Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Replication Crises
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 84 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Replication Crises (Read 7687 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #660 - May 16th, 2018 at 3:08pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 10:40am:
Wrong.

It has nothing to do with a majority belief. 
Fine. Tell me why homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder if it had nothing to do with the majority of Americans believed it was a sin or wrong or "unnatural", and how it happened to be unclassified when opinion shifted.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4386
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #661 - May 16th, 2018 at 3:58pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote Today at 10:40am:
Quote:
Wrong.

It has nothing to do with a majority belief.


Jeff wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 3:08pm:
Fine. Tell me why homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder if it had nothing to do with the majority of Americans believed it was a sin or wrong or "unnatural", and how it happened to be unclassified when opinion shifted.


Yes, in the one case of homosexuality, politics swayed them.  Just as politics once swayed astronomy to say that the universe revolved around the earth.  Doesn't mean that astronomy can no never be a science. 


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #662 - May 16th, 2018 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 3:58pm:
Yes, in the one case of homosexuality, politics swayed them.
Have they made changes to the procedure by which mental disorders are identified so that the process is no longer susceptible to political influence?

What changes specifically?

Oh. None.

So the process is still open to political pressure, which means Faith in God can, at any time, be described as a "mental disorder".


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4386
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #663 - May 16th, 2018 at 9:31pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 6:39pm:
Have they made changes to the procedure by which mental disorders are identified so that the process is no longer susceptible to political influence?

What changes specifically?

Oh. None.


What they changed was the definition of mental disorder.  It used to include that there was a disproportionate percentage of cases of depression, suicide, alcoholism, etc. for people with the proposed disorder.  Homosexuality did and does meet that criteria, but the argument made against that standard was that the stigma of society was what led to those things, not anything inherent in homosexuality.  Pretty sound reasoning, I'd say.  Also a welcome change.

Quote:
so the process is still open to political pressure, which means Faith in God can, at any time, be described as a "mental disorder".




All processes are open to political pressure.  What's your point?



  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8104
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #664 - May 16th, 2018 at 11:41pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 10:16am:
The reality was that conventional beliefs in the U.S. held that sex was for procreation, and that sex outside of that purpose, sex just for pleasure that did not or could not lead to procreation was sinful and wrong.

It was a moral view rather than a scientific one, but it made it very difficult for homosexuals to live in society because their actions broke with the "reality" that sex is for procreation and procreation only.

Psychologists went along with it and declared that homosexuality was a mental disorder because it was a break with reality and caused problems for those who engaged in such behavior.

As you previously agreed, there was no science behind that classification. It was arbitrary and based on subjective standards.

In exactly the same fashion, psychologists are free to make a subjective decision that Faith in God is a break with reality and therefore a mental disorder.

The fact that they don't (at least in the U.S) doesn't mean they couldn't. All it would take is a majority belief in society that Faith is a complete break with reality, akin to believing in fairies ha ha.

Unlike real scientists, psychologists are free to decide among themselves that whatever they subjectively believe is a "break with reality" and causes difficulties in socialization or learning is a "mental disorder".


I actually agree with this, but only to a point.

I think it's crappy that they can do that. I think it's crappy that my NPD is a disorder even though I want it, but wanting to buck another man's futt - well no, that's 100% normal.

Okay, it's not natural to have an ego like mine. I admit it. But by the same token, natural means only putting your penis in a vagina. Even masturbation is a deviation in that perspective, and outside that perspective, it's okay to think whatever you like.

The key to being "sane" is keywords. You can't say you are an alien; you have to say you identify as one. Then you actually are allowed to believe it. Or am I supposed to think the actual delusional people who think they're aliens don't exploit these keywords for that lovely sane label? You just have to know the magic words.

The bit I object to is that any other science could pull this same crap. Sometimes they do. I remember when they insisted that no animal uses a tool. Then when that was proven wrong, no animal makes a proper tool. Then they said only monkeys. Then they found out birds could do it. Now they're peddling some crap about how the birds are doing it (and using language, too) and that the right areas of their brain aren't being used when they talk to each other so it's not really language.

This thread is about the replication crisis. Other sciences are being unscientific as well. They want to get together and declare things like that white people are evil, so they do.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8105
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #665 - May 17th, 2018 at 12:26am
Print Post  
ahhell wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 2:14pm:
Any claim to the effect of "Group X believes Y" should always be preceded by "Some".  In this case, a minority of atheists believe god does not exist.  Most, simply do not believe in any gods, where most theists do not believe in most gods.

exactly.   Smiley

I think.   Undecided

Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #666 - May 17th, 2018 at 7:36am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 9:31pm:
What they changed was the definition of mental disorder.  It used to include that there was a disproportionate percentage of cases of depression, suicide, alcoholism, etc. for people with the proposed disorder.  Homosexuality did and does meet that criteria, but the argument made against that standard was that the stigma of society was what led to those things, not anything inherent in homosexuality.  Pretty sound reasoning, I'd say.  Also a welcome change.


All processes are open to political pressure.  What's your point?



That's like physicists changing the definition of oxidation. They can't actually do that. Political pressure won't induce scientists to change the definition of oxidation.

During the period when homosexuality was listed by the APA, were dissenting psychologists publishing scholarly peer reviewed papers showing evidence that homosexuality was not a mental disorder? Did the weight of their new evidence convince the APA that homosexuality was not in fact a mental disorder?

