CraigOhMyEggo

A few days ago, I asked if we could talk about things that happen outside the fediverse. I got a lot of different answers ranging from "yes" to "no" to "it depends". Hunting someone down somewhere and saying "ah ha I found Zezima on X" isn't the kind of thing I meant. This is.

That moment when an admin outright makes it absolutely clear if you read the room (those who remember past messages will be able to do that) that they're going around trying to get back at people and further complicate things for them, the instance in question being in spiteful response to a promotion. The incentive to weigh in is thus pre-existing, plus I am fediversally relevant because I have been accused of being them (not that I'm the only one), so I get the contagion.

It's a bit much.

I don't have a good outlook on psychology as a field. It's all influenced by people for leverage and different countries can't even agree on what qualifies as what (e.g. the definition for social anxiety in one country could be considered the definition for agoraphobia in another). But I think watching Simon Whistler give a very debunked rundown on psychology ten years into his career was the last straw for me this week. Misrepresenting psychology has very annoying implications and it gets tiring to see it done over and over.

To use one example, he mentions the former Axis Power officers in WWII saying they were "just following orders", which led to the highly rigged Stanford Prison Experiment, which has never been able to be replicated with the same results. Why? They rigged it, some say to support those officers. Here is an instance where history clashes with psychology, because near the end of WWII, German officers started recruiting and enslaving the Jews they were capturing to do the very dirty work they previously inflicted on them. Did these poor souls succumb to the wickedness like the Stanford Prison Experiment and the officers who inspired it would suggest in court? No, they were traumatized and went insane, because this was not in their nature.

Modern psychology is littered with these false rules and expectations. I'm sure many of you have heard a number of them. Maybe you remember the Milgram Experiment or Stockholm Syndrome for example. So let's play a game. Look back into your life. Think of all the things you've experienced and how it all played out. Out of all these experiences, which ones can you talk about that you can point to and say "if conventional psychology was right, this event in my life would've never happened how it did?

Example: There is a rule in the field of psychology called the Prisoner's Dilemma. It says that if you question two people a certain way, they will be incentivized to spill beans and betray each other. Me and a friend were once arrested because he got into a fight because someone cheated on his sister and I sped him away. The officers tried inflicting the Prisoner's Dilemma on us, but we're both open books, to the point where we knew the whole point was we were willing to face whatever comes. The cops had nothing. They let us free.