snek_boi
@snek_boi@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Why do people see Adopting a Husky Personality and Culture through life inherently bad 2 months ago:
Alright. Given that you’re interested in psychology, feel free to check these resources out: dnav.international/video-audio-resources/ dnav.international/…/DNA-V-workbook-april-15-2020…
These are introductions to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
You can also check out the Healthy Minds Program hminnovations.org/meditation-app
- Comment on Why do people see Adopting a Husky Personality and Culture through life inherently bad 2 months ago:
You mention not having money for therapy. There is evidence suggesting that therapy like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is effective even if learned through books. What is important is to learn the mental processes that matter.
Here is an approach to therapy that you could try: youtu.be/o79_gmO5ppg
Sorry if my questions sound harsh. I genuinely want to know if this could help. How do you feel about reading books? Have you done it before? Do you have a place and time to read without distractions? Would reading from a device be feasible for you?
- Comment on Why is it that rhyming words seems to be pleasant/melodious to hear in rap/poetry?? 3 months ago:
I like the novelty/predictability ratio idea. There is also the idea of “create expectations and satisfy them”, which leads to a sense of stability. Our cultures and genres create expectations. Rhymes tied to a certain metric can become part of these expectations. Of course, you can also create expectations and frustrate them, which leads to a sense of instability. Searching for “fakeout rhyme” videos makes this evident. Pat Pattison, an expert in songwriting, could be a good source on this ☺️
- Comment on Anon drives a bus 3 months ago:
- Comment on I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that... 4 months ago:
I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
- Comment on is it possible to be married and still feel lonely? 4 months ago:
Sorry if it seems excessive. I simplified the text. It is just frustrating to see blanket explanations for human behavior, instead of understanding specific processes. The whole fundamental attribution error thing…
While I recognize Emotion Focused Therapy is helpful to understand and, if possible, change behavior (which is why I mentioned it previously), I maybe should have brought up Emption Construction Theory or even Sapolsky’s multi-lens framework, considering different timescales of explanation. Would you have suggested something different? When does contextual behaviorism fail?
- Comment on is it possible to be married and still feel lonely? 4 months ago:
Anytime we talk about human behavior, it is a good idea to learn and use the lens of behavioral contextualism. What behavioral contextualism says is that all behavior should be understood in context, including internal contexts, such as thoughts and emotions, as well as external contexts, such as stimuli from environments and other people. Anything that you read here, including this comment, should be held as a hypothesis until we understand what things (words that come out of your coworker’s mouth or their behaviors, or your coworkers history or any other relevant factor) led to the behavior. It is crucial to understand what things mean to your coworker to make any sensible analysis.
This does not mean that we cannot start formulating good hypotheses. It would be a good idea to learn about contextual behaviorism. Another incredibly powerful lens is the recognition that your coworker is a mammal, and specifically a human being. The vast majority of humans need to feel connected and understood. This can be understood very well through the lens of emotionally focused therapy. Sue Johnson is a great resource to learn how certain kinds of conversations create connection in relationships. This lens will become useful if our contextual behavioral analysis concludes that the problems that you are describing are caused by a lack of a sense of connection. However, once again, contextual behaviorism is the way to go.
Here’s a ranked list of resources, considering comprehensiveness, accessibility, and practical utility:
-
“Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An Experiential Approach to Behavior Change” by Steven C. Hayes, Kirk D. Strosahl, and Kelly G. Wilson
- This book is considered a foundational text in contextual behaviorism and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).
- It’s comprehensive and includes numerous clinical examples.
- While it’s aimed at clinicians, it’s relatively accessible to motivated lay readers.
-
“Learning RFT: An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory and Its Clinical Applications” by Niklas Törneke
- This book provides an excellent introduction to Relational Frame Theory, a key component of contextual behaviorism.
- It’s written in a clear, accessible style with many examples.
- It’s particularly useful for understanding how language and cognition influence behavior.
