Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Jul 23, 2016.
Free full text:
This is a long paper. A lot of it is summarised in
If you weren't sure what a particular point in the table meant, you could look up the section in the text.
I thought this paper was very good.
It could help people critically analyse psychological papers.
Moreover most of the same points could also be applied to alternative and complementary therapies and indeed any posited therapy.
As I keep pointing out across the web:
PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE, here, then, here, now or back then
i.e. As groups, cultures, way we behave we Humans behave much the same, whether it's Rome Circa AD 1, a group or Cherokee in 1850, or UK today.
nearly always the "accepted wisdom" prevails NO MATTER HWAT THE ACTUAL REALITY IS!
this is why the saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different outcome!" is so pithily valid in away
I've been reading stuff about the U.S. Civil War and way many of the dumb generals (Mostly Northern) and doctors behaved...yet many of these same folk thought the Indians and Chinese were "barbaric savages" or whatever.
And like wise the Chinese and Japanese "Establishment" demanded for long and weary that *we* were the barbaric savages, which lead our piratical empires to blow the living hell out of the very backward Chinese and Japanese military etc (they were technologically/militarily backward because their governments demanded that be so).
(and yes, we were piratical empires, still are, it's just the way we Humans work. very few decent Human beings have great power.)
So, when you have hard clear Science, say ballistics or chemistry, you can be very empirical and precise, kind of hard ot "fudge" things.
But, people always want ot fudge things, we can't help it, it's Human Nature. Good training and logic helps as does genuine peer review.
yet when it comes to psychology...how can you really ever have certainty? It's almost impossible, we can't even identify or quantify the actual "mind" which precludes therefore any certainty at all!
This means that "observer bias" is almost always going to be a very serious problem to psychological research.
And then Human nature makes it worse.
There is no way in HELL that most of the psychologists with tenure, power, who work for the government etc can EVER admit they were wrong, there is so much pressure on them.
This is why you'd really need a second set of very "neutral" and utterly unrelated psychologists to do any objective follow up. How often is that really going to happen?
So if psychologists A has a bee up his bonnet that "ME is psychological!" there's almost now ay he can ever admit that he is wrong. Not gonna happen 99/100 cases until the entire culture he is in says otherwise.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.