive it in operation in the minds of all those around you.
After you have studied a dozen or so different theories of personality — and they all seemed to ring true and seem to be present in the minds of others — you start to wonder if you are just projecting these theories onto your observations of other's minds. You begin to question whether these theories of personality represent real patterns, consistencies and regularities in the human mind, or whether studying such theories of personality merely configures your own mind to see those patterns and regularities, when they don't in fact exist.
I still don't know the answer to that question today. But I certainly do know how seductive psychological theories of the mind can be to those learning about them, and how easy it is to start seeing that theory in action whenever you observe the minds of other people.
I have to agree with you to some extent on this: personality and mind is such a complex multifaceted thing that it is almost insulting to try to reduce it down to three numerical values on three scales of measurement (even if those scales are reliably measuring something).
But the thing about psychology is that it is trying to become a science; so it needs to try to find things to measure.
I have some acquaintances who are quite anti-science. They argue that the physical world is far too complex and multifaceted to be ever captured in a simple equation or theory.
Yet along comes someone like Newton, and through all the incredible complexity of the world around him, manages to penetrate right into the bedrock of reality, and realize that some fundamental laws apply to all the complexity, laws that today we call Newton's laws of motion, and Newton's law of gravitation. These laws were used to put man on the Moon.
So the moral of the story would seem to be: don't give up looking for a scientific theory just because your subject matter is complex and multifaceted.
Psychological parameters like introversion-extraversion, neuroticism, perfectionism, or whatever are just attempts to try to measure aspects of the mind.
I have to admit that when I took the EPQ, I was still quite young and intellectually impressionable (early 20s), so perhaps I did ascribe to it more significance than it deserves.
Though when I was doing this diploma course in personality theory, I was enthralled with everything I was learning.
The first time you learn any of the personality theories, you start to see that theory in operation in everyone around you. All of a sudden, all their words and behaviors seems to be perfectly explained by the theory. So for example, when you first learn Freud's theory of mental dynamics — his id, ego and superego aspects of the mind— you start see the id, ego and superego in operation as dynamic forces at play in the minds of everyone around you. You very quickly start to live and breathe this theory.
This initially makes you feel that the id, ego and superego tripartite model of the mind which Freud devised must be true, because you can see it everywhere. But then when you move on to study another personality theorist, and a different theory of the mind, then all of a sudden you start to see that model of the mind dynamically in operation in all those around you!
Every time I studied a new personality theorist, this process would repeat itself: the new theory I'd just studied would seem self-evidently true simply because you could perceive it in operation in the minds of all those around you.
After you have studied a dozen or so different theories of personality — and they all seemed to ring true and seem to be present in the minds of others — you start to wonder if you are just projecting these theories onto your observations of other's minds. You begin to question whether these theories of personality represent real patterns, consistencies and regularities in the human mind, or whether studying such theories of personality merely configures your own mind to see those patterns and regularities, when they don't in fact exist.
I still don't know the answer to that question today. But I certainly do know how seductive psychological theories of the mind can be to those learning about them, and how easy it is to start seeing that theory in action whenever you observe the minds of other people.
Snowdrop
Rebel without a biscuit
- Messages
- 2,933
Coming late to the conversation on this thread. I've been following but that doesn't mean retaining what's been said.
Just thought I'd through in a small point regarding questionaire's -- aside from reseracher bias it seems to me possible that the person answering while doing so honestly may also not be capable of knowing the right answer.
That is to say--we all don't know ourselves as well as we think sometimes and some more so than others. Self deception is also a bias.
Just thought I'd through in a small point regarding questionaire's -- aside from reseracher bias it seems to me possible that the person answering while doing so honestly may also not be capable of knowing the right answer.
That is to say--we all don't know ourselves as well as we think sometimes and some more so than others. Self deception is also a bias.
Snowdrop
Rebel without a biscuit
- Messages
- 2,933
Coming late to the conversation on this thread. I've been following but that doesn't mean retaining what's been said.
Just thought I'd through in a small point regarding questionnaire's -- aside from researcher bias it seems to me possible that the person answering while doing so honestly may also not be capable of knowing the right answer.
That is to say--we all don't know ourselves as well as we think sometimes and some more so than others. Self deception is also a bias.
OOps, sorry for the double post. computer issues.
Just thought I'd through in a small point regarding questionnaire's -- aside from researcher bias it seems to me possible that the person answering while doing so honestly may also not be capable of knowing the right answer.
