I'm looking for this book for a long time for my mphil clinical entrance exams.

Hi all. I am a 3rd year grad student (first year in my PhD) and I am going postal at the lack of readily available measures. I understand the need to protect intellectual property/maintain some control so measures aren't easily tricked, but I am about to tear my hair out looking for study scales, and I am convinced I am doing something wrong.

I am looking for a revision of a scale published 4 years ago (SITBI-R; Nock et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2020) and I cannot for the life of me find anywhere it has been published online. However, this isn't just an issue with this scale. It feels like I am constantly on a wild goosechase to find some measure that may or may not even end up working for my studies. And before someone is like "have you tried psyc-tests/info/database" - yes I have. Have I looked in the supplemental materials of every single study I look at? Pretty much.

Am I missing something here? I feel like everyone is just casually getting measures super easily somehow and I just can't figure it out despite being in grad school for a bit now. At the risk of sounding dumb, how are you all finding measures?? Are you straight up just emailing the creators every time you want access to a measure? Any information is greatly appreciated.

Edit: Thank you to everyone. I was able to find it on OSF thanks to y'all! Bless you all and may you actually get a break this holiday season :')

Just want to watch something intriguing and thought provoking.

Dear all,

I am someone who perceived himself as being capable of reading intentions well i.e. whether bad or good. But I am somehow incapable of reading someone's mood & the tolerance level of their boundaries. The issue in real case is for example sometimes the person is quiet but it's not because they dislike it, but they're considering my words, reflecting upon it and actually need a bit more of a nudge, however this isn't always the case. And some jokes are needed to be used to not be considered "stiff" but for other it's offensive. How can I differentiate? Does anyone have a good non-fiction book recommendation that could teach me how to do so?

Thank you !!!

Hi everyone

I currently have my associates in psychology and am going for my bachelors. I know the job I want but I don’t know what the name of it would be. So i really don’t know what to search when looking at jobs. I’d want to work in a residential facility working with patients day to day, not as a therapist or psychiatrist, but rather watching over patients. Things like helping with daily activities, group sessions, giving medication when needed for each patient, etc. If this is even a job, anyone know the name of that position. Basically someone that watches over patients & facilities daily activities.

I'm doing research on emotional manipulation in romantic relationships and the surveys included the ECR-S to see if attachment style has any association with it. I have their scores, but cannot find anything that tells you the score ranges - for example on the anxious scale, an individual's sum score could be between 6-42. What is the cutoff point for secure vs anxious? I've seen 6-18 is secure and 19-42 is anxious, but I've also seen 6-23 is secure and 24-42 is anxious. I cannot find anything on this is the academic literature though. Anyone?

I see so many posts about horrible experiences in the PhD subreddit, but they’re all for other STEM fields. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post about a mean/abusive mentor/team in a psych field. How common are these experiences in the academic psych world?

For instance, is there a series of books or lectures that basically cover a whole undergraduate degree? This would be ideal as I am lucky enough to be able to use earphones while I work.

I am currently a psychology major getting my BA with a minor in marketing (it interested me) as well as criminal justice. I would like to go into forensic psychology after my bachelors through a masters or a doctoral program. What I want to focus on is why people are they way that they are, what makes them do the things they do, and how I can help them overcome that. I have a lot of experience around felons and criminals due to my family as well as my job (fast food🫣).

Where do I begin?

How do I find schools that are good for this degree?

What are some good schools?

Who should I talk to?

Is the degree ultimately worth it with accreditations and being able to get a job after I graduate?

Should I start getting into research now?

Any advice or pointers would be greatly appreciated as I feel lost in a way because I just figured out what I want to do and I am a second semester sophomore.

I have been offered honours of psychology at ISN institute. Just wanting to know if anyone’s experience at ISN in Melbourne. Is it worth going for or is it better to wait for other offers?

Hi, I have a BA in Psychology and am considering either a PsyD or a NP with MH conc, but not sure which is more versatile and better job for someone who is quiet and shy?

