Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-06-13: Dudebro Fail
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ashland



Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Also, I insult you because you're an asshole - the same reason I gave you last time I spent several days making you look foolish.


You mean the time when you kept jumping into the argument just to call me an ass, then praised yourself for doing it until I nicknamed you "Ass-Radar"? You were like a character. How did you get to feeling that you made me look foolish?

Try to imagine a political debate where politician A gets up and gives a speech regarding his platform, then politician B stands up and uses his time to call politician A an ass. Bluntly. With no finesse or rhetorical skill at all. The entire debate goes back and forth like this, and then in the next debate, politician A gets up and gives his speech again, then politician B stands up and announces that he made politician A look very foolish in the last debate.

Dogen, I think the reason your ass radar keeps going off all the time is because you need to calibrate the thing to not detect the guy wearing it.

Anyway, you make a good point about the control and I appreciate the clarification. However, this forum is exhausting even if I'm agreeing with people. It's not worth it. I've said my piece. The rest is just me reiterating my points while you continue whining without your filter on.

Quote:
if he's a professor, why would he bother typing up these self-important screeds for anonymous internet people to read when he could just make his TAs read them and get all the asspats he wants instead


If I were really a professor, I'd make the TAs write the rants and then I'd make them compliment me for them because I thought of doing it.
_________________
Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16633
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashland wrote:

Try to imagine a political debate where politician A gets up and gives a speech regarding his platform, then politician B stands up and uses his time to call politician A an ass. Bluntly. With no finesse or rhetorical skill at all. The entire debate goes back and forth like this, and then in the next debate, politician A gets up and gives his speech again, then politician B stands up and announces that he made politician A look very foolish in the last debate.


so are you trying to say dogen is really romney?

....except dogen keeps bringing in data to support his position.

so _you_ are romney? you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself. i mean, i can't see where you are outright lying about shit. but i might have missed that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 5895
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

if Ashland is Mitt Romney then a) this explains a lot and b) don't you have better things to do than try to play the victim in front of anonymous internet people?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4491
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guys, guys, you've got it all wrong.

I'm Mitt Romney.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 5895
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maynar



Joined: 26 Jan 2011
Posts: 446
Location: Look into my eye...

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/62636/detail/
_________________
This toads the wet sprocket
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashland wrote:
Quote:
Also, I insult you because you're an asshole - the same reason I gave you last time I spent several days making you look foolish.


You mean the time when you kept jumping into the argument just to call me an ass, then praised yourself for doing it until I nicknamed you "Ass-Radar"? You were like a character. How did you get to feeling that you made me look foolish?

I'm sure it looked different on your end. The difference between capable people and incapable people is often confidence. Intelligent people do a better job of evaluating their skill relative to other people, leading them to be good judges of their ability. Less intelligent people are often less able to recognize their failings relative to others, leading them to overestimate their skill level.

Quote:
Dogen, I think the reason your ass radar keeps going off all the time is because you need to calibrate the thing to not detect the guy wearing it.

I think you're just special!

Quote:
Anyway, you make a good point about the control and I appreciate the clarification. However, this forum is exhausting even if I'm agreeing with people. It's not worth it. I've said my piece. The rest is just me reiterating my points while you continue whining without your filter on.

Your wrong points. Reiterating your wrong points. Never forget that, grasshopper!
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashland



Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Your wrong points. Reiterating your wrong points. Never forget that, grasshopper!


I get the feeling you majored in psychology however long ago because you hoped it would grant you some insight into your own personal problems. It's not unusual, and a lot of people still do that. Unfortunately, many students are disappointed to find the psychological word is full of holes.

Cognitive therapy is flawed in that it assumes people can be talked out of their problems. It revolves around the idea of erroneous beliefs and the hope that a person can be brought to rationalize their issues by having their minds changed. That's what you're supporting right now. However, this is simply a falsehood because a lot of logical concerns revolve around the forebrain and higher thinking. While logic has play in your emotions and your perspective of the world, it is entirely possible to logically understand a situation and still be angry or sad.

Behaviorism is flawed in the assumption that it is a science. It presumes that human behavior patterns could be deduced by recording repeated phenomenon, but it fails to account for the fact that most people alter their behavior in a laboratory setting. A participant who knows he's being studied will respond uniquely to his test, trying to dictate results according to how he feels they should return. Essentially, it's very difficult to get inside the human mind by trying to manipulate behavior in a controlled setting.

Which is why, of course, it's important to sit down and question every psychological study one ever reads. The one you presented to me could be completely confounded if the participants knew, for any reason, that they were being coached to feel less badly about a video they didn't like. In fact, if one group did nothing - if they had no coaching what-so-ever, then there's not actually a control.

What you can see is that two groups received cognitive coaching and two did not. That means the test can only reveal that people will respond to coaching when placed in a lab, not necessarily that the type of coaching had anything to do with it or that said coaching will work outside a lab.

