• 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 (FM), 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.

Personality change associated with chronic diseases: pooled analysis of four prospective cohort stud

peggy-sue

Senior Member
Messages
2,623
Location
Scotland
Eysenk still got extraversion and psychopathy overlapping too much and so confused with each other.
He made a start, but that's about it.:rolleyes:
I'm not convinced by the "big 5" and the bottom line is that personality is SUPPOSED to be constant.

Surely personality changing with illness, merely disproves personality theory.:D :thumbsup:
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
@SOC @alex3619
It seems that you have a knee-jerk antagonism to psychology, presumably as a result of the school of psychologists who portray ME/CFS as psychogenic or psychosomatic.
Nope. Your assessment of my emotional state ("knee-jerk antagonism") based on a few online comments is a ridiculous conclusion and completely wrong. It's always a bad idea to claim to know other peoples' emotional state, especially based on a few comments and no personal contact. Bad psychology, in fact.

I have a lot of respect for psychologists who do the job right. I spent many hours with a good therapist in my young adulthood, much to my benefit. I sent my child to a good psychotherapist when she was having trouble coping with her best friend's baby sister being very severely ill and disabled. Good psychology has its place.

What I have antagonism toward (and its not "knee-jerk antagonism") is nonsense passed off as scientific research. Bad research is bad research and, unfortunately, most psychology research fails basic research principles on many levels. Questionnaires, as @alex3619 pointed out, are very poor scientific measures, just for a start.

Traits such as introversion and extroversion are defined by behavioral characteristics. If you want to know what those behavioral characteristics are, go read some psychology.
There's that circular logic again. "We said it, so it's true"

Others have pointed out the issues with claiming introversion and extroversion are defined by behavioral characteristics. I won't bother to add to those intelligent comments.
Certainly psychology is not the most precise of sciences,
That's a serious understatement. I'd go so far as to say it's not much of a science at all. A complex art, properly done, but not much of a science, by scientific standards.
 
Last edited:

Ren

.
Messages
385
If the world we live in were sacred and under the auspices of some benign deity, one imagines there would be perfection, with no disease and no need for research and medical science.

However, in the world we actually live in, there is all manner of disease, both physical and mental, and a lot of suffering and privation that goes with it. Hence the need for scientific inquiry into these diseases, and hopefully one day, technological cure.

A person can be an agnostic or atheist and still hold particular life events, moments, places, etc to be sacred*, and I still feel very strongly that it's unethical for self-proclaimed experts to push their way into every crevice of human existence in order to evaluate if it meets their self-created standards, disguised as scientific inquiry. See "ethical boundaries." Additionally, I suspect most adults are familiar with disease and suffering, and many are certainly aware of the traditions, methods, techniques, etc. that allow each of us, in our time - in our way, to best cope, heal, progress, etc.

*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
I see lots of criticism and negative comments on psychological methods, but nothing in the way of a positive suggestions.

So I put it to the naysayers: going back to the study in the original post, how would you devise a psychological study to detect any personality changes associated with chronic diseases?

How would you set up the experiment?


Regarding the lemon test: the significance of this has not been understood, so we will have to leave that one. It is certainly not "circular logic".


Alex, are you familiar with that much maligned era in psychology called behaviorism?

Behaviorism was a school of thought that tried to bring scientific precision to psychology, but ended up making a mess of the field. The essential idea of behaviorism was that only objectively observable aspects of the individual count as scientific data — basically, the person's visible outward behavior, but not their subjective accounts of their own mental states. Subjective accounts were banned in the behaviorist school.

Behaviorism tried to eradicate the subjective entirely, to try to be scientifically objective. However, behaviorism in fact just ended up holding the field of psychology back, because so much useful information is obtained from subjective insight. Indeed, pretty much all the very useful reports posted by ME/CFS patients on this forum are all subjective accounts of how they generally feel, subjective accounts of how certain drugs or supplements affect their symptoms, etc. This is all very valuable data, and it shows that subjective insight is valid.

This the situation in psychology: subjective data cannot be objectively validated, and is subject to an individual's interpretation, but this subjective data is very valuable, so if we want to use it, we just have live these problems that subjective data brings.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
Eysenk still got extraversion and psychopathy overlapping too much and so confused with each other.
He made a start, but that's about it.

I did not know that. That is interesting.

Just for fun many years ago I did a Diploma evening course in psychology, which was mainly on the personality theorists. It covered all the major personality theorists, but not in the greatest of depth.

