Psychology is crumbling

[Swivelinglight]

There is an idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion


Ego depletion. The idea is you run out of energy, or willpower, by completing draining tasks. Eventually if you do too many of them you will run out of energy, or willpower, and you would be unable to complete any further tasks. The most famous study is in which a control tried to complete a impossible task. They were timed for how long they made the attempt. The average was about 18 minutes. The independent group was given a will power draining task before attempting the impossible task. The will power draining task was such that participants were shown cookies that were baked in the lab. The cookies were then presented to the participants, however they were not allowed to eat the cookies. Instead they were given a bowl of radishes to eat. This situation was made to drain the participants willpower. Afterward they were given the impossible task. They were timed at an average of about 8 minutes. So the control group was 16 and the independent was 8. Therefore a positive effect was shown. There were about 200 studies that supported this study and a meta analysis done of the studies that supported the first study, as well. This study became common knowledge. You'd hear things like you only have a limited supply of will power! It's shown in articles like this:

You've Got a Limited Supply of Willpower, so Use It Wisely

One of the researchers in the original study even made a best selling book about it:

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength: Roy F. Baumeister, John Tierney: 9780143122234: Amazon.com: Books


Well guess what. That book is as useless as a paper weight. There was a study done in 2010 that refuted the findings. There was a meta analysis done in 2014 that also refuted the findings. Finally the Association of Psychological Science decided to do a huge study on whether the original findings were true. They employed 24 labs with over 2142 participants all around the globe:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...RR_Hagger_FINAL_MANUSCRIPT_Mar19_2016-002.pdf


And guess what they found. They found no evidence of will power being a finite resource. This pillar of psychology ,as true as true can be, backed by over 200 studies and a meta analysis is incorrect. People are saying that science is crumbling. "At some point we have to start over and say, This is Year One” - Inzlicht


To be sure there's a lot of doubt right now about what is true and isn't true in psychology.



In depth look at ego depletion's fall: Ego depletion, an influential theory in psychology, may have just been debunked.


recommended reading: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/?ex_cid=538fb


A video giving a brief overview of what's going on:

 

[Lark]

Yeah, although consider that as long ago as when Freud was supposing there was a finite psychic energy called libido he had equal and opposite detractors suggesting it wasnt a factual observation at all, Alfred Adler first, then later Erich Fromm, Adler had doubts about the unconscious and lots of other of Freud's ideas or concepts (conclusions from observations?) but Fromm specifically took aim at this ego depletion idea suggesting that it was a reflection of "economic thinking" rather than a social fact, ie if you have so much money once its spent its spent and psychic energy is much the same.

So I wouldnt say that psychology is crumbling anymore than any other knowledge base, they are being tested and retested all the time as new research methods rise and fall and its all contestable.

To be honest Fromm's sociological based theories about social character are one of the lesser known and more resilient of theories as they actually suggest that theories such as this one will date over time because perrenial and universal traits (which Fromm actually does suppose exist but are difficult to discern the more complex a picture you seek to determine) are channelled by the social unconscious and (unconscious) social character.

So when researchers conduct research they are generally picking up on the superficial or "passing" momentary traits than the deeper constants.

 

[Swivelinglight]

To be honest Fromm's sociological based theories about social character are one of the lesser known and more resilient of theories as they actually suggest that theories such as this one will date over time because perrenial and universal traits (which Fromm actually does suppose exist but are difficult to discern the more complex a picture you seek to determine) are channelled by the social unconscious and (unconscious) social character.

So when researchers conduct research they are generally picking up on the superficial or "passing" momentary traits than the deeper constants.

An interesting idea. I've never heard of the theories. They sound plausible off of first impression. That said, though, assuming Fromm is correct, these researchers didn't even get the 'passing moments' right. Unless there's the possibility that ego-depletion existed from 1998-2010 and then disappeared. But in such a long time frame that interval seems very small. It's more likely that the researchers were just flat out wrong. If Fromm's theories are correct then they got this interval of psychology incorrect. In what other instances of this interval have they also gotten incorrect?

 

[Kheledon]

This is excellent information of which I was not aware. Thanks for posting.

That said, it's a bit hyperbolic to claim that "psychology is crumbling" just because the limited willpower theory has been debunked.

 

[Swivelinglight]

This is excellent information of which I was not aware. Thanks for posting.

That said, it's a bit hyperbolic to claim that "psychology is crumbling" just because the limited willpower theory has been debunked.