And this is a major problem with psychology even today and the reason why the physiological perspective is deemed as the future of the study. I think it's incorrect to say that there isn't a certain amount of circuitry and recognizable patterns to the human mind. The patterns are a key part of our human existence, and without them everything you've gotten your degree in would be absolute bunk - depending on when you got your degree it may still be mostly bunk, for that matter.

Earlier you said that a poorly designed study is "sophomore stuff" and that no self-respecting journal would ever publish one, but in saying so you'd be provably false to an extreme extent. In fact, this assumption reveals very strongly to me that you do not continue your involvement in psychology as a study and that you are not at all current, which is why your claims to the degree alone don't have bearing on a debate about the subject. Further, your outlandish presumption that studies are not mishandled and still frequently published, especially within this field, further reinforces my belief that it isn't me you're making to look foolish in these threads.

Every time you lose your head and insult the intelligence of your rebuker, you lose a little ground. You get more emotional and start arguing about your feelings and your personal expertise. That's why it's so obnoxious to discuss anything with you guys. It's not a fight about contemporary psychology or any of the prevailing findings. It's a fight about Dogen and how smart he is, or a fight about whoever and how great they are. The basis of the arguments or even their central focus is neglected and changed on a regular basis just to make Dogen look smarter or to give Dogen an excuse to talk about something he knows about. It wouldn't be condescending to just list facts and supporting evidence, but the problem is these arguments are always all about you.
_________________
Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So...I'm curious as to what authority you have to comment on how psychology is "full of holes" Because if I'm remembering correctly your "expertise" comes from a girlfriend who actually got her(bachelors i'm assuming) degree, and then a bunch of amateur study.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashland wrote:
I get the feeling you majored in psychology however long ago because you hoped it would grant you some insight into your own personal problems. It's not unusual, and a lot of people still do that. Unfortunately, many students are disappointed to find the psychological word is full of holes.

'K.

Quote:
Cognitive therapy is flawed in that it assumes people can be talked out of their problems. It revolves around the idea of erroneous beliefs and the hope that a person can be brought to rationalize their issues by having their minds changed. That's what you're supporting right now. However, this is simply a falsehood because a lot of logical concerns revolve around the forebrain and higher thinking. While logic has play in your emotions and your perspective of the world, it is entirely possible to logically understand a situation and still be angry or sad.

I haven't really supported anything, I've just been letting you prattle on and then poking holes in the stuff you say. Except I provide evidence, while you just talk. But anyway, CBT is effective treatment for a variety of disorder (mostly anxiety disorders). CBT with antidepressants is more effective at treating depression than either is alone. So, you'll have to be more specific in how it's a "falsehood." Does it work for everything? No, but then that's entirely consistant with my, "right intervention for the right patient" stance. Also, CBT is an umbrella term for a range of therapies (imagery, distraction, etc), each of which are targeted at specific needs of patients.

Quote:
Behaviorism is flawed in the assumption that it is a science. It presumes that human behavior patterns could be deduced by recording repeated phenomenon, but it fails to account for the fact that most people alter their behavior in a laboratory setting. A participant who knows he's being studied will respond uniquely to his test, trying to dictate results according to how he feels they should return. Essentially, it's very difficult to get inside the human mind by trying to manipulate behavior in a controlled setting.

Does it fail to account for the fact that most people alter their behavior in the lab? Please elaborate with evidence. This is a major charge, after all. Certainly you can support it. I mean, we've known about demand characteristics for 40 years. Either we've been ignoring a significant confounding variable, or, you know, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Quote:
Which is why, of course, it's important to sit down and question every psychological study one ever reads. The one you presented to me could be completely confounded if the participants knew, for any reason, that they were being coached to feel less badly about a video they didn't like. In fact, if one group did nothing - if they had no coaching what-so-ever, then there's not actually a control.

No. That's the definition of a control group. You're really bad at this. You know what else could have confounded the study? If they had a sign on the wall that said, "Feel better!" But is there any evidence of that? Nope. Your objections depend entirely on hypothetical possibilities, rather than any factual objection. I don't find them compelling.

Quote:
What you can see is that two groups received cognitive coaching and two did not. That means the test can only reveal that people will respond to coaching when placed in a lab, not necessarily that the type of coaching had anything to do with it or that said coaching will work outside a lab.

This is fine. There's a recognized problem of naturalism versus control. The more control you have over a study and confounding variables, the less naturalistic it becomes. The more naturalistic, then, the less control you have over confounding variables. That's why people do various types of research. Some is highly controlled, others are naturalistic. When you're evaluating research, you look at both to see if they agree, how much they agree, etc.

Quote:
And this is a major problem with psychology even today and the reason why the physiological perspective is deemed as the future of the study. I think it's incorrect to say that there isn't a certain amount of circuitry and recognizable patterns to the human mind. The patterns are a key part of our human existence, and without them everything you've gotten your degree in would be absolute bunk - depending on when you got your degree it may still be mostly bunk, for that matter.