I'm not convinced by the "big 5" and the bottom line is that personality is SUPPOSED to be constant. Surely personality changing with illness, merely disproves personality theory.

Is that still the current view of psychology, that personality is supposed to be constant?

I have to say that in spite of a whole barrage of mental insults that I have been hit with over the last decade, including ME/CFS, anxiety disorder with mild psychosis, severe ADHD, severe anhedonia and blunted affect, I am amazed that many aspects of my personality do remain intact. However, I certainly notice changes and shifts in my personality that are undeniable, as a result of these mental insults. So it seems to me that disease definitely can cause shifts in personality.
 
Messages
13,774
that personality is SUPPOSED to be constant.

The way 'personality' is sometimes talked of does sound very faith-based and weird to me. It often slips into assuming an almost spiritual view of individuals having a true/core self, which to me seems psychologically unrealistic. People will have different genetics, which will lead to different traits, but so much of what we think of as being our 'personality' is a result of our external situation and the experiences this leads to.

So I put it to the naysayers: going back to the study in the original post, how would you devise a psychological study to detect any personality changes associated with chronic diseases?

Why would I do so? What would I be looking for?

People facing different new challenges like disability would be likely to answer questionnaires about how they view themselves differently to how they had done when they had good health. I don't see why this would be worth studying at the moment. Maybe if we had infinite resources it would be worth putting some into work like this, but for now, it seems like the only point of it is to let researchers get publications on their CV.
 
Last edited:

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
I see lots of criticism and negative comments on psychological methods, but nothing in the way of a positive suggestions.
Okay, here's one: Researchers in psychology should study the fundamentals of science, including careful observation, objectivity, the difference between correlation and causation, the proper use of statistical analysis, and many other concepts taught in scientific fields at the most rudimentary levels.

Here's another: Researchers in psychology should apply the fundamentals of science to their research.
So I put it to the naysayers: going back to the study in the original post, how would you devise a psychological study to detect any personality changes associated with chronic diseases?
How would you set up the experiment?
Why is it necessary to detect personality changes associated with chronic disease? What positive purpose does it serve?

Even if such a useful purpose was proposed, if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait (like scientists in all other fields) for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied. Using speculation and opinion in place of sound scientific practice is not an acceptable solution.
Regarding the lemon test: the significance of this has not been understood, so we will have to leave that one. It is certainly not "circular logic".
It certainly is circular logic the way you described it. You can't use your definition to verify that same definition.
This the situation in psychology: subjective data cannot be objectively validated, and is subject to an individual's interpretation, but this subjective data is very valuable, so if we want to use it, we just have live these problems that subjective data brings.
If you plan to make generalizations about any observation, you need objective measures. Subjective measures can be very useful in individual psychotherapy. Even then, a bad psychotherapist who can't separate his or her opinions and beliefs from their observations can do a great deal of damage.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Philosophy Alert!

Behaviorism was a school of thought that tried to bring scientific precision to psychology, but ended up making a mess of the field. The essential idea of behaviorism was that only objectively observable aspects of the individual count as scientific data — basically, the person's visible outward behavior, but not their subjective accounts of their own mental states. Subjective accounts were banned in the behaviorist school.

Behaviorism tried to eradicate the subjective entirely, to try to be scientifically objective. However, behaviorism in fact just ended up holding the field of psychology back, because so much useful information is obtained from subjective insight. Indeed, pretty much all the very useful reports posted by ME/CFS patients on this forum are all subjective accounts of how they generally feel, subjective accounts of how certain drugs or supplements affect their symptoms, etc. This is all very valuable data, and it shows that subjective insight is valid.

I have not made an in-depth analysis of behaviorism. Its still a thriving area of research though. The mistake was in presuming it was a sufficiently viable area of research to capture the entirety of human psychology. Instead, in its modern incarnation, its recognized as just one aspect of the process.

Precision is at the core of science. Its currently estimated that at least 50% of psychology is wrong. One of the mistakes being made, one that pervades medicine, is even worse in psychology, and dominates psychiatry, is this notion that they are science. Medicine uses science, but is not generally scientific. This includes Evidence Based Medicine, when taken as a whole.

Psychology is often trying to be something it is not. Its often viewed as something it is not. The attitude that most of it has great scientific authority is a mistake.

Just because something is not fully a scientific discipline, does not stop it from being a rigorous discipline. The pitfalls associated with its research subject, and methodologies, can be recognized and dealt with. The example of a discipline that can do that (but sometimes fails) is sociology. They too often make the mistake of calling it science though. Rigorous methods do not make something science, but a lack of rigor makes something nonscience.

These problems are not confined to psychology. Economics is similarly inflicted, with "laws" that are little better than vague heuristics, and an over-reliance on simplified mathematics with shortcuts that would make many mathematicians shudder. Yet we decide our economic futures based on economic theories that in some cases were disproved half a century ago, and yet nobody seems to care. Economics could be rigorous, more than it is, but one of the first things that needs to go is the notion that its a science.

Much of our understanding of the world is NOT science. That doesn't mean such disciplines are without value, many are vitally important. What it means is that the findings cannot be classed as scientific, and lack scientific authority. By scientific authority I mean an acceptance that a finding has (or at least should be) the potential to be rigorously challenged and tested. In other words, a scientific finding that has been around for a while is usually robust. Yet even in science such a finding can be overturned - that is why we consider it robust, not TRUE.

There is huge uncertainty in economics and psychology. Psychiatry straddles more scientific approaches in combination with even less scientific approaches than psychology.

There is a tradition in psychology that their claims are presented as scientific. Its not just behaviorism that made mistakes. Non-behaviorism wants to be scientific, has scientific trappings, and yet often fails to meet scientific standards. They have their own standards, which have come to be viewed as scientific. This problem also pervades medicine in general.

So what makes sociology different? Why is it a better model for psychology than neuroscience? It comes down to one simple thing, at least in my current view. They have made in-depth analyses of the pitfalls and problems, the limits of precision, the issues with subjectivity and bias, much more than psychology. They recognize the limits of their models, at least usually, and don't claim a level of precision that is prevalent in bad psychological research, at least usually. They are comfortable with uncertainty, recognize it, and deal with it. Furthermore the general understanding is that this is not science, despite the continued attempt to talk about Social Science. There is a reason the current working title of my book is Embracing Uncertainty.

I do think that psychology will go the way of the Dodo eventually, in many respects, and be overtaken by neuroscience. I also think that neurology will overshadow psychiatry. Yet there will always be need for counseling services, though what form they take will evolve.

Yet there are levels of complexity here. Psychiatry emerges out of psychology and neuroscience. Its not reducible to either. Psychology has its roots in the philosophy of mind. Its an attempt at understanding the human brain at a level above that of neuroscience. It emerges from philosophy and neuroscience, but is not reducible to either.

As soon as you include subjective evidence, subjective data, subjective interpretations, its not science. It cannot, and I mean CANNOT, have the same claim to scientific rigor. There are a huge range of problems in interpreting this material. Lately there has been a movement in psychology to put more rigor back into the discipline. I approve of that. While behaviorism did hold back psychology by claiming that only measurable phenomenon mattered, I think that psychology has been held back by the notion that its a science, that its methodologies and techniques are scientific. That it has scientific rigor.

You can translate most of my above arguments into the context of medical diagnosis and treatment. It uses science, but its not science. Its an art. You can also translate most of it to criticism of psychobabble in treating ME.

This the situation in psychology: subjective data cannot be objectively validated, and is subject to an individual's interpretation, but this subjective data is very valuable, so if we want to use it, we just have live these problems that subjective data brings.

NO, we don't have to live with them. That is a core attitude I want to see eradicated. We need to RESPECT those limitations. What happens instead is that psychological research, and practices, fudge an attitude that those limitations do not exist or are unimportant. It fosters an attitude that the findings and practices are reliable, precise, dependable. That they shouldn't be questioned. That the experts shouldn't be questioned. Its perilously close to embracing dogma rather than reason. I would much rather see an attitude of questioning, of recognition of the limits to their inquiry, and of recognition that there are other ways to approach these things. This very trend I see occurring in recent psychiatric criticism. It can't come soon enough.

More to follow in another post.
 
Messages
15,786
So I put it to the naysayers: going back to the study in the original post, how would you devise a psychological study to detect any personality changes associated with chronic diseases?
Use questions which don't rely on behavior to assess traits or mood disorders. How do you feel about this? What do want to be able to do?

The problem with psych questionnaires in general is that they are trying to be clever, instead of just asking the real questions. There's no need to trick sick people into admitting it when they're depressed. Just ask "Are you depressed?" or "Do you have these issues which are central to depression?" instead of "Do you enjoy reading a book as much as you used to?".

But the straight-forward approach would put a lot of idiots out of business, especially in the CFS arena, hence it's unlikely to change any time soon.
 

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,266
Two comments without reading all the thread comments:

1) If they want to detect change in personality, they need to look at people's personalities and behaviors before and after they get sick and do a comparison. Too many personality studies only look at the person afterwards.

2) FTR, to be clear, introversion and extroversion as defined by psychologists have something to do with behaviors but it's not exact; it's true that extroverts MAY party more and introverts MAY party less but it's not the action that defines intro vs. extroverts. It's more how people draw/ restore their energy. As an introvert (yes, professionally tested twice no less), I draw my energy from being alone and solitude but people who, pre-CFS, see me at a party or give a public presentation may not think I am an introvert in the general sense. Introversion has nothing to do with being quiet or shy; it's about energy.

3) Finally, per #2, two people may outwardly have the same behaviors but different motivations, reasons, and views of that behavior.

To the post above: someone did a study of diagnosing depression using one question: "Are you depressed?" It did much better than longer questionnaires. Sometimes, directness and simplicity win the day.
 

peggy-sue

Senior Member
Messages
2,623
Location
Scotland
Having studied "Personality" at uni, my opinion is that it (as it stands) it is about as much use as Phrenology.
Psychologists do not study the basics of science, (or very rarely, and not at a sufficient level) - physics, chemisty and biology, they haven't studied further with any nueroscience, they don't study brain development, they haven't studied evolution or ethology.
They don't have the language they need to understand the basic scientific concepts which are essential in order to study psychology. They haven't a clue what their confounding variables are.

Cognitive "science" or psychology does not study the brain. It studies a dualistic notion of "mind".
So yes, it is a form of religion.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
There's no need to trick sick people into admitting it when they're depressed. Just ask "Are you depressed?"

Which psychologists are trying to "trick" people in saying that they are depressed?

In any case, asking people if they are depressed may be valid for major depression, but it will not work for dysthymia. Dysthymia is another category of depression, which can be just as severe as major depression. But the problem with dysthymia is that sufferers are rarely aware that they have dysthymia, even in severe cases. For some odd reason, dysthymic patients tend to assume that the dysthymia is just part of their normal personality, rather than understanding that their dysthymic symptoms are in fact caused by depression.

So if you ask dysthymic patients "Are you depressed?" they will just answer "No".

A similar thing happens with psychosis and schizophrenia. One of the characteristics of psychosis is that the sufferer loses the normal introspective insight that humans have of their own mind; psychosis involves a loss of internal self-awareness. Thus if you develop psychosis, you may not necessarily be aware of it, or only very dimly aware of it, because you lose you ability to introspect. So again you cannot just ask a patient "Are you psychotic?" because if they are, they genuinely may not know it.


Why is it necessary to detect personality changes associated with chronic disease? What positive purpose does it serve?

Surely you can see the value of such data!? I see it as fundamental research, very useful in terms of uncovering the etiologies of mental state changes and mental illness. Many mental illnesses come with physical symptoms and comorbid physical diseases. Thus mental state changes and physical pathophysiologies are likely linked.


if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied.

Sounds like a recipe for not making any scientific progress at all.

We do not have the knowledge or technology at present to work out what causes ME/CFS, but that should not stop biochemical researchers proposing speculative ideas about ME/CFS etiology.

Science has always progressed through speculative theories; those theories have then guided experiment, and the empirical results from experiments have either been validated or refuted the theory.


NO, we don't have to live with them. That is a core attitude I want to see eradicated.

I cannot see how you can derive the same precision and reliability that you get from objective data when it comes to subjective data.



introversion and extroversion as defined by psychologists have something to do with behaviors but it's not exact; it's true that extroverts MAY party more and introverts MAY party less but it's not the action that defines intro vs. extroverts. It's more how people draw/ restore their energy. As an introvert (yes, professionally tested twice no less), I draw my energy from being alone and solitude but people who, pre-CFS, see me at a party or give a public presentation may not think I am an introvert in the general sense. Introversion has nothing to do with being quiet or shy; it's about energy.

It is certainly true that you can find an introvert at a party. However, if you looked at people who partied every night, I expect those people would be mostly extraverts. But sure, it is not the most reliable way to determine who is an extravert and who is an introvert.

A better way to determine this might be to use peak performance tests. I understand that one of the big differences between extraverts and introverts is the amount of sensory stimulation they require to get into their zone of peak performance.

