I still recall the (female) teacher confused when I said hitting your dog to make it stop barking is positive punishment ( in the framework of Conditioning ).
Punishment is to extinguish a behavior, whereas positive / negative refer to applying or withdrawing a stimulus. It isn't a moral judgement on that stimulus. Applying pain to stop barking is thus positive punishment.
Exposure therapy against phobias works well too ( most of the time the phobia is gone forever, except social phobia, which has to be managed forever ).
Most of the rest, like ''implicit bias'', is pseudoscience.
The basis for anti-depressants such as Sertraline is cherry-picking studies ; it dosen't actually work.
When I was in university, the teachers talking about Freud as if it was still the gold standart had not retired yet. It wasen't long ago.
Stuff like ''recovered memories from early childhood'' were compleate frauds. Therapists seeding the idea in their patients that their anxieties arond relationships and sex were due to ''trauma in early childhood'' and then doing ''sessions into the trauma'' guiding their patients into fabricating stories about their parents raping them as babies, stories the patients then sincerely believed.
Oh and Psychology will forever have this mark on the discipline : there never was such a thing as ''multiple personality disorders''. It was entirely wished-into existence by therapists suggesting the idea to eaasily influenced patients craving attention, inspired by trying to explain myths of ''channeling spirits'', people throwing violent tantrums wanting to externalize responsability into a fictional ''other person'' inside them, and bullshit like that.
When it made its way into pop-culture, attention-seekers all over the place suddenly had totally different personalities ''taking over''.
if you're an introvert, you're going to remain an introvert regardless of what you do
I don't even agree with that framing. People have different interests which includes different levels of sociability. That doesn't mean social skills can't be learned and practiced, like any other skill. The fact that a person would prefer to avoid the ambiguity and tension of social situations doesn't mean he can't be trained in how to properly handle them.
I reject is the idea that there are different "kinds" of people. Even if there are on a genetic level that the expressed behavioral distinction isnt clear enough to allow for meaningful categorization.
Psychology isn't any more legitimate than crystals for healing.
Change my mind.
Cognitive behavioral therapy has statistically-significant results.
The ''Women are Wonderful'' effect is well supported ( both men and women have a bias in favor of women and girls ).
Conditioning works. ( Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment. )
I still recall the (female) teacher confused when I said hitting your dog to make it stop barking is positive punishment ( in the framework of Conditioning ).
Punishment is to extinguish a behavior, whereas positive / negative refer to applying or withdrawing a stimulus. It isn't a moral judgement on that stimulus. Applying pain to stop barking is thus positive punishment.
Exposure therapy against phobias works well too ( most of the time the phobia is gone forever, except social phobia, which has to be managed forever ).
Most of the rest, like ''implicit bias'', is pseudoscience.
The basis for anti-depressants such as Sertraline is cherry-picking studies ; it dosen't actually work.
When I was in university, the teachers talking about Freud as if it was still the gold standart had not retired yet. It wasen't long ago.
Stuff like ''recovered memories from early childhood'' were compleate frauds. Therapists seeding the idea in their patients that their anxieties arond relationships and sex were due to ''trauma in early childhood'' and then doing ''sessions into the trauma'' guiding their patients into fabricating stories about their parents raping them as babies, stories the patients then sincerely believed.
Oh and Psychology will forever have this mark on the discipline : there never was such a thing as ''multiple personality disorders''. It was entirely wished-into existence by therapists suggesting the idea to eaasily influenced patients craving attention, inspired by trying to explain myths of ''channeling spirits'', people throwing violent tantrums wanting to externalize responsability into a fictional ''other person'' inside them, and bullshit like that.
When it made its way into pop-culture, attention-seekers all over the place suddenly had totally different personalities ''taking over''.
It was always play-acting from attention-seekers.
Most of what you said that works boils down to "Your dad is right, you do what he says." and "STFU and GBTW".
The fake stuff has been with us under different names since the beginning of humanity.
Give the crystals more credit. They might actually help someone some day. Same cannot be said if psychology.
At the very least the crystals are less likely to cause harm (unless glued to a steering wheel).
I don't even agree with that framing. People have different interests which includes different levels of sociability. That doesn't mean social skills can't be learned and practiced, like any other skill. The fact that a person would prefer to avoid the ambiguity and tension of social situations doesn't mean he can't be trained in how to properly handle them.
Introverts can have strong social skills.
Although I suppose you might be using the modem usage of the term which essentially means socially awkward, in which case your comment makes sense.
I reject is the idea that there are different "kinds" of people. Even if there are on a genetic level that the expressed behavioral distinction isnt clear enough to allow for meaningful categorization.