Hello! I'm interested in taking a course on Item Response Theory (IRT) for educational purposes. What foundational knowledge should I have before enrolling in the course? Additionally, are there any well-explained courses or books available on this topic?

i just finished my thesis and it's uploaded on ProQuest. i was wondering if it were possible to submit it to academic journals?

Louann Brizendine’s bestselling books The Male Brain and The Female Brain both contain various false (and degrading) claims about male sexuality and the male sex drive. Judging by her claims and writing style, it seems that Brizendine enjoys the idea that men are carnal, perverted animals but women are conversely more “superior” when it comes to sex and have a more “superior” sexuality.

Here’s a review for The Female Brain by the scientific journal Nature: Yet, despite the author's extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general.

Here are the claims Brizendine’s books make:

• The part of the brain responsible for sexual pursuit is 2.5 times larger in men than women. This claim is bullshit, since Brizendine doesn’t even mention what part of the brain this is (or what she specifically means by “sexual pursuit area”) as a neuropsychologist mentions in this article.

• 85% of men aged from 22 to 30 think of sex every 52 seconds, whereas women only think of sex once a day and maybe 3 or 4 times a day on their most fertile days. This is a delusional lie. None of the sources she cites even mention the frequency at which women and men think about sex, as this article proves. This is something Brizendine has been repeatedly criticized for. The article also demonstrates that the discrepancy between how often women and men think about sex isn’t nearly as profound.

• Thoughts about sex enter a man’s mind every single minute, but enter as woman’s brain every few days. Men seize any sexual opportunity they can get. Again, this is utter horseshit. None of her sources even remotely corroborate this ridiculous claim and there are many that debunk it.

• Men’s brain space for sex is like O’Hare airport, while women’s is like a small airfield. Whereas women’s emotional processing is like a superhighway, men’s like a dirt road. All Brizendine is doing is falsely claiming that while men are horny sex animals, women are conversely not carnally inclined and much more emotionally and mentally inclined. It’s as if she’s saying women are “superior” or more “mature” than men, who apparently aren’t in tune with emotions and just yearn for carnal pleasure. And once again, she doesn’t even specify what specific parts of the brain are at play here.

• Men can’t help being distracted by female body parts and get stuck in a trance at the sight of breasts. Yeah, this is just an unnecessarily dumb way of saying men are attracted to breasts. Brizendine doesn’t seem to think women ogle at attractive men, though, and even suggests that women can’t fathom being visually stimulated.

• Foreplay for men is just a few minutes, but for women it’s a few days. Women’s libidos are impacted by emotions and what goes on around her, but men’s aren’t. Once again, this is ridiculous. Men’s libidos are absolutely impacted by various external factors such as our emotions, our moods, stress, etc.

The books frequently invoke the “boys will be boys” trope and that men can’t help being salacious or perverted because it’s our “nature.” Additionally, this article by Sheila Wray Gregoire does a good job of demonstrating how Brizendine’s lies have fueled purity culture and the false beliefs of male sexuality that we find in evangelical Christian books and social circles.

As someone who has studied psych and been debilitated by mental illness, I don’t generally understand “high-functioning” or masked disorders. Does anyone have an easy explanation? (*Note: I don’t agree with the term “high-functioning” but I’m using it to keep things straightforward)

I just don’t quite understand how someone can have a serious mental illness and have it not impact their life. If symptoms are managed/hidden how does one even meet the criteria for diagnosis?

Some situations I understand, for instance being so depressed that you’re suicidal and that’s distressing but you still perform at work everyday. But what about say adhd? You can’t just turn it on/off. For instance, either you can’t focus or you can. You can’t simply hide inattention (that’s intense enough to be a disorder) without it impacting your life.

I’m asking because a) I’m curious b) I want to work in psych c) I feel extremely frustrated when my bestfriend with the same diagnoses (self-diagnosed though :/) as me conflates their experiences with mine when they lead a mostly normal life (good job, nice house, loving relationship, etc) and I was destroyed by mental illness. I feel like an invalidating jerk who’s comparing lives but I just don’t get it.

Many have helped improve and complement it. Its results are usually long-term, and some who receive psychoanalytic treatment improve even after therapy ends, although I know there are people who argue that it's not science because you can't measure it

Hi everyone! I'm near completion with my undergrad in psychology, and the process of grad school (masters) has me confused and stressed out.

I'm at a period of my life where I'm not 100% set on the state that I want to live in forever. How would this affect my grad school experience? Will I need to practice in the state that I get my masters from? Or can I easily get my masters anywhere (as long as it's accredited) and get licensed in another state after I'm done? And finally, if I practice in a certain state for a while and decide to move, how difficult is it to get licensed in a new state? I'm thinking of a LPC or LMFT path.

