Still haunted and chewing on @juliagalef’s saying she removed most citations of psychological studies from her recent _Scout Mindset_ because details are quite likely false.

I cite academic psychology sometimes. I might like to cite this study:
@juliagalef The finding of the study I believe is true and important, based on observing myself and (it seems!) a hundred other people. And maybe it’s common sense knowledge as well! “You need to get out of your head and go outside and do something fun,” says Mom when you are a moody 15-yo.
@juliagalef (For the record Mom’s advice is confirmed here by “Self-Perpetuating Properties of Dysphoric Rumination,” Sonja Lyubomirsky and Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, Vol. 65, No. 2, 339-34.)
@juliagalef Am I going to read the experimental details here and ask hard questions about whether they got it right, and therefore whether I should believe it? No I am not.

I do that *sometimes*—often when I don’t want to believe the conclusion and want to find the fatal scientific error :(
@juliagalef So what is the value of reading this paper non-carefully? It confirms something I already believed. Should I believe it harder now? I in fact do. Should I?

Probably not because p<0.03 …
@juliagalef Introspecting, I think it’s something more like “*something* along these general lines is clearly true, and I can tell from the paper that these people have been thinking about it really hard for several years, and they’re generally reasonably clueful, ->
@juliagalef -> and they’ve figured out a more specific version of “get out of your head and go do something fun” which seems insightful, and then they did a fancy ritual that can sometimes indicate that you’re wrong, and it didn’t, so probably it’s roughly right.”
@juliagalef And this used to work a lot of the time. Where academic psychology went wrong was in taking the ritual seriously, so if it says showing people snuff videos cures depression, p<0.03, you give a TED talk, write a bestseller, & schools start showing depressed teenagers snuff videos.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Chapman

David Chapman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Meaningness

26 Sep
After making a huge fuss about how important it is to be rational, and how rationality proves everything is meaningless, and dissing Heidegger for using poetical language to advocate meaningfulness, Brassier’s _Nihil Unbound_ advocates this ULTRA RATIONAL proof of meaninglessness
Brassier’s lust for annihiliation is so powerful that, after a hundred pages of reductionist neurobollocks, he explains the sun’s explosion “is at once earlier than the birth of the first unicellular organism, and later than the extinction of the last multicellular animal.”
Somehow nihilism makes you want to sound extremely rational at the same time it destroys your ability to check the simplest inferences for logical validity.
Read 5 tweets
13 Sep
For the first time, listened to JBP lecturing on his Maps of Meaning work from before he became famous. I was impressed. And, I now see why people compare our stuff. Considerable overlap in approach as well as content.

Am I redundant, then? I don't know what he covers beyond the first lecture, but let's suppose as a thought experiment that everything I will say he already has. Is it worth going on and saying it anyway? People who know both have said yes... meaningness.com
Slightly different presentation styles may be understandable for different readers/listeners/students, so that variation is worthwhile. But I think our styles are pretty similar too! That's probably not what might make the alternative valuable.
Read 12 tweets
5 Sep
Reflecting on the regularity that for people who “have a personal philosophy” it’s usually a half-baked existentialism: realized this is almost tautological. Existentialism is the theory that “a personal philosophy” is something you can have.
Imo: don’t do this. Impersonal philosophy is quite bad enough. A personal philosophy is a conceptual prison, and existentialism is a catastrophe. There’s a reason its main proponents repudiated it 60 years ago.
Camus and Sartre both explained in their last major works that existentialism’s central claim, that we are free to choose our own values, is false. We have some wiggle room, but we are constrained (and also rely on) society, culture, biology, our engineered environment,…
Read 4 tweets
3 Sep
Pieces fitting together... I just realized that my recognizing my own (mild) psychopathic traits two weeks ago...
... provides the missing piece for this essay on "a genial criminal" I promised four years ago, but did not understand quite well enough to write up then... it will be the seventh installment of my shadow-eating series... buddhism-for-vampires.com/we-are-all-mon…
... and I promised another, final essay, "Between Zero and Two Wise Old Men," which I am not yet quite old enough to write. Another few years perhaps...
Read 5 tweets
27 Aug
I would guess that most Christians would agree that Jesus had a normal human body and a divine mind? Apparently this renders them heretics, with this error having been condemned by all theologians since 381.

Religions get weirder and weirder when you look at details.
Judging from replies, I may be empirically wrong about this… OTOH, people who read my tweets probably have a more detailed and accurate understanding of theology than most Christians.
I found out about this because Apollinarism was recently resurrected by William Lane Craig, an apologist who DISMANTLES Atheist after Atheist: mademanministries.com/2021/07/willia…
Read 6 tweets
19 Aug
Crackpot theory du jour: Shantideva's ethical theory was influenced by Christianity. Shantideva is counted as the most important Buddhist ethicist by many Buddhist lineages. I find his stuff nauseating: a holier-than-thou, self-obsessed slave morality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantideva
Is it historically possible for Christianity to have influenced mainstream Indian Buddhism during Shantideva's time (the 700s)?

Yes: Christianity was well-established in India at the time, especially along the west coast. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian…
Is there internal evidence of influence? Shantideva's work is considered a major breakpoint in Buddhist ethics, as the first to attempt coherent philosophical arguments for it. Christianity was doing that for a long time; not previously found in Buddhism. vividness.live/traditional-bu…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(