Thank you for sharing your opinion about all the ways I’m apparently mistaken in my fully referenced article.
I can only assume a misunderstanding, stemming from differences in language or interpretation, led to your emotionally-laden response.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Scientific research is not immune to human bias which is why it’s important to protect against it. Please see the excellent book by Robert Burton, ‘On Being Certain,’ which succinctly addresses this, and other topics related to objectivity, subjectivity and human cognition. ‘Mind the Science,’ by Jonathan Stea, PhD, is another excellent read.
We study behaviour and develop hypothesis about it because we’re a curious species and as complexity increases so does the need to control for what we think may be contributing to results.
The mind is a construct and I have assumed that anyone who wants to read about such understands this already. Maybe I’m assuming incorrectly.
Indeed, facts, beliefs and opinions are different. Gravity is a fact and religion is a belief.
I am vehemently against magical thinking which I deem to be a form of delusional thinking and am unsure where I gave the impression that I’m an adherent of such. The research I shared examined the ‘affective tipping point’ - which occurs as the result of a decision, in someones brain, and suggested that increasing levels of anxiety caused the cognitive shift. This is not magical thinking, but a neurophysiological shift in brain tissue - in how neurons connect.
We have tools to measure where in the brain specific activity occurs which can be linked to emotions, thoughts, images being observed etc. This is different to self-report assessment.
Neuroscience investigates the biological basis of behaviour and how emotions, thoughts, the nervous system etc influence such.
Psychology is known as a social science and has well known and accepted challenges with replicability and falsifiability. Psychiatry is based on a medical model re’ mental health and has similar challenges. There is no perfect science - scientists understand that they’re constantly moving to greater clarity without believing they’ve arrived (Popper).
A universal principle of being human is a drive to avoid harm and search for and secure safety. Similarly, people are driven to reduce anxiety because it’s an uncomfortable physical and mental sensation.
Using words like ‘psycholingo’ smacks of ad hominem.
Many people believe differently to how they have to earn a living and although this is very far from ideal, and linked to inequality and socio-demographics, my post wasn’t an examination of such.
I remain curious as to why and when people change their mind and although I think cults and fundamentalism are fascinating topics, my post wasn’t an attempt to address these phenomenon. However, all opinions and beliefs begin and reside within neural tissue and can become more consolidated over time. I therefore cannot see how we’d be able to ignore our neurophysiology in relation to these phenomenon.
I make no claim to understand the theory of quantum physics or mechanics in general, or specifically in relation to the research in my post. However, if you feel qualified to do so you’re very welcome to do so for your subscribers.
Well, I did not authorized Psychological interpretations to any of my writings, it seems you did it, but I admit it can pass as Literary Analysis claiming my Post is Emotionally Laden, sentiment analysis. I just don´t see the relevance of it for informal logic.
It is difficult to use and understand informal Logic, I did try to Justify each of my 25 Claims with the links to where I made and justified those claims. My Post "Beauty" deals, I think effectively with why Psychology can´t even use mere Empiricism to study the Mind.
One reason is the Use of Words and the Concepts representing Emotions leading to inconsistencies when using informal logic with them precluding the use of Logic and Science even when using Neurophysiology: those are Brain Symbols having the same problem as Word Symbols when trying to use Logic to Reason about Emotions.
Another is non-transitivity. Another is Contradictory Emotions. Another is its immateriality…
A construct is an Imaginary thing, it is a mere Idea put forth as a model, or as a concept to interpret other Ideas as Philosophy does: Immaterially.
There are issues you did not address, like pretending to study the Mind is Intersubjective and cannot be Objective, at all, I wrote several Posts on that. It takes time to read it.
If you want to know, you a priori said no, but I can try since you said you did not know enough, where my use of QM or Relativity touch on anyone claiming they are using Science and its Methods I have a 4 part Narrative in simple comedic language explaining it, I wrote it for teenage reading abilities from my extensive readings on Epistemic and the History of Science, decades ago, I admit:
Thanks, I think you and I proved our points. I do feel a sense of talking pass each other...
I am not making ad Hominem, I am restating that Behavior has Four Normative systems that does not mention Psychology: Law, Social Norms, Morality and Religion. I wrote about it in other Posts too.
That is knowledge given on first courses of Law. Creating and using a Psychological Normative System outside those four, or worse above the top one: the Law, is a statement of Fact, not an ad Hominem Fallacy.
Magical Thinking and Delusions are not the same thing, Magical Thinking is not a form of Delusion. Even Delusions as defined are used improperly by Psychologists and Psychiatrists not understanding the probatory burden needed by the mere definition of Delusion: they invert the probatory burden or use reasoning abilities proxies to label a Deluded One, and hence the presence of a Delusion... that looks ad Hominem in part as I elaborated.
Making to me Delusion as definition, as Construct, as Something you cannot be Objective about in most cases, a really good example for: more people need to know more of how to prove things in reality, as Facts, nor as Rhetorical "Facts", as Humanities Do, not Sciences.
Heroism, Altruism and Sacrifice, like Atonement do seem to me contrary to some Universal Principles...
But, if you feel my comments, that I put on a Post of mine, for maybe my readers does not belong in your turf you can ask me broadly to not talk to you nor comment to you as of right now...
As an attempt, perhaps poorly, at Comedic Relief, it has been shown knowing of Biases actually can make some people more bias prone!.
Again thanks, I think we proved our points, it just so happens we might not be the Judges of that...
Including your comment with other responses or lack thereof does seem to corroborate that Psychologizing things does lead to People believing they can be lone Judges, and unquestionably so, of Science, Empiricism, Law, Social Norms, Morality and Religion.
And that is pernicious, I think beyond doubt in the World we live right now...
As for Relevance of my Writings to any PsychoResearch: Generality.
That´s what Science does: use General Principles that have non-trivial explanatory power but General ones explaining large segments of Reality.
That´s how true Scientist think: Generally and from First Principles beyond Doubt.
Invoking Social Ideas and Social Descriptions of Scientific Research Evolution does not negate Scientific and Epistemic Principles and it does not provide an excuse to go against them.
And it conceals the Fact that problems for doing some Research Project need to be addressed first, like Unfalsifiability, before doing any actual Empirical Research.
And I already wrote about it, comparing PseudoScience with the Evolution of Science, leads at least to anchoring when comparing a Pseudo-Science with Science in its evolutions.
And it does seem analogous to Psychologizing in Sociologizing the Fundamental Principles of Science...
Thank you for sharing your opinion about all the ways I’m apparently mistaken in my fully referenced article.
I can only assume a misunderstanding, stemming from differences in language or interpretation, led to your emotionally-laden response.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Scientific research is not immune to human bias which is why it’s important to protect against it. Please see the excellent book by Robert Burton, ‘On Being Certain,’ which succinctly addresses this, and other topics related to objectivity, subjectivity and human cognition. ‘Mind the Science,’ by Jonathan Stea, PhD, is another excellent read.
We study behaviour and develop hypothesis about it because we’re a curious species and as complexity increases so does the need to control for what we think may be contributing to results.
The mind is a construct and I have assumed that anyone who wants to read about such understands this already. Maybe I’m assuming incorrectly.
Indeed, facts, beliefs and opinions are different. Gravity is a fact and religion is a belief.
I am vehemently against magical thinking which I deem to be a form of delusional thinking and am unsure where I gave the impression that I’m an adherent of such. The research I shared examined the ‘affective tipping point’ - which occurs as the result of a decision, in someones brain, and suggested that increasing levels of anxiety caused the cognitive shift. This is not magical thinking, but a neurophysiological shift in brain tissue - in how neurons connect.
We have tools to measure where in the brain specific activity occurs which can be linked to emotions, thoughts, images being observed etc. This is different to self-report assessment.
Neuroscience investigates the biological basis of behaviour and how emotions, thoughts, the nervous system etc influence such.
Psychology is known as a social science and has well known and accepted challenges with replicability and falsifiability. Psychiatry is based on a medical model re’ mental health and has similar challenges. There is no perfect science - scientists understand that they’re constantly moving to greater clarity without believing they’ve arrived (Popper).
A universal principle of being human is a drive to avoid harm and search for and secure safety. Similarly, people are driven to reduce anxiety because it’s an uncomfortable physical and mental sensation.
Using words like ‘psycholingo’ smacks of ad hominem.
Many people believe differently to how they have to earn a living and although this is very far from ideal, and linked to inequality and socio-demographics, my post wasn’t an examination of such.
