Advertisement
by Willaura » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:11 am
COMMONWEALTH OF WILLAURAPlaceholder | IIWiki | PlaceholderThe Labourer: Tensions flare in Port Tamborine as people protest against the alleged "heathenism" of the Special Division. Chairman Bruce Sampson refuses to offer comment.
Australian Labourist/Nativist. Orthodox Christian.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:14 am
Oh boy, I sure don't know who you're referring to.Willaura wrote:Thank you Mr. Rabbinowitz, very cool.
by Willaura » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:21 am
COMMONWEALTH OF WILLAURAPlaceholder | IIWiki | PlaceholderThe Labourer: Tensions flare in Port Tamborine as people protest against the alleged "heathenism" of the Special Division. Chairman Bruce Sampson refuses to offer comment.
Australian Labourist/Nativist. Orthodox Christian.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:23 am
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:36 am
what's ur tested 1-5rm dlLanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:38 am
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:43 am
by Imperialisium » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:45 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:46 am
Kubra wrote:how much do you deadlift?
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:48 am
Are you a man?
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:49 am
Imperialisium wrote:Lanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.
The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.
If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.
Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.
Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 am
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 am
Oh, well, carry on, then.
by Democratic Empire of Romania » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:51 am
ShakaZuli wrote:Yes, the best would be to castrate western whites. This will heal them from pathological masculinity. There is enough masculine minorities and they could just take the place of whites.
by Vassenor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:51 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Imperialisium wrote:
Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.
The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.
If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.
Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.
Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.
That board can very easily interject their own politics, and other psychologists can get away with it if the board allows them. It's not even close to a perfect system. (For the record, I do consider psychology a science, but there's not much anything scientific in this mumbo jumbo.) The bias is strong in this paper as it says they should be social constructivists--telling them what they should believe. Belief should not factor into it whatsoever, and not everything is a social construct.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:51 am
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:52 am
Vassenor wrote:So let's see examples of this bias in the text.
by Vassenor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:55 am
by Imperialisium » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:58 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Imperialisium wrote:
Plenty of people consider Psychology a science. That is well established within the scientific community.
The OP is why people point out bad science can occur in psychology. Just like in any other field there is bad science that is generally considered in a negative view.
If you read the paper (the study, not Psychology Today which is NOT an academic source. Sorry, I know its popular but its about as reliable as buzzfeed) it points out how Boys and Men have been looked at as normative. Normative being the operative word for what scientists would consider normal. Instead to look at them subjectively and objectively rather than just inherently normal which leads to a bunch of issues the paper defines.
Now the paper is not perfect, its got shaky bits, and I personally as a Psychologist disagree with parts of it and would like further analysis of these supposed conclusions to access their validity.
Further, a proper Psychological study would control for bias. So most Psychological studies do not have political bias in them and if they do they are usually criticized for that. How you may ask? For those of us here who are not Psychologists there is a board that you submit your planned study towards and they basically scrutinize every aspect of it. If it fails in any one regards; accounting for bias, having a sufficient sample group, the ethical standing of it, does it violate protected groups, is it potentially harmful or have any known danger; then it would be rejected.
That board can very easily interject their own politics, and other psychologists can get away with it if the board allows them. It's not even close to a perfect system. (For the record, I do consider psychology a science, but there's not much anything scientific in this mumbo jumbo.) The bias is strong in this paper as it says they should be social constructivists--telling them what they should believe. Belief should not factor into it whatsoever, and not everything is a social construct.
by Knask » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:09 am
Lanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:16 am
Vassenor wrote:I mean let's see the actual quotes from the text.
And how is it biased to suggest people build their understanding of the world based on their personal experiences?
Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.
Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.
by Lanoraie II » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:17 am
Knask wrote:Lanoraie II wrote:Just did a quick scan of it. So this is why people don't consider psychology to be a real science. This is blatant propaganda with a bunch of psychobabble stuffed in, plain and simple. Here's the real science: Men are genetically predisposed to act in a certain way. Male hormones aren't just placebo, they have a real effect on how men exist on this Earth. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Men evolved to be women's protectors, companions, and needed muscle. And you will find that most men in the world want to be exactly that. Traditional masculinity is not inherently wrong, and to say otherwise is to fib. Actual psychologists should study human behavior without bias and ignore this publication for the propagating garbage it is.
I don't agree with your assertion that men are obsolete and an evolutionary dead end.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:22 am
Sure, men have some in-built aggressivities. And? What does that tell us of masculinities?Lanoraie II wrote:Vassenor wrote:I mean let's see the actual quotes from the text.
And how is it biased to suggest people build their understanding of the world based on their personal experiences?
Alright.Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.
That's all fine and dandy, but there's a biological end to this as well. The study conveniently tiptoes around the role that hormones and chemicals in the brain play in human development and evolution. It's not a coincidence that most of human history in most parts of the world, men were the ones going out hunting, fishing, and fighting while women cooked, cleaned, and took care of the kids, just like nearly all mammals. Non-mammals, too. It's not a coincidence that women with significantly higher levels of testosterone have increased aggression and higher sex drives. Of course there are cultural, social, and contextual norms, but there are a few nigh-universal consistencies for what being a man means.
As for interjecting politics, it happens much more than you think. In fact, it happens all the time. There are evil people out there willing to manipulate and lie to achieve their goals and they are everywhere. Years ago you could open up a psychological journal and see all kinds of biases that you still see to this day, except they're typically different biases--namely, against men, especially white, heterosexual men.
And no, not everything is a social construct. Language is an evolutionary expression that we use to communicate ideas, names, thoughts, and insults. Clapping at a concert may be a social construct (clapping itself is possibly a biological instinct when people feel an extensive excitement or energy inside of them), but chemistry is not. It simply isn't. The words we use and methods to explore chemistry may be, but carbon isn't a construct. Only the name is.Social Constructivism is the theory that Human development is socially based. Now unless you are saying that Human's being social is abnormal then I think it is fair to assume you had no idea what you were formulating your opinion on.
For a psychologist you're pretty rude. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and the buzzphrase "social construct" has a somewhat different meaning than Social Constructivism. Also, there are people who argue that everything is instinctual and not socially based.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Dazchan, Eahland, Free Radio States, Haganham, Himmelland, Ineva, Kostane, New Temecula, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement