Does going to therapy make you less of a man?

[gluon]

psychology is a pseudoscience, not saying all psychologists are bad, but the more psychology non(theories) they rely on the worse they are.

if i were a psychologist treating some dude going on like a wet hen, i'd slap em, tell em to snap out of it and get back on the horse you glorious winged *******, we're all gonna make it.

[mynameisuntz]

psychology is a pseudoscience, not saying all psychologists are bad, but the more psychology non(theories) they rely on the worse they are.

if i were a psychologist treating some dude going on like a wet hen, id slap em, tell em to snap out of it, and to get back on the horse you glorious winged *******, we're all gonna make it.

Then what do you make of all those data showing therapy improves all sorts of outcomes including mental health, physical health, quality of life, etc.? Data-based pseudoscience?

[gluon]

Then what do you make of all those data showing therapy improves all sorts of outcomes including mental health, physical health, quality of life, etc.? Data-based pseudoscience?

nah son, there's an infinite amount of factors that go into the human mind. Also, improving mental health, quality of life, health, all qualitative variables so your entire frame of reference is hopelessly undefined. LMAO at taking self surveys which are usually always biased as hard data. Confusing cause and effect is also common in psychology. Data-based pseudoscience is still pseudoscience based on how you collect and interpret your "data"


the best psychologist is a good friend (professional or not) to tell you to fuk off and keep on huslin son

[mynameisuntz]

nah son, there's an infinite amount of factors that go into the human mind. Also, improving mental health, quality of life, health, all qualitative variables so your entire frame of reference is hopelessly undefined. LMAO at taking self surveys which are usually always biased as hard data.

the best psychologist is a good friend (professional or not) to tell you to fuk off and keep on huslin son

Physical health is qualitative? Number of panic attacks in a week? Number of times you engage interpersonally before/after treatment? Number of PTSD flashbacks? Number of job applications you complete in a week? Time spent engaging in compulsions? Etc.?

Do you think, for example, classical conditioning is pseudoscience? And/or operant conditioning? Genuinely curious.

I bet $100 you couldn't define statistical significance without Googling it but you want to sit here and pretend to be the arbiter of science, lul.

Confusing cause and effect is also common in psychology. Data-based pseudoscience is still pseudoscience based on how you collect and interpret your "data"

How do you think cause/effect is determined? I guarantee you any study you find in a mildly reputable journal will not confuse the requirements needed to draw causal claims.

[gluon]

Physical health is qualitative? Number of panic attacks in a week? Number of times you engage interpersonally before/after treatment? Number of PTSD flashbacks? Number of job applications you complete in a week? Time spent engaging in compulsions? Etc.?

Do you think, for example, classical conditioning is pseudoscience? And/or operant conditioning? Genuinely curious.

I bet $100 you couldn't define statistical significance without Googling it but you want to sit here and pretend to be the arbiter of science, lul.



How do you think cause/effect is determined? I guarantee you any study you find in a mildly reputable journal will not confuse the requirements needed to draw causal claims.

ok son statistical significance, well that's just probabilities, and you can define significance however you want. All I know is that there are major holes in every (non)theory of psychology, there in no closure like you'd find in Naiver-stokes equations or whatever other hard science equation you want. Id like to know if your referring to drug based treatment, because that's not psychology but rather pharmacology

you can try to apply whatever hard science techniques you want to psychology, but you cant say with 99.5% probability what caused what. Say i wanted to improve my life so i started going to therapy and exercising. then is my improvement in mental health due to the exercise or the therapy?

most philosophy, psychology, sociology, are noble persuits, and sure you might help people most of the time, but its still pseudoscience boyo. Despite all your theories and assumptions on the human mind, simply being someone a stranger can talk to is likely the only thing that helps.

