Studying Psychology

[Shadow Wolf]

Irrelevant. We aren't discussing the treatment of others. We are discussing thinking about human behavior. Someone born with a brain is certified to do that.

Psycholgy does require you be schooled, trained, supervised clinical hours, and licensure to practice. And outside of that, with laymen, we find tons of commonly believed fallacies about behaviors, untested feelings, ineffective sollutions, dangerous sollutions, and certainties where the research is inconclusive. You might as well try amd build that bridge between alchemy and chemistry. Doesnt work like that.

 

[joe1776]

Psycholgy does require you be schooled, trained, supervised clinical hours, and licensure to practice.

You are repeating and amplifying your previous irrelevant point. We are not discussing the treatment of others.

And outside of that, with laymen, we find tons of commonly believed fallacies about behaviors, untested feelings, ineffective sollutions, dangerous sollutions, and certainties where the research is inconclusive.

That's true but you also find logical theories about human behavior that make sense but scientists are very slow to recognize. For example, David Hume's theory was that the judgments of conscience were feelings (moral intuition). He proposed that in about the year 1750. Social scientists didn't conduct the research to support his theory until the year 2000 (250 years later).

The opposite theory, that we reason our way to moral judgments (Kohlberg), is baloney that is still being taught in Psych 101. It never had scientific research confirming it and never will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's true but you also find logical theories

Heres another issue with that. Just because something is logical doesnt mean it is an accurate statement. It is possible to give a statement that is both logically sound and factually incorrect.

The opposite theory, that we reason our way to moral judgments (Kohlberg), is baloney

If reasonimg weren't involved, our morality would be set I stone and not change much. And, of course, we have tons of examples, perhaps countless, of peolle changing their moral position after cinsidering reason. Abraham Lincoln going from a position of shipping the slaves to africa to keeping freed slaves here.
And also do aware Darwin proposed morality and conscience evolved as mechanisms to enhance group cohesion amd bonding, to better the survival of social animals. That would mean we have an intuitively have a sense of morality, but there is no universal set of mortality, what is moral or not will vary from place to place and time to time, and these changes can only really be explained as a cognitive response to reason and considering things based on new information and thoughts.

 

[joe1776]

Heres another issue with that. Just because something is logical doesnt mean it is an accurate statement. It is possible to give a statement that is both logically sound and factually incorrect.

Give me an example of one on the topic of human behavior.

If reasonimg weren't involved, our morality would be set I stone and not change much. And, of course, we have tons of examples, perhaps countless, of peolle changing their moral position after cinsidering reason. Abraham Lincoln going from a position of shipping the slaves to africa to keeping freed slaves here.

I didn't say that reasoning wasn't involved in moral decision-making. I said the judgments of conscience are not the product of reasoning.

And also do aware Darwin proposed morality and conscience evolved as mechanisms to enhance group cohesion amd bonding, to better the survival of social animals. That would mean we have an intuitively have a sense of morality, but there is no universal set of mortality, what is moral or not will vary from place to place and time to time, and these changes can only really be explained as a cognitive response to reason and considering things based on new information and thoughts.

You're probably wrong when you say that we don't have a universal moral faculty. Explaining why would take us well off-topic.

However, you should at least be aware that Harvard's online Moral Sense Test so far is finding that conscience is probably a universal faculty.

Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: A large-scale web-based study

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Give me an example of one on the topic of human behavior.

12 step programs are filled with them. Such as the believe you must practice abstinence, say you are helpless (which actually goes against basic psych research into motivation), and that you have to have a higher power involved. Logical positions, but not supported by research. Violent video games making peiple violent is another one. It is a logically sound conclusion, however, it is not supported by facts and research that explains other factors that better describe what is going on, such as the difficulty of non-violent games producing similiar results as studies that find agitated behaviors after playing violent games. We also dont see the violent behavuors in places like Canada, Japan, or Norway.

You're probably wrong when you say that we don't have a universal moral faculty.

We all, apart from thise with certain abnormal developments, have an inner sense of morality. That is probably genetic. However, what we define as moral and immoral is not universal. It does vary from place to place, time to time, even the same place at different times. There is nothing beyond us that drives and defines morality. It's not a physics law where we can clearly write out what is going on and objectively support our conclusions with mathematics. It's why slavery is ok to some, condemned by others, and because we can reason we can also change out positions from supporting to condemning slavery, or even vice versa. And most people are now living in a world that has widely condemned slavery. We didn't just happen to get that way.