-
“The Act in Context: The Canonical Papers of Steven C. Hayes” edited by Steven C. Hayes and Stefan G. Hofmann
- This collection of papers provides a deep dive into the theoretical foundations of contextual behaviorism.
- It’s more academic in nature but offers a comprehensive overview of the field’s development.
-
“A Liberated Mind” by Steven C. Hayes
- This is a self-help book based on contextual behaviorism principles.
- It’s very accessible and includes numerous exercises and examples.
- While not as comprehensive as academic texts, it’s excellent for practical application.
-
“Contextual Behavioral Science: Creating a Science More Adequate to the Challenge of the Human Condition” by Steven C. Hayes and Stefan G. Hofmann
- This book provides a broader overview of contextual behavioral science.
- It’s more advanced and theoretical but offers valuable insights into the philosophical underpinnings of the approach.
If and only if the contextual behaviorist analysis concludes that human connections is the issue, you can read Sue Johnson’s books.
-
- Comment on Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you? 6 months ago:
You raise an excellent point that the quote from Andrea Dworkin portrays a rather extreme and controversial view that is not representative of feminism as a whole. In fact, many prominent feminists have strongly disagreed with Dworkin’s perspective.
For example, Laura Tanenbaum, a respected feminist writer, has bluntly called Dworkin’s views “shit.” (1) Wendy McElroy, in her book XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography, also presents a feminist case against Dworkin’s anti-porn stance (2). As the esteemed feminist scholar Dr. Dale Spender has eloquently put it, “Feminism['s battles] have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.” (3)
This demonstrates that feminism is a broad movement focused on expanding women’s rights and opportunities - not demonizing male sexuality. In fact, as Amartya Sen compellingly argues in Development as Freedom, the expansion of women’s capabilities is essential for the betterment of all people. When women have more voice, choice and agency, it leads to progress in areas like health, education, and poverty reduction that benefit entire communities.
So while Dworkin’s quote may get attention for its shock value, I would encourage looking to the many other feminist thinkers who take a more nuanced, constructive and less male-antagonistic approach. Feminism is not about vilifying men and male sexuality, but rather about advancing gender equality in a way that uplifts everyone. There is room for an open, healthy dialogue about sexuality within a framework of mutual understanding and respect between women and men.
(1) Laura Tanenbaum, “The Appeal and Limits of Andrea Dworkin,” Jacobin, August 5, 2019, jacobin.com/…/andrea-dworkin-last-days-at-hot-sli….
(2) McElroy, Wendy. XXX: A Woman’s Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
(3) Cleal, Olivia. “Australian ‘Feminist’s Feminist’ Dr Dale Spender AM Dies Age 80.” Women’s Agenda, November 27, 2023. …com.au/…/australian-feminists-feminist-dr-dale-s….
(4) Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
- Comment on Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you? 6 months ago:
Thanks for the response. What you’re describing - feeling a bodily urge to masturbate when viewing porn, even if you’d prefer not to - is very common. We’re kinda designed so that our bodies respond to sexual stimuli. Many people can relate to that internal tug-of-war between an impulse and a conflicting desire.
From a psychological flexibility perspective, the key is to approach those urges with mindful acceptance rather than struggle against them. Fighting with or trying to suppress an urge often just makes it grow stronger, like a beach ball you keep trying to push underwater - it keeps popping back up with greater force (1). Instead, psychological flexibility invites us to open up and make room for the urge, observing it with curiosity and letting it be fully present in our awareness.
This doesn’t mean you have to act on the urge. In fact, by giving it space to exist without resistance, you gain the ability to unhook from it and consciously choose how to respond in line with your values (2). You might say to yourself “I’m having the thought that I need to masturbate right now” and feel the sensations of that urge in your body, while still maintaining the freedom to decide if acting on it is truly what you want.
Imagine for a moment that a dear friend or loved one came to you struggling with this same dilemma. How would you respond to them? Most likely with compassion, understanding, and encouragement to be kind to themselves as they navigate this very human challenge. We could all benefit from extending that same caring response to ourselves.