I'll admit that I'm being a bit over dramatic (GOTTA GET THOSE VIEWS MAN). But it is a serious issue. There's a huge replication issue with science in general right now, not just psychology, check my links. I'm not the only one saying there's huge issues with the field at the moment. To say it's crumbling is hyperbolic I admit, but there's a hint of truth in it.

 

[Kheledon]

I'll admit that I'm being a bit over dramatic (GOTTA GET THOSE VIEWS MAN). But it is a serious issue. There's a huge replication issue with science in general right now, not just psychology, check my links. I'm not the only one saying there's huge issues with the field at the moment. To say it's crumbling is hyperbolic I admit, but there's a hint of truth in it.

Oh, no doubt. This is quite serious, but I see the debunking of erroneous theories to be evidence of growth and refinement. I see this as a positive development (but, of course, an F dom like me is inclined to "evaluate"). Wish I had something more substantial to add, but I mainly wanted to thank you for bringing this development to my attention.

 

[Swivelinglight]

Oh, no doubt. This is quite serious, but I see the debunking of erroneous theories to be evidence of growth and refinement. I see this as a positive development (but, of course, an F dom like me is inclined to "evaluate"). Wish I had something more substantial to add, but I mainly wanted to thank you for bringing this development to my attention.

I'm glad you are glad! I'm most likely the sort of extroverted intuitive so I like sharing my ideas instead of hoarding them all for an advantage over my fellow man (intjs). This can be seen as both ways. In fact one of the links I linked thinks of this as progress, and I agree! But at the same time I can't help but feel a sense of dread. If something so solid was debunked. What other things do we assume to be true may also be false?

 

[Lark]

An interesting idea. I've never heard of the theories. They sound plausible off of first impression. That said, though, assuming Fromm is correct, these researchers didn't even get the 'passing moments' right. Unless there's the possibility that ego-depletion existed from 1998-2010 and then disappeared. But in such a long time frame that interval seems very small. It's more likely that the researchers were just flat out wrong. If Fromm's theories are correct then they got this interval of psychology incorrect. In what other instances of this interval have they also gotten incorrect?

Well Fromm criticised Freud's libido theory, ie libidinal energy is an approximation of the psychic energy or "will" which gets depleted under discussion, as a fairy tale, the thought it was just a total mistake, the same as he rejected a lot of Freud's psycho-sexual emphasis.

It doesnt appear like Fromm provided much in the way of a comprehensive critique of this, although I've not read all the exchanges with Marcuse or the Frankfurt School on that topic and its probably hammered out there. Personally, I'm more inclined to accept Jung's critique of psycho-sexual complexes or emphasis, ie that its more relevant in the first phase of life or a phase of life, Jung thought that perhaps it was before 30 but then people got married etc. at different stages back then.

What is clear from Fromm's book on what he thought was the greatness and limitations of Freud's thought was that he thought Freud's depletion theory, ie be careful who you "spend" your energy, you only have so much, was just an unconscious reflection of capitalist "common sense", a kind of "home economics" reasoning, or rather, rationalisation. Fromm's own theory is that human beings are hard wired to relate to others, also (via the biophilious idea) the natural world and living things but that's a bit of a different story. The absence and want of satisfaction for the relating drive can lead to atrophy, including, paradoxically, becoming a hermit.

A lot of its literary rather than hard research based, I think anyway, but it can make sense, there's lots of room for discussion on the topic I would say and also about extroversion and introversion, also the quality of interaction and relating, are the people who you interact with "draining" people or not etc. what emotional labours are involved in it, yes, there is a drive to give support but there is one to receive it too etc.

My point was that its mistaken to think that any of this is "writ", even the hard sciences its not necessarily so, you dont need to embrace a full on post-modern, all is flux, all is relative, there is no meaning or metanarrative etc. to appreciate how research provides new insight after new insight.

In terms of social character, if you give a political/cultural equivalent, you could be asking is this someone who is conservative or are they just highly adapted in their opinions to what is a conservative society? So I guess you could get the same sort of questions when you're considering other traits like optimism, pessimism, sociability, individuality or seeking solitude etc. and the corresponding depleted/not depleted models.

This is why the limitations and delimitations of any study interest me because I dont mind studies which say, well, we looked at this but hot damn there's so much more or other ways of looking at it we didnt cover, you know?

 

[Swivelinglight]

Well Fromm criticised Freud's libido theory, ie libidinal energy is an approximation of the psychic energy or "will" which gets depleted under discussion, as a fairy tale, the thought it was just a total mistake, the same as he rejected a lot of Freud's psycho-sexual emphasis.

