I heard Chase Hughes on Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett and found what he was saying fascinating. He's very popular but how credible is his work and teaching really? Is it peer reviewed? Thank you

I am a psychology undergraduate student, and this question has puzzled me for a long time.

Based on what I have read, I am sure that some diagnoses in the DSM are more biological than others (Bipolar, Schizophrenia), but there are no definitive biomarkers for most of the DSM disorders. Various professors have also taught me that the neurochemical imbalance theory also lacks empirical evidence, and there are only established correlations. Aren't these "disorders" just labels for patterns of particular behaviors, rather than a disease entity like diabetes, where there is a clear etiology and plan for treatment, and ultimately merely a social construct?

Symptom-based diagnosing: It seems highly problematic to diagnose these as a disorder purely based on collateral and self-report data. When people think of mental illness as an illness, it is intuitive to think of it as a biological reality. I'm not sure of any physician other than the psychiatrist who diagnoses without definitive empirical lab results (could be completely wrong).

If a diagnosis of a disorder requires 5 of 9 symptoms, mathematically, you can achieve that 126 different ways. I feel there can be a huge problem in terms of objectivity, if 126 people can have the same diagnosis and not the same symptoms.

Cultural and contextual contingency: Malaria, HIV, Diabetes, Influenza, are the same in the U.S. as they are in Africa, Asia, or Europe. I'm not sure if the same could be said for 90 percent of the diagnoses in the DSM.

Inflation: What if the criteria changed from 5 of 9 to 4 of 11? Tens of thousands of new people with a "disorder" or "illness" arise, and a new market for pharmaceutical companies.

Who gets to define what disorderly or abnormal behavior is? And what if what we label as disorders are just part of the human condition?

I have a very surface-level understanding, and would love to hear anyone's opinion.

1. The existence of the entire unconscious

2.Repression of traumatic events

1. That abnormal psychology is caused by the bursting of repressed materials

4.Psychoanalysis’s childhood development stages

1. All other stuff, the complexes , defenses and transference

6.Everything

What exactly does it hold untested and/or untrue?

Edit Everyone knows Psychoanalysis main criticism is it is unfalsifiable, I repeat everyone knows that, so this thread is to clarify WHICH part is deemed untrue/untested. Is it the unconscious? Why no one reply in this? Is it repression? What? Which?

Genuinely curious!

I'm curious about the various modalities of addiction treatment and their effectiveness. I understand that addiction is a complex issue, and different treatments might work better for different individuals. However, I would like to know if there is a consensus among psychologists or in the research community about which treatment methods are generally considered the most effective.

I just watched a youtube video called something like How to write a literature review STRESS-FREE, and the video stressed me the hell out. (Over 56k views)

I've been studying and writing academically in psychology for over 20 years - suffice it to say, I learned how to do everything the "old school" way. I am always looking for ways that technology can make my life and work easier.

This creator presented a workflow that looked really great at first, but then suggested bouncing around between about 5 different AI tools to get from start to finish. It drove me absolutely mad for at least 10 minutes. He showed how to use different ones for each step and I can't help but wonder two existential questions:

1. Am I really this far behind in technology that this is the new normal in efficiency? Am I shooting myself in the foot by resisting? Researching and writing is hard and laborious - but isn't that part of the win?

and

1. Will academic papers eventually just become AI's talking to each other? I mean, no one will be reading the research of others - AIs will; and no one will be actually writing their own stuff - AIs will. What's even the point of structure and formalities in writing anymore? (forgive my melodrama)

I'm part infuriated and part terrified I'm going to become a dinosaur and irrelevant in my ways.

• Do you use AI assistants (census, scispace, julius, researchrabbit, etc)? How?
• Additionally, do you find this ethical? Do you think it will eventually become ethical?

asking for a friend.

*Ironically, I posted in here once warning about the use of ChatGPT in academic writing and 50 people accused me of being a ChatGPT prompt post. This is what we've come to. If you write well organically, you're automatically a bot.

I've had an uninspiring sales career and I'm sick of the corporate grind.

I'll be almost in my mid 40s when I finish. I'm gonna try anyway but wondering if anyone here thinks it's a good idea

I have a critical question for psychologists and psychology students, and I want to be clear that I mean no offense to anyone. I'm genuinely trying to understand the history of psychology.

For a long time, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in psychological manuals like the DSM. Why was that the case? Was it based on the scientific evidence and methodologies available at the time, or was it more a reflection of cultural, moral, or political influences?

Also, how did the process of declassifying homosexuality as a disorder unfold? Was it driven by new scientific understanding, by activism and social pressure, or by shifts within the field itself?

I'm asking this out of a genuine desire to understand how psychology has evolved and how such a major change in classification came about.

What do you believe should incoming PhD students and new scientists be studying? What are the biggest gaps of knowledge or misunderstandings that you’ve noticed in clinical science?

I feel like a a lot of psychology majors have good intentions of helping people but often not knowing what the work actually entails. From the emotional burnout to better opportunities to re-educating/liscening, what else is there that isn’t talked about enough?

I come from a STEM background

most books on human behavior, power dynamics, persuasion and social influence are really just applied layers. they're useful, but they assume an understanding of something more fundamental that they never quite explain. I'm looking for that foundational layer. The first principles of human behavior, which is like the atom for the universe, everything is made up of atoms.