Hi,

I am a grad student - looking at delay discounting for a project. My questionnaire is not the typical 21 or 27 item version. It's an adapted 40 item version. My results are really strange so I need someone to validate my syntax for the scoring. It's very niche so unless you know about the measure it's hard to understand. Willing to pay for your services!

Thanks

Hello my fellow psychology enthusiasts! I am a final year Ph.D scholar in Psychology and have developed a psychometric tool as a part of my Ph.D. I am currently in the final stage of finalizing items in my psychometric tool. The initial no. of the tool was 70 which had 10 items across 7 subscales. the scale showed good reliability and validity but poor Model fit. However , I am in the final stage of deciding which items to keep and which to let go. I do not wish to let-go of certain items even though they show low factor loading as they are theoretically strong and show enough variability as well. So even though I know that it can be done, it is challenging for me to find good research papers that state this and can be cited in my thesis. Would appreciate any leads. Thank you so much!

So I'm writing an essay about the misrepresentation of mental health on social media, and I wanted to mention the usage of certain words in place of the r-word. How do I mention the r-word because just writing 'r-word' feels very informal for an academic essay.

Also, until my next meeting with my lecturer, I wasn't sure where else to ask, so I decided to ask here.

I have an interest in psychology but I have no clue where to start and the internet is a minefield riddled with bad science, especially for psychology. I don't have the academic score, time or money to take an actual course so I'm just taking shots in the dark here.

I would greatly appreciate some sort of material or references that would allow me to establish a foundation for further learning.

I've literally done everything. From LinkedIn, to contacting professors, to checking facebook groups, to cold emailing, to Indeed, Glassdoor, Research Gate, you name it, I've looked. SickKids, CAMH, everywhere. Sure, they all have volunteer opportunities or research assistant positions, but I'm studying abroad to South Korea from March to June next year. This means everything I want to do, I have to do remotely, and I haven't been able to find any research position or volunteer position that isn't an outright scam.

I'm a third-year student, and I've been trying my best to cold email whoever I can, but to no avail. can someone PLEASE send me resources and links to places that offer remote RA/Volunteer positions? I'm losing all hope, and I really want to get research experience. I'm losing my mind over here.

Undergrad college course^ to be specific

It is not IQ:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/

So what is it then? My hypothesis was personality type.

According to chatGPT personality type is indeed the most relevant factor in this regard.

are humans generally more rational or irrational?

Humans exhibit a mix of rational and irrational behaviors, and the balance can vary depending on the context, individual differences, and specific situations.

In many cases, humans are influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, and social factors, which can lead to irrational decision-making. For example, people may overvalue immediate rewards over long-term benefits, fall prey to confirmation bias, or make decisions based on fear rather than logic.

However, humans are also capable of rational thought, especially when they have access to relevant information, time to deliberate, and a clear understanding of their goals. In structured environments, such as scientific research or financial analysis, people often demonstrate rational decision-making.

Overall, while humans can be rational, they are frequently influenced by irrational factors, making it difficult to categorize them as strictly one or the other.

is IQ associated with rational thinking

IQ, or intelligence quotient, is often associated with cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, logical reasoning, and the capacity to understand complex concepts. Higher IQ scores can indicate a greater ability to think rationally in certain contexts, particularly in tasks that require analytical thinking and abstract reasoning.

However, rational thinking is not solely determined by IQ. It also involves emotional regulation, social awareness, and the ability to consider multiple perspectives. Factors such as cognitive biases, emotional influences, and situational contexts can lead individuals, regardless of their IQ, to make irrational decisions.

In summary, while there is a correlation between IQ and certain aspects of rational thinking, it is not the only factor that influences rationality. Emotional intelligence, experience, and context also play significant roles in how rationally a person may think or act.

what factors/variables are associated with reduced susception to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning.

Several factors and variables can contribute to reduced susceptibility to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning. These include:

Critical Thinking Skills: Individuals who possess strong critical thinking skills are better equipped to analyze information, question assumptions, and evaluate evidence, which can help mitigate cognitive biases.