That is to say--we all don't know ourselves as well as we think sometimes and some more so than others. Self deception is also a bias.
OOps, sorry for the double post. computer issues.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
It's important that attempts to scientifically study the human mind do not become a cargo-cult, adopting the appearance and rituals of science without the rigour and honesty. I don't think that the assumed aspirations of those devising these questionnaires mean they should be respected. If the scientific process doesn't have a solid foundation to build upon it can end up just spinning it's wheels.
To me, your description of studying aspects of personality theory did sound more like a religious journey than a scientific one.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
That was kind of the point I was getting at in my previous post. The fact that psychological theories can be so seductive, and the fact that once you learn a theory of personality, you start to see it functioning everybody's minds (or as I mentioned, perhaps you just project the theory onto other people's minds), giving you a very strong impression that the theory is true, even though by the normal empirical methods of science, you have no evidence that the theory is correct.
Learning psychology does have an element of religious teaching; you are taught something, and as soon as you are taught it you start to see the theory's conceptual categories all around you (conceptual categories such as the id, ego and superego, for example); but in many cases you have no easy way of empirically testing the theory. As you say, there is no honesty. So then the theory can propagate in the academic world without the normal empirical / experimental reality checks of science.
In the case of studying mental illness, I think the way to bring in the empirical checks of science is to search for the underlying cause of mental illness in the brain. That way, by examining the brain, you are dealing with the physical world, and therefore can easily apply the empirical approach.
My strongest criticism of the way psychology approaches mental health symptoms is that many psychologists / psychiatrists only look for cause and effect relationships at the level of mind, and ignore the level of brain. Now I understand that this is partly for historical reasons, because in the past we had very little ability to peer into the brain. But as technology has advances, the structure and operations of the brain are becoming easier to examine.
Throughout the whole of the 20th century, psychology has been looking for mental factors in the mind that might causally explain how mental illness arises, and by and large, psychology has got nowhere in finding any mental causes, at least for the vast majority of mental illnesses. So they have tried that route of looking into the mind, and it led nowhere.
Now it is time to look into the brain.
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Yes, I appreciated that, I just think that I might be more worried by this than you, and see it as more reason to avoid respecting personality questionnaires.
I don't think I do things like that - I'm more likely to be at the back of the class making fun of things (and then failing the test). Deviant personality?
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
Questionnaires are an attempt at empirical measurement of the mind, and empirical measurement I am all for, because this is generally lacking in psychology.
As you know, science has two pillars, empirical measurement of the world, and making theoretical models of the world. When the predictions of your theoretical models match up to your empirical measurements, then you assume the theory is right. That is the basis of science.
In psychology, there are all sorts of theories of the mind, but not enough empirically checks on those theories, which mean they go unchallenged and untested.
Probably just a normal personality.
I seemed to have quite a bit of empathy, meaning I'd pick up on people's "vibes" quite readily, and thus be more able to tune into their minds. I think high empathy is a somewhat anomalous condition, probably arising from some brain abnormalities, but it does let you see the mental landscapes of other people's minds more easily. Anyway, I think this made me very impressionable when reading the personality theorists, because these theorists are basically describing mental landscapes.
(After I had viral meningitis, which seemed to cause some brain damage and personality change, I lost almost all of my faculty of empathy — that's why the above is in the past tense.)
Last edited:
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Just saw this tweet:
Which reminded me that Eysenck was the one who argued that the smoking/cancer link should not be assumed to be causal, but may be a result of people with certain personality types being more likely to smoke, and also more likely to develop cancer. I think it was revealed he got dodgy funding from tobacco companies too. Giving personality research more respect that it deserves can have lots of harmful consequences.
Which reminded me that Eysenck was the one who argued that the smoking/cancer link should not be assumed to be causal, but may be a result of people with certain personality types being more likely to smoke, and also more likely to develop cancer. I think it was revealed he got dodgy funding from tobacco companies too. Giving personality research more respect that it deserves can have lots of harmful consequences.
No, they are not measuring personality traits. They are usually measuring behavior. When behavior is altered by other external factors which result in a lack of options, it is ridiculous to say that the altered behavior indicates a change of personality.
Avoiding concerts doesn't mean I'm an introvert, for example. It means I literally can't go to concerts. Or maybe someone can't afford to go to concerts. Or maybe someone needs to stay home and study like mad to keep up with uni and a job, and doesn't have the time for concerts.