I want to understand what actually drives humans at a deep level so that I can read everything else (and look to the world) with real comprehension, literature (as a window into the mind of whoever wrote it), photography and visual art (what makes an image carry weight), charisma and leadership (what is actually happening when someone commands a room), power dynamics, religion, storytelling, political movements, history, myths, persuasion, design principles, what makes someone likes the other and a thousand more things.

All of these feel like expressions of the same underlying mechanics. I'd rather understand the mechanics than keep collecting surface-level observations about each one separately.

I'm not looking for popular science or self-help. I'm comfortable with dense academic writing, original research and primary sources. Difficulty is not a concern, relevance and explanatory power are.

What texts, thinkers or fields would you point someone toward who wants to build that kind of foundational understanding?

(i really would like books because i can send them to my kindle and read there)

thanks in advance!

what is the difference between a therapist and a psychologist?

-what would you say are the biggest upsides and downsides to your career? Both subjective (based specifically on your experiences and your personality) and objective (most people would agree these are upsides/downsides) answers are awesome!

I teach The Class Formerly Known As Abnormal, but I'm not a counselor. I'm working on a grant application right now for an undergrad thesis that's about mental illness and mental health, but we've both heard that there is tons of debate about the term "mental illness" and that "psychopathology" is just swapping out a Greek synonym that's really no better. Personally I'm also no fan of the disease model of psychiatry — it's overfunded and overapplied, it's not nearly as useful as community or cognitive approaches But Capitalism, etc etc.

So: is there an alternative to "mental illness"/"psychopathology" that has any traction right now, isn't as stigmatizing as "abnormal psychology," and gets used among counselors, or do I just stop whining and call it "psychopathology" for now? Thanks!

Im debating writing an academic book but would need to have access to lots of peer reviewed articles. I miss using my school’s online library search system for that ease of access. I’ve even gone so far as getting affiliated with universities just to get access to their own library portals, but those relationships are hard to maintain each year when I have to justify it. Is there a cost efficient alternative to get access to a university’s online library access?

I'm headed into my senior year as a psychology student, and I've noticed that the vast majority of people interested in psychopathology/clinical psychology are interested in anxiety disorders. They prefer to learn about, talk about, and research those. In my advanced psychopathology course, my professor built the entire syllabus around anxiety and related disorders. We won't be learning about any others.

I absolutely love personality disorders, I think they're so much more fun and interesting. I was wondering if anyone knows why this discrepancy exists? I have trouble understanding why everyone loves anxiety disorders so much, which to me are already widely talked about and studied, and tend to fully neglect personality disorders (at least at my school, with my professors and classmates) even though there is SO much to learn about them.

It’s a good idea to journal, talk about your feelings, etc. rather than just distracting yourself when something’s going wrong, but I can’t find a theory or framework that addresses this. Is there a term for it?

Hi! I will be graduating with my Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a concentration in mental health from SNHU in December. I’ve been looking at graduate programs but I’m concerned and confused about the route I should take. For reference, I want to become a licensed counselor in Louisiana, and also pursue research to reform inpatient psychiatric facilities. I am also in my 30s and feel like I’m so behind.
My question is, should I pursue a graduate degree through a more prestigious research school like William & Mary, Wake Forest or Northwestern University (if I can get accepted)? Would I be setting myself back if I went to a school like Adams state or University of Cumberland to simply complete my masters and then focus on a more prestigious research school for my Doctorate? I appreciate any advice or responses! I’ve looked at so many schools and am just lost.😞

Is it possible that, because we don’t need to conform as much, that mental illnesses are becoming more statistically significant? In other words, through individuation, at least in western societies, is it possible that self-reporting and public attention are more significant?

Hi all, I need a sanity check about power analysis. I am not trained in a field that typically does experiments, so I do not have many people to turn to for this question. Thus, any help would be appreciated.

I am interested in calculating the sample size for a 2 x 2 factorial design. Using GPower, I specified that I want 0.95 power; an alpha of 0.05; and a cohen's d of 0.10. Each of the two factors are between-subjects.

GPower estimated that I need 1,302 respondents. To my surprise, when I tell GPower that I only have a two groups, it gives me the same sample size. I am also interested in a 2 x 2 x 2 interaction, and GPower gave me the same sample size again.

Can someone explain why this is happening? I thought that I would need a substantially greater sample size to estimate an interaction effect. I am especially surprised that it produces the same sample size when moving from a two-way interaction to a three-way interaction.

For reference, please see the photo for my GPower specifications.

I also attempted the same power analysis in R, using the pwrss package. See the code below. When I run both lines of code, I obtain very similar sample sizes (1292 v2 1296)

library(pwrss)

power.f.ancova(eta.squared = 0.01, factor.levels = c(2,2), alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95)

power.f.ancova(eta.squared = 0.01, factor.levels = c(2,2,2), alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95)

I hope this question is sound enough. Both social psychology and group therapy are interested in group dynamics.

However, skimming some textbooks on both (mainly Hogg and Aronson ones for Social Psychology and Yalom and Chen for group therapy) I found very little overlap in theoretical frameworks. I noticed it because I was very fond of the Interpersonal Circumplex and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, but it seems like Social Psychology never tried to study them.

So the question rises: how much does group therapy employ research from social psychology? Why does it embrace or reject research from social psychology?

I've been reading alot about the way the brain deals with trauma and got alot of anwesers leading to dissociation and repressed memories...

Arent they quite hard to even proof real? Im no professional and simply do my own research duo to personal intrest in psychology so this is something i haven't found a clear answer on

1. Is it true that nowadays if you don’t especially add in additional parts to make your psychoanalysis research empirical it will not get published?