- Thread starter
- #117
@Bertram
I just feel like this isn't very productive.
Let's try a more productive way.
How about instead of telling everybody what you think is wrong, you tell us what you think is right, and provide citations for it. So rather than it looking like some research pissing contest, there’s potentially useful information for the people reading.
If you think Cognitive Therapy is useful to people, provide support for times that has worked.
I like this search. It’s based on MediaBiasFactCheck’s rating. They rate sources on their reliability and spin, and then let you block out sources they rate to be unreliable.
factualsearch.news
They have a “Pro Science” option
Type in something like “Benefits of Cognitive Therapy on motivation” and provide support for your argument. There are ways to argue that are constructive, and this isn’t it. Whereas if you provided support people (perhaps including myself) would be like “hmm, that interesting, I never thought of it that way.”
Like the pool ball / pool player analogy is good, but it’s more of a philosophical argument. Provide support for examples where that thought process lead to an intervention that has been shown to work. Otherwise people are just going to be like “what’s the point of all this.”
You’ve taught classes on this. So what if a student handed in a paper with zero citations?
Like all this stuff doesn’t matter. Knocking down researchers “he only studies ADHD”.. It’s stuff we’re trained specifically not to do. Ad Hominem doesn’t matter. Credentials don’t matter. We don’t care how many letters you have after your name. We want to know what you think, why you think it, and the pieces of evidence that may prove it’s right. We don’t care if you were caught masturbating into tennis shoes in 2002. A homeless guy can come in off the streets and if his idea is given the same weight as Einstein's.
en.wikipedia.org
I mean don’t get me wrong, a well respected researcher has a much better chance of being correct, but it’s not as good as direct or even circumstantial evidence.
This can be an epically helpful thread for people you actually showed what people could do, and evidence for that rather than trying to knock down credentials.
Perhaps there are some things That havent been taken into account. But you’re not going to move mine or anyone elses position without providing support or evidence.
Here’s a start.
Implementation intentions.
Mental Contrasting (although it hasn’t been replicated in independent trials)
N-Back training
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Token rewards / Behavior Modification
Just provide support. No one is saying you’re wrong, but without support we can’t even determine if it’s right or wrong.
I just feel like this isn't very productive.
Let's try a more productive way.
How about instead of telling everybody what you think is wrong, you tell us what you think is right, and provide citations for it. So rather than it looking like some research pissing contest, there’s potentially useful information for the people reading.
If you think Cognitive Therapy is useful to people, provide support for times that has worked.
I like this search. It’s based on MediaBiasFactCheck’s rating. They rate sources on their reliability and spin, and then let you block out sources they rate to be unreliable.
Search News based on Highly Factual Reporting
Search High or Very High Factual News Sites only and ignore the fake news propaganda on the net. Only sites with High or Very High reporting are included. Each site is classified into the following biases: Left, Left-Center, Least (or Center), Right-Center, Right and Pro-Science.
They have a “Pro Science” option
Type in something like “Benefits of Cognitive Therapy on motivation” and provide support for your argument. There are ways to argue that are constructive, and this isn’t it. Whereas if you provided support people (perhaps including myself) would be like “hmm, that interesting, I never thought of it that way.”
Like the pool ball / pool player analogy is good, but it’s more of a philosophical argument. Provide support for examples where that thought process lead to an intervention that has been shown to work. Otherwise people are just going to be like “what’s the point of all this.”
You’ve taught classes on this. So what if a student handed in a paper with zero citations?
Like all this stuff doesn’t matter. Knocking down researchers “he only studies ADHD”.. It’s stuff we’re trained specifically not to do. Ad Hominem doesn’t matter. Credentials don’t matter. We don’t care how many letters you have after your name. We want to know what you think, why you think it, and the pieces of evidence that may prove it’s right. We don’t care if you were caught masturbating into tennis shoes in 2002. A homeless guy can come in off the streets and if his idea is given the same weight as Einstein's.
Fallacy - Wikipedia
I mean don’t get me wrong, a well respected researcher has a much better chance of being correct, but it’s not as good as direct or even circumstantial evidence.
This can be an epically helpful thread for people you actually showed what people could do, and evidence for that rather than trying to knock down credentials.
Perhaps there are some things That havent been taken into account. But you’re not going to move mine or anyone elses position without providing support or evidence.
Here’s a start.
Implementation intentions.
Mental Contrasting (although it hasn’t been replicated in independent trials)
N-Back training
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Token rewards / Behavior Modification
Just provide support. No one is saying you’re wrong, but without support we can’t even determine if it’s right or wrong.
