I have been treated horribly by his field. I shouldn’t even have to be on this earth. As I'm stuck here I figure there may be some positive things I can still do. Whether it be sharing my negative experiences for awareness, or things that helped mitigate problems I have. While there are many things I don't know the answer, I have overcome shame and developed decent self esteem. I figured it may of some benefit to people here. I have also tried to encourage others here struggling with self doubt to beleive in themselves. Not saying I'm some great person, but why not if I think it can help? I don't think it will completely fix everything, but maybe would help a bit.

I also wanted to talk about the problems with the mental health field. I think that was part of why I was silenced out of nowhere in the Livestream. It said timed out, but now I am banned. He doesn't like me being honest about the abuse in the name of helping people who tried to unalive. I probably will eventually unalive. I don't want to end up back in intensive care or psych wards though. For now, I'm trying to share ideas that are helpful, but I've since been silenced.

Random,Possibly Doesnt Belong

QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHT: 1.How do you think Johnny Depp and/or Amber Rose feel watching Lily Rose in THE IDOL? 2.DID they watch? 3. And did YOU? How did YOU feel?

**If this is improper forum, could you please direct me to the right one?

https://youtu.be/mitbdys5bd8?si=MUBQ6oD3vsJius84

https://youtu.be/eoF3CN8vohw Ross Ellenhorn’s words are empty. I told him I wanted to switch treaters, because the one I had were causing decline in my well being. He had the authority to change this. He chose to do nothing. Partnering with patients, and having us guide treatment is meaningless apparently

Idk if this fits the sub since there's no article or screen shot but I thought you could share in my pain.

I teach a medical related class at the local university and on the first day of the quarter we do a "Getting to Know You" ice breaker(not my idea but the director likes it). You draw quadrants on a piece of paper and fill them in with descriptions of family/friends, a place you would like to visit, a hobby, and a fun fact. We let the students have 5 minutes to go around and share with each other, getting initials from people who they shared with and whoever gets the most shares wins and everyone claps.

After the students are done, the teachers and T.A.'s share the ones they drew themselves on the chalk board. We get down to this one T.A. who I can only describe as an excitable golden retriever. Always smiling, polite, eager to be helpful but not the brightest bulb. He goes through his family/friends, place to visit, hobby and then gets to fun fact and says, "I didn't really know what to put for a fun fact but I'm a psychology major so I put my favorite philosopher Jordan Peterson. You all should read his 12 rules to follow. He is the Stephen Hawking's of psychology."

There was a lot of murmuring in the class and before I realized what was happening I laughed and said, "Maybe just to you." I was caught off guard and was so shocked that he would say something like this and not understand the layers of controversy he just spouted in a simple ice breaker.

I just needed to share this with someone because a lot of my coworkers had never even heard of Jordan Peterson so they didn't understand why I laughed and said what I did.

Maybe we need to head back to the days of Behaviorism because the commenters on this post seems to imagine that they can infer why a Bumblebee is rolling a ball around.

The experiments described here involved giving bees the option to take a path straight to a food source or taking a detour into a room with colored balls. The bees would roll the balls even when not rewarded. Additionally, in later experiments where rooms were color-coded as having balls or not, the rooms colored to indicate that they contained balls were more likely to be picked by the bees.

However, its worth keeping in mind the way this experiment was designed. This wasn't the researchers putting a hidden camera in a hive to watch the baby bees toss a ball around while the adults gossiped over fermented honey. The rooms were short enough that the balls took up the most of the height of the room. For that reason, a bee could not have possibly landed on top of the ball, meaning the ball would become unbalanced when a bee landed on the side and roll in the direction of the bee. It may have merely been the case that the bee was trying to land on the ball, and the rolling was an unintended side effect.

The fact that they interacted with the balls at least once isn't an indicator of much. Animals, especially bees that need to find food sources for the hive, explore their surroundings, and are especially attracted to brightly-colored flowers. With colored balls on a plain white background, what else would the bee have landed on? Instead of play it may have been an instinct to look for colored objects in search of food.

The second formulation of the experiment does seem to indicate that something about the balls was reinforcing, but the assumption that the reinforcement was 'playing' is unwarranted. Food-source-searching is equally possible.