Extraverts need more stimulation than introverts before their brains reach a peak performance state. So extraverts thrive in jobs where there is a lot of all-round stimulation, because this high input of information brings out the best in them. But introverts reach their peak performance at low levels of stimulation, and if you over-stimulate introverts, you actually take them out of their peak performance zone

So I think a reliable method of distinguishing introverts from extraverts might be to measure the levels of sensory simulation that are required for an individual to reach their peak task performance abilities.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Sounds like a recipe for not making any scientific progress at all.

We do not have the knowledge or technology at present to work out what causes ME/CFS, but that should not stop biochemical researchers proposing speculative ideas about ME/CFS etiology.

Science has always progressed through speculative theories; those theories have then guided experiment, and the empirical results from experiments have either been validated or refuted the theory.

What utter nonsense. :rolleyes: No one is suggesting speculative ideas or theories are inappropriate anywhere in science. Where do you get these ideas?

Sure there's lots of researchers (good and bad) proposing speculative ideas about ME/CFS etiology. That's a loooooong way from claiming their idea is proven science. That kind of speculation is called "making a hypothesis". A hypothesis should be based on objective observation, not personal beliefs. That is just the beginning of scientific research, the important part is what follows. Anyone can make a hypothesis. Scientists test their hypotheses. The critical part of establishing scientific fact is rigorous objective testing using scientific principles. That's where psychology "research" falls flat on its face. It doesn't use basic scientific principles to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Psychology "research" presents speculation as scientific fact without the critical rigorous scientific testing required for true scientific research. That is what a number of us here keep saying and you keep ignoring.

You suggested I read some psychology. I suggest you read some science. Learn about the basic principles of science and scientific research. (They don't teach that in psychology curricula.) Then come back and explain how psychology research follows those principles. We've tried to explain to you where they don't, but you're either ignoring us or refusing to believe us, so now the ball is in your court.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
What utter nonsense. :rolleyes: No one is suggesting speculative ideas or theories are inappropriate anywhere in science. Where do you get these ideas?

I got it from you, where you said "if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied".

You suggest scientists need to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied. That sound like suggesting the early sailors should have waited for diesel engines and GPS before setting out to discover the New World. The history of science shows that scientists move forward even in the absence of the knowledge or technology necessary to do sound science. Much of the time throughout the history of science, the state of knowledge is very poor, and the elusive truth often mixed in with many falsehoods or red herrings. The actual progress of science is often blundering and accidental, and has often moved forward on intuitive hunches, even in the absence of proof or knowledge. The germ theory of disease started out as a pure hunch, with no evidence, and no technology to detect germs.

Psychology "research" presents speculation as scientific fact without the critical rigorous scientific testing required for true scientific research. That is what a number of us here keep saying and you keep ignoring.

I am not ignoring; I am saying you are, in my opinion, unfairly critical of the whole of psychology, seemingly of the basis of the bad work done by a small school of psychologists who believe in all that somatoform nonsense. And not even constructive criticism, since you have not offered any specific improved methodologies to follow, just a series of "must try harder" platitudes.

This antagonism appears to be common in many ME/CFS patients: if it's psychological, it must be diabolical, many ME/CFS patients seem to think.

Now I am totally with you in my utter disgust at somatoform theories of disease; this field is so unscientific, it is beyond the pale. But each different area in psychology must be judged on its own merit. In particular, I don't see anything wrong at all with the study posted at the beginning of this thread.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
alex3619: NO, we don't have to live with them. That is a core attitude I want to see eradicated.

Hip: I cannot see how you can derive the same precision and reliability that you get from objective data when it comes to subjective data.

Correct, you can't. Hence subjective data must be handled differently. Conclusion from subjective data must be handled differently. The same kind of authoritative expertise doctors like to claim from objective data cannot be claimed for subjective data and studies, so it must be handled differently.

I am slowly working my way toward what "differently" is. For one thing it starts with not claiming this is science. It also involves not claiming any kind of even near certitude, and so limiting both coercive powers and legal powers for practicing psychiatrists. In psychology, I think an over-reliance on statistical findings, to the detriment of in-depth case studies, is a big problem. I have lots more to say, but its still very disorganized, and I will need years more before I can outline a general plan.

PS One thing I frown on is the notion that evidence based medicine is somehow scientific, and then in the next breath many who say that also claim that studies that are untestable, and based on subjective data, but with high significance, somehow point to an evidence-based approach. Statistically significant speculation is not the basis for good medical science.
 
Last edited:

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
I got it from you, where you said "if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied".