Example given

I've been looking into prenatal development and need something cleared up.

In this habituation/ dishabituation paradigm a slowing down of the heartrate is taken to indicate interest+attention/ learning+habituation and a speeding of the HR is taken to indicate arousal+startling/ dishabituation+discrimination.

The conclusion taken from this is that this shows us:

What stimuli the infant can perceive

Whether infants can recognize familiar stimuli

Whether infants can discriminate between stimuli

So, by relying on this idea that HR can tell us something about infants perceiving change, we can tell whether a fetus has learned (and can tell that they've seen something before) or they are recognising that they are seeing something new.

What I don't understand is how a conclusion of a fetal capacity for learning or discrimination can be reliably gleaned from observing how a fetus reacts to a stimulus. Suppose a fetus does not react to a given stimulus that they've been 'exposed' to previously, how can one know if the fetus's non-reaction is a result of habituation and 'learning' or rather due to their limited sensory capacity; whereby they simply cannot perceive and examine the world around them in enough depth to reliably react to different stimuli.

Sorry if this is unclear, wasn't sure how to exactly frame the question :), (id be happy to clarify and confusion that may arise).

There are millions of books about psychology, but quality over quantity is always best.

Make a list of the best and only books you'll ever need for psychology.

Feel free with this list; there are no limits!

Edit: yes I have posted this on other subs, for good reason! I am a university student, I need all of this + for personal reasons as I am genuinely interested in every one of these. And I am looking to you as people who already have what I am looking for!

To start let me just elucidate my understanding of emotions based on the functional approach, specifically Randolph Nesse's "Evolutionary Explanation of Emotions." 1990

If I'm not mistaken the best way to sum up the functional approach is to say the purpose of emotions is to influence our behavior/physiology/cognition in response to the various needs that we have(primarily for survival, but secondarily for reproductive success).

Rudimentary Examples: If a need of ours is being threatened (like the need for safety, belonging, respect etc...) we respond with an emotion like fear, sadness, anger. Or if are needs are generally being satisfied we feel peaceful or happy. (Please tell me if my understand is wrong haha)

Anyways, I started studying the various needs theories, as needs are mainly what is behind emotions. Upon studying them I came across an issue with the models that I think are the most useful: Maslow's hierarchy of needs and ERG theory (Existence, Relatedness, and Growth) by Clayton Alderfer.

Once we get above the existential needs (food, water, shelter, safety,...) What is actually a need vs a desire becomes more and more murky. Specifically in the esteem category (status, recognition, and growth) and even a bit of the safety (financial security can be very subjective) and possibly the relatedness/belonging needs.

(BTW I am interested in the theories in terms of application for an individual to improve their life, not merely theory)

As I was writing all this out I'm realizing maybe the only way to distinguish a need from a desire is on an individual basis. By evaluating if their emotional investment in that need is proportional to the reality of what they ACTUALLY need.

I imagine people have different degrees of each needs based on personality and circumstances. And the priorities of each need(and thus the degree of the emotional response in reguard to the need) is constantly fluctuating over time based on normal life changes (in environment, mindset, or relationships).

I would greatly appreciate your knowledge/perspective/academic resources on emotions, needs, desires, and/or motivations. Thanks!!

P.s. Please forgive bad grammar.

Not too sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm looking to find any medical certifications/training for mental health/psychology for my own education as well as my resume and etc. I don't even know if these exist or not, so if they don't I'm happy with that as an answer :)

In my case, I'm interested in humanistic psychology, as well as an existential approach... anything with a philosophical bent towards helping clients sort through their problems.

I'm wondering if there's a place to look for programs that would specifically offer this kind of training, or if that's something you'd need to specialize in further down the line?

Just would like some insight. Based on literature, do you think the FFM is applicable universally across cultures?

1. Don’t you think that the tsimane society research negates the idea that the ffm is universal? (Illiterate, non western)

2.Are there more small scale society studies where the results don’t support the ffm?

In my opinion, how can it be argued that the FFM is universal when so many limitations of the ffm exist when applied cross culturally? (Note I’m not saying the ffm is not reliable or valid, I’m saying it shouldn’t be referred to as “universal” by so many scholars?)

It bothers me, the terminology. Universal is like saying the ffm is a one size fits all across cultures, when that’s just not right? Almost as if these scholars are overestimating its effectiveness as a model?

Plus not to mention that meta analysis have shown that most ffm research has been on weird populations (educated, literate, western, college students!)