[mynameisuntz]

ok son statistical significance, well that's just probabilities, and you can define significance however you want. All I know is that there are major holes in every (non)theory of psychology, there in no closure like you'd find in Naiver-stokes equations or whatever other hard science equation you want. Id like to know if your referring to drug based treatment, because that's not psychology but rather pharmacology

I'm not referring to drugs, and in fact behavioral treatments outperform drugs for many conditions, especially the more common ones (e.g., depression, anxiety). I am talking about behavioral therapy improving physical health outcomes, and improving functioning in an undeniably and unequivocally quantitative way. If you want to call that pseudoscience, then you have no idea what science is.

And yeah, I'll clearly be keeping my $100 here.

you can try to apply whatever hard science techniques you want to psychology, but you cant say with 99.5% probability what caused what. Say i wanted to improve my life so i started going to therapy and exercising. then is my improvement in mental health due to the exercise or the therapy?

That's called a component analysis, dumb dumb. Here's some reading that even you should be able to understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compon...s_(statistics)

Most sciences cannot make determinations at the probability you seek every time. Medicine can't. Neuroscience can't. Most of biology can't. You understand the replication crisis is not unique to psychology? You understand 70% of neuroimaging findings cannot be replicated? Does that mean neuroscience is a pseudoscience, too?

Though explain to me what p < .001 means and then proceed to sit in your own ignorance.

most philosophy, psychology, sociology, are noble persuits, and sure you might help people most of the time, but its still pseudoscience boyo. Despite all your theories and assumptions on the human mind, simply being someone a stranger can talk to is likely the only thing that helps.

The very fact that you can claim psychology helps means it's not a pseudoscience, dumb dumb, because that is a causal claim relying on quantitative observation which psychology has done. If your standard of science is "must be 99.5% certain" then you're ruling out everything except physics, which is dumb.

Let's see what the dictionary has to say:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Thought so.

[lupus002]

Jesus christ you guys are so insecure.

[gluon]

ok i see your foaming at the mouth at anyone questioning you precious psychology. Despite all the mumbo jumbo you psychologist use to validate your field you lack a degree certainty found in all other forms of science. You can never come to know your own mind let alone the mind of someone else. For every claim you make about someones behavior and its causes, there can always be another ad infinitum.

not really impressed with you pumping out random probability definitions, had to solve much more nuanced probability and error equations back in my undergrad and grad school, like the stretching of a rubbery polymer ect. That's stuff i can easily look up and understand in my textbook, not worried about carrying that knowledge with me 24/7.

also lol at you doing bait and switch

"The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p < α." which is essentially what i said, give my my $100 ******* ill pm you my paypal

[mynameisuntz]

ok i see your foaming at the mouth at anyone questioning you precious psychology. Despite all the mumbo jumbo you psychologist use to validate your field you lack a degree certainty found in all other forms of science. You can never come to know your own mind let alone the mind of someone else. For every claim you make about someones behavior and its causes, there can always be another ad infinitum.

not really impressed with you pumping out random probability definitions, had to solve much more nuanced probability and error equations back in my undergrad and grad school, like the stretching of a rubbery polymer ect. That's stuff i can easily look up and understand in my textbook, not worried about carrying that knowledge with me 24/7.

Oh you can question psychology in many respects, I'm a huge curmudgeon about psychology, but its position as a science is not really disputed if you believe science to be objective observation, which psychology does. That it is not perfect does not disqualify it from being a science, it just makes it more challenging. But the idea that we cannot make robust, causal, certain claims is just denying math.

Again, do you know what a p < .001 means? Because that's BETTER than "99.5% certainty" that you cited earlier, and not remotely uncommon in well-powered studies. Way to own yourself boyo. And technically in science you can never "know" anything; "facts" don't exist in science, just more and more empirical support. If you want to get technical.

