1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Psychology needs to get tired of winning, 2022, Haeffel

Discussion in 'Other psychosomatic news and research' started by SNT Gatchaman, Jun 24, 2022.

  1. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,256
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Psychology needs to get tired of winning
    Gerald J. Haeffel

    Psychological science is on an extraordinary winning streak. A review of the published literature shows that nearly all study hypotheses are supported. This means that either all the theories are correct, or the literature is biased towards positive findings. Results from large-scale replication projects and the prevalence of questionable research practices indicate the latter. This is a problem because science progresses from being wrong.

    For decades, there have been calls for better theories and the adoption of a strong inference approach to science. However, there is little reason to believe that psychological science is ready to change. Although recent developments like the open science movement have improved transparency and replicability, they have not addressed psychological science's method-oriented (rather than problem-oriented) mindset. Psychological science still does not embrace the scientific method of developing theories, conducting critical tests of those theories, detecting contradictory results, and revising (or disposing of) the theories accordingly.

    In this article, I review why psychologists must embrace being wrong and how the Registered Report format might be one strategy for stopping psychology's winning streak.

    Link | PDF
     
    TiredSam, Mithriel, Sean and 23 others like this.
  2. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,145
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    :rofl: “Similar to …….Lance Armstrong’s streak in the Tour de France was aided by doping”
     
    Mithriel, Ariel, Helene and 6 others like this.
  3. Kitty

    Kitty Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,051
    Location:
    UK
    Even five years ago I wouldn't have believed how extraordinarily tiresome and difficult it is to sort out people who say they've won an election even when the evidence shows they haven't, or insist that a war isn't a war even as they're launching thousands of missiles. I expect it'll be equally tiresome to sort out the cabal of psychologists who insist that "psychological science" isn't currently a contradiction in terms.

    By the way, does anybody know what this Invent Your Own Reality drug is called? Only some days I quite fancy trying it.
     
    Sean, Ariel, Helene and 8 others like this.
  4. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,530
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Interesting article, worth reading to the end to get to the bit about how psychologists predicted humankind would fall in a heap of pandemic-induced mental illness.

     
    Sean, bobbler, Ariel and 8 others like this.
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    It's actually far worse than this, because there are many studies that are the opposite of one another, and they're all positive. So a study that finds a positive association with something is positive, and so are studies that seek out the opposite. Everything gets a shiny gold star! Almost as if the initial bias is literally the only thing that matters, the summary and the conclusion are basically joined with formality in-between, a cruise ship that had the trajectory all planned out in advance. And no one finds fault with that, other than the occasional quickly-forgotten editorial like this.

    What it tells us is that the machine that judges everything is broken, exactly like a machine that sorts tomatoes and allows anything that isn't a tomato to pass through. No one in any profession would ever not find immediate fault with that, it's too silly to contemplate, it's beyond parody.

    And it's so normal that this editorial, one of several, will not change anything, everyone will keep milking from the broken machine that tells them they're smart and gives everyone participation trophies. In every single other profession, assessing being wrong is a core aspect of everything we do.

    In software engineering, for example, a major process is literally test-driven development, where as you add features, you also add tests that validate not only that the new features are correct, but that they don't break other features. Then you have quality assurance and control, a process that literally doesn't exist in psychology or healthcare, in addition to having customer service, which deals with faults when the product is in use in the real world, another process that doesn't exist in psychology, whether in pop psychology, or clinical psychology, where it is used to impose belief systems onto real people with no ability to assess outcomes.

    It's the fact that this was tolerated for so long that is the issue. There are major cultural problems in the field that make this happen. The people are the problem. Mutual admiration societies are great at handing out participation trophies, not much else.
     
    Sly Saint, Sean, Ariel and 9 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Comparing further to software engineering, whenever we are told to "read the paper", or that "trials show this works" about something that clearly doesn't actually work, it's exactly the equivalent of responding to a bug report on my own work with "it works on my machine", or some hubristic garbage like "you're not familiar with the code base, you don't have the skills to comment on software bugs", which something only junior developers do. Either because it's at the beginning of their career, or for those who remain in junior posts their whole career because it's their ceiling.

    I see this so much lately, especially on the issue of pushing psychosomatic LC, where any bit of criticism, even just a couple of comments with polite but substantial issues, are almost automatically dismissed as an "attack", or a "pile on". There is no ability to accept criticism because there is no ability to evaluate what is a feature, what is a bug, or what most of the words even mean.
     
    bobbler, John Mac, Sean and 11 others like this.
  7. Creekside

    Creekside Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    933
    An easier solution to this problem: just redefine psychology as 'not a valid science'. If they're not following the rules and procedures of science, they don't qualify. Libraries can move psychology books to the 'fiction' section.

    Has psychology provided any really useful results?
     
    bobbler, John Mac, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  8. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Given the current movement to move away from objective outcomes entirely and lower standards to deep underground, while insisting it is better science because they know better, it looks like the best they can do is do even less science while saying they're doing more science than ever.

    You could publish dozens of papers supporting that point. And the opposite. And everything in between. You know, SCIENCE. Where you can simply pick and choose whatever opinion you prefer, which is now even the norm in healthcare, ever single Covid minimizer and Long Covid denier is doing that without any shame.

    Who needs science when you have Truthiness? It's so much better it starts with a capital letter.
     
    Sean, Ariel, Arnie Pye and 3 others like this.
  9. alktipping

    alktipping Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,197
    Considering the whole field is based on fraud and bigotry . I have always seen it as marketing by snake oil sales men who don't even have the decency to give you a diluted bottle of alcohol in return for your money . may as well see a soothe sayer .
     
    TiredSam, Peter Trewhitt and Ariel like this.
  10. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,872
    Location:
    UK
    There are some decent psychologists trying to improve things. Take Brian Hughes as an example.
     
  11. alktipping

    alktipping Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,197
    A few remarkable exceptions will not bring about the massive changes needed to take this field into a fully fledged science .
     
    bobbler, Peter Trewhitt, Sean and 2 others like this.
  12. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    I think there are many decent psychotherapists, clinical psychologists and counsellors.

    Many are complaining that if they get referrals these days it is mainly for CBT.
     
  13. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,872
    Location:
    UK
    I expect that's true of individual therapists, though sadly not my experience as a patient with the few I've tried for help when going through difficult times in my life. One was rather ineffectual and the other 3 did significant harm.

    I have also known a few therapists socially some of whom I couldn't imagine being well suited to the job, and others who seemed to be wise and empathic and likely to be good at listening and helping people through troubled times.

    But I think this article is referring to psychology research which is often unscientific and as Brian Hughes said in his book, is in crisis as a result of too much bad science and lack of replicability.
     
    bobbler, alktipping, Sean and 3 others like this.
  14. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,637
    Although I understand why you feel this, and though it is relevant for chunks of psychology, it is not universally so.

    There has been for example very successful work in such as how we process and understand written material and what is involved in dyslexia(s), work on the decision making processes necessary to fly planes or steer a supertanker, understanding the issues of appetite and hunger, memory, as well as other areas.

    When I was an psychology undergraduate over forty years ago the methodological problems with the approaches still used in such as the PACE study were well understood and an enthusiasm that alternative approaches were possible to revolutionise the problem areas within psychology, though some of the brightest minds were unwilling to go outside their labs and consider real life applications. Indeed one friend when proposing to test her PhD supervisor’s theories of depression in the context of post natal was angrily to told “In this lab we study animals, not people”. What is deeply depressing is that large swathes of psychology if anything have gone backwards over the last forty years in terms of scientific rigour, especially in relation to bandwagon interventions such as CBT or mindfulness.

    When I was still working as a practicing Speech and Language Therapist, my department’s research did not escape the criticisms relating to open label trials and subjective outcomes, but I ensured everyone understood that such was not conclusive merely suggestive and that other independent confirmation was required.

    However it should also be pointed out that many of the main advocates of the British BPS approach are not in fact research psychologists, but rather people from a medical background; even psychiatrists are doctors first, where their base training requires the rapid absorption of masses of information in a situation that too much critical analysis makes their life harder not easier.

    I think we, people with ME, get to see the worst misuses of psychology and not the best of it.

    [edited - added, several words and phrases for clarification.]
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2022
  15. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,044
    Location:
    Australia
    I don't wish to write off all of psych. There are honourable exceptions. But the profession is collectively guilty of failing to pull their wayward colleagues back into line.

    It is outrageous that sick patients have been left to do the bulk of the profession's dirty work for them, and take all the heat and abuse for it. Seriously unimpressed. :mad:
     

Share This Page