Let me know your thoughts, I’m still only in undergrad

I have never studied psychology before and I want to study psychology for sake of genuine intellectual curiosity . What books or online resources or tutorials should I start with?

I am a PhD student getting ready for comps. My university’s comps allow for students to engage with a topic outside their area to show their competency in completing a project at a PhD-level in a short period of time (8-10 weeks). I’ve decided on the topic of deception, with a subfocus on conspiracies and misinformation.

So, before officially beginning, I have to deliver a proposed reading list which will be narrowed, adjusted, and culled before the final reading list is decided. Because deception is outside my normal area, I want to make sure I am covering the foundations for the area.

Do you have any recs or readings that you would consider foundational to deception, lying, misinformation? I’ve just started my search and I totally understand it’s a huge topic, so any advice or directions would be greatly appreciated.

Full disclosure: building the reading list isn’t part of the comps assignment—it’s mainly to help my committee have an idea of what topics they want to add. I just want to make sure I am adding the basic text and I will vet and review lit from there—I in no way want my entire reading list to come from this post alone.

Thanks!

Hi! I am in my first semester of a MA in Clinical Mental Health Counseling and I found out my school is closing (Goddard College). I've basically used this to go back to the drawing board as far as the actual degree I want to get and I've been thinking more about switching to a Masters in Social Work, but most importantly I'm trying to find another program that has a lot of the same traits as the one I'm in and I'm hoping to get some advice!

I picked Goddard because I'm disabled and neurodivergent and the curriculum and coursework is extremely student led. There are no classes or tests. At the beginning of each semester, you work directly one-on-one with the professor for each course you have and come up with the reading/resource list, timeline, and how you'll prove you've learned what you need to, either in regular meetings or as a paper or as an expressive arts project. Because of the massive amounts of flexibility, I finally felt like I could get my degree and work my way to being a licensed independent therapist (my ultimate goal is to work with queer & chronically ill people like myself and also run therapy sessions with video games and ttrpgs).

I know schools like these are rare and, obviously, closing, but if anyone knows of a similarly independent-study-style program or at least programs with great accessibility options and flexibility, I'd love to get a name so I can start researching.

Thanks!!

I want to examine the relationship between three variables in my Master's thesis. The connection between the variables A & B, A & C, and B & C has already been explored by a multitude of researchers. I had the idea to conduct a mediation analysis to explore how variable A influences B through variable C. So far, I only found two articles focusing on the relationship between all three variables, both only focused on correlations, neither of them employed mediation analyses. Does this count as a research gap or should I rather search for another topic?

Hi! I’m not sure if this is the correct thing to post here. I am getting my BA in psych and am pretty early in my journey. Not a freshman, but this is my first year in my new major. I came into psych not knowing much besides one intro level class.

Anyway, I am having trouble with my major. I know that I don’t want to go clinical or into therapy or anything like that. I do want to do research, but it is hard to find something that is feasible as a research topic. I joined a clinical lab as soon as I joined my major but I just started doing something recently. I don’t like my lab because my PI is pretty much only used to PhD level students and I am not to that level.

So, I recently told my PI that I don’t want to go clinical and might be interested in social/quant- I have NO experience in either and haven’t done much research into either topic. I like group dynamics but I want to focus on the person, not the group, if that makes sense?

How can I get more experience in these areas? My school doesn’t offer many classes specifically on these topics. I recently took an upper-level stats class that I really enjoyed. But that is the extent of it.

I am also wanted to get my PhD, but that is brings a other storm of questions.

If I just want to go into research are these areas good to go into? Should I continue down this path?

I appreciate any advice anyone has to offer. Thank you in advance

I have very little research experience, so in regards to how much I would stand out as an applicant for PhD programs? Hardly.

So the plan is to get an MA in Counselling first so I can at least start working somehow. I could also use the time and resources from whatever university I pick to get loads of experience in research. If this plan is plausible, can anyone talk to me about how the requirements for an MA in Counselling differ from the requirements for a PhD in Clinical Psychology? I'm sure they're different, I'm just not entirely sure how.

Currently, I'm volunteering at a Mental Health Crisis Hotline, I have one research under my belt (in progress), and soon, I'll be working as a faciliator for FGDs, as well as an analyst for said FGDs. I graduated with a 3.63 gpa from University.

I want to know that emotions affect the way we think?