It's a fatal flaw with many questionnaires that they don't just ask people what they prefer to do, or how they feel. Those questionnaires primarily ask people what they actually do, then make a bunch of really stupid assumptions based on their behavior, with no account for other limitations which are impacting their choices.
Similarly, if someone with ME was an extrovert, but is now hypersensitive to stimulus and avoids company ... that does not mean that they are now more introverted. They might desire that company as much as ever, and be tortured by their inability to be fulfilled by it.
If behavior is a significant part of identifying personality, then the concept of personality itself is meaningless.
Last edited:
A.B.
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,780
I'm just going to leave this here:
The quotation is from Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, and it's about the now discredited psychoanalysis.
Put differently, these psychological explanations are attractive because they give the illusion of being able to understand the world. This illusion is possible precisely because the psychological explanations are not tied to things that could be objectively measured, so the believer is never forced to admit that the facts contradict him.
The quotation is from Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, and it's about the now discredited psychoanalysis.
Put differently, these psychological explanations are attractive because they give the illusion of being able to understand the world. This illusion is possible precisely because the psychological explanations are not tied to things that could be objectively measured, so the believer is never forced to admit that the facts contradict him.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
@Old Bones mentioned this issue in her post here, pointing out that the wording of the questionnaire is very important to ensure you measure personality rather than behavior. To measure personality rather than behavior, you need to use phrases such as "drawn toward", "impressed by", "swayed by", "comfortable with" in your questionnaire.
I know what you are trying to say, and I agree that the mental symptoms of ME/CFS could easily impact on the accuracy of some questionnaires.
The introvert-extravert trait is an interesting example though, because conceivably ME/CFS patients actually do becoming more introverted as a result of their disease. Introversion relates to how sensitive the mind / brain is to arousal. The more introverted, the more quickly stimuli will arouse you. Wyller proposed that ME/CFS might involve sustained arousal (although his attempts to reduce arousal made ME/CFS worse).
Introversion-extraversion has been linked to the reticular activating system (RAS) in the brainstem, which controls arousal.
I do myself find that social activity over-arouses my mind, and that the more I am aroused in social conversation, the more mental PEM (increased brain fog and fatigue) I get the next day.
So maybe ME/CFS are more arousal-sensitive.
Or alternatively it could be that the overstimulated mental state (the "wired but tired" state) that most ME/CFS patients are familiar with arises from something other than increased sensitivity to arousal, but this overstimulated mental state has similar effects to being easy aroused, and that's why you find ME/CFS patients seeking solitude more.
The other confounding factor that could affect the results of a questionnaire on introversion-extraversion is the ME/CFS sound sensitivity (hyperacusis). On days when my sound sensitivity is bad, loud conversations can be a little overbearing, and are a factor in why I may choose to withdraw from socializing and seek a more quiet environment.
And yet another confounding factor is the autism-like sensitivity to the presence of people, which I have from time to time, and I have seen other ME/CFS patients report this symptom. This autism-like sensitivity is where you feel anxiety and/or overstimulation just due to the physical presence of someone in your room, or in close proximity to you. So you tend to seek solitude when this symptom is bad. But again, this seeking solitude is not due to increased introversion.
Last edited:
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
This is why I think psychology must try much harder to find mental parameters that can be objectively measured, otherwise you end up with a psychological theory that can never be empirically tested. A theory which cannot be empirically confirmed or refuted is not a scientific theory.
Questionnaires are one rough approach to empirical measurement, though care needs to be taken when applying to disease like ME/CFS, for reasons that @Valentijn explained.
With advancing technology, the brain is becoming more amenable to empirical measurement, so this should be another area where psychologists will find empirically measurable parameters that relate to mental phenomena.
For example, in the future as technology advances, perhaps the introversion-extraversion parameter might not be measured using a questionnaire, but directly measured within your brain by measuring the responsiveness of your reticular activating system (RAS) in the brainstem. Introversion might then be defined as the propensity of your RAS to actuate in response to sensory stimuli.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,858
Approaching your comment from another angle: some types of people have the need to feel that the world around them is understood, because mystery and uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable and anxious.
This is one of the reasons why I think somatoform theories of disease are popular. Somatoform theories are not really scientific theories, because as far as I can see, there is no experiment you can perform that would either confirm or refute them. However, somatoform theories provide an illusion of being able to understand diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, IBS, interstitial cystitis, etc. So they gain currency because of this illusion of medical understanding they offer.
worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051