Emotional Intelligence: Higher emotional intelligence allows individuals to recognize and manage their emotions and the emotions of others, leading to more balanced decision-making and reduced influence of emotional reasoning.

Education and Knowledge: A solid educational background and knowledge in relevant fields can provide individuals with the tools to understand complex issues and recognize biases in their thinking.

Experience and Expertise: Experience in a particular domain can help individuals develop a more nuanced understanding of situations, making them less likely to fall prey to biases related to that domain.

Mindfulness and Self-Awareness: Practicing mindfulness can enhance self-awareness, allowing individuals to recognize when their emotions or biases are influencing their thoughts and decisions.

Diverse Perspectives: Engaging with diverse viewpoints and seeking input from others can help individuals challenge their own biases and broaden their understanding of issues.

Structured Decision-Making Processes: Utilizing systematic approaches to decision-making, such as weighing pros and cons or using decision matrices, can help reduce the impact of biases.

Skepticism and Open-Mindedness: A skeptical attitude towards one's own beliefs and an openness to new information can encourage individuals to question their assumptions and reduce bias.

Feedback and Reflection: Regularly seeking feedback and reflecting on past decisions can help individuals identify patterns of bias in their thinking and improve future decision-making.

By fostering these factors, individuals can enhance their ability to think rationally and reduce the influence of cognitive biases and emotional reasoning.

these are too vague. any core factors? or perhaps.. more innate factors?

Certainly! When considering more core or innate factors that may influence susceptibility to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning, we can look at the following:

Cognitive Style: Some individuals have a more analytical cognitive style, which predisposes them to engage in systematic processing of information. This can lead to better recognition of biases and a more rational approach to decision-making.

Personality Traits: Certain personality traits, such as openness to experience and conscientiousness, are associated with greater cognitive flexibility and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints, which can reduce susceptibility to biases.

Genetic Factors: Research suggests that genetic predispositions can influence cognitive abilities and personality traits, which in turn may affect how individuals process information and respond to emotional stimuli.

Neurobiological Factors: Differences in brain structure and function, such as variations in the prefrontal cortex (involved in decision-making and impulse control) and the amygdala (involved in emotional processing), can impact an individual's susceptibility to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning.

Developmental Factors: Early life experiences, including parenting styles and educational opportunities, can shape cognitive and emotional development, influencing how individuals process information and manage emotions throughout their lives.

Intellectual Curiosity: An innate tendency toward curiosity and a desire to learn can drive individuals to seek out information and challenge their own beliefs, reducing the likelihood of falling into cognitive traps.

These factors can play a significant role in determining how susceptible an individual is to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning, often interacting with environmental influences and experiences throughout life.

what is the most fundamental out of those 6 in terms of being at the root of the other 5?

Among the six factors listed, cognitive style can be considered one of the most fundamental, as it encompasses the way individuals process information and approach problem-solving. Cognitive style influences how people think, learn, and make decisions, which can subsequently affect their personality traits, intellectual curiosity, and even their neurobiological responses.

Cognitive style can shape:

Personality Traits: For example, individuals with an analytical cognitive style may be more conscientious and open to experience, as they tend to seek out information and consider multiple perspectives.

Intellectual Curiosity: Those with a preference for analytical thinking may naturally develop a greater interest in exploring new ideas and challenging their own beliefs.

Neurobiological Factors: Cognitive style may also be linked to how the brain processes information, potentially influencing the development of certain neural pathways associated with decision-making and emotional regulation.

While all six factors are interconnected and can influence one another, cognitive style serves as a foundational aspect that can shape various cognitive and emotional processes, making it a key factor in understanding susceptibility to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning.

but cognitive style is just a vague term.. it is not really innate.. wouldn't you say personality traits are a more fundamental factor in terms of influencing cognitive style as opposed to vice versa?

