Finally. As a Neuroscience major who studied Psychology, I cannot agree more. The therapists only gives you canned advice and they cannot help you with anything that you actually perceive. That advice is basically, "go to more sessions of therapy". JFL!

I prefer them trying to sell me more sessions than their other shitty advice lol

For what. They only act like priests in a confession stand.

That's how they act at best, at worst they try to shove every little single bit of their world view down your throat and are unwilling to accept anything that does not fit in it no matter how minor. If you dare state that something isn't working they argue endlessly that you haven't tried or didn't try the right way and with grasp at any straw you that fits their ideology. If they give you "advice" for meeting people through a hobby and it's clear there is nothing like it they tell you "well there are plenty of other things there and you didn't do those so you didn't try meeting someone from one of your hobbies in the method I told you to" at best or just flat out denying you after they spend half the session arguing with you even though it's the kind of shit that you could check in about 5 minutes...

At least they are less annoying when they are pulling their overly long sales pitch so fuck it, I'd rather deal with that.

Damn. It's hard to look at your face and see you as someone who has a major. Jesus.

Why is that? Am I an ugly subhuman to you?

No you're actually pretty good looking, facially.

You just look so young. That's all. Didn't mean to sound mean lol

That's alright. Thank you.

This is the most stupid thing I’ve ever read.

MUh NARRATIVE!! MuST INsULT SOMEONE ThEY ARE DESTROYING MUH NaRRAtive

[removed]

I'll insert relevant therapy meme here.

Ok I’m not an incel but I don’t see how this contributes to discussion and I fail to see what is funny about what you commented

This is the brutal black pill. What therpists do is try to blue pill you again, in reality there's no hope and you'll always be treated like garbage because of how you look.

It's a scam that tries to delude you into an unrealistic worldview while emptying your pockets with overpriced sessions.

Yeah...I mean it was always like this. It ain't physics.

I can understand where your coming from, but psychology is so much more than just about relationships and sexuality. There's substance use, mental illness, mental/emotional trauma, and many other things that psychology tries to help make better. I know it doesn't have all the answers, and a science is an ever evolving entity, but I think we can get better.

I can understand where your coming from, but psychology is so much more than just about relationships and sexuality. There's substance use, mental illness, mental/emotional trauma, and many other things that psychology tries to help make better. I know it doesn't have all the answers, and a science is an ever evolving entity, but I think we can get better.

Psychology is just a secular society's substitute for religion, and often just serving as an excuse to medicate by Big Pharma. Why pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to get what is basically a free service in Eastern Orthodoxy and other more traditional forms of Christianity?

Yes, and that is what I personally hate about psychiatry. Although some medication such as lithium for psychosis-type symptoms and to some degree SSRIs(although I still haven't seen overwhelming evidence that they help alone) can really benefit those who have exhausted there non-drug related methods of treatment to try and neurochemically correct the problem.

This isn't to say that religion can't also play a role in treatment, not in a metaphysical way but rather as a support system for some. If you return to something you're familiar with, or find a group of people who can get you the care you need, then you can most definitely just sidestep any sort of medical option. The goal should be to get the person better, not to shove meds down their throat and inflate their bill.

I've been saying it: Too many suckers falling for the church of psychiatry

This isn't preschool. You don't get a star just for trying.

Your right, but we gain experience. Each case, each diagnosis, it serves as a precedent to help the next person displaying similar symptoms not waste their time with unhelpful or ineffective treatments (ideally). But yes, trying isn't a good enough justification for any kind of accolade. However it is better than just not doing anything and letting people suffer.

it doesn't have all the answers

And the fact that in certain areas it's not even trying to find them out is exactly something that the field can and should be faulted for.

Very much so! The "current" (and by that I mean hyper-sensationalised) topic of mass shootings. Although the answers are out there, I think people are afraid of them. This is what makes me angry about the field, but also passionate. I don't want to tear it down, but change it from the inside.