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Men don’t have a conscience.😐"
• "“Physically hold her close even if she resists or turns aggressive” and other sage advice from Marriage.com" by u/lettucecropchilds
• "Simply because white people comitt more suicide doesn't mean they are more persecuted." by u/ryu289
• "Nassim Taleb's nuclear take on a paper investigating human biases" by u/Excusemyvanity
• "If your customizable character in a video game resembles you, it is a sign of drastically low self-esteem." by u/RonnieShylock
• "That isn't how sexual attraction forms." by u/ryu289
• "Gender Dysphoria is not the cause of other kental health isdues!" by u/ryu289
• ""Clearly they were maladjusted and " bullying" means they were unpopular!" This is one hell of a hot take." by u/ryu289
• "The Curious Case of ‘Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder’ on Wikipedia" by u/AlanWahn
• "What is the deal with Trish Leigh and Porn Brain Rewire?" by u/snowdrone

The recent posy in /r/badhistory about Dave Grossman's On Combat made me wonder if it (and On Killing) gets the psychology right, atleast for a lay person trying to understand the psychological impact of warfare and killing.

Is anyone familiar and able to comment?

From here:

Take The Gender Fairy. This popular book tells infants “only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No one can tell you.” Any child psychologist worth their salt will tell you that infancy is a critical time for boys and girls to individualise — for boys to begin to associate with and connect to the masculine and for girls to attach to the feminine. To sow weeds of doubt at this critical stage in the wheat field of an infant’s identity is nothing short of criminal.

Why do they assume boys will be automatically masucine and such if left on their own?

Then there is The Bravest Knight Who Ever Lived, for 5 and 6-year-olds which looks at a knight-in-training who “follows his heart and chooses the boy instead of the girl at the end of his journey”. This is a deliberate distorting of what should be a healthy stage of development for any young boy, which should include healthy friendship-attachment to his own sex as he explores and roots himself in his core identity. But no, the rainbow agenda requires a perverted and eroticised manipulation of all that is healthy.

They do know that sexuality is inborn right? Likewise they don't realize the logical conclusion of their statement, i.e. making boys fall in love in girls using narratives instead of letting them choose.

It's almost as if these conservatives believe in the blank slate theory of the mind...which was debunked yes?

hi ... I just wanted to post a warning to psychology students considering a final/external placement at a university counselling clinic (not at their own university's internal one). Based on my brief experience, placement in this setting was not exactly psychological work, as the focus was on providing their clients with internal information (e.g. academic admin process, looking for external referrals, presentation recordings). Getting client contact hours was also limited at the start and other counsellors even pushed back when you approach them about viewing their sessions. Lack of flexibility and very high expectations ...you are told exactly what to do, how and when to do it, no questions asked. Counsellors (including supervisors) appeared highly stressed and on edge, which made them dismissive and unapproachable. If you've recently scored a placement interview, I suggest to ascertain the following:

* How will they meet your client contact requirements
* What are the presentations of their clients, e.g. how complex, how much work to expect
* What's their orientation and training like to support your learning at the beginning

They are obviously marketing their placements to you, and banking on the desperation and competitiveness of psych students for clinical placements. But don't be complacent; be rightfully picky because it is your learning to competently practice for future clients that matters here. xx

Hi everyone,

Researchers at Federation University are seeking current higher education students to participate in a research project investigating the relationships between Machiavellianism, attitudes toward cheating, engagement in academically dishonest acts and lie acceptability. We are looking for current higher education students (i.e., University or college students) aged 18 years or older to complete a 10 - 15 minute survey (but many people will finish it more quickly). Upon completion of the survey, you will be eligible to enter a draw for the chance to win one of 5 randomly drawn e-gift cards valued at $25 AUD each. If you are interested in participating, please click the link below. Feel free to share with your friends!

This research has been approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee: Approval number 2022 - 120.

https://federation.syd1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3yKnqyKV059dqvQ

Surveycircle members access link:

https://www.surveycircle.com/Q6Q5DQ/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHBYlc2vH5g

From here

Focusing only on the pedophile aspect of recruiting blinds us to the bigger and more dangerous phenomenon. The LGBT pedophile is focused only on satisfying their own perverse sexual cravings which are, of course, terrible crimes that must be prevented if possible, and harshly punished if not. But it is limited to just those children they get their hands on through grooming. The much larger agenda of the long-term LGBT vision is to recruit ALL the children into the ideology of sexual anarchy in which there are no boundaries to sexual conduct, and in which homosexual experimentation with EACH OTHER is the means to determine one’s own “sexual identity.” And given that one’s first sexual climax is the human psychological equivalent to “imprinting” among birds, the percentage of children who then decide they are “gay” grows (and has grown) exponentially.

