Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
On the Science of Psychology On the Science of Psychology

03-09-2016 , 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
I might only like his research because it confirms my intuition that emotions are the very seat on which morality sits.

Snakes scare the bejesus out of me, therefore spaghetti deserves to be eaten.
This has been the contention of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology for a long time now, no?

While it is fascinating, the root of the causal chain doesn't interest me so much, as the part of the causal chain that may be most open to intervention and adjustment. In my observations, it is the structure and set of beliefs they cling to, which ultimately reinforce or reduce those emotions. In this causal chain (for therapy), the emotions become the outcome, not the antecedent.

Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 03-09-2016 at 09:16 PM.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-09-2016 , 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaynde
What is emotions and morality?
Emotion: Fear of snakes

Moral stance: Snakes are bad
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-09-2016 , 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
This has been the contention of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology for a long time now, no?

While it is fascinating, the root of the causal chain doesn't interest me so much, as the part of the causal chain that may be most open to intervention and adjustment. In my observations, it is the structure and set of beliefs they cling to, which ultimately reinforce or reduce those emotions. In this causal chain (for therapy), the emotions become the outcome, not the antecedent.
Well, that is exactly what the shrinks are actually doing, so I'm not sure what your question is. The "unhelpful thoughts" bit doesn't work until they change the beliefs that maintain them.

It is a big old feedback loop.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-09-2016 , 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Well, that is exactly what the shrinks are actually doing, so I'm not sure what your question is.
This is exactly what is so puzzling to me.

While they do look at specific beliefs, in addition to personality, why is there almost no research interest in the analysis of beliefs and belief structures? Why are there no methods for content analysis of beliefs for example? All we do is label a belief either positive or negative, without seriously investigating its relation to other beliefs or correlating its content or narrative with other beliefs of similar narratives. Some beliefs may in fact be sources of strength for mentally ill individuals, yet psychologists may be likely to label them 'negative' and try to do away with them; especially when there's limited literature for them to consult.

Is there a beliefs hierarchy for example? I don't know. Does anyone know? Does adjusting one set of beliefs at the bottom of the hierarchy affect the rest of the hierarchy? I don't know. Does anyone know?

My question really just concerns the lack of academic interest in the investigation of beliefs. Perhaps they're just too complicated for us to investigate yet.

Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 03-09-2016 at 09:53 PM.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-09-2016 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
This is exactly what is so puzzling to me.

While they do look at specific beliefs, in addition to personality, why is there almost no research interest in the analysis of beliefs and belief structures? Why are there no methods for content analysis of beliefs for example? All we do is label a belief either positive or negative, without seriously investigating its relation to other beliefs or correlating its content or narrative with other beliefs of similar narratives. Some beliefs may in fact be sources of strength for mentally ill individuals, yet psychologists may be likely to label them 'negative' and try to do away with them; especially when there's limited literature for them to consult.

Is there a beliefs hierarchy for example? I don't know. Does anyone know? Does adjusting one set of beliefs at the bottom of the hierarchy affect the rest of the hierarchy? I don't know. Does anyone know?

My question really just concerns the lack of academic interest in the investigation of beliefs. Perhaps they're just too complicated for us to investigate yet.
That is a whole lot of jaq-ing. Most of it would take a small book, and most of the questions have incorrect premises. I will offer some thoughts in no particular order and nothing approaching a full response.

Per my statement that your premises are incorrect, psychologists don't just label thoughts/beliefs as good or bad. They very strongly believe that the unhelpful overall beliefs do provide some sort of immediate benefit to the person who has them and that this helps to sustain the belief.

As a parallel, psychologists find that doing meth is extremely helpful for mood regulation and is extremely self-sustaining. As an actual example, believing that people have negative intentions (aka hostile attribution bias) is extremely helpful in eliminating the possibility that you will be harmed by others.

You haven't really established that any of the things you think might be important to study haven't actually been studied. For instance, how is Moral Foundations Theory not exactly what you are asking for them to do?
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-10-2016 , 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Per my statement that your premises are incorrect, psychologists don't just label thoughts/beliefs as good or bad.
I used the terms 'positive/negative' intentionally, as I don't mean 'good/bad' in the traditional sense. By positive/negative I mean that they may label the beliefs as either likely to elicit or sustain positive emotion (in general) or likely to elicit or sustain negative emotion (in general).

