Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

On the contrary the lobotomy was invented in 1935 (with the earliest known being about 1880s). However Dr. Freeman invented a cheap and quick method to perform lobotomies that caused its popularity to skyrocket allowing tens of thousands of people to be lobotomized in 1945.

Dr. Freeman, who wasn't a surgeon, would actually go on tours with a portable lobotomy kit and perform it in hospitals, hotels, and basically anywhere he went. When lobotomies were becoming less popular, due to medicines that cured much of illnesses lobotomies were used for, the requirements for one were loosened up and often done indiscriminately.

It was about the 1960s where it started to loose traction... but overall they are still performed today (to treat OCD)

Today's lobotomies while... still heavily stigmatized and even I feel... Are... better. I don't like the idea of messing with the brain in that way... but not only do they perform it only in VERY specific situations, but the patient has every right to refuse, AND the side effects are considered to be non-existent. So, so far so good.

[Sonlirain]

Dr. Freeman invented a cheap and quick method to perform lobotomies that caused its popularity to skyrocket allowing tens of thousands of people to be lobotomized

I swear it sounds like social commentary when put out of context.

[Neonivek]

Just... don't FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY! Look up Psychosurgery.

It is seriously messed up!

[Sonlirain]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY! Look up Psychosurgery.

Will do!
I'm no stranger to fucked up shit TBH and the stuff you mentioned was obviously some psychopaths legally venting their urges on (mostly) unwilling patients only barely disguising it as science.
At least that's the way it looks nowadays when people realized some idiot was literally blindly hacking someones brain with 2 sharpened lockpicks stuffed up their nose.

Spoiler: Sometimes even on stage, lel (click to show/hide)

[Tiruin]

The more I learn about the history of psychology the more I almost wish I didn't...

Holy freeken cow.

Lets just say... don't be transgendered before the 1990s... O_O

Don't be considered insane or even mildly eccentric in the mid-late 1800's either. People were all too happy with lobotomy as treatment for being unruly.

And that's more or less how i stopped giving a damn about "New amazing discoveries" made by psychologists.

I love how my future career and the many other people who actually advance research are being lumped into these sweeping generalizations because of first impressions meeting negative results :v This is a really superficial slap to my face >_>

But yeah. Psychology was bullshit a good chunk of the time and most likely still is. We just don't have the 20 or so years of buffer space to realize it yet.

With statements like these, these are indicators of when one could personally ask themselves "am I really describing this correctly?"
Because it's really shallow to look down on these things when you're not one who actively looks into these.

* Tiruin also slaps Neonivek with a foam glove.

Stop wording these realizations in a sensational way please. It may affect how you view further information, like a milestone of emotions.

[NullForceOmega]

Well Tir, it would be much easier to respect and uphold the social sciences as being useful disciplines if they didn't, as a group, tend to: cherry-pick data, sensationalize their findings, fail to engage in even the most basic forms of quality control, and if they would please stop acting as if using statistics that often don't even mean what they try to tell people they mean, validates their personal quest for recognition and more grant money.

I have absolute respect for hard psychologists and psychiatrists, but none whatsoever for any of the rest of their ilk.

[penguinofhonor]

Literally every single one of those things could be said about cancer research, but it's still a highly respected field. Bad biology is just performed poorly, but bad sociology reflects poorly on the whole science. There's a pretty noticeable double standard.

[NullForceOmega]

No, you can say that individuals in cancer research are guilty of those things, you can take apart entire branches of social sciences due to them.  Part of the problem is the speed at which social sciences move, and the fundamental lack of hard data available, there is only so much you can infer from limited sample sizes and the social sciences seem to ignore that so they can push agendas instead of trying to verify their findings.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Sonlirain]

But yeah. Psychology was bullshit a good chunk of the time and most likely still is. We just don't have the 20 or so years of buffer space to realize it yet.

With statements like these, these are indicators of when one could personally ask themselves "am I really describing this correctly?"
Because it's really shallow to look down on these things when you're not one who actively looks into these.

I was referring to the big "EGO depletion" fiasco that basically reduced a well known and oft cited 20 year old theory into smoking rubble once someone decided to check into it.
For 20 years a bogus theory was pretty much trolling an entire field of science and NO ONE caught on.
That's literally a giant 20 year long kickstarter scam only done way before kickstarter became a thing and using public money.

[Tiruin]

Well Tir, it would be much easier to respect and uphold the social sciences as being useful disciplines if they didn't, as a group, tend to: cherry-pick data, sensationalize their findings, fail to engage in even the most basic forms of quality control, and if they would please stop acting as if using statistics that often don't even mean what they try to tell people they mean, validates their personal quest for recognition and more grant money.

I have absolute respect for hard psychologists and psychiatrists, but none whatsoever for any of the rest of their ilk.

But...these can be said about any field of science in particular.

Mayhap it may seem like Psychology (and others) may be flawed because what seems to be prominent is steeped in controversy or mystifying data, but that's impressions working along temporal means; setting a conclusion at any given timeline that already feels like or sounds like it defines the whole thing, in a negative way, is something to question.

* Tiruin points at psychometrics. Hello statistics at work.

Notably one of the most difficult specializations, something I'm aiming to go for.

But yeah. Psychology was bullshit a good chunk of the time and most likely still is. We just don't have the 20 or so years of buffer space to realize it yet.

With statements like these, these are indicators of when one could personally ask themselves "am I really describing this correctly?"
Because it's really shallow to look down on these things when you're not one who actively looks into these.

I was referring to the big "EGO depletion" fiasco that basically reduced a well known and oft cited 20 year old theory into smoking rubble once someone decided to check into it.
For 20 years a bogus theory was pretty much trolling an entire field of science and NO ONE caught on.

Please examine why, and the ideas around the theory--context is very important to bridge that gap between "WTF [resulting surprise]" and "The origin of this zany idea that we now know but didn't before."
Also your wording.

[NullForceOmega]

Removed because it was stupid.

Nope, nope I need to stop stirring the pot, I shouldn't be doing this, sorry Tir, sorry penguin, I'm stepping back out.

[Tiruin]

Removed because it was stupid.

Nope, nope I need to stop stirring the pot, I shouldn't be doing this, sorry Tir, sorry penguin, I'm stepping back out.

I read that before you edited it ^ ^

* Tiruin pats

[birdy51]

I think our brain and our bodies are only really at the cusp of understanding. We can see bits and pieces of a much larger interlocking picture, but the overall scheme eludes us yet.

So, despite making a helluva a lot of mistakes along the way, it is the hope that later generations will examine the work of generations past; not simply for the sake knowledge, but to use that knowledge as a stepping stool to acquire understanding of a fraction of the much larger picture.

In the meantime, I will just ask myself what compels a dog to start barking at six in the morning. *grumbles*

[Edmus]

Not to criticise psychologists or psychology, but it does have one of the highest turnover rates of information of any science. Every several years, I believe, half of what was previously accepted is overturned. (I can't find my source for that, my google fu has failed me.) 
It's to be expected though; humans are complicated. We can't dismiss an entire branch of science just because it's difficult.
Maybe we'll get a paradigm shift one of these days.
It's a good path you're pursuing Tiruin.