This is proselytizing, makes no relevant point, and serves no purpose. You did manage to use the word "bunk" twice, though. So A for effort.

Quote:
Earlier you said that a poorly designed study is "sophomore stuff" and that no self-respecting journal would ever publish one, but in saying so you'd be provably false to an extreme extent.

No, I said that falling back on experimenter effects was sophomoric - that is, that you were being sophomoric, not the experimenters. Because you can try to claim demand characteristics or reactivity for any study (and second year psych majors often do), but no one will take you seriously unless you've A) actually read the study, and B) can point to a part of their method that exhibits demands. And I said that if a study told participants what they expected they'd never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.* If this is fale, and you claim it's demonstrable, then by all means: prove away.

* Other than studies of demand characteristics, obviously.

Quote:
In fact, this assumption reveals very strongly to me that you do not continue your involvement in psychology as a study and that you are not at all current, which is why your claims to the degree alone don't have bearing on a debate about the subject. Further, your outlandish presumption that studies are not mishandled and still frequently published, especially within this field, further reinforces my belief that it isn't me you're making to look foolish in these threads.

That's okay. You keep breathing fire, my friend. We'll see who burns. You might want to work on your reading comprehension first, though. And your statistics. And umm... take a class in experimental design.

Quote:
Every time you lose your head and insult the intelligence of your rebuker, you lose a little ground. You get more emotional and start arguing about your feelings and your personal expertise.

Yes. Look at me being the emotional one. You're adorable!

Quote:
That's why it's so obnoxious to discuss anything with you guys. It's not a fight about contemporary psychology or any of the prevailing findings. It's a fight about Dogen and how smart he is, or a fight about whoever and how great they are. The basis of the arguments or even their central focus is neglected and changed on a regular basis just to make Dogen look smarter or to give Dogen an excuse to talk about something he knows about. It wouldn't be condescending to just list facts and supporting evidence, but the problem is these arguments are always all about you.

You keep saying I've changed the focus... and yet you've failed to support this (or anything else) with any evidence. You said I "broadened" the discussion, when what I did was actually make it more specific and correct, drawing the focus from a specific type of event to where the focus in any intervention should be - the client's behavior. That I spent some time making fun of you in the process is, fortunately for me, the benefit of knowing more about this than you.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10420
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ADDENDUM: I think it's interesting that I'm given credit for changes of topic. Apparently I run this conversation. No one gets to decide what we talk about but me. Communication is not a two-way street. I will tell you what we talk about, and you have no choice but to talk about it. Where are my motherfucking shades? Cool
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6070

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
So...I'm curious as to what authority you have to comment on how psychology is "full of holes" Because if I'm remembering correctly your "expertise" comes from a girlfriend who actually got her(bachelors i'm assuming) degree, and then a bunch of amateur study.

Are you implying he doesn't respect her in some way?

Because if you aren't I probably will.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

man, i don't even have to read any of these long-ass posts to know who's wrong here
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
So...I'm curious as to what authority you have to comment on how psychology is "full of holes" Because if I'm remembering correctly your "expertise" comes from a girlfriend who actually got her(bachelors i'm assuming) degree, and then a bunch of amateur study.

Are you implying he doesn't respect her in some way?

Because if you aren't I probably will.


Not exactly, yknow how I have a pet peeve about things like...adults having sexual relations with mid teen girls without being the responsible party in the relationship and how it turns into multi year feuds that crop up into flame wars?

The concept of "My uneducated opinion is just as valid as those of people who have spent half a decade or more studying the subject" is a bigger pet peeve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashland



Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The concept of "My uneducated opinion is just as valid as those of people who have spent half a decade or more studying the subject" is a bigger pet peeve.


Psychology is a developing science. Many parts of it are very soft. Generally speaking, a psychology degree does not garner a lot of respect and isn't regarded as having much hiring potential except in very limited areas, like social work or sometimes teaching.

Quote:
No. That's the definition of a control group.


Having one group where you do something and one group where you do nothing is not a control group! Dogen! It is not! It's not a control group!

There was a study in which one group was given invasive surgery to the central nervous system in order to attach an electrical device to one of the cranial nerves. If I recall, I believe they thought it had something to do with severe anxiousness or depression. In the other group, nothing was done at all. Both groups were examined, and in the group that received the surgery, there was a reduction in the negative trait.

However, a follow-up study performed the exact same test, but this time they injected the control group with a placebo - and do note, sugar water is not a placebo because being injected with sugar can cause a reaction. A saline solution is preferable. The other group was given surgery as before, and both groups were observed. This time, both groups showed roughly the same improvement.

The fact was, the people being researched did not believe they'd be subjected to invasive surgery for no reason, and their belief helped them overcome some of their problems. The group that received no help at all expected nothing, and they did not get better. However, getting an injection produced the same beliefs as those who received surgery.

So there you are. Two experiments, nearly identical, but only one that had a valid control group.

Dogen, fuck you. You are goddamned retarded.
_________________
Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group