#psychology scientific research

[aipuconnects]

Elevate Your Mindset: How Our Psychology Membership Can Help You Achieve Lasting Change

Join our psychology membership for expert insights, tailored resources, and ongoing support to achieve lasting personal transformation.

[melancholyghoul]

I mentioned writing my paper on crime reduction about hate crimes against trans people to my lecturer because I obviously think about it all the time and he said none of his students have ever written a paper focused on trans people and that he'd be excited to read it

Great and all but finding enough references is going to be a nightmare, it's so niche and so under researched that my usual ~10 for a 1500 word report is going to be a stretch

Proves that it's even more necessary though

[tallysgreatestfan]

Interesting study about ableism in autism research done by an autistic psychologist that I found linked on their twitter.

Main variables it uses are "autistic researcher vs not-autistic researcher", "researcher uses medical model vs uses social model" and "ableist cues present vs not present". Simplified, it tries to find out if the first two things correlate with the last one and how.

Two disturbing details are that the more time spent in autism research, the more ableist the researcher typically gets, not less (though this might not necessarily mean radicalization but could just come from progress in the field in the last years, if I read it right it was not specified), and that having an autistic family member typically does not lower the chance of the researchers work being ableist.

Participants highlighted that research often set autistic people up to fail, or was shaped in such a way that resulted in autistic people always being viewed as deficient: “We know so much (though really, still so little) about non-autistic cognition, interaction, and perception. But comparatively little about autistic people and what research we do have is often from the perspective that autistic people are “worse” at whatever it is than non-autistic people. More work needs to be done to develop tests and measures that aren’t predisposed to “fail” autistic people” (ID111).

Another really interesting thing I never before noticed conscioually but that makes a scary amount of sense is a detail in the language these researchers use: Ableist researchers refer to "autism" as this amorphous idea that needs to be eradicated, in that process, they don't see the actual people and they don't see any of their human traits or individuality. If they refer to "autistic people", they are forced to see that their subjects are indeed people, humans, and that autism is part of them and you can't eradicate it without eradicating these humans or at least fundamentally harm them.

Generally, and again, this is something every single autistic person would know already, but we need these kind of studies to proof neurotypicals/those in power that this is actually true, because they don't believe minorities otherwise: Around 60% of autism research showed ableist cues.

[pasiphile]

*grabs your face * listen to me. Listen. Any personality model that divides people into distinct, easily definable types is objectively bad and wrong.

[omegaphilosophia]

Rigorous Methods of Inquiry and Their Role in Achieving Objectivity

Rigorous methods of inquiry are systematic approaches to investigation that aim to eliminate bias, enhance reliability, and allow us to achieve objectivity in our understanding of the world. These methods are used across disciplines, from philosophy to science, and each method emphasizes a set of standards that help ensure conclusions are as objective and valid as possible.

Here are some key rigorous methods of inquiry and how they contribute to objectivity:

1. Empiricism (Empirical Method)

Description: Empiricism is the method of acquiring knowledge through direct observation or experimentation. It emphasizes the collection of data through sensory experience, particularly in the natural sciences.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Data-Driven: Empiricism relies on observable and measurable evidence, reducing reliance on subjective opinions or personal biases.

Reproducibility: Findings must be reproducible by others, ensuring that the knowledge is not based on individual interpretations.

Falsifiability: Theories are tested and must be falsifiable, meaning they can be proven wrong if evidence contradicts them. This constant testing refines and improves knowledge, moving it toward objective truth.

2. Rationalism (Deductive Method)

Description: Rationalism involves reasoning and logic to derive knowledge, particularly through the deductive method. It involves starting with general principles and drawing specific conclusions from them.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Internal Consistency: Logic is independent of personal experience and can be universally applied. The emphasis on logical consistency helps ensure that conclusions follow from premises without bias.

Clarity in Argumentation: Deductive reasoning breaks complex problems into smaller, well-defined parts, helping eliminate subjective assumptions.

Mathematical and Philosophical Proofs: Formal systems in mathematics and logic are often considered paradigms of objectivity because they rely on clear, universal rules.

3. Scientific Method

Description: The scientific method is a process that involves making observations, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing results to draw conclusions. It combines both empirical and rational methods.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Controlled Experiments: By controlling variables, researchers can isolate specific factors and establish causal relationships, limiting external biases.

Peer Review: Scientific findings are subject to scrutiny and validation by the wider scientific community, ensuring that personal biases of individual researchers are minimized.

Statistical Analysis: The use of statistical methods allows for the quantification of uncertainty and the identification of patterns that are more likely to reflect objective reality than random chance.

4. Phenomenology

Description: Phenomenology is the study of subjective experience and consciousness. It involves a rigorous analysis of how things appear to us, but with careful reflection on how these perceptions relate to reality.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Bracketing: In phenomenology, "bracketing" is the practice of setting aside personal biases, assumptions, and presuppositions to focus purely on the phenomena being experienced. This helps eliminate subjective distortions in the investigation of consciousness and experience.

Universal Structures of Experience: While phenomenology studies subjective experiences, it aims to identify structures of experience that are common across individuals, providing insights that transcend personal perspective.

5. Critical Thinking and Analytical Philosophy

Description: Critical thinking involves rigorous analysis, evaluation of evidence, and the logical assessment of arguments. Analytical philosophy, a branch of philosophy, uses precise argumentation and linguistic clarity to assess philosophical problems.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Identifying Fallacies: By learning to identify logical fallacies and cognitive biases, critical thinking reduces the influence of faulty reasoning on conclusions.

Clear Definitions: In analytic philosophy, precision in language helps to clarify concepts and avoid ambiguities that could lead to subjective misinterpretations.

Systematic Doubt: By questioning assumptions and systematically doubting unverified beliefs, critical thinking helps individuals avoid dogma and achieve more objective conclusions.

6. Historical Method

Description: The historical method involves the critical examination of historical sources, contextualizing information within a time period, and synthesizing narratives based on evidence.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Source Criticism: Historians critically assess the reliability, bias, and perspective of sources, weighing them against one another to form a balanced, objective view of historical events.

Triangulation of Evidence: By using multiple sources and comparing them, historians reduce reliance on any one biased or incomplete account, moving closer to an objective understanding of history.

Contextualization: Placing events in their proper historical context helps avoid presentism (judging the past by modern standards) and enhances objectivity by understanding events within their own framework.

7. Hermeneutics

Description: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts. It involves analyzing and interpreting language, meaning, and context, commonly used in fields such as theology, literature, and law.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Interpretive Framework: Hermeneutics encourages the awareness of the interpreter's own biases, enabling a more reflective and critical approach to understanding texts.

Contextual Sensitivity: By emphasizing the importance of context, hermeneutics helps ensure that interpretations are not anachronistic or overly influenced by the interpreter’s preconceptions.

Dialectical Process: It involves a dialogue between the reader and the text, promoting a balanced, evolving understanding that seeks to approximate objectivity.

8. Game Theory and Decision Theory

Description: These methods involve mathematical models of decision-making, often under conditions of uncertainty. Game theory examines strategies in competitive situations, while decision theory studies rational choices.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Rational Decision-Making: By using formal models, these methods help individuals make decisions that are logically consistent and optimal given the available information, removing subjective impulses.

Objective Payoffs and Strategies: Game theory provides objective tools to analyze strategies that lead to optimal outcomes, independent of personal preferences or biases.

9. Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Description: Quantitative research uses numerical data and statistical methods to find patterns and correlations, while qualitative research explores meanings, experiences, and narratives in a more interpretive manner.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Quantitative Research: The use of large datasets and statistical analysis minimizes individual biases, offering a more objective understanding of phenomena. Methods like random sampling and control groups add rigor to research findings.

Qualitative Research: While more interpretive, qualitative research can still strive for objectivity through triangulation, thick descriptions, and transparency in the research process.

Rigorous methods of inquiry, from empiricism and rationalism to critical thinking and statistical analysis, provide frameworks that enhance objectivity by reducing personal bias, improving reproducibility, and systematically analyzing evidence. Each method contributes to objective understanding by ensuring that conclusions are not shaped by subjective perspectives or unverified assumptions, and instead rely on clear, structured, and replicable processes. These methods are indispensable in fields ranging from science to philosophy and help us approach truth in a methodical, unbiased manner.

[ginger-education]

Intro!

Back to navigation!

Hello! I'm Kayde, I also go by Ginger and Maple! My pronouns are She/her!

I'm 18 years old, my birthday is October 3rd.

I'm a trans woman as well as pansexual!

My discord is dandelion713

Here are some of the things I'm passionate about learning! (In no particular order)

Social Sciences (Archeology, geography, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science)

Natural Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science (Geology, Mineralogy), and Space Science)

Formal Sciences (Statistics, Mathematics)

Professional Sciences (Education, Medicine, Public Policy, Law, Journalism, Architecture, Transportation)

Humanities (History, Religious Studies, Literature, Art, Philosophy, Linguistics)

And I'll add more to this as I think of more!

[queenoftheashes]

Please participate in my psychology scientific research - Should our leaders be psychologically tested before occupying positions of power?

Hello and good evening, I'm doing a scientific research for my uni and I need your responses - it's a one question questionnaire and the only info I require is your name/initials(whatever you want to give is what I'll take) and your country of residence. What I aim to demonstrate is that regardless of where we come from, we all have and share a similar need - for our political leaders to be FIT to lead. Thank you so very much and please share and help an academic girl out!

[chaos-in-one]

"TOSD Fandom" is possibly one of the worst sentences I'm.

It's a heavily researched scientific theory that's not what a Fandom is....

[merriclo]

sometimes when you read about behavioral psychology you learn some incredibly fascinating things that you never would’ve thought about otherwise and your entire perception of yourself and how you behave is changed. and then other times you sit there like well yeah. duh. you didn’t need to spend years doing experiments to figure that shit out.

[femkethefaineant]

Really, this was made by professionals? Dont get me wrong, it's a fun test, but it pretends to be something it's not. Well, there's a tiny disclaimer about 'online' and 'educational purposes only' but really, the internet is not the problem here and this test can't educate anyone. It's pure entertainment. And the majority of the front-page does outline that this test thinks it's trustworthy and scientific etc.

Like, it implies it's based on a phd and refers to previous writings. The sources are a garbled mess, it's not even clear where one reference ends and another begins. At least two references are by the same people that made this website. That's not a source. One is the same test but in Spanish. That's not a source. It can therefore not be concluded that this test has any basis in scientific consensus.

Second, it claims to "deliver a clear picture of the respondent's current food sensitivity according to standardized systems" and "ensure maximum accuracy and validity of the test scores". How? Those standardized systems, I already said, don't have a proper visible source. And this test most definitely does not control for other factors.

Like, the question about a roast pig on a spit. Does it disgust you because you dislike dead animals in general? Because you kept a pet pig, or because your religion says not to eat pork? Or maybe because a spit out in the open is unhygienic, independent of its contents? There is no way to tell on this test. I answered that I would not eat a browning avocado, and the test confidently concluded I must be disgusted by rotting fruit. It's wrong, I'm disgusted by avocados.

It's also unclear if the test cares about health. I answered that I would not eat moldy bread, because I know it is invisible but still present in the entire thing. Cutting off mold from bread will make you sick. Is that what they meant by 'sickening' in another question? Unclear. I would also not drink from someone elses glass because there's a whooping cough epidemic in town. But I can't tell the test, I can just say I do or I don't and then it decides for me that it must be disgust. In short, this test cannot accurately measure disgust based only on whether you would actually eat something without even attempting to measure why.

Lastly, the statistical controls. How will they control for mistakes? The questions are inconsistent. Sometimes it asks 'I would not mind', sometimes 'it's sickening', sometimes 'I would eat'. A statistical error might occur if too many people intuitively used the answering mechanic (thumbs up or down) to note how okay they are with the thing mentioned, instead of navigating the negatives in the questions. Without any measures to counter this, you can only control based on previous knowledge of what the question was about - which is the very thing you're trying to measure.

All these things can be easily fixed. Consistent positive phrasing comes to mind, but also control questions, like 'I would eat bread' or being able to skip a question and/or give a reason to not eat something. Also make your list of sources an actual list of actual sources.

So this test is a fun gimmick but it's definitely not as scientific as it claims to be. It can measure disgust for fun internet polls but it cannot make trustworthy empirical claims. And that's not wrong, not everything has to be watertight and error-proof, but if it wants to be, it does have to at least try.

[consuetudinari0]

Exploring Mind Control: Ethics and Implications

The mind is a complex and multifaceted aspect of human consciousness and cognition. It encompasses various mental processes such as thoughts, perceptions, emotions, memories, and reasoning abilities.

[mental-mona]

Some of this is actually useful for understanding autism and how to help autistic people and neurotypical people understand each other better. Some of this seems to be more along the lines of "big news, we found that autistic people feel human emotions!" I know that "water is wet" type studies are sometimes necessary, but it's disturbing that this one was actually needed in the year 2024.

[neuro-coach-counselling]

"How about three signs that you shouldn't be talking about psychology on TikTok..." - Dr. Inna Kanevsky

Dr. Inna Kanevsky going to check you

[grunclepeepaw]

Does your ex really love you like they keep claiming? Make them prove it

[fanciedfacts]

Is it true that either you're right brain or left brain dominant?

[thegirlwithataser]

It’s so important to understand that researchers are human and therefore cannot escape their own biases even when they think they can.

This isn’t about weight loss or exercise, but I recently had to review and break down a relatively well known experimental study in social psychology and the data was so obviously saying that the researchers’ initial hypothesis was incorrect, or at the very least, the data did not support their hypothesis.

So much so that they ran the experiment four times with both small and large changes to the methodology to figure it out. In the end, their manipulations in the experiment resulted in data that less dramatically indicated that their hypothesis was false, but still did not provide evidence that their hypothesis was true.

Guess what happened. While discussing the results, they provided possible explanations (guesses, essentially) for why the data wasn’t supporting their hypothesis. From that, they drew the conclusion that because the data wasn’t a flashing “YOU ARE WRONG” sign in their face and was instead just saying “Hey you might not be correct here” that their hypothesis was supported by the data, just to a lesser degree than they’d initially predicted.

The thing is, it wasn’t. I’m not going to purport myself as an expert in the field, but I’m finishing out an honors degree and the data was not difficult to understand. Their study did not provide evidence to support their hypothesis, but because of their preconceived biases on both the topic and their own work, they drew the conclusion that it was, and if you only read their discussion on the data, you would believe it too.

Please understand that researchers are susceptible to bias just like everyone else. To understand research you have to learn to understand data and draw conclusions from that, not just what the researchers are telling you about it.

Me: Exercise does not cause weight loss. This is a fact that has been demonstrated so robustly in research that even doctors, who hate and fear evidence, are grudgingly starting to admit this.

Someone reading that post: Cool, but have you considered that exercise leads to weight loss?

Me: I am going to eat you