It doesnt appear like Fromm provided much in the way of a comprehensive critique of this, although I've not read all the exchanges with Marcuse or the Frankfurt School on that topic and its probably hammered out there. Personally, I'm more inclined to accept Jung's critique of psycho-sexual complexes or emphasis, ie that its more relevant in the first phase of life or a phase of life, Jung thought that perhaps it was before 30 but then people got married etc. at different stages back then.

What is clear from Fromm's book on what he thought was the greatness and limitations of Freud's thought was that he thought Freud's depletion theory, ie be careful who you "spend" your energy, you only have so much, was just an unconscious reflection of capitalist "common sense", a kind of "home economics" reasoning, or rather, rationalisation. Fromm's own theory is that human beings are hard wired to relate to others, also (via the biophilious idea) the natural world and living things but that's a bit of a different story. The absence and want of satisfaction for the relating drive can lead to atrophy, including, paradoxically, becoming a hermit.

A lot of its literary rather than hard research based, I think anyway, but it can make sense, there's lots of room for discussion on the topic I would say and also about extroversion and introversion, also the quality of interaction and relating, are the people who you interact with "draining" people or not etc. what emotional labours are involved in it, yes, there is a drive to give support but there is one to receive it too etc.

My point was that its mistaken to think that any of this is "writ", even the hard sciences its not necessarily so, you dont need to embrace a full on post-modern, all is flux, all is relative, there is no meaning or metanarrative etc. to appreciate how research provides new insight after new insight.

In terms of social character, if you give a political/cultural equivalent, you could be asking is this someone who is conservative or are they just highly adapted in their opinions to what is a conservative society? So I guess you could get the same sort of questions when you're considering other traits like optimism, pessimism, sociability, individuality or seeking solitude etc. and the corresponding depleted/not depleted models.

This is why the limitations and delimitations of any study interest me because I dont mind studies which say, well, we looked at this but hot damn there's so much more or other ways of looking at it we didnt cover, you know?

Hmm. You argue a great practical view on the subject. I think you might've won me over. I just wish that there were clear cut answers, but I guess I have to settle with what sits right with my gut. Unless they find some new way of making sure that studies aren't so easily debunked.

 

[Lark]

I'll admit that I'm being a bit over dramatic (GOTTA GET THOSE VIEWS MAN). But it is a serious issue. There's a huge replication issue with science in general right now, not just psychology, check my links. I'm not the only one saying there's huge issues with the field at the moment. To say it's crumbling is hyperbolic I admit, but there's a hint of truth in it.

The replication issue is a brilliant one, its mirrored by other developments in other fields such as questioning whether or not services provided to people are ever going to be able to provide a universal service, ie the system is more than the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals comprising it or "sum of its parts", there's good thinking from engineering being applied to others fields.

However, there's also a lot of it I think is a result of inter-generational shifts and conflict, I've gone on about it before but there is a conceit in every age, considering itself more wise than its predecessors and very prepared in youthful fashion to pitch out the baby and the bathwater. The replication debates can illustrate it well, instead of the too frequent "what stupidity is this, basic research norms suggest", which I think is something quite apart from really good skepticism liable to point up errors well, the question should be "how did as learned people as were entertain this thinking", there's often a lot of prerequisite understanding which isnt thought about.

The history of psycho-analysis is a great example, the attacks on Freud's thinking were one time by conservatives, one time by progressives, most of the time saying the same things, most of the time not that well acquainted with the subject matter under scrutiny in the first place, lousy critique was then replicated and replicated as fact. A lot of that has to do with the norms of journeys through higher education, universities etc. etc. too, that "business" or "industry". Like for all of the mumbo jumbo Freud and Jung and others could be accused of introducing into their medium, and I think Klein, Lacan and others are much, much worse than the originators for that, their most enduring ideas were based on strict observation and a lot of classical research norms.

There's also questions of "faith" too, no matter how much rigor you involve in research a lot of it will come down to a set of axioms, sometimes the best you can do is provide better axioms but they are still there, Bertrand Russell dedicated his life's work to trying to provide a rigorous underpinning to mathematics, in no small part because he was such an exacting and hot headed atheist about everything, but in the end he admitted he'd done just that, provided more axioms.

 

[Lark]

Hmm. You argue a great practical view on the subject. I think you might've won me over. I just wish that there were clear cut answers, but I guess I have to settle with what sits right with my gut. Unless they find some new way of making sure that studies aren't so easily debunked.

I used to want that sort of clarity when I was younger, I think I've been able to accept the passing nature of most knowledge bases while still seeing the value in them. Its a little autumnal but there's nothing wrong with that.

Then again I wouldnt say its all about gut instinct either, not for a minute, I'm a thinker after all.

 

[Lark]

I'm glad you are glad! I'm most likely the sort of extroverted intuitive so I like sharing my ideas instead of hoarding them all for an advantage over my fellow man (intjs). This can be seen as both ways. In fact one of the links I linked thinks of this as progress, and I agree! But at the same time I can't help but feel a sense of dread. If something so solid was debunked. What other things do we assume to be true may also be false?

Well, there's always the option of waiting for a study debunking the debunkers, I'm sure there'd be one along in a minute.

There's a great little book on this, dealing with research in the hard sciences, called dialogue, I think its by Baum, which talks about how the old conflict model of research, as in you present, someone counters, you defend, they counter etc. was not actually conducive to break throughs in knowledge at all, leading to older errors enduring for longer than necessary. That book and another on medicine and magic by WH Rivers from the routledge classics series really influenced my thinking on science research.

 

[Swivelinglight]

Well, there's always the option of waiting for a study debunking the debunkers, I'm sure there'd be one along in a minute.

I thought about this, but it's a lose lose. The Association of Psychological Science backed this study. It was a HUGE study. I mean if this study is wrong. Holy **** what other studies could be wrong? I mean it's lose lose no matter how you look at it.

There's a great little book on this, dealing with research in the hard sciences, called dialogue, I think its by Baum, which talks about how the old conflict model of research, as in you present, someone counters, you defend, they counter etc. was not actually conducive to break throughs in knowledge at all, leading to older errors enduring for longer than necessary. That book and another on medicine and magic by WH Rivers from the routledge classics series really influenced my thinking on science research.

I'm going to check these books out. Thanks

 

[Lark]

I thought about this, but it's a lose lose. The Association of Psychological Science backed this study. It was a HUGE study. I mean if this study is wrong. Holy **** what other studies could be wrong? I mean it's lose lose no matter how you look at it.




I'm going to check these books out. Thanks

Every period in history has had something like this, sometimes twice or three times, its not that new a development and any supposed "crisis" is usually an opportunity too when you think about it.

I'm maybe not liable to be as surprised since I've been a life long socialist and witnessed its sobering history.

There was a book from Routledge classics too by Bowlby I read once which contained essays in which he talked about how a lot of tools from psychoanalysis were useful in practice, like knowledge about insight formation, repression, transference, projection etc. etc. but he felt that psychoanalysis as a whole lacked the sort of rigor that social learning theories possessed.

Now that was before behaviourism and cognitive behaviourism came along and wiped out that whole scene, CBT and its many mutations are only getting rocked by revelations of their own short comings more lately and whatever the therapy it seems placebo effects and the underpinning beliefs of both the practitioner and patient are what matters after all.

So its one of those cycles which just goes on, you know.

 

[andresimon]

There is an idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion


Ego depletion. The idea is you run out of energy, or willpower, by completing draining tasks. Eventually if you do too many of them you will run out of energy, or willpower, and you would be unable to complete any further tasks. The most famous study is in which a control tried to complete a impossible task. They were timed for how long they made the attempt. The average was about 18 minutes. The independent group was given a will power draining task before attempting the impossible task. The will power draining task was such that participants were shown cookies that were baked in the lab. The cookies were then presented to the participants, however they were not allowed to eat the cookies. Instead they were given a bowl of radishes to eat. This situation was made to drain the participants willpower. Afterward they were given the impossible task. They were timed at an average of about 8 minutes. So the control group was 16 and the independent was 8. Therefore a positive effect was shown. There were about 200 studies that supported this study and a meta analysis done of the studies that supported the first study, as well. This study became common knowledge. You'd hear things like you only have a limited supply of will power! It's shown in articles like this:

You've Got a Limited Supply of Willpower, so Use It Wisely

One of the researchers in the original study even made a best selling book about it:

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength: Roy F. Baumeister, John Tierney: 9780143122234: Amazon.com: Books


Well guess what. That book is as useless as a paper weight. There was a study done in 2010 that refuted the findings. There was a meta analysis done in 2014 that also refuted the findings. Finally the Association of Psychological Science decided to do a huge study on whether the original findings were true. They employed 24 labs with over 2142 participants all around the globe:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...RR_Hagger_FINAL_MANUSCRIPT_Mar19_2016-002.pdf


And guess what they found. They found no evidence of will power being a finite resource. This pillar of psychology ,as true as true can be, backed by over 200 studies and a meta analysis is incorrect. People are saying that science is crumbling. "At some point we have to start over and say, This is Year One” - Inzlicht


To be sure there's a lot of doubt right now about what is true and isn't true in psychology.