I remain curious as to why and when people change their mind and although I think cults and fundamentalism are fascinating topics, my post wasn’t an attempt to address these phenomenon. However, all opinions and beliefs begin and reside within neural tissue and can become more consolidated over time. I therefore cannot see how we’d be able to ignore our neurophysiology in relation to these phenomenon.
I make no claim to understand the theory of quantum physics or mechanics in general, or specifically in relation to the research in my post. However, if you feel qualified to do so you’re very welcome to do so for your subscribers.
Well, I did not authorized Psychological interpretations to any of my writings, it seems you did it, but I admit it can pass as Literary Analysis claiming my Post is Emotionally Laden, sentiment analysis. I just don´t see the relevance of it for informal logic.
It is difficult to use and understand informal Logic, I did try to Justify each of my 25 Claims with the links to where I made and justified those claims. My Post "Beauty" deals, I think effectively with why Psychology can´t even use mere Empiricism to study the Mind.
One reason is the Use of Words and the Concepts representing Emotions leading to inconsistencies when using informal logic with them precluding the use of Logic and Science even when using Neurophysiology: those are Brain Symbols having the same problem as Word Symbols when trying to use Logic to Reason about Emotions.
Another is non-transitivity. Another is Contradictory Emotions. Another is its immateriality…
A construct is an Imaginary thing, it is a mere Idea put forth as a model, or as a concept to interpret other Ideas as Philosophy does: Immaterially.
There are issues you did not address, like pretending to study the Mind is Intersubjective and cannot be Objective, at all, I wrote several Posts on that. It takes time to read it.
If you want to know, you a priori said no, but I can try since you said you did not know enough, where my use of QM or Relativity touch on anyone claiming they are using Science and its Methods I have a 4 part Narrative in simple comedic language explaining it, I wrote it for teenage reading abilities from my extensive readings on Epistemic and the History of Science, decades ago, I admit:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/sci-and-math-are-having-a-conversation?r=4up0lp
Thanks, I think you and I proved our points. I do feel a sense of talking pass each other...
I am not making ad Hominem, I am restating that Behavior has Four Normative systems that does not mention Psychology: Law, Social Norms, Morality and Religion. I wrote about it in other Posts too.
That is knowledge given on first courses of Law. Creating and using a Psychological Normative System outside those four, or worse above the top one: the Law, is a statement of Fact, not an ad Hominem Fallacy.
Magical Thinking and Delusions are not the same thing, Magical Thinking is not a form of Delusion. Even Delusions as defined are used improperly by Psychologists and Psychiatrists not understanding the probatory burden needed by the mere definition of Delusion: they invert the probatory burden or use reasoning abilities proxies to label a Deluded One, and hence the presence of a Delusion... that looks ad Hominem in part as I elaborated.
Making to me Delusion as definition, as Construct, as Something you cannot be Objective about in most cases, a really good example for: more people need to know more of how to prove things in reality, as Facts, nor as Rhetorical "Facts", as Humanities Do, not Sciences.
Heroism, Altruism and Sacrifice, like Atonement do seem to me contrary to some Universal Principles...
But, if you feel my comments, that I put on a Post of mine, for maybe my readers does not belong in your turf you can ask me broadly to not talk to you nor comment to you as of right now...
As an attempt, perhaps poorly, at Comedic Relief, it has been shown knowing of Biases actually can make some people more bias prone!.
Again thanks, I think we proved our points, it just so happens we might not be the Judges of that...
Including your comment with other responses or lack thereof does seem to corroborate that Psychologizing things does lead to People believing they can be lone Judges, and unquestionably so, of Science, Empiricism, Law, Social Norms, Morality and Religion.
And that is pernicious, I think beyond doubt in the World we live right now...
As for Relevance of my Writings to any PsychoResearch: Generality.
That´s what Science does: use General Principles that have non-trivial explanatory power but General ones explaining large segments of Reality.
That´s how true Scientist think: Generally and from First Principles beyond Doubt.
Invoking Social Ideas and Social Descriptions of Scientific Research Evolution does not negate Scientific and Epistemic Principles and it does not provide an excuse to go against them.
And it conceals the Fact that problems for doing some Research Project need to be addressed first, like Unfalsifiability, before doing any actual Empirical Research.
And I already wrote about it, comparing PseudoScience with the Evolution of Science, leads at least to anchoring when comparing a Pseudo-Science with Science in its evolutions.
And it does seem analogous to Psychologizing in Sociologizing the Fundamental Principles of Science...