For example, if 9/10 psychologists agree that a particular belief is likely to elicit or sustain negative emotion - what other analysis into that belief is there? if any?

Is there any additional analysis of the actual content, logical grounding, or epistemological basis, or relation to other beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
You haven't really established that any of the things you think might be important to study haven't actually been studied. For instance, how is Moral Foundations Theory not exactly what you are asking for them to do?
Fair enough. I'm inquiring rather broadly, precisely because I don't know.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-10-2016 , 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
I used the terms 'positive/negative' intentionally, as I don't mean 'good/bad' in the traditional sense. By positive/negative I mean that they may label the beliefs as either likely to elicit or sustain positive emotion (in general) or likely to elicit or sustain negative emotion (in general).

For example, if 9/10 psychologists agree that a particular belief is likely to elicit or sustain negative emotion - what other analysis into that belief is there? if any?
I'm going to narrow this down to REBT and CBT since those are the therapies that deal with beliefs. "I believe the world is a horrible place" is pretty difficult to see as a helpful belief.

Mostly they are going to categorize beliefs that go together in the same category.

Quote:
Is there any additional analysis of the actual content, logical grounding, or epistemological basis, or relation to other beliefs?

Fair enough. I'm inquiring rather broadly, precisely because I don't know.
Depending on the patient, the therapist might discuss epistemology directly. Generally this is done with patients who are irretractably argumentative.

For others, they might demonstrate that the belief is bat **** crazy. For instance, having an anorexic patient mark on the wall how wide her hips and waist are and then show them that their belief isn't anywhere related to the truth.

As per above, the relationship between the beliefs is going to be more categorical than structural. These go together: "The world is a horrible place." "People are mean."
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-10-2016 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
I've considered this too, since it may perhaps be easier to get someone to adopt a new belief (such as a belief that makes them more mentally resilient) than it is to get them to drop a belief. Unfortunately, it is more often the case that the new belief is mutually exclusive to an existing belief, requiring both the adoption of a new belief and the removal of an existing one. This isn't so easy.
Depends on the context. Personal 'self-help' approaches to belief in psychology varies some from clinical approaches.

Beliefs can look the same and different on paper, however where beliefs exist is unique and individual and mostly beyond the getting and dropping range of other individuals. That is a challenge and one which need not be taken.

What is easy to give is awareness and a reflecting pool for a person to find their own beliefs as one who knows beliefs can do.

So as the experience of having beliefs and changing belief becomes personally relevant to a person in a way which is independent of other individual's beliefs, even those that appear alike as shared.

So is a basis of frame work for an examination of beliefs to become a source of personal strength by way of letting people get to know their beliefs and belief capability rather than getting them to do anything in particular.

And it does help if their own beliefs are something they are interested in.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-10-2016 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
I'm going to narrow this down to REBT and CBT since those are the therapies that deal with beliefs.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-28-2016 , 11:44 PM
On the topic of psychology and beliefs about mental illness:

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-beha...f88a6-76420709
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-29-2016 , 03:49 PM
03-29-2016 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss_Lonely_hearts
What does he mean belief?



Like if I believe I can move this pen in front of me with just the power of thought alone then will it happen? If not then what would be realistic beliefs in this context that are worth achieving?!



If the question doesn't make sense to you. Then please ignore it and move on.
Belief in ideals such as peace, freedom, justice, love, and kindness would be ones I would ask Ghandi about that meme.

I form my beliefs in such ideals by thinking about them.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-30-2016 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Yeah, isn't the essence of our being human that we* allow reason to influence our behavior, and that effects outcomes, also producing nice feelings?

* the royal we, not including me.
Sure its reason that influences our behavior? It seems exactly backwards, our behaviors influence our reasonings. For example, when I made my drivers license I drove slow and Im sure I had good reasons for it. Now that I drive fast, I have good reasons for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
I've considered this too, since it may perhaps be easier to get someone to adopt a new belief (such as a belief that makes them more mentally resilient) than it is to get them to drop a belief. Unfortunately, it is more often the case that the new belief is mutually exclusive to an existing belief, requiring both the adoption of a new belief and the removal of an existing one. This isn't so easy.
According to some neuroscience (I dont remember where I got this from), our brain isnt wired for "not". Because when I tell you: "Dont do drugs", I still say "... do drugs". In any case Ive put the idea of Drugs and Doing them in your mind, whether you do it or not, you've thought about it.

