In the mid 1980s, I was a principal in an “exam cram” video business (SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT test prep stuff) One of my partners was a PhD psych professor at Tennessee, the other one was just getting his doctorate in psychology. He told me that one of the questions on his exit “general exam“ was “it is often said that psychology is learning more and more about lesson less. What do YOU think?“ LOL.
Re:
“Too many students enter into graduate school with a hyper level of specialization.”
I have been strugging with the same question ever since my important work was rejected simply because the editor did not like my conception of existential positive psychology as the study of the eternal existential question of how to live a good life, or how to live well in a world full of suffering and evil. Therefore, the problem of what constitutes great achievement is not just bad dada, bad sicence, bad peer review, but asking bad scientific questions,
The fundamentl problem is that most psychologists treat reseach as a scientific game of playing with abstract concepts and proving which concept is supported by most data, This game is basically unfair and counterproductive, because the most creative and beneficial ideas may never see the day light because all the gatekeepers for publications and research funds in the West share the same Eurocentric WEIRD biases,
I’m having a hard time with the way you’re treated as I see many with your years of tenure and eminence who get a free pass - just write what you want. It upsets me and I’m unsure what to do
I am grateful that you are provoked by the fundamentally flawed peer review system, If I write an academid paper on the The Transfirmation of Donald J. Trump -- A Case of the Power of Positive Suffering, do you think that it will ever get published, even if I suport my thesis with all kinds of scientfic evidence and real life experience of the conversion and regeneration processes as a result of close encounter with death, Do you think any trade publisher will invest in such a book, since several of then have already told me that suffering doest not sell
“This single paragraph intentionally ignores that despite “over a thousand” trials, the evidence is miniscule “that ACT works through increasing psychological flexibility.” Instead, based on what the measure measures, ACT is much more boring: emotional distress is reduced. That’s a very different storyline. A storyline that is not novel or interesting because therapies have been documenting this effect since the 1960’s.”
And also fascinating since the whole goal of ACT is not to lower distress but to learn to tolerate unwanted experiences for the sake of valued ends.
Exactly. I posted this to the ACBS facebook group and got quite an earful. Perfect example of psychological conflict of interest. Too bad, as it used to be - let the data speak.
I think there will always be pockets in every area that can tick the three boxes (relevance, accuracy and legitimate unbias) but as long as there are humans involved, I feel that the natural short comings of a human approach will have these issues. Bring on AI...
In the mid 1980s, I was a principal in an “exam cram” video business (SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT test prep stuff) One of my partners was a PhD psych professor at Tennessee, the other one was just getting his doctorate in psychology. He told me that one of the questions on his exit “general exam“ was “it is often said that psychology is learning more and more about lesson less. What do YOU think?“ LOL.
Re:
“Too many students enter into graduate school with a hyper level of specialization.”
I have been strugging with the same question ever since my important work was rejected simply because the editor did not like my conception of existential positive psychology as the study of the eternal existential question of how to live a good life, or how to live well in a world full of suffering and evil. Therefore, the problem of what constitutes great achievement is not just bad dada, bad sicence, bad peer review, but asking bad scientific questions,
The fundamentl problem is that most psychologists treat reseach as a scientific game of playing with abstract concepts and proving which concept is supported by most data, This game is basically unfair and counterproductive, because the most creative and beneficial ideas may never see the day light because all the gatekeepers for publications and research funds in the West share the same Eurocentric WEIRD biases,
I’m having a hard time with the way you’re treated as I see many with your years of tenure and eminence who get a free pass - just write what you want. It upsets me and I’m unsure what to do
I am grateful that you are provoked by the fundamentally flawed peer review system, If I write an academid paper on the The Transfirmation of Donald J. Trump -- A Case of the Power of Positive Suffering, do you think that it will ever get published, even if I suport my thesis with all kinds of scientfic evidence and real life experience of the conversion and regeneration processes as a result of close encounter with death, Do you think any trade publisher will invest in such a book, since several of then have already told me that suffering doest not sell
Wow… this:
“This single paragraph intentionally ignores that despite “over a thousand” trials, the evidence is miniscule “that ACT works through increasing psychological flexibility.” Instead, based on what the measure measures, ACT is much more boring: emotional distress is reduced. That’s a very different storyline. A storyline that is not novel or interesting because therapies have been documenting this effect since the 1960’s.”
And also fascinating since the whole goal of ACT is not to lower distress but to learn to tolerate unwanted experiences for the sake of valued ends.
Exactly. I posted this to the ACBS facebook group and got quite an earful. Perfect example of psychological conflict of interest. Too bad, as it used to be - let the data speak.
I wonder if these three issues are broad enough that they in fact cover all of academia.
that's a good question. what fields are you thinking don't have this problem?
I think there will always be pockets in every area that can tick the three boxes (relevance, accuracy and legitimate unbias) but as long as there are humans involved, I feel that the natural short comings of a human approach will have these issues. Bring on AI...
ha! seriously. there are so many areas where we should welcome it.