ertyu wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:42 am
the modern influencer defition: "engaging in geoarbitrage"
This made me laugh, haha!
I haven't heard about Dunning-Kruger effect, but man:
wiki wrote:
The identification derived from the cognitive bias evident in the criminal case of McArthur Wheeler, who, on April 19, 1995, robbed two banks while his face was covered with lemon juice, which he believed would make it invisible to the surveillance cameras. This belief was based on his misunderstanding of the chemical properties of lemon juice as an invisible ink.
Such a good way to start the day, reading about these geniuses.
Psychology is not as much a hard science as it wants to be, if at all. I think of most theories in psychology as metaphors*. You can use them as tools in self-understanding if it works for you.
For example, it has been proven that the classical psychoanalytical theory does not meet the standard of science, and is not functional in behaviour change. Still, people use it in order to understand themselves, I guess. Woody Allen sometimes says that he drew lots of inspiration for his movies from the psychoanalytical sessions he used to attend so hey, there you have the contribution of psychoanalytical theory to well-being (of the masses!)
Evolutionary theory informs some parts of the field of psychology, but evolutionary psychology overextends I think in trying to explain everything with evolution. In fact, I think evolutionary theory itself likes to overextend and find reason for everything in adaptation, while some of the developments (mutations) happen by chance.
Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural psychology can be actionable. But as long as behavioural psychology is actually quite sciency, it leaves a lot of stuff cognitive psychologists are interested in untouched. Because classical behavioural psychology focuses only on observable, so it really treats persons like objects, you know like in engineering. All the 'thinking' is left out because cannot be observed, but 'thinking' is interesting!
*Oh man I don't remember the guy's name but there is/used to be a mathematics professor who developed this theory of how people use layers upon layers of metaphors in everything they say.