You'll have a hard time to quit smoking, if you just quit smoking. But quit smoking because you want to run that marathon next year, is a lot more doable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
Is there a beliefs hierarchy for example? I don't know. Does anyone know? Does adjusting one set of beliefs at the bottom of the hierarchy affect the rest of the hierarchy? I don't know. Does anyone know?
I dont know. But, I believe that killing is a bad thing. I also believe that I have to protect my loved ones if they are in danger. In the case that someone endangers my loved ones to the point that killing the threat seems the only solution, there appears to be quite a clear hierarchy to my believes.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
03-31-2016 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronny Mahoni
According to some neuroscience (I dont remember where I got this from), our brain isnt wired for "not". Because when I tell you: "Dont do drugs", I still say "... do drugs". In any case Ive put the idea of Drugs and Doing them in your mind, whether you do it or not, you've thought about it.

You'll have a hard time to quit smoking, if you just quit smoking. But quit smoking because you want to run that marathon next year, is a lot more doable.
Some struggle I assume, yet I've known this from a young age...somehow. Instead of telling people not to do something, suggest a better alternative. If the alternative isn't any better, or if it isn't mutually exclusive, then don't tell them what not to do. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronny Mahoni
I dont know. But, I believe that killing is a bad thing. I also believe that I have to protect my loved ones if they are in danger. In the case that someone endangers my loved ones to the point that killing the threat seems the only solution, there appears to be quite a clear hierarchy to my believes.
We need to map out these hierarchical trees; so we can chop at them, from the very roots.

A surprising root to a messed up hierarchical tree for example is: the belief that other people must impress you first, in order to form a friendship with them.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
04-15-2016 , 08:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
It may be taboo to talk about causation in this instance, since its really impossible to know, but I often question the implicit assumption that personality traits come first, followed by beliefs, followed by behavior, followed by life outcomes.

I envision a 'beliefs-theory' of behavior and I wonder if there is science or method already for linking specific beliefs and sets of beliefs to particular behaviours... based on the frequency of how often they are thought about, based on their disposition (positive/negative) and based on their content (content analysis); amongst other variables.

It seems to me there's little on this, with methods that overwhelmingly focus on grouping beliefs and behaviours by personality traits; as a result of personality traits.

Perhaps we have it all backward, and perhaps that seemingly insignificant belief that 'people are hopeless' is more significant than the corresponding and highly touted and diagnosed personality trait - neuroticism.

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of sets of beliefs, with each step on the ladder more dangerous than the next.

Perhaps psychological therapy is yet to be revolutionized by a new method of addressing highly specific and harmful beliefs. Or perhaps, its all been tried already?
Psychology is a diverse field. Trait psychology exists, but as far as the science goes, its scope is mainly statistical and inferential.
Ie, you take some supposed collection of characteristics, bundle these into categories for use on survey questions in a way that ensures they don't overlap - then see if these tend to correlate with other phenomena.

I don't think many actual researchers that use the Big Five believe these traits have some intrinsic theory value outside being useful variables, ie they presumably wouldn't think that the neuroticism scale on the OCEAN-model points to some "individual condition". Rather they'd assume it reasonably models a collection of human attitudes and behaviors in a way that can be useful for exploring relationships in data.

This of course leaves a very simple question: Why do research this way? Well, simply put is evidence-driven research. Meaning, it tends towards some purpose, rather than developing knowledge. Trait psychologists are rarely exploring the human condition, rather they tend towards building models that have some form of application (for example recruiting, student selection, risk assessment etc etc). For this it can work well if carried out properly.

Some times the models carry over to more knowledge-based research. The most well known case of this is IQ, or G-factor, which was originally intended as a tool for predicting academic results.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 04-15-2016 at 08:32 AM.
On the Science of Psychology Quote
04-21-2016 , 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Trait psychologists are rarely exploring the human condition, rather they tend towards building models that have some form of application (for example recruiting, student selection, risk assessment etc etc). For this it can work well if carried out properly.
This is an important point. If numerous beliefs can be fit to form neat boxes or categories for statistical analysis, most will automatically think the boxes matter more. Yet, without the individual beliefs, you wouldn't have the boxes to begin with. It is more difficult to investigate the little parts.
On the Science of Psychology Quote

      
m