I am in the final stages of my psychology studies and now have to write my final thesis. Specifically, it will be about attitudes/ambivalence towards AI based on a web experiment. Unfortunately, I don't really have any ideas on how to design it. For example, I would find it exciting to incorporate text modules written by AI or something like that, but unfortunately I'm very clueless when it comes to implementation. My professor gives me a pretty free hand with the whole thing, so I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment. Does anyone have any ideas?

Thank you!

Hello I'm a psychology major. I took an intro linguistics course, and of course I spent a lot of time wondering how the study intersects with psych. Unfortunately the linguistics course didn't really connect in many meaningful ways to any psych subject areas in a meaningful way.

Are there any academics who have interdisciplinary experience with lighuistics and psych? What kind of stuff do you study? I can really only imagine things related to speech therapy. I'm also curious how linguistics topics fit in with neurology regarding sentence syntax and all that stuff.

Hello all! I am a current postdoc and have given myself 3 months to prep for the EPPP. For context, I have ADHD and setting a formal test date (July 31st) is the kick in the ass I need to start my study process.

As far as materials go, I was gifted a binder filled with content summaries. I was also given a Step One Fundamentals EPPP book by Klee and Moore. Finally, I was also given some audio recordings from a week or two long seminar.

Despite having these materials, I was told it would be wise to enroll in a PsychPrep course over AATBS.

My specific question is whether I should get the basic package or second tier package. Both packages contain 5 practice tests, a 7-hour mastery workshop, domain quizzes, and personalized email feedback. The more expensive option just also happens to include additional study materials (a single volume book).

Should I go with the basic package given the study materials I already have in my possession? Or, is the additional study book worth an extra $150?

Any opinion would be appreciated!

I am writing an assessment critique on the ACE questionnaire and cannot find reliability and validity (alpha, test-retest, and construct validity) for this questionnaire for United States populations. It is not in the mental measurement yearbook. Does anyone have recommendations on where to find articles addressing this? Have tried google scholar, my school’s database, psycinfo and nothing.

I am an educator who is looking to take some onling graduate courses in Psychology to qualify to teach dual enrollment courses for students in my district through the local colleges. I currently hold a Doctorate in Education from Valdosta State University but only have 6 hours (need 18) of graduate level coursework in Psychology. Does anyone have any recommendations for certificates or non-degree seeking options to get the additional credit hours I need? Cost is very important here also. I currently live in Tennessee and work in Georgia (so I get in-state tuition in both states). Thanks in advance for any advice!

Hey all! I have a question for any psychometricians, social or personality psychologists.

I'm conducting a factor analysis (n > 1000, k = 60), and the most optimal solution results in a totally unexpected dimension. It's not a dimension we hypothesized to find, but it's completely interpretable.

It basically describes persons that simultaniously submit to all authorities in any way whatsover, but who actively hurt, criticize, and generally misstreat all others.

Now, I'm confused as to what to call this construct. My first thought is to define it as authoritative, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach because (as far as I'm aware), authoritarians generally strive to hurt minorities and those who don't conform, while my factor loadings imply that they enjoy harming pretty much anyone who's not higher than them in the social hierarchy. In fact, this dimension includes items which would be more applicable in a sadism measure (i.e. I often mistreat those who are weaker than me).

I'd hate to reinvent the wheel and (re)discover a construct that already exists, so I'd like to know if any of you know of a trait or construct that would fit my results.

Hello all!

I've emailed 2 authors for this measure but have not heard back and I'm in dire need of this measurement scale. Does anyone have a copy of the Reasons for Depression Questionnaire by Dr. Micheal Addis et al. ?

I'm working on finalizing my research methods study and I also would like to use this scale for my independent study next seamster.

I'm looking to assess peoples beliefs about the causes of depression, I'm predominately looking for scales that include biogenetic/chemcial/biological beliefs sub scales. So if you have an alternative scale of measurement that can be useful also. (I also need the reliability and validity)

Overall, the RFD questionnaire I was able to get the reliability and validity of, I just need the screening tools of the questions and scoring.

Thank you! :)

Sorry if this has been asked before, I looked at a couple books but I wasn’t sure if they were super research heavy. Specifically would love books that are a general overview of compassion science, eg defining compassion, guidelines for administering compassion, when compassion is appropriate, biases in who receives compassion, etc. Would love to hear any suggestions!

I’m a senior psych undergraduate student and I’m looking for some books related to these topics, trauma and personality (especially personality disorders) to read up on. They’re my main interests and i’m looking to get more information on these topics outside of journal articles. I’ve already read The Body Keeps the Score but that’s it so far. Any recs would be appreciated :)

If anyone has any reputed research and resources related to toxic therapy culture and Instagram therapy, it would be very helpful if you could share it with me?