I agree. The lack of rigor in that field is appalling. Generally speaking, the credibility of a field is directly proportional to the amount of mathematics required to make a statement in it. So, particle and high energy physics is probably the most rigorous science, and on the other end of it, you have stuff like sociology, which basically isn't science at all.

And even in math and physics there is still a lot of disagreement and debate at the very high levels.

That's not true - mathematical methods are not all-powerful or all-revealing and mathematics are not always required for robust research. Thus, a lack of mathematics is not the problem with psychology (and plenty of research in it relies on quantifiable empirical evidence anyway).

The problem is that psychology is way too deeply infiltrated by culture and ideology that entire topics are off limits and others are stuck on a consensus which it is taboo to ever put under scrutiny. It's the same problem as with economics, except, IMO, even worse.

If they can't define their terms rigorously and apply logic to create a reasonable model which is consitent with experimental data, they are not doing science. Math doesn't have to mean numbers and equations, but it does always require careful definitions and logical deduction.

they are not doing science

Well, now we know what sets "doing science" apart from scientific research then.

It's also funny how you seem to be obsessed with rigorous definitions, yet apparently your own definition of "math" is extremely blurry.

I agree with your sentiment. Psychology is one of the "soft" sciences. It's not as rigorous as, say, physics and chemistry, which rely on quantifiable data and rigorous mathematical models. It's very much subject to political whims.

There are some truths are difficult to here, and which society does not want to here. When you make claims like "women tend to despise incels and numales", that pisses people off ("muh misoguhneeee") so obviously scientists aren't going to explore questions like that.

I'm in therapy. And fuck this resonates so much with me.

I think you're the pathetic one mate.

Yeah puberty was a mindfuck. You go from a cheerful kid that people like to greet and talk to and hang out with, and then puberty happens. My outlook was still positive and I was outgoing in the beginning, but the reactions from people began to change. After many efforts to branch out, befriend people, try for athletics, try to be popular, try to get a gf, I was constantly rejected, interrupted, and ignored. It took me a long time to come to grips with the fact that I want from a cute kid that everyone liked to an ugly worthless organism that people would rather ignore. Fuck

Its true. Your looks shape up your personality.

I’m gonna be honest here

Yes it’s true that psychology is very subjective but they did actually used scientific studies and research methods to validate their point

Incels on the other hand don’t actually have much in the way of evidence other than their single personal experience which varies too much to be quantitative

Yes it’s shit evidence but I rather take it other than wild claims and stupid tinder screenshots

I have tried so many times to extract actual evidence from incels but they never deliver :/

There are actually studies that have shown taller people and people who are conventionally attractive make more money, do better in the dating world, and are taken more seriously. A lot of us have noticed things in our own personal lives but the anecdotes are reflective of real social phenomena.

I mean it’s not science that women will go for taller and more attractive men, what i don’t get is incels act like personality doesn’t matter or that remotely below average men cannot get a gf ever

So far I haven’t seen any incel that actually disproves this

http://www.psypost.org/2017/03/personality-traits-no-influence-initial-romantic-attraction-study-finds-48362

Quoting from the last part:

Romantic attraction and dating are extremely complicated social processes. With this study, we sought to shed some light on what predicts initial romantic interest, but we know from the literature that other variables, like personality, become important later on in the relationship, with many involved couples actually more similar on many personality characteristics than chance. We also only looked at interest in persons as-of-yet unknown to our participants. Developing romantic interest in someone who was already a friend may be a completely different process.

Chances are that looks will allow you to get a romantic relationship off the bat if you know nothing about the person

But incels still might have a chance if they befriend the girl and let romantic interests develop from there, that’s why so many people say if you want a girl then it’s good to befriend her first

But then we called niceguys because only reason we befriended her was to get in her pants.