FYI I use behavioral principles in the context of neuroimmunology, which are robust regulators of biological systems. So, the idea that the behavioral part of what I do isn't a science but measuring proinflammatory proteins is would be a ridiculous claim that you're basically making. Oh you're manipulating behavior? Pseudoscience. Oh but you're measuring the impact on the immune system? Well that part is science. Makes sense.

also lol at you doing bait and switch

"The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p < α." which is essentially what i said, give my my $100 ******* ill pm you my paypal

That's not the definition of statistical significance, dumb dumb, that's just your obtained p-value. Good lord.

[gluon]

Oh you can question psychology in many respects, I'm a huge curmudgeon about psychology, but its position as a science is not really disputed if you believe science to be objective observation, which psychology does. That it is not perfect does not disqualify it from being a science, it just makes it more challenging. But the idea that we cannot make robust, causal, certain claims is just denying math.

Again, do you know what a p < .001 means? Because that's BETTER than "99.5% certainty" that you cited earlier, and not remotely uncommon in well-powered studies. Way to own yourself boyo. And technically in science you can never "know" anything; "facts" don't exist in science, just more and more empirical support. If you want to get technical.

FYI I use behavioral principles in the context of neuroimmunology, which are robust regulators of biological systems. So, the idea that the behavioral part of what I do isn't a science but measuring proinflammatory proteins is would be a ridiculous claim that you're basically making. Oh you're manipulating behavior? Pseudoscience. Oh but you're measuring the impact on the immune system? Well that part is science. Makes sense.



That's not the definition of statistical significance, dumb dumb, that's just your obtained p-value. Good lord.

that is the definition of statistical significance clear as day, p is probability, a is what you define as your limit of significance. give me my $100 smarty pants

[mynameisuntz]

that is the definition of statistical significance, give me my $100

If someone said "what is statistical significance" and you said "p < .001" then you'd be wrong. That's your obtained p-value; that's not the definition of statistical significance. And your set alpha level will change based on the research question, so the .001 part will vary and isn't an intrinsic criterion.

That'd be like asking for a definition of pregnancy and holding up a pee stick that came up positive. That doesn't actually tell you what pregnancy is, just that you've met criteria for it.

You said you went to GRAD school? Get a refund boyo.

that is the definition of statistical significance, p is probability, a is what you define as your limit of significance. give me my $100 smarty pants

Probability of WHAT?

See how you haven't defined anything?

[gluon]

If someone said "what is statistical significance" and you said "p < .001" then you'd be wrong. That's your obtained p-value; that's not the definition of statistical significance. And your set alpha level will change based on the research question, so the .001 part will vary and isn't an intrinsic criterion.

That'd be like asking for a definition of pregnancy and holding up a pee stick that came up positive. That doesn't actually tell you what pregnancy is, just that you've met criteria for it.

You said you went to GRAD school? Get a refund boyo.

Probability of WHAT?

See how you haven't defined anything?

earlier I said you define your significance however you want, so "significance" is defined as your "a" value which you set at whim essentially. shut up and pay me lmao

[mynameisuntz]

earlier I said you define your significance however you want, so "significance" is defined as your "a" value which you set at whim essentially. shut up and pay me lmao

Dude there's no way you went to grad school for anything but gender studies.

Your alpha level is not the definition of statistical significance, dumb dumb. You're confusing a definition for your set criterion. The ultimate meaning of statistical significance doesn't change according to alpha level.

[gluon]

Dude there's no way you went to grad school for anything but gender studies.

Your alpha level is not the definition of statistical significance, dumb dumb. You're confusing a definition for your set criterion. The ultimate meaning of statistical significance doesn't change according to alpha level.

from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance "The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p < α.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The significance level for a study is chosen before data collection, and typically set to 5%[12] or much lower, depending on the field of study.[13]

7 references backing up that statement, its clear as day and the most basic definition of what makes something statistically significant, it is a definition that stands alone no need to bring anything else into it, or how its used in a study ect. pay me

[mynameisuntz]

from wiki "The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p < α.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The significance level for a study is chosen before data collection, and typically set to 5%[12] or much lower, depending on the field of study.[13]

7 references backing up that statement, its clear as day ad the most basic definition of what makes something statistically significant, it is a definition that stands alone. pay me

Yes, the result is statistically significant, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

"You are pregnant, by the standards of a pregnancy test, when the stick turns blue"

Does that define what pregnancy is? Oh, it doesn't? Great, now you know the difference between a definition and the criterion which determines whether something has been met.

[ScramFranklin]

It's not a bad thing, srs. As long as you have a decent therapist. It can help you break negative emotional cycles, literally change your thought patterns for the better. They will ask questions that will end up having you find the answers, rather than them judging you and telling you what to do.

Cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be very effective.

[gluon]

Yes, the result is statistically significant, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

"You are pregnant, by the standards of a pregnancy test, when the stick turns blue"

Does that define what pregnancy is? Oh, it doesn't? Great, now you know the difference between a definition and the criterion which determines whether something has been met.

doens't matter. You cant argue a definition when its there clear as day you stubborn ass boyo, not concerned with how to set up a study and its variables or data analysis. Its a simple definition which i gave in qualitative terms that matches p<a

pay me son hahaha

[mynameisuntz]

doens't matter. You cant argue a definition when its there clear as day you stubborn ass boyo, not concerned with how to set up a study and its variables or data analysis. Its a simple definition which i gave in qualitative terms that matches p<a

pay me son hahaha

Embarrassing bro. Lying about grad school, can't define stats 101 concepts, doesn't know the difference between a criterion and a definition...

[gluon]

Embarrassing bro. Lying about grad school, can't define stats 101 concepts, doesn't know the difference between a criterion and a definition...

oh so now your attacking my character, not very becoming of a physiologist id say. say what you want i've never squelched on a bet, teaches me to ever take a psychologist on his word.


edit: heres what i find delightful, tell a physicist he practices in pseudoscience, he laughs it off and moves on, tell the same thing to a psychologist and he foams at the mouth and squelches on bets LMAO

[mynameisuntz]

oh so now your attacking my character, not very becoming of a physiologist id say. say what you want i've never squelched on a bet, teaches me to ever take a psychologist on his word.


edit: heres what i find delightful, tell a physicist he practices in pseudoscience, he laughs it off and moves on, tell the same thing to a psychologist and he foams at the mouth and squelches on bets LMAO

Not a psychologist. Already said my research is neuroimmunology. I just use behavioral principles like classical conditioning and extinction.

Bro if you honestly don't see how saying "p < alpha" isn't the definition of statistical significance then that's seriously a poor reflection of whatever program you went to. I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or you actually believe you defined it...

[gluon]

Not a psychologist. Already said my research is neuroimmunology. I just use behavioral principles like classical conditioning and extinction.

Bro if you honestly don't see how saying "p < alpha" isn't the definition of statistical significance then that's seriously a poor reflection of whatever program you went to. I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or you actually believe you defined it...

ok i am slightly trolling finished my finals and going from overdrive to nothing turns me into a slight argumentative troll. I'm sure you are a very smart bro, I'm not the smartest fellow but i get by on sheer will power each semester at a time and i've done quite well, not to say anything about retaining details long term. However, if you want to go toe to toe on polymers mechanics i can make you look dumb.

i do believe statistical significance is a broad term that can apply to anything. You can call it a criterion, but i see it as a steadfast definition of a broad term. in a more rigorous mathematical definition If P<A the result is statistically significant AND if the result is statistically significant then P<A. thus it is true in all cases thus it is a definition.

[mynameisuntz]

ok i am slightly trolling finished my finals and going from overdrive to nothing turns me into a slight argumentative troll. I'm sure you are a very smart bro, I'm not the smartest fellow but i get by on sheer will power each semester at a time and i've done quite well, not to say anything about retaining details long term. However, if you want to go toe to toe on polymers mechanics i can make you look dumb.

i do believe statistical significance is a broad term that can apply to anything. you could say is something is statistically insignificant if it is an outlier where p>a. is that not the most broad definition? you can call it a criterion, but i see it as a steadfast definition of the term. in a more rigorous mathematical definition If P<A the result is statistically significant AND the result is statistically significant if P<A. thus it is true in all cases thus it is a definition.