You make a valid point. Personality traits can indeed be considered more fundamental in the sense that they are often more stable and innate characteristics that influence how individuals approach thinking and decision-making.

Personality traits, such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, can shape cognitive styles and influence how people process information, manage emotions, and respond to various situations. For example:

Openness to Experience: Individuals high in this trait are more likely to seek out new information and consider alternative viewpoints, which can lead to more flexible cognitive styles.

Conscientiousness: This trait is associated with careful planning and attention to detail, which can promote more systematic and rational thinking.

Emotional Stability: Those who are more emotionally stable may be better equipped to manage their emotions, leading to clearer and more rational decision-making.

In this context, personality traits can be seen as a more fundamental factor that influences cognitive style and, by extension, susceptibility to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning. Thank you for the clarification!

which MBTI types on balance would be expected to be less susceptible to factors such as cognitive biases and emotional reasoning

While it's important to remember that individual differences exist within each MBTI type, certain types may generally be expected to be less susceptible to cognitive biases and emotional reasoning based on their characteristics. Here are some types that might be more inclined toward rational thinking and less influenced by emotional reasoning:

INTJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging): INTJs are often strategic thinkers who value logic and objective analysis. They tend to approach problems systematically and may be less swayed by emotional factors.

ENTJ (Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging): Like INTJs, ENTJs are also logical and goal-oriented. They often prioritize efficiency and effectiveness in decision-making, which can help them minimize the influence of cognitive biases.

INTP (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving): INTPs are known for their analytical and open-minded approach to problem-solving. They enjoy exploring ideas and theories, which can lead them to question assumptions and recognize biases.

ENTP (Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving): ENTPs are often innovative and enjoy debating ideas. Their preference for exploring multiple perspectives can help them identify cognitive biases and avoid rigid thinking.

ISTJ (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging): ISTJs are detail-oriented and methodical. They tend to rely on facts and established procedures, which can help them make rational decisions and reduce susceptibility to biases.

ESTJ (Extraverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging): Similar to ISTJs, ESTJs value structure and order. They often focus on practical solutions and may be less influenced by emotional reasoning in decision-making.

While these types may have tendencies that help them navigate cognitive biases and emotional reasoning, it's essential to recognize that all individuals, regardless of their MBTI type, can develop skills to improve their decision-making processes. Additionally, context and experience play significant roles in how individuals respond to cognitive biases and emotional influences.

You can read what I had observed prior to this talk with chatGPT:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1gvu72o/comment/ly4z1d6/

compare what I wrote there to the 6 types listed above. All of the NTs are there. And yet only 10% of the population is NT. Is it any wonder why critical thinking is so low regardless of IQ?

If you don't think it is personality, then what would you say better correlates with IQ?

So obviously it's not hard to find low-bar pop psych youtube channels but have ya'll found any that actually go into journal articles or in depth history-of-psychology? Seems like a missed opportunity if there aren't many around.

Hi, all,

I'm a first-year graduate student studying community psychology. My first semester has been really difficult, and I've been struggling a lot with generally feeling like I belong in my program. Part of this discomfort has been making me feel really uncomfortable with asking questions to my professors, which I know isn't really ideal for me. My advisor, especially, is really cutthroat and has high standards, so I'm really hesitant to ask them questions -- I always expect a "you should know this" from them.

Any advice on being comfortable asking questions, especially "bad" ones (I know there's really no such thing as a bad question, but I digress) and ones that I should "already" know the answer to would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all so much :)

Hello everyone

I am a second-year psychology student in Algeria. I am currently working on a research project titled: “Psychological Treatments for Children and Adolescents (Specifically Children)”, which is an essential part of my academic coursework this semester.

I am seeking someone with expertise in this field who would be willing to participate in a short interview consisting of approximately 15 questions (taking no more than 30 minutes). The purpose is to gain practical insights and knowledge to support my research. The interview can be conducted through any online platform convenient for you, as I am unable to meet in person.

If you are interested or know someone who can assist, please feel free to reach out to me via private message. Your support would be invaluable to the success of my research project.