At the end of the day, you’re the expert on your own life and what matters most to you. By practicing acceptance of your inner experiences, unhooking from unhelpful thoughts and urges, and clarifying what you truly value, you can develop psychological flexibility to pursue a rich and meaningful life - whatever that looks like for you. That means that there’s no one “right” way to relate to masturbation and porn. The invitation is to approach it mindfully and make choices that align with the kind of person you want to be.
(1) You can check out the “rebound effect” or “ironic process theory.” It’s been studied extensively in the context of thought suppression. The seminal paper on the topic is Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 5–13. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.5
(2) This meta-analysis reviewed laboratory-based studies testing the components of the psychological flexibility model, and how psychological flexibility techniques increase behavioral flexibility. Levin, M. E., Hildebrandt, M. J., Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). The impact of treatment components suggested by the psychological flexibility model: A meta-analysis of laboratory-based component studies. Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 741-756. doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2012.05.003
- Comment on Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you? 6 months ago:
Masturbation is totally normal and healthy, and you’re spot on that it shouldn’t be demonized or shamed. Tons of medical authorities and scientific studies have found that masturbation has all sorts of physical and mental health benefits. It’s a safe way to feel good sexually, relieve stress, sleep better, and possibly even reduce risks of prostate cancer and boost immune function.
At the same time, it’s important to have a balanced and psychologically flexible relationship with masturbation and sexuality. As psychologist Steven Hayes, a leading expert on psychological flexibility, explains: getting too fixated on any one activity or coping mechanism, even a healthy one, can lead to psychological inflexibility if it is used to avoid experiencing your life fully(A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes). This means getting stuck in rigid behavior patterns to the point that it messes with living a full and meaningful life.
So while I’m totally with you that masturbation is healthy and that bullshit social taboos against it should be rejected, it’s also good to be mindful about your motivation behind doing it. Are you doing it because you’re escaping pain? Or are you doing it because it aligns with your values and makes your life meaningful? If you rely on masturbation too much and don’t have ways of accepting your emotions and connecting with the world, it could potentially tip into unhelpful psychological rigidity and a frustrating life. The key is to be able to experience masturbation while still staying flexible enough to show up fully for the rest of your life too.
- Comment on The real personality test 7 months ago:
Ah. Thanks for taking the time to explain the meme’s context!
- Comment on The real personality test 8 months ago:
I’m sure this is a quality shitpost, but I don’t get it 😅 Can someone explain the context for this?
- Comment on What are your favorite books? 2 years ago:
The Ethical Primate by Mary Midgley
- Comment on What review websites do you use? 2 years ago:
Alternativeto.net
- Comment on FBI confirms it obtained NSO’s Pegasus spyware 2 years ago:
This is exactly why Schneider advocates for security for everyone. Insecurity for one person (through the development/finding/enabling of Pegasus or whatever) means insecurity for everyone.
- Comment on Have you ever pooped outside? 2 years ago:
Have I?
During a trip, there was this coffee shop my friends were raving about. They suggested to go there. Sure. Why the hell not. What's the worst that can happen?
The plan was to go there to get lunch and then spend the day in the massive park next to it.
Now, this part of the story is totally unrelated to pooping outside, but I think it's a disservice to leave it out.
So we get to the coffee shop and we hear someone in the back end having a fight. It's fucking wild. Someone's threatening to steal someone else's car and shit. As we walk in I notice there's a couple of tables with people watching the fight. Nobody is doing anything. My brain lights up in fire as I'm thinking "this is the bystander effect. This is exactly what I've heard about! I need to intervene!". I run up a flight of stairs and stand between a girl with her high-heel shoe in her hand, threatening the guy who is prostrated behind me.
She stares at me, and her dimples twitch while she figures out what to think of me appearing out of nowhere. Then the guy behind me starts laughing. She immediately bursts into laughter. "Oh, my god. I'm sorry. It's just a play.". The people around, the 'bystanders', laugh. I realize they're the audience of the play, and as it all clicks in my mind, I open my mouth and bring my hand to my chest as I take a second just to breathe.