Asked a different way:

You found a difference between a treatment group and placebo group with p <. 001. What does that mean?

Honestly I don't care whether you know this and you don't have to answer, but the definition of significance is more than just whether you've met criteria for significance.

[gluon]

Asked a different way:

You found a difference between a treatment group and placebo group with p <. 001. What does that mean?

Honestly I don't care whether you know this and you don't have to answer, but the definition of significance is more than just whether you've met criteria for significance.

ok wild guess is it means that chance of no difference 0.1%. I see what your saying

but my dude there's "significance" of results, and then there's "statistical significance" a mathematical term that stands alone, here's another source

quick google search;
most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 (less than one in a thousand chance of being wrong).
https://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/p_values.htm

now you ask "if something is statistically significant what does it mean" but first you have to define statistical significance which i did in a round about way

[mynameisuntz]

ok wild guess is it means that chance of no difference 0.1%. I see what your saying

but my dude there's "significance" of results, and then there's "statistical significance" a mathematical term that stands alone, here's another source

quick google search;
most authors refer to statistically significant as P < 0.05 and statistically highly significant as P < 0.001 (less than one in a thousand chance of being wrong).
https://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/p_values.htm

But there's still a definition of statistical significance.

If you assume the null, then the probability of your data is very low (determined by obtained p value). That's it. You assume no difference/change/effect, and so statistical significance measures the probability of your data "occurring" when you assume the null.

[gluon]

But there's still a definition of statistical significance.

If you assume the null, then the probability of your data is very low (determined by obtained p value). That's it. You assume no difference/change/effect, and so statistical significance measures the probability of your data "occurring" when you assume the null.

ok sure but you cant say anything about it without defining it mathematically first.

[MyGhettoFantasy]

Bro it really does feel gay being there. It's very emasculating. Men don't cry or talk about their feels. Men are supposed to be strong. I think deep down I am a coward, and it is that cowardice that has held me back from finding that inner strength. If I had been this way during WW2, they'd have just shot me for cowardice. Sad, but true. How can anyone think of being seen as an attractive man, fit to be a father, if he cannot even take care of himself and find his own strength?

Maybe there wouldn't have been a WW2 if Hitler got some therapy after serving in ww1.

[mynameisuntz]

ok sure but you cant say anything about it without defining it mathematically first.

Yes you can. It's the extent to which you'd view your data as very improbable/unlikely when you assume the null. Your p value just tells you HOW improbable. But you can still define the concept.

[gluon]

Yes you can. It's the extent to which you'd view your data as very improbable/unlikely when you assume the null. Your p value just tells you HOW improbable. But you can still define the concept.

ok so that's the qualitative definition, but the exact definition requires you to define it mathematically.

[mynameisuntz]

ok so that's the qualitative definition, but the exact definition requires you to define it mathematically.

Again, not necessarily. That gives you more information specific to a certain problem, but my definition is still globally relevant.

If I say cancer is malignant cell proliferation, we don't need to know WHAT cells it's happening in to call that a relevant definition for the construct at hand.

[gluon]

Again, not necessarily. That gives you more information specific to a certain problem, but my definition is still globally relevant.

If I say cancer is malignant cell proliferation, we don't need to know WHAT cells it's happening in to call that a relevant definition for the construct at hand.

fine ill let it rest, my definition was only a part of the total definition.

what do you think the p value is for a psychologist psychoanalyzing a specific patient being correct, given the infinite nuances of the human mind. id say given infinite possibilities and finite reasons shouldn't p=1

after the epidemic of psychologists/psychiatrist giving every single rambunctious child they saw prescription amphetamines, I lost all respect for psychology.