 

[joe1776]

12 step programs are filled with them. Such as the believe you must practice abstinence, say you are helpless (which actually goes against basic psych research into motivation), and that you have to have a higher power involved. Logical positions, but not supported by research. Violent video games making peiple violent is another one. It is a logically sound conclusion, however, it is not supported by facts and research that explains other factors that better describe what is going on, such as the difficulty of non-violent games producing similiar results as studies that find agitated behaviors after playing violent games. We also dont see the violent behavuors in places like Canada, Japan, or Norway.

You have confused premises with conclusions in logical arguments.

Example: The notion that video games can be the cause of violence is a premise which can be true or false. It only becomes a valid logical argument when evidence supports the conclusion that the premise is true. Lacking that evidence, the argument fails.

We all, apart from thise with certain abnormal developments, have an inner sense of morality. That is probably genetic. However, what we define as moral and immoral is not universal. It does vary from place to place, time to time, even the same place at different times. There is nothing beyond us that drives and defines morality. It's not a physics law where we can clearly write out what is going on and objectively support our conclusions with mathematics. It's why slavery is ok to some, condemned by others, and because we can reason we can also change out positions from supporting to condemning slavery, or even vice versa. And most people are now living in a world that has widely condemned slavery. We didn't just happen to get that way.

It's a perception problem. The reasons that cultures appear to vary in morality can be explained as biases. But, as I said earlier, it's a discussion that takes us well off-topic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have confused premises with conclusions in logical arguments.

Example: The notion that video games can be the cause of violence is a premise which can be true or false. It only becomes a valid logical argument when evidence supports the conclusion that the premise is true. Lacking that evidence, the argument fails.

Incorrect. A logically valid argument does not have to be factually correct. That is very basic 101 philosophy and logic.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.

 

[joe1776]

Incorrect. A logically valid argument does not have to be factually correct. That is very basic 101 philosophy and logic.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

What you say is true but I asked you to supply an example relative to human behavior because I was pretty sure you couldn't supply one -- and you didn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What you say is true but I asked you to supply an example relative to human behavior because I was pretty sure you couldn't supply one -- and you didn't.

Only because you ignored it and instead focused on where you thought I was wrong.

 

[atanu]

It doesn't matter what you believe. Science does not support the Meyers Briggs. Its psuedo science garbage at the absolute best.

It is not about my belief. I posted a Psychology Today article to show both sides. I am sure you have not read it. I am not a blind votary of MBTI, which at best is qualitative and subjective and developed by non psychologists. It's methodology is faulty and it does not include a factor for Neuroticism. Use of a binary typing instead of a continous scale and typing of individuals as stable INFJ etc., is wrong and unscientific.

I do not agree, however, to your total damnation of Carl Jung and his data based insight. Your cavalier and outright rejection indicates your amateur status. Sorry. MBTI factors are included in the FFM model. Science works like that. It incorporates valid aspects of older findings in its ever expanding methods and knowledge. Only politicians condemn blindly.

...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

MBTI factors are included in the big five factors. Science works like that. It incorporates valid aspects of older findings in its ever expanding methods and knowledge.

And science didn't support it. For instance, few people are truly one or the other. Not that many people are mostly introverted of mostly extroverted. Most are a blend of both, with a slight leaning towards one of the other. This is basic psychology. Meyers Biggs does not acknowledge this. Another problem of it that science done wait should will show us, someone's results can depend on the day and change based on their mood when they take it.

Only politicians condemn blindly.

Good thing I provided sources to support my claims, far more than a source saying to outright dismiss it.

 

[atanu]

And science didn't support it. For instance, few people are truly one or the other. Not that many people are mostly introverted of mostly extroverted. Most are a blend of both, with a slight leaning towards one of the other. This is basic psychology. Meyers Biggs does not acknowledge this. Another problem of it that science done wait should will show us, someone's results can depend on the day and change based on their mood when they take it.

Good thing I provided sources to support my claims, far more than a source saying to outright dismiss it.

Yes. Please read my previous post, which I edited. The problem is commercial wrong implementation of MBTI. I will repeat that the MBTI factors are incorporated in the FFM methodology.