That's how actual science works...

Is it just the APA that is subject to political pressure, or are psychologists in general willing to change definitions in order to get the desired conclusions?

You say it's "sound reasoning" to hold that "mental disorders" shouldn't depend on societal stigma applied to behavior society doesn't like, and I agree, but don't the definitions depend in part on societies general belief as to what constitutes "reality" and also in part on the perceived ability of the sufferer from a "mental disorder" to function in society?

Under the new definition of "mental disorder", can someone who believes in God be said to be suffering from a mental disorder? How about someone who thinks aliens are speaking into his mind and controlling his behavior?

Is OCD still a "mental disorder" if a person harnesses the proclivity of her mind toward being orderly to become successful and happy? Who decides how much order is ideal in each persons life?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #667 - May 17th, 2018 at 7:41am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 16th, 2018 at 11:41pm:
This thread is about the replication crisis. Other sciences are being unscientific as well. They want to get together and declare things like that white people are evil, so they do.
There is always a problem when governments enlist scientists to help further the goals of government, but unless the government can control all scientists and also control the publication and dissemination of scientific findings, the governments "scientifically" supported holding that the universe revolves around the earth is open to revision.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4386
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #668 - May 17th, 2018 at 9:56am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 7:36am:
That's like physicists changing the definition of oxidation. They can't actually do that. Political pressure won't induce scientists to change the definition of oxidation.


So I'll ask again:  You say the "hard science" are not open to political pressure?  So you insist that climate science is in no way politicized?

Quote:
During the period when homosexuality was listed by the APA, were dissenting psychologists publishing scholarly peer reviewed papers showing evidence that homosexuality was not a mental disorder? Did the weight of their new evidence convince the APA that homosexuality was not in fact a mental disorder?

That's how actual science works...


Under the then existing definition of mental disorder, it would have been hard to argue that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.  What psychologists successfully argued for was that the definition should be changed, for reasons you yourself have brought up.  Namely that the whether society is more or less accepting of a behavior should not be a factor in determining whether that behavior is part of a mental disorder.

Quote:
Is it just the APA that is subject to political pressure, or are psychologists in general willing to change definitions in order to get the desired conclusions?


Yes, they are fallible human beings with biases just like any other scientist.  That's why research psychologists rely on rigorous adherence to scientific methods of experimentation.

Quote:
You say it's "sound reasoning" to hold that "mental disorders" shouldn't depend on societal stigma applied to behavior society doesn't like, and I agree, but don't the definitions depend in part on societies general belief as to what constitutes "reality" and also in part on the perceived ability of the sufferer from a "mental disorder" to function in society?


No, your ideas about "what is reality," are best left to philosophers.  Physicists don't agonize over whether all we experience might all be the dream of some life form completely different from ourselves or any of the other "deep" questions that philosophers have always asked themselves in between bouts of MTM fellatio.  Why should psychologists?

Quote:
Under the new definition of "mental disorder", can someone who believes in God be said to be suffering from a mental disorder? How about someone who thinks aliens are speaking into his mind and controlling his behavior?


Under my definition (because I don't like APA's) it depends entirely on whether the individual is able to control xer behavior or not.

Quote:
Is OCD still a "mental disorder" if a person harnesses the proclivity of her mind toward being orderly to become successful and happy? Who decides how much order is ideal in each persons life?


In the awesomely scientific mind science called psychology, harnessing the traits of a disability  in order to become successful and happy is called "compensation."  I know you don't like jargon, but any scientific field will use jargon.  Jargon is nothing more than ordinary words given a specific meaning within that field.  Yes, "compensation" has many other meaning.  I assume you are about to make the same mistake you always do of latching on one of those meanings instead of understanding what it means to a psychologist.

But, yes.  The disability is still there, if the person cannot choose to not be obsessive and/or compulsive. 

One source of confusion for a person such as yourself is that psychological terms are often misused by laymen.  So you hear a term misused and assume that that meaning is the "real" meaning and then get mad when corrected.  For example, I was once an equipment operator.  My supervisor told me, "you have to be very OCD and check and double check everything."  What he meant was that I should act as a person with OCD would, not that I should literally try to have that disorder.  Another more common example is when a person says, "I'm depressed because my cat died."  That's not depression, which is one of the most severe mental disorders, probably second only to psychosis itself.

I assume that you think psychosis isn't real?  Same for depression?  People would just "snap out of it," if it weren't for dumb shrinks telling them they have a disorder?




  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Replication Crises
Reply #669 - May 17th, 2018 at 10:39am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on May 17th, 2018 at 9:56am:
So I'll ask again:  You say the "hard science" are not open to political pressure?  So you insist that climate science is in no way politicized?



Of course climate science is currently highly politicized, but alternate un-politicized climate science is available (I post it when I see some that is particularly useful).

Most of the problem with climate science being politicized is the reliance on climate models to predict the future, and governments wanting to formulate policies based on the predictions. This will/would does affect a lot of people, but there are political remedies available.

I don't see that there are political remedies available if the APA classifies individuals as "mentally disordered" based on politics... Can people classified as having a "mental disorder" lobby the APA or try to elect new people to run the APA?

Homosexuality was illegal in the U.S. before it was determined to be a "mental disorder".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 84
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Replication Crises
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy