Search results

@Joan Crawford Good to hear. Thanks to you and your colleagues for continuing to plug away at this. :)

Is there a psychological vaccine against untruths? If there is then the psych profession itself has yet to take it themselves. I think there is one, and it is called robust methodology.

Can't get a result by following robust methodological standards, so demand they be allowed an exemption from those standards. What could possibly go wrong? Besides everything.

That is more than a little disappointing. :grumpy:

And all the blame when it doesn't work out. It is about as nasty and dangerous a double bind as is possible to inflict on a human. They have left no possible response for patients that is both valid and safe. I still can't believe they are getting away with such an obviously false and cruel...

@Joan Crawford Are you seeing any progress in your profession on attitudes towards patients?

:emoji_astonished: That is both impressive and somehow a little scary. I try to standardise it and minimise data noise as much as possible by weighing myself first thing in the morning, after the morning ablutions, before any breakfast, and with no clothes on.

These findings suggest that difficulties with treatment adherence may stem from over-protective physical effort-related decision-making... Not from highly inappropriate 'treatment'? Didn't consider that rather obvious and critical possibility? The only 'over-protective' behaviour here is the...

The arbitrary assigning of definitive causation without actual testing for it marches right on. It is the hallmark of modern psychosomatic anti-methodology.

So, no changes then, beyond some token tweaks to the marketing blurb.

Mao had to accept that killing every sparrow in sight was not a good idea. Yes, there must be appropriate proportionate consequences for those responsible for this failure, or it will happen again. Allowing those responsible to escape any meaningful accountability during their lifetime is not...

Yeah, not sure PG is building his audience with his increasingly fevered antics.

Retrospective recall is almost a deal breaker for me on its own, without reading any further. Such studies are just too inherently unreliable. So much better to just start with prospective and stick to it. At best retrospective might provide clues about what to look more closely at. But even...

Yes, quite clear that it is not just quantity of calories that count, but quality too. If it was only about quantity then we could just eat a couple of handfuls of sugar a day and be done with it.

Proving, as if any more proof were needed, that it is not the patients who are suffering from distorted perception and cognition. Not to mention moral pathology.

Increasingly of that view myself.

Yes, at least sometimes it can be overridden for a bit, but then comes payback time.

The story on this is straight forward enough: They have been unable to deliver solid evidence of their basic claim by the standards the rest of science is supposed to meet, indeed the standards that they themselves instituted half a century back. So instead of admitting they have nothing, that...

:thumbup:

And so it begins...