Thank you in advance!

Hi how are things? I come to this subreddit to ask who has completed a master's degree in the field of Psychology in which institutions they completed it and in what modality. The offer in my country is scarce, and I wanted to look abroad to do a distance/online master's degree, and I came across multiple institutions that turned out to be not accredited, so I thought it was a good idea to check in this space to see if there were graduates. of master's degrees in virtual modality (or that your institution offers in that modality)

Thank you very much in advance!

Pretty much the title. I'll be in my mid-forties by the time I get there. I'd like to stop stocking groceries and build a better life for myself.

Hi everyone,

If you're middle aged and faced with the following options, which would you choose for a solid learning experience with high potential for securing a job in the Bay Area after graduation?

1. Wright Institute PsyD
2. Palo Alto University PhD
3. Santa Clara University MA (MFT/LPCC licensure track in Counseling Psychology)
4. Nothing

I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially if you have experience in these programs or the local job market. Thanks in advance!

Can anyone provide information on any online masters program for clinical mental health. It has to be recognized in NYC. I've seen so many online but i'm skeptical. Please point me in the right direction thanks 😊

I’m Interested in writing an undergraduate honors thesis on subordinate social prototypes of intersectional racial/gender identities (ex: white men, white women, black men, black women)—specifically how fast people can categorize people within these groups depending on how much they deviate from their prototype. My guess is that people’s schemas of white men will be more flexible/diverse and schemas of black women will be the least flexible/diverse. I’m curious if:

1. If there are studies on this (attempted a preliminary lit review and couldn’t find anything)
2. If Speed of categorization is a good way to operationalize
3. If there are other ways to operationalize (like a survey?)

These are my ideas:

In the beginning, I hope to introduce the subject of behavioral psychology, its aspects, the scientific method, how to interpret data/scientific papers, how to find reliable sources, and various research methods in psychology.

After we cover those topics extensively, I will give the members various sources of literature on behavioral psych (research papers, articles, etc) and they will read the literature to brainstorm some questions they can present in a further meeting.

During the next meeting, people will share anything interesting they learned, anything they are curious about, and most importantly, creative questions to be explored further.

Over time, as our discussions progress, we will work to refine the questions and explore them more deeply, creating additional, more focused questions along the way: ("Is there already research on this question?" "How tangible is this with our current resources?" "How much intellectual merit would this have to the field of psychology?")

With these questions, we will be able to narrow our focus to one single question which we can present to the psych teacher who could guide us in setting up an experiment.

My idea was to focus on qualitative research and field studies, and we would go out of campus to collect data in a variety of environments (interviewing people in clinics, university campuses, on the street, etc).

These are all my thoughts so far lol, what other advice would you recommend for executing this in a way that is engaging for high school students?

I would like to understand whether statistical thinking improves the performance of these professionals in terms of clinical judgment or other skills needed for mental health services.

The beauty about standardized testing is that no matter what it is testing, it will show you where you fall on the spectrum, relative to others. However, this is not sufficient to make what is being measured have utility.

So yes, IQ tests show you that you relatively have better or worse abilities than others in whatever the IQ test is measuring. But is what is being measured actually IQ? What even is IQ? How do we decide what is included?

Throughout time, the definition has been modified. The current general/working consensus is that there are 2 subtypes of IQ: fluid intelligence and crystalized intelligence. A distinction is also made between nonverbal intelligence and verbal intelligence.

I argue that the purer the definition/construct of IQ, the more it makes sense. I don't believe that crystallized intelligence is actually IQ, because crystallized intelligence can be learned, whereas IQ is an innate ability (not 100%, but practically speaking/assuming the test takers have ROUGHLY the same level of exposure/practice to related concept, but relatively speaking, crystallized intelligence is significantly more susceptible to the effects of learning/practice/exposure, by its very definition).