She pats me in the back and says "Come. I'll get you something to drink," as she guides me out of the makeshift stage.
I hear the guy behind, the other actor, saying "Sorry for the interruption." The audience laughs. "We'll resume shortly."
I say I'm sorry to the audience as I walk out.
My party is all cracking up. The girl takes it all in jest. I thank her for how well she handled it all. She thanks me for being "a hero" and tells me whatever I order to drink is on her. She then leaves to speak to the guy in the entrance, so that he can warn other people about the fact that the apparent fight is really a play.
My ex and her friends are still giving me shit as the waiter comes over. They all know exactly what they want, since they've come here before. I don't want to think, so I just say "What's good?".
"Their cold brew."
I figure if I was old enough to drink alcohol, I should probably try coffee for the first time in my life. Heck, and if it's the recommendation of the recommended coffee place, it's probably good, right?
So, here's the thing about coffee, or caffeine more generally: it makes you wanna shit.
We wait for our orders and the fighting resumes. We hear the same lines again: the threats to steal a car, the revelation that she lied about her family...
My ex suggests to have the drinks to go, so that we are spared the noise. Sure enough. We get our drinks to go and head off to the park.
And so we walked for a while through the forest as I tried coffee for the first time, and a couple minutes later had to shit by a wooden bridge.
- Submitted 2 years ago to meta@lemmy.ml | 4 comments
- Comment on 2 years ago:
As opposed to what? To being idealistic? Then it wouldn't be a science, would it? It'd be a doctrine, a set of principles.
But to properly answer, I'd say you'd first have to define what strand of economics you're talking about.
Neoclassical economics (the dominant strand) historically has not remained close to the evidence. Even today, at its fundamentals, it doesn't. Just look at the controversies surrounding the evidence for marginalism as opposed to the labor theory of value. Or look at the controversies surrounding marginal cost curves in the theory of the firm, or the differences (and not the equality) of profit rates for companies in the same industry due to, for example, differences in equipment. The evidence tells a story, but neoclassical economics insists on telling the same (non-empirical) story.
At the same time, neoclassical economics tries to solve its lack of empiricism by relying on behavioral economics, which at the very least tries to account for a cognitive and cultural context that was previously ignored.
Neo-keynesian economics tries to account for problems in neoclassical economics by looking for a different set of evidence (demand-side policies, for example), and by framing issues differently (profits being the result of imperfect competition). They have gotten closer to solving some problems, such as having a less wonky marginal cost curve in the theory of the firm. But they have also gotten into problems, such as explaining worker agency in the broader framework of their theory.
Finally, classical economics is the strand that keeps as close as possible to the evidence. Every single controversy previously mentioned (theories of value, theory-of-the-firm curve shapes, differences in profit rates, cultural contextualization, policy effects, and framework validity) is, in my eyes, satisfactorily dealt with in classical economics. You can be a judge of this by looking at the classical theory and the criticism it levies against neoclassical and post-keynesian theories in Anwar Shaikh's Capitalism book.
If your worry is that economics is forgetting its political implications ('the purpose of science is not just to understand the world, but to change it'), each economic strand has your back. Neoclassical economics legitimizes and justifies capitalism. Post-keynesian economics legitimizes and justifies monopoly break-ups and demand-side policies. Classical economics legitimizes and justifies worker demands and socialism.
Tools are never created in a vacuum. They can be repurposed, but it's naive to say an AR-15 is a toy meant for long-distance tic-tac-toe.
Hence the danger of classical economics: if people were to stick close to the evidence, they'd realize, for example, that value comes from human work and not by magical markups, or that the wage ratio (how much of the surplus goes towards profits or wages) is socially 'negotiated'.
But all of this is assuming you are contrasting empiricism with idealism. I could be wrong. What did you have in mind when you wrote "excessively"? For you, what would "too much" be? Would that be problematic?
- Submitted 2 years ago to coronavirus@lemmy.ml | 0 comments