snek_boi
@snek_boi@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Discussions are like a game of telephone; you're converting idea into language and expecting the recipient to flawlessly translate it back into an idea. 2 months ago:
There’s also some thinkers who say that thinking only ever happens through language, so talking could be more of a mapping of “thinking words” onto “communication words”.
- Comment on Discussions are like a game of telephone; you're converting idea into language and expecting the recipient to flawlessly translate it back into an idea. 2 months ago:
Yes! Rhetoric, the study of the available means of persuasion!
- Comment on Do cartoon characters see each other in the art style or “realistically”? 2 months ago:
It depends on the author! Authors create symbolic universes and they get to choose the rules of those universes. You can read Robert McKee’s work for more on this.
- Comment on I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that... 3 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? 3 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? 3 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 The argumentative nerd went to therapy to become more well-actualized. 3 months ago:
I don’t get it. Can you give context?
- Submitted 3 months ago to technology@lemmy.world | 51 comments
- Comment on Lab-Grown Diamonds Are Everywhere. This Company Thinks It Has the Secret to Making Them High-End 3 months ago:
Ultimately, yeah. The article points out that the way they want to do it is with unique designs, carbon neutrality, and transparency in the production chain.
- Comment on Survey shows most people wouldn't pay extra for AI-enhanced hardware | 84% of people said no 3 months ago:
I agree that we shouldn’t jump immediately to AI-enhancing it all. However, this survey is riddled with problems, from selection bias to external validity. Heck, even internal validity is a problem here! How does the survey account for social desirability bias, sunk cost fallacy, and anchoring bias?
- Comment on Authy got hacked, and 33 million user phone numbers were stolen 4 months ago:
You’ve got a good point. I wonder if this an example of a trade-off between convenience and security. If you’re logging in and you get an MFA prompt, a Yubikey has to be physically searched, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass only have to be clicked. A Yubikey can only hold a limited amount of accounts, while Bitwarden or Proton Pass could hold many more. Of course, a Yubikey could be used as MFA for Bitwarden or Proton Pass, but that would create a single point of failure and reduce factor separation (which I think is your original point).
While I posted a Bitwarden or Proton Pass recommendation of sorts, I genuinely wonder if it’s advisable to not use MFA at all if the factors will not be separated. Or, perhaps, the best security solution is the one you’ll actually use. I guess the answer is the good ol’ “What’s your security model?”
- Comment on Authy got hacked, and 33 million user phone numbers were stolen 4 months ago:
These are not local solutions, but are cross-platform and open source: Bitwarden or Proton Pass.
- Submitted 6 months ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 19 comments
- Comment on The real personality test 6 months ago:
Ah. Thanks for taking the time to explain the meme’s context!
- Comment on The real personality test 7 months ago:
I’m sure this is a quality shitpost, but I don’t get it 😅 Can someone explain the context for this?
It’s not impossible for someone to have heard about assguard, looked it up, and then realized it’s “Asgard”.