For the construct/concept of IQ to be meaningful, it needs to correlate with at least some other constructs/abilities, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ALL/MOST (BECAUSE CORRELATION IS NOT NECESSARILY CAUSATION). And TOO GOOD of a correlation can also be problematic. Think about this. If you add too many different subtypes of "intelligence" into the definition of IQ/the g factor, obviously, you improve the correlations to other constructs/abilities, but at what point is this simply due to operational overlap? Eg., if you add a subtest to an IQ test directly measuring "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence"... and the results of that subtest correlates quite well with a practical real life task related to "bodily-kinesthetic intelligence"... then are you actually measuring "intelligence".. or just measuring a practical task related to "bodily-kinesthetic" movement? At what point do we stop? This is why the "multiple intelligences theory" failed/does not have utility.

Going back to the correlation is not necessarily needed argument above: if we take a pure approach to the construct of IQ, e.g., say that IQ is solely fluid intelligence, this would obviously reduce the correlations in terms of practical life tasks/abilities that are more reliant on "crystalized intelligence". But this lack of correlation would not necessarily mean that our pure construct of IQ is wrong, because again, correlation is not necessarily causation. It could simply mean that some life tasks/abilities are truly not really dependent/related to IQ. But I think there is this implicit erroneous assumption that "if there are not enough correlations then the construct must be wrong". This comes from faulty historical assumptions related to validity testing.

For example, believe it or not, even rational thinking ability is barely correlated with IQ:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-and-irrational-thought-the-thinking-that-iq-tests-miss/

I would even go as far as to say "verbal intelligence" is not even sufficient to be included as as the construct of IQ, because it is too dependent on crystalized intelligence/learning.

I think the ideal IQ test would solely measure working memory and spatial ability. Something like the Raven's, or that Mensa test. They solely measure the test-taker's ability to process novel nonverbal stimuli, so they solely are measuring spatial memory (and naturally, working memory as well). They are solely measuring fluid intelligence, nonverbal intelligence.

YET, these tests/this limited definition of IQ, would still have some correlations, or at least THEORETICAL correlations to have meaning/practical utility. The crucial mistake again, is a poor understanding of correlation. It is automatically and erroneously assumed that lack of correlation=no relation/no possible causation. This is not true. This is because there are OTHER variables that can influence the relationship. For example, if you take 2 people, and one has a 130 IQ and the other an IQ of 100, based on an IQ test that solely measures fluid and nonverbal intelligence, it could be that you find that there is no difference between them in terms of some ability related to crystalized intelligence or verbal intelligence (so no correlation), but that could be that there is another VARIABLE causing the absence of correlation: it could be that the one with 100 IQ reads a lot more, which increases their verbal intelligence as well as crystallized "intelligence" in that/those domains, which is why you don't see a correlation between fluid intelligence and that particular ability. However, if you were to CONTROL for that variable (well it is virtually impossible to control for such variables, that is the problem), or give the 130 IQ equal time learning, you would expect that the 130 IQ person would then excel in terms of ability in that "crystalized intelligence" or verbal domain. This would THEN show a correlation. But again, because it is DIFFICULT to control for or equalize these variables, there can be no or a very weak correlation.

You may argue "well if you have a sufficient sample size, surely you would begin to see a difference"... not necessarily.. if there is a variable that is either very strong or very low at the population level: e.g., if the vast majority of the population have personality types that are not conducive to rational thinking, or do not read/learn about certain materials/abilities, then whether or not someone has high or low fluid nonverbal intelligence is not going to result in a noticeable correlation even with high sample sizes.

Hello! I am teaching a course on third wave cognitive behavioral therapies to doctoral students next semester. I have a lot of great publications on the topic but I’m looking for a few more resources if anyone has ideas!

1. a textbook (preferably online) that includes a review of the history of BT, CBT, third wave etc.
2. resources and examples of how different cultures were using third wave techniques before third wave CBT was a focus of modern psychology (ex. Eastern mindfulness practices, native spiritual practices etc.) and any other important resources I should include on work and adaptation in diverse populations

Thanks in advance for ideas/resources!