Hasn't he ever heard of watching porn?

Or an existential crisis or something, idk. All I know is I desperately needed to show this to somebody.

This place seemed appropriate.

This is disgusting:

“Suicide by cop,” apparently. In a statement on their Facebook page, the Pride Alliance continues the “they/their/them” pronoun charade, as if the delusions of a knife-wielding lunatic deserve respect. It never seems to occur to these activist types that acting as enablers to the mentally ill — and demanding that the rest of us play along with the “gender” game — actually makes them complicit in the deaths of such deranged people. Scout Schultz needed psychiatric treatment, not identity politics.

“When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.”

The counterfactual ideology of transgenderism is a formula for madness. As much as we might pity the sufferers of “gender dysphoria,” political correctness is no substitute for mental-health treatment.

Actually thats why sending cops are the problem

Ok here he said a trans student who was shot was dangerous, ignoring how discriminatory mental health services are: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685247/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/advocacy-and-trauma-within-the-bi-community-6b3f12dd7bb0/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31359065/

It doesn't help that there was no knife.

When an anti-gay group talks about the GLSEN Climate Survey:

You've got to see this to believe it. The psychologically intrusive nature of this survey begs the question of how the very process of asking a child to answer this affects often fragile emotions and unsure view of the world and how he and his peers fit in. Children are asked to assign themselves a "sexual orientation", write down their innermost feelings about themselves, and admit on paper to various sexual activities, criminal conduct, and thoughts of suicide and self-mutilation. They are also asked to write down other personal information about themselves and their family members. Even though all this eventually becomes anonymous, the child is asked to go through the process of thinking it through and writing it down.

Notice how it mixes in seemingly "normal" questions such as "What grade are you in?" and "How much did you exercise recently?" with questions about numbers of sex partners and suicide. This gives the child the idea that all these are equally normal behaviors that their peers are probably engaging in if they themselves aren't -- or else why would authority figures be asking them? And moral and ethical standards are completely ignored. The subliminal message to kids is that all these behaviors are considered equal, and none even particularly unusual.

Really? Do you realize how stupid this sounds? Asking questions isn't encouragement. Being non judgemental doesn't mean encouraging.

Nassim Taleb, who you may know from the fact that he has written a book once, also has a YouTube channel, where he talks about probability theory, statistics, and occasionally fails to understand IQ. While his takes on IQ have been addressed in a variety of places, Taleb also isn't beneath commenting on other psychological issues. The topic of this post is a video where he takes on a very brief lit-review like summary paper investigating human biases in judging character on the basis of facial appearance. The paper is rather short, only encompassing ~ 2 pages of text and 2 pages of images. You may get a sense of its content by the abstract:

Our success and well-being, as individuals and societies, depend on our ability to make wise social decisions about important interpersonal matters, such as the leaders we select and the individuals we choose to trust. Nevertheless, our impressions of people are shaped by their facial appearances and, consequently, so too are these social decisions. This article summarizes research linking facial morphological traits to important social outcomes and discusses various factors that moderate this relationship.

While this may seem like your standard gen psych paper, Taleb is concerned with two elements in particular:

1. He compares it to craniometry and implies that it is either racist itself or at least fueling racism.
2. He takes issue with the methodology.

We will address both points individually.

The racism take

I do not want to spend too much time on this one as Taleb himself doesn't seem to know how it logically follows. At the very least, he doesn't bother explaining it to us. He merely makes the claim that it somehow fuels scientific racism. A few things to note:

1. The paper makes no distinction between races. In fact, it doesn't group people into categories at all.
2. The authors explicitly discuss the invalidity of facial features as a predictor of human traits/behavior and express their interest in mitigating these biases. Another quote from the paper:

The fact that social decisions are influenced by facial morphology would be less troubling if it were a strong and reliable indicator of people’s underlying traits. Unfortunately, careful consideration of the evidence suggests that it is not. [...] Therefore, researchers and policy makers should strive to reduce the biasing impact of appearances on human judgments and choices. [...] more research will be necessary to identify the best ways to mitigate the biasing influence of facial appearance.