Hahahah don’t be silly, don’t make it so that getting in her pants is the only motive for befriending the girl

Moreover I did mention good personalities tend to act as an unexpected multiplier for attractiveness so you could try that if that befriending part doesn’t work I guess

the demographic is really weak, it’s only college students who are mostly young people without a developed sense of maturity

Yet a lack of intimate connections at that age is correlated with a decreased likelihood of having experienced that in any later age group. A man who can't find a girlfriend in his youth is less likely to find one later than a man can.

You're very obviously jumping to conclusions without evidence, which means you have a bias and thus anything you write here shouldn't be and won't be taken seriously.

Also, you're abusing the scientific method and people like you are exactly the reason clinical psychology to day is so much less than it could be.

Yet a lack of intimate connections at that age is correlated with a decreased likelihood of having experienced that in any later age group. A man who can't find a girlfriend in his youth is less likely to find one later than a man can.

You're very obviously jumping to conclusions without evidence, which means you have a bias and thus anything you write here shouldn't be and won't be taken seriously.

Also, you're abusing the scientific method and people like you are exactly the reason clinical psychology to day is so much less than it could be.

im no genius, plus the only reason I mentioned this flaw is because theres already another study with a larger sample size and age demographic that concludes differently

They even mention that this is one of the major questions that they need address in their studies as quoted:

Because of the sample collected, we only looked at the predictors of romantic interest for heterosexual participants. The extent to which these results would generalize to LGBT populations is unclear. Also, we looked at predictors of romantic interest for a relatively young sample, and it would be interesting to see whether results are different for older populations. Finally, we only examined predictors of self-reported romantic interest. It was clear to participants that we were not offering the opportunity to meet the targets, or go on a date with them. So we are uncertain about the extent to which our results generalize to actual dating behavior.

It's good that you admit you're a dumbass who knows nothing about science.

I love your approach to these guys. You probably won't get through to them, but your point is extremely well made. Kudos.

This is such a great post. Psychology is a an almost useless field imo. Psychology is a lot like communications or English, it doesn't take much rigor and a lot of people in college get a degree in it easily while feeling smart. Thats why women gravitative towards it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKRkmwtGY&t=103m8s

Great post. Time to blackpill the psychology field.

I belong to an INTP group on FB, and basically any hot chick gets all the attention, and any post about sex or a photo of a hot girl gets 100s of replies.

They're all convinced about the Myers-Briggs test, I'm sure it has some minor validity, but who knows.

a lot of psychology is simple measuring the results of how people are currently programmed. =

just gotta figure out how to reprogram them.

There's a reason why it's always the short, weak kid getting bullied and never the high school quarterback, and it's not because of personality.

Rsdjulien infields. No amount of Chad can compare to his game.

Great example. Psychology is pseudoscience. And I'm saying that as a graduate of Psychology university studies and as a long-time consumer researcher.

All psychology suffers from many problems which make it less scientifically valid than other sciences. It is an inherent fact of reality that psychology is less of a science than say physics. I go into much detail here: Why Humans Rock at Physics but Suck at Psychology and Medicine

In short, the human mind is much harder to understand and model than the external universe because:

• It is not objectively observable
• Everything is interconnected and interconnected with the brain and the whole body
• We cannot help but be biased by our own mind&body and build models based on ourselves
• There are too many variable, and we cannot even identify them all, for reliable experimental design
• Moral difficulties with psychological experiments

Plus I posit it is an evolutionary advantage not to understand our own minds fully. We have a very successful monkey model: we unconsciously decide on most things and actions, only rarely do we activate the conscious. Understanding our own minds consciously would detract from the unconscious mode of operation which would have been dangerous for survival: the conscious is literally not quick or powerful enough to react to threats and opportunities.

I am creating a new model: Avantgarde Savage, that takes this into account. But it still cannot really be scientifically valid, only less wrong.

Paradox addendum: we might be changing our minds and bodies as our understanding of them evolves, so we might never be scientifically valid because we keep changing what we want to understand