Loved this piece from beginning to end (but especially the Coda). We need more people honestly, openly sharing how they have changed their minds based on evidence and discussing the personal, motivational, and cognitive difficulties involved in doing so. To me, this is a piece about how science *sometimes* actually works.
I feel like the social and behavioral sciences in particular could really benefit from education that begins with “The subjects we study are profoundly complicated, which means that most of the claims you will one day make about it will probably be wrong; the work that you will do—and especially that for which you will receive acclaim—will probably be shown to be wrong. Care not about being right but about striving toward greater rightness, and you may actually produce something of value. Care only about being right (and the pride and acclaim that will bring you) and not only will you probably be wrong, but your wrong-ness will be all the more contagious across the discipline.”
I feel like if social and behavioral scientists really took this kind of thinking to heart, these fields would be much better off and would, ironically, progress toward something like “truth” a lot more quickly than they have.
„But here's the unsettling part: Am I engaged in motivated reasoning right now? We're always smart enough to spot self-deception in others, never clever enough to catch ourselves in the act. And maybe I'm the one captured by my own motivations.” - the joy of deconstruction is real, but you don’t behave like one of these smug debunkers (yet)
Hey, these people make convincing case against cannabis. It might be interesting to you, because you looked into science on cannabis and psychosis.
Dr Josef is psychiatrist who worked on psychiatric drugs in FDA and in pharmaceutic industry, I watch him now as I struggle with tapering antidepressants, generally he is very critical about psychiatric drugs (with caveat that drugs have their justified usage too) and biological psychiatry as a model.
As someone who hadn’t really read about this theory until I examined a DClinPsy thesis about a it a month or two ago, I got the impression that there was a bit of a motte and bailey going on. Knowledge of our own mortality is terrifying and surely has the capacity to prompt a perspective shift if we have a genuine brush with it. But all the subtle priming stuff, delays, and buffers seem much more fishy.
Loved this piece from beginning to end (but especially the Coda). We need more people honestly, openly sharing how they have changed their minds based on evidence and discussing the personal, motivational, and cognitive difficulties involved in doing so. To me, this is a piece about how science *sometimes* actually works.
I feel like the social and behavioral sciences in particular could really benefit from education that begins with “The subjects we study are profoundly complicated, which means that most of the claims you will one day make about it will probably be wrong; the work that you will do—and especially that for which you will receive acclaim—will probably be shown to be wrong. Care not about being right but about striving toward greater rightness, and you may actually produce something of value. Care only about being right (and the pride and acclaim that will bring you) and not only will you probably be wrong, but your wrong-ness will be all the more contagious across the discipline.”
I feel like if social and behavioral scientists really took this kind of thinking to heart, these fields would be much better off and would, ironically, progress toward something like “truth” a lot more quickly than they have.
Deeply grateful for social scientists who embrace science and can change their minds when data show that's necessary!
This is excellent. And timely.
I recommend it here: https://tempo.substack.com/p/the-answer-is-to-be-as-conservative
„But here's the unsettling part: Am I engaged in motivated reasoning right now? We're always smart enough to spot self-deception in others, never clever enough to catch ourselves in the act. And maybe I'm the one captured by my own motivations.” - the joy of deconstruction is real, but you don’t behave like one of these smug debunkers (yet)
Yeah, but I wuddn't over. Gimme the marker, Dude, I'm marking it eight.
Brock, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
Hey, these people make convincing case against cannabis. It might be interesting to you, because you looked into science on cannabis and psychosis.
Dr Josef is psychiatrist who worked on psychiatric drugs in FDA and in pharmaceutic industry, I watch him now as I struggle with tapering antidepressants, generally he is very critical about psychiatric drugs (with caveat that drugs have their justified usage too) and biological psychiatry as a model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8OQaZol6xg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCexE4oJ4_c
As someone who hadn’t really read about this theory until I examined a DClinPsy thesis about a it a month or two ago, I got the impression that there was a bit of a motte and bailey going on. Knowledge of our own mortality is terrifying and surely has the capacity to prompt a perspective shift if we have a genuine brush with it. But all the subtle priming stuff, delays, and buffers seem much more fishy.
I really needed to read this yesterday — but this morning will do! Thanks. Very very useful.