In depth look at ego depletion's fall: Ego depletion, an influential theory in psychology, may have just been debunked.


recommended reading: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/?ex_cid=538fb

Psychology is a bunch of narratives spun together. So little of it is actually legit and whats more interesting is how little of it their is. The entire field is a fcking small sliver of knowledge. The findings are not mathematically rigorous.

 

[andresimon]

There is an idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion


Ego depletion. The idea is you run out of energy, or willpower, by completing draining tasks. Eventually if you do too many of them you will run out of energy, or willpower, and you would be unable to complete any further tasks. The most famous study is in which a control tried to complete a impossible task. They were timed for how long they made the attempt. The average was about 18 minutes. The independent group was given a will power draining task before attempting the impossible task. The will power draining task was such that participants were shown cookies that were baked in the lab. The cookies were then presented to the participants, however they were not allowed to eat the cookies. Instead they were given a bowl of radishes to eat. This situation was made to drain the participants willpower. Afterward they were given the impossible task. They were timed at an average of about 8 minutes. So the control group was 16 and the independent was 8. Therefore a positive effect was shown. There were about 200 studies that supported this study and a meta analysis done of the studies that supported the first study, as well. This study became common knowledge. You'd hear things like you only have a limited supply of will power! It's shown in articles like this:

You've Got a Limited Supply of Willpower, so Use It Wisely

One of the researchers in the original study even made a best selling book about it:

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength: Roy F. Baumeister, John Tierney: 9780143122234: Amazon.com: Books


Well guess what. That book is as useless as a paper weight. There was a study done in 2010 that refuted the findings. There was a meta analysis done in 2014 that also refuted the findings. Finally the Association of Psychological Science decided to do a huge study on whether the original findings were true. They employed 24 labs with over 2142 participants all around the globe:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...RR_Hagger_FINAL_MANUSCRIPT_Mar19_2016-002.pdf


And guess what they found. They found no evidence of will power being a finite resource. This pillar of psychology ,as true as true can be, backed by over 200 studies and a meta analysis is incorrect. People are saying that science is crumbling. "At some point we have to start over and say, This is Year One” - Inzlicht


To be sure there's a lot of doubt right now about what is true and isn't true in psychology.



In depth look at ego depletion's fall: Ego depletion, an influential theory in psychology, may have just been debunked.


recommended reading: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/?ex_cid=538fb

I will add that almost every other field of knowledge is/will experience similar issues. Hard sciences like physics do a good job and so people think that is how all fields are progressing, that is not the case.

 

[Lark]

Psychology is a bunch of narratives spun together. So little of it is actually legit and whats more interesting is how little of it their is. The entire field is a fcking small sliver of knowledge. The findings are not mathematically rigorous.

What is wrong with it being narratives spun together? Arent most things? What decides legitimacy?

What do you mean about how little of it there is? I do not understand how you consider it a sliver of knowledge, I've been reading books on the topic for years, pretty much every time I finish one I begin another and I know that I could not finish all the books I've got to read on it in my life time and there are new material published every day.

What do you mean mathematically rigorous and why is that important? Surely you appreciate that even mathematics lack rigor, that Bertrand Russell's attempt to lend it some nearly drove him crazy and he wound up acknowleding that all he'd done was provide one more set of axioms upon which it was based.

 

[Lark]

I will add that almost every other field of knowledge is/will experience similar issues. Hard sciences like physics do a good job and so people think that is how all fields are progressing, that is not the case.

This is true, why do you suppose this is the case?

 

[Jeremy8419]

Socionics considers this Mental (where Ego is) and Vital (where Id is). Vital is where our automations are. They have known, preconscious solutions to tasks. The Id uses the least amount of energy. The Mental is where we reside in society to gain new information and supply information, for tasks that have not been completed or to heuristically increase the capabilities of the Vital. They are conscious processes. The Ego uses more energy than the Id. When at lower energy reserves, we will default to the lowest energy user with highest efficiency: The Id. As an automatic, low energy using, and culmination of our experiences within society and life in general, it is apparent that such would be the best means to solve any task, and they are; however, only using the Id leads to never growing the Id, as the Mental is required for such.

Interestingly enough, as going from the conscious, to the preconscious, the end of such is the Demonstrative, which is most likely the final entry point into the unconscious mind; i.e. Sleep.

 

[andresimon]

This is true, why do you suppose this is the case?

Because we are not good with dealing with complexity. Their are easy problems, hard problems, and then their is the world of the complex. Minor variations cause massive fluctuations in outcomes. Much of what has been called "scientific" or perceived as "scientific" will be torn down outside of a select few fields.