You suggest scientists need to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied. That sound like suggesting the early sailors should have waited for diesel engines and GPS before setting out to discover the New World. The history of science shows that scientists move forward even in the absence of the knowledge or technology necessary to do sound science. Much of the time throughout the history of science, the state of knowledge is very poor, and the elusive truth often mixed in with many falsehoods or red herrings. The actual progress of science is often blundering and accidental, and has often moved forward on intuitive hunches, even in the absence of proof or knowledge. The germ theory of disease started out as a pure hunch, with no evidence, and no technology to detect germs.



I am not ignoring; I am saying you are, in my opinion, unfairly critical of the whole of psychology, seemingly of the basis of the bad work done by a small school of psychologists who believe in all that somatoform nonsense. And not even constructive criticism, since you have not offered any specific improved methodologies to follow, just a series of "must try harder" platitudes.

This antagonism appears to be common in many ME/CFS patients: if it's psychological, it must be diabolical, many ME/CFS patients seem to think.

Now I am totally with you in my utter disgust at somatoform theories of disease; this field is so unscientific, it is beyond the pale. But each different area in psychology must be judged on its own merit. In particular, I don't see anything wrong at all with the study posted at the beginning of this thread.
BS First, you extrapolate beyond what I said and then claim your extrapolations are my ideas, not yours. Then you make things up and claim they're my ideas, not yours. o_O That's very poor discussion technique and rude. Don't put words in my mouth. Own your own foolish ideas. That's basic good psychology, by the way -- be clear about what other people are saying and what is your interpretation of what they are saying.

Second, I (and others here) have already addressed a number of issues you bring up here again. There's no point in talking to you if you're not going to listen and just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if repetition makes truth.

This conversation has become completely pointless.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
BS First, you extrapolate beyond what I said

No, you said "if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied," which I pointed out is not what you find throughout the history of science.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
@alex3619
As far as I can see, the main differences between objective data (OD) derived from measuring instruments, and subjective data (SD) derived from introspection are that:

• With SD, you can only ever have one observer in one mind, so the scientific requisite of having other people verify your observations is not provided for. However, this situation is to a degree mitigated by the fact that other people's minds can manifest the same phenomenon (for example, other minds can experience the condition of say ME/CFS hypersensitivity to sound); so on the assumption that our minds work in a similar way, you can in fact have other people verify your subjective observations.

However, this has its limits, and for example, it is impossible to know whether the subjective internal sensation (or "quale" as it is technically known) that you have when you see the something colored red is the same what I see.

• With SD, you cannot really verify or calibrate the introspective apparatus of the observer inside the mind. When measuring OD, you can of course verify and calibrate the measuring instruments used by the observer against know standards, but you cannot do this in the case of introspection. We don't even know that much about the brain structures that allow for this internal introspective observation. This is particular problematic in mental heath conditions, where both the mind being observed, and the mind's apparatus of introspective self observation, may both be perturbed or dysfunctional. In others words, in mental health conditions, your introspective apparatus may be perturbed, so your self observations may be inaccurate.


Although another issue concerns empathy, which some people posses far more than others. Empathy is the uncanny ability that some people have to closely read other's minds. This actually allows a third party to have as a very good insight into another's mental life.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
No, you said "if the scientists themselves can't come up with a sound scientific way to study it, then they'll have to wait for knowledge or technology to advance to the point where sound science can be applied," which I pointed out is not what you find throughout the history of science.
Learn the difference between research establishing scientific facts, and technological progress and application. The principles of thermodynamics were well understood when applied to developing the diesel engine. The principles of geonavigation and electronics were well established when applied to GPS.

Beyond that, you put words in my mouth throughout your previous post. A conversation is only a conversation if both parties listen and both parties allow each other their own thoughts. Putting words in another's mouth and then arguing how stupid those words are is not a conversation, it's bullying.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,820
@SOC
Well could you then explain precisely what you mean by the statement you made. To me it seemed clear that you were saying psychologists need to wait until knowledge and technology to advance to the point where they enable psychologists to perform sound and precise science.

But apparently you meant something different. So perhaps you can explain what you really meant.

While you are at it, perhaps you can explain why you think questionnaires asking about behavioral characteristics can be circular logic, because that just seems to be plain wrong. If I create a questionnaire asking about voting behavior, for example, in order to ascertain people's political persuasions, is that also circular logic? Of course it's not. So why do you call these psychological behavioral questionnaires circular logic?