Again, it is hard to address Taleb's point directly, as he never bothered to explain it. Perhaps he doesn't even think that the paper itself constitutes scientific racism and is merely concerned that it might be misappropriated as such by malicious actors. One might respond to this that, given the quoted paragraph above, it would require an astonishing amount of mental gymnastics to do so. What is more crucial, however, is the importance of knowing which facial qualities induce certain responses in people precisely so we can mitigate racism. If a certain facial characteristic with negative connotations is more common in one ethnic group, it may severely disadvantage said group in many aspects of social life. It is therefore important to conduct research on this issue, as it might enable us to find ways of closing racial gaps resulting from such arbitrary judgements of facial characteristics.

The 'fake regression' take

The fact that most of Taleb's video is concerned with regressions and methodology might be confusing to some, given that the paper at hand is a literature review and zero inferential statistics was conducted in it. The authors did, however, visualize some relationships found in the literature using scatterplots and regression lines. This is what Taleb treated as statistical analysis and took issue with, for some reason.

If you watch Taleb's video, you might end up asking yourself what he is talking about half the time. This is because Taleb has chosen to obfuscate his point by introducing simple but poorly explained simulations and a lot of cargo cult math. His point can be summarized as follows:

I hate small R² values and I'm going to ass pull an accusation of data dredging against you because your regressions had them. You should never accept the validity of regressions with low R² values because I say so and because laypeople can't immediately see the effect in the graph without a regression line.

While accurate, this may have been a little polemic. Here's a more sober summary of Taleb's point:

First, he shows the scatterplots that the original authors generated. He then says that they look like data clouds and effects may be hard to recognize without the regression lines. Taleb shows a bunch of scatterplots featuring variables independently drawn from normal distributions. He notes that they look kind of similar to the original plots and says that in some of these scatterplots, similarly sloped regression lines can be observed as well.

Aside from being a very awkward and incomplete way of describing type I errors, this is also statistically illiterate. You can't just look at two scatterplots and compare the statistical robustness of the relationship between the depicted variables by the slope of their respective regression lines. This is the reason we have to use significance tests in the first place.

​

Next, he levels a thinly veiled accusation of data dredging at the authors. This, once again, is based on absolutely nothing and I will not provide further comment on it. Taleb subsequently goes on two massive tangents on normalization and probability theory for literally no reason. He then interrupts the latter tangent and pretends to have made a point along the way that can be summarized as:

Regressions produce a lot of noise.

Note that he did not show this at all. Also note the lack relevance to the subject at hand.

​

Taleb's conclusion is the following:

Never look at the numbers, just look at the graph. Your eyes won't lie.

Looking at graphs is fine, recommended even. Many assumptions underlying statistical procedures are best checked using graphs. It's also a great way of spotting serious oddities in your data. Not "looking at the numbers" and judging statistical relationships between variables purely on the basis of plots, however, is a very poor idea.

​

Summarizing all of this, Taleb's main point appears to be that regressions with large residuals and relatively flat slopes do not produce plots that visually distinguish themselves from random noise under all circumstances. Their results can therefore be disregarded.

This doesn't follow whatsoever. An IV explaining only 10% of the variation in a DV might look like this, but it can still give us valuable insights into the way the world works, especially when combined with related knowledge. Requiring R² values of something like .5 and upwards is a ridiculous standard to have. Not only because R² is a fairly terrible metric but also because it is entirely unreasonable in the context of human action and perception. R² values will virtually always be small in this field. This has nothing to do with poor methodology or data dredging. It's simply a function of the data generating process. Human behavior is multivariate and no one factor will ever explain 50% of the variance in the overwhelming majority of cases.

While small effect sizes do require a bigger sample size, regression models can detect them just as accurately as larger ones, all other things being equal. Larger residuals do not increase the type I error rates. This can be easily verified using Monte Carlo simulations. I'll spare you the full code, but I'll provide you with the DGPs for both cases, should you wish to try this out yourself. All you have to do is add a loop and write a function to summarize the p-values. A repetition number in the range of 1-5k should easily suffice. The example code is provided in R but can be adapted to other languages without much effort.

DGP where the IV explains 10% of the variance with model:

n <- 5000
b0 <- .5
b1 <- .1
x <- rnorm(n)
y <- b0 + b1*x + rnorm(n)
model <- lm(y ~ x)

DGP where X and Y are independent with model:

n <- 5000
x <- rnorm(n)
y <- rnorm(n)
model <- lm(y ~ x)

​

TL;DR: Conducting research on human biases regarding facial features isn't inherently racist. Small R² values are okay. Half of social science goes